My 1995 Mercury Sable gets around 20 on average. I've seen 25mpg on a 250 mile highway trip with weather in the 70's, and I've seen 15mpg running around town in the winter.
What kind of mileage do you get in your 15yo+ car
- Thread starter asand1
- Start date
- Status
More weight means more road friction. Engine has to work harder to lift said weight hp hills--but--not all ECU's go into full enrichment /pig rich when under a load.
But once up to speed, extra weight is not that big of a deal. Its starting and stopping that kills you, along with wind drag. Unless if you ride the brakes down the hill, one ought to recover most of the energy spent going up the hill.
But once up to speed, extra weight is not that big of a deal. Its starting and stopping that kills you, along with wind drag. Unless if you ride the brakes down the hill, one ought to recover most of the energy spent going up the hill.
Originally Posted By: surfstar
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: TFB1
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I think on my commute with some rolling hills I could get better mileage with extra weight in the car, as I could coast in N for a longer distance at an acceptable speed at the bottom of the hills. The extra weight going up the hill also makes the engine work harder, but more efficiently as I would be opening the throttle more at the same rpms, which decreases bsfc.
Do you believe in perpetual motion as well??
Do you have any sort of instantaneous mileage gauge in your car? Do some coasting in N down some hills and see what happens. At idle at 60mph my car gets 200+mpg, so do you think a strategy to maximize the distance my car gets 200mpg would help, or hurt overall fuel economy?
Do you even know what brake specific fuel consumption is? Look up some charts for various motors and then find on the chart where the typical car is running at a steady state 65 mph. You will then realize why the extreme hypermilers "pulse and glide" to get better mileage than a steady 65 will provide.
Which hypermiler recommends adding weight to their car?
That makes no sense.
If you have rolling hills of reasonable size and slope, you can spend a lot of time coasting in N and not dragging the brakes either. Having more weight could allow you spend more time coasting on the following flat after a hill. Obviously its not a good idea if you drive a lot in the city, or don't have the right slope of hills around, but for my commute I can spend quite a bit of time just rolling along, and perhaps adding more weight would add enough extra rolling distance to more than offset the losses.
I don't really know as I never keep 400+lbs of stuff in my car for weeks at a time. If I had a pickup, it would be no big deal to leave the bed half full of fire wood for a few weeks.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: TFB1
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I think on my commute with some rolling hills I could get better mileage with extra weight in the car, as I could coast in N for a longer distance at an acceptable speed at the bottom of the hills. The extra weight going up the hill also makes the engine work harder, but more efficiently as I would be opening the throttle more at the same rpms, which decreases bsfc.
Do you believe in perpetual motion as well??
Do you have any sort of instantaneous mileage gauge in your car? Do some coasting in N down some hills and see what happens. At idle at 60mph my car gets 200+mpg, so do you think a strategy to maximize the distance my car gets 200mpg would help, or hurt overall fuel economy?
Do you even know what brake specific fuel consumption is? Look up some charts for various motors and then find on the chart where the typical car is running at a steady state 65 mph. You will then realize why the extreme hypermilers "pulse and glide" to get better mileage than a steady 65 will provide.
Which hypermiler recommends adding weight to their car?
That makes no sense.
If you have rolling hills of reasonable size and slope, you can spend a lot of time coasting in N and not dragging the brakes either. Having more weight could allow you spend more time coasting on the following flat after a hill. Obviously its not a good idea if you drive a lot in the city, or don't have the right slope of hills around, but for my commute I can spend quite a bit of time just rolling along, and perhaps adding more weight would add enough extra rolling distance to more than offset the losses.
I don't really know as I never keep 400+lbs of stuff in my car for weeks at a time. If I had a pickup, it would be no big deal to leave the bed half full of fire wood for a few weeks.
camaro convertible 3.8l v6 25mpg driving any way i like. 67,000 miles 1996
Last edited:
getting 21 mpg average with 90% semi city driving in 93 Lincoln Towncar
about 12mpg city in the 78 Ford LTD
and about 16mpg semi city in the 1972 Fury
about 12mpg city in the 78 Ford LTD
and about 16mpg semi city in the 1972 Fury
1991 Ford Escort gets 31mpg combined about 50/50 city/highway
2001 sierra c3 13 city 22-24 highway.
06 charger ? City 28 highway
And yeah it's got a hemi
06 charger ? City 28 highway
And yeah it's got a hemi
Originally Posted By: eljefino
37MPG on E10 in a 2000 Saturn SL1 automatic with 210k miles running Peak 10w40. Paid $350 for the car. Just tuned up with cheapo plugs and a new thermostat.
Sounds about right.
My 96 SL2 (will be 20 years old in January) gets around mid 30's. It's a 5 speed. Has about 290KMs.
37MPG on E10 in a 2000 Saturn SL1 automatic with 210k miles running Peak 10w40. Paid $350 for the car. Just tuned up with cheapo plugs and a new thermostat.
Sounds about right.
My 96 SL2 (will be 20 years old in January) gets around mid 30's. It's a 5 speed. Has about 290KMs.
2000 Ram in Signature -- 81003 original miles
12/14 miles City 17/19 Highway on 87 octane
12/14 miles City 17/19 Highway on 87 octane
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: supton
More weight means more road friction. Engine has to work harder to lift said weight hp hills--but--not all ECU's go into full enrichment /pig rich when under a load.
But once up to speed, extra weight is not that big of a deal. Its starting and stopping that kills you, along with wind drag. Unless if you ride the brakes down the hill, one ought to recover most of the energy spent going up the hill.
I've had the good fortune to have had the same body style with a range of engines from 1.9L 4 cylinder, to 308c.i. V-8, with a 253ci V-8, and a 3L, and 3.3L six cylinder in the same body (Holden Torana).
All engines got within 1MPG of each other on a 300 mile run.
The 1.9L was easily 30% more economical around town.
More weight means more road friction. Engine has to work harder to lift said weight hp hills--but--not all ECU's go into full enrichment /pig rich when under a load.
But once up to speed, extra weight is not that big of a deal. Its starting and stopping that kills you, along with wind drag. Unless if you ride the brakes down the hill, one ought to recover most of the energy spent going up the hill.
I've had the good fortune to have had the same body style with a range of engines from 1.9L 4 cylinder, to 308c.i. V-8, with a 253ci V-8, and a 3L, and 3.3L six cylinder in the same body (Holden Torana).
All engines got within 1MPG of each other on a 300 mile run.
The 1.9L was easily 30% more economical around town.
The 98 Sable average is 23 mpg. The Focus average is 30 mpg. The Mazda 626 average is 34 mpg.
My 92 Cavalier RS with the 2.2L/auto with 209,000 miles still gets 29-31 mpg.
Wayne
Wayne
My old 1990 Pontiac Grand Prix LE Coupe with 3.1 V6, no turbo, would get 22 mpg in mixed driving. About 28 on the freeway. Great car. Lasted me 20 years and I was the second owner.
My Acura gets 33-35 winter and 35-38 MPG summer, that is mixed driving @ my altitude, which is 4500to 10K feet. My 2005 Zuki Bandit 1200 get 50-58MPG regardless of time of year.
Smoky
Smoky
97 Civic 1.6 SOHC VTEC 5 spd. Averages 29-31 mixed. Will do 33-36 on highway, closer to 36+ if I keep the speeds under 70 and the AC off.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
