11-16-2010, 12:12 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
A madman
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: WV
Posts: 1,018
Thanks: 73
Thanked 183 Times in 98 Posts
|
Experiment: The cost of Headlights
I know it's been said to keep the headlights off for MPG, and I'm sure it does make a difference. But I had never seen the difference quantified. I had a few extra minutes today so I did a test with my car, using the scangauge to get numbers.
Temperature was in the mid 70's (I'm in florida, clear day) at 2:15 PM on 11-15-10. (in case anyone wants to look up the weather) I did 2 runs in each direction on a long flat stretch. Roughly 1.1 mile apart from each marker. Cruise set at 55 mph and given plenty of time to stabilize the speed before markers and then resumed for each run. You know, standard testing here.
Test 1: No headlights.
A: 35.0
B: 36.2
A: 35.7
B: 35.1
Average: 35.5, Testing Range is 1.2
Test 2: Headlights on. Low Beams only
A: 34.8
B: 34.7
A: 34.4
B: 34.6
Average: 34.6, Testing Range 0.4
Test 3: Headlights Back off
A: 36.4
B: 35.5
A: 35.2
B: 35.1
Average: 35.6, Testing Range 1.3
So without Headlights, I'm seeing 35.55 MPG Average.
With the headlights I'm seeing 34.6 MPG Average.
So 0.95 MPG, or around 2.5%. I'm sure with the high beams on the difference would be larger.
Another quantified reason why winter mileage seems like an uphill battle.
Last edited by brucey; 11-17-2010 at 12:35 AM..
|
|
|
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to brucey For This Useful Post:
|
California98Civic (05-22-2011), cfg83 (11-16-2010), ConnClark (11-16-2010), endurance (11-29-2010), JacobAziza (12-01-2010), Jyden (01-14-2014), NeilBlanchard (11-16-2010), oldtamiyaphile (01-31-2015), Piwoslaw (11-16-2010), redpoint5 (01-14-2014), RobbMeeX (01-13-2014), SwamiSalami (05-22-2011), turin (12-01-2010), UltArc (01-13-2014), Weather Spotter (11-16-2010), Zerohour (11-29-2010) |
Today
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
11-16-2010, 01:27 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 4,683
Thanks: 178
Thanked 652 Times in 516 Posts
|
Thanks for taking the time and effort to test this, but the variation in the results is at least equal or even bigger than the observed difference between the 2 conditions.
These small improvements simply can not be tested and quantified on the open road with a few drives up and down.
__________________
Strayed to the Dark Diesel Side
|
|
|
11-16-2010, 01:39 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Lurker
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 3
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
what is the theory behind reducing electrical load to increase mileage? it's not like your alternator is on a clutch and only kicks in when there is more electrical load than your battery can supply. it runs at the same speed all the time (or at least the same speed in proportion to engine rpm).
|
|
|
11-16-2010, 01:53 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
Administrator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Germantown, WI
Posts: 11,203
Thanks: 2,501
Thanked 2,588 Times in 1,555 Posts
|
Increasing the amount of electric power you use increase the load that the alternator puts on the engine.
|
|
|
11-16-2010, 01:54 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,908
Thanks: 3,475
Thanked 2,952 Times in 1,845 Posts
|
The battery only supplies power when the engine isn't running. While the engine is running, the battery is actually a load, and it is the alternator that powers everything. If you increase the electrical load, then the alternator has to work harder, and so it saps more torque from the engine.
The alternator doesn't put out "extra" power either -- if only all the hydrogen generator proponents knew this...
|
|
|
11-16-2010, 05:26 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate SC
Posts: 1,088
Thanks: 16
Thanked 677 Times in 302 Posts
|
The higher your mileage, the greater the mpg hit from the headlights or any other electrical load. On the aerocivic, using the headlights knocks my mileage down about 2-3 mpg, but the mileage hit is almost unnoticable against the background noise on my F150.
|
|
|
11-16-2010, 06:06 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
Hypermiler
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,321
Thanks: 611
Thanked 434 Times in 284 Posts
|
From the theoretical side, with some VERY quick-and-dirty math:
My car uses
110w = 2x 55w headlight
75w = 3x 25w taillight, including high-mounted
185w extra load
Alternator: 60% efficient ( Alternator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Lights on = 308w extra load on the engine
308w/ 745 watts in hp = 0.41 hp extra load
Using the calculator, my car needs ~10hp to roll at 55 mph.
0.41 hp is a 4.1% loss of efficiency at that speed.
11% loss at 35 mph
2% loss at 70 mph
__________________
11-mile commute: 100 mpg - - - Tank: 90.2 mpg / 1191 miles
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to PaleMelanesian For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-16-2010, 07:15 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
Left Lane Ecodriver
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Posts: 2,257
Thanks: 79
Thanked 287 Times in 200 Posts
|
Surprisingly, high beams are typically 60W, versus 55W for low beams. It's not so much that there's more light, it's mostly that it's cast further down the road. Also into oncoming drivers' eyes.
Good work, Brucey (and Pale).
Btw, what speed did you set the cruise to?
|
|
|
11-16-2010, 08:34 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
Wiki Mod
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Midland MI, USA
Posts: 2,042
Thanks: 228
Thanked 304 Times in 210 Posts
|
Thanks for the data!
I added it to the electrical loads page in our wiki:
Electrical Loads - EcoModder
__________________
|
|
|
11-16-2010, 08:46 PM
|
#10 (permalink)
|
(:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
|
I would tend to give more weight to the derived value than the road tested one because as noted road testing is so loaded with variables. The general agreement with the results is good though!
|
|
|
|