Quote:
Originally Posted by cons
Hello Phil, after just reading ecomodder posts this morning, I was inspired to go see what the best score I could get was. Filled up the tank to the max, then drove 80 miles at 45(uphills)-70 (downhills)mph, though I had to slow down a dozen times for people pulling in front of me, etc. Refueled at the same pump, and got 46 mpg. If there were no traffic to disrupt my flow, I think I could have gotten another mpg or two. It'd be cool to get better HWY mpg than a prius. But my city mpg is half that.
I really dig your jet turbine inlet. Where'd you get something like that?
The moons are on the way, they sent the wrong size. I might tuck in the passenger side mirror too next run. Hopefully I'll get 50 mpg then if nobody cuts me off. I'm also wondering since my truck is tuned to sea level and I'm at 6,800 ft, if that's a reason I'm getting such good mileage. But I'll see in the fall when I move to MA.
Picasa Web Albums - Conor - Greenhouse |
Conor,was surfing net,got back to EcoModder and caught your post,so am playing tag.
At 46 mpg,you may already be ahead of some of the Prius.I know a few local owners and they report lower mpg than what the Ranger is doing.If we could get traffic congestion licked,you'd be getting city figures like the Prius.
The T-100 will 39-mpg at a constant 45-mph,it would do a bit better at 35-40 mph.The way traffic lights are,I'm looking at low 20s in town.That's not the way to get the U.S. off foreign oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My 'turbine' inlet is a stainless steel trashcan lid from a unit sold years ago through SAM's CLUB.I had to do a lot of tracking and horse trading to get one.It's virtually identical to a jet inlet and has the least drag of any known orifice.That's why all the Big-Dogs use them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the new elevation,I suspect that the electronic fuel injection will fully compensate for it.Had you bought a 'high-altitude' version Ranger locally at your new digs,it might have had different gearing to help with the grades.My CRX which I bought in the Dallas/Ft.Worth area was actually a high-altitude variant,and it wasn't until years later that I found out about it,which explained the higher rpms in all gears,and lower than claimed mpg.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There could be a number of factors working to deliver the numbers your coming up with.If you'll keep a good logbook you may see some sort of trend,or cause and effect emerge from the 'noise' of all the data.
The only thing I might caution you on with the short distance testing is that the slightest inaccuracy during filling can show a really wide discrepancy
in the results.
If you've packed the tank,and you can visually see the fuel standing motionless in the filler neck "before" and ditto upon completing the run,then that's about all you can do.
The other thing would be thermal expansion of the fuel,should the fuel be dispensed into a ambient temp environment higher than that of the storage tank it came from( sometimes above ground now ).If this were the case,a full tank of fuel which had gained in volume as you drove,upon refilling after testing,would reflect an otherwise higher mpg.