View Single Post
Old 04-18-2011, 05:38 PM   #12 (permalink)
Frank Lee
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dennyt View Post
With effective anticipation of lights & stop signs (i.e. not using your brakes), weight is only a second-order MPG effect. You need a longer pulse but you get a longer glide.

Some members of this forum have reported higher MPG with increased weight, because it fits the pulse & glide cycles of their commute better.

Aerodynamics, tire rolling resistance, and engine efficiency are first-order effects.
Weight reduction measures mainly pay off WHEN it leads to a smaller engine/drivetrain package being utilized.

__________________


  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Frank Lee For This Useful Post:
Christ (04-18-2011)