100 mph & 32 mpg

[HypermilerAX]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

106 MPH @ 65 MPG.

EAA - EAA Experimenter - Mystery Plane

regards
Mecg

In the same vein, a guy mounted an AX diesel engine is a plane. He gets 70 mpg at 137 mph.

Gaz'aile 2 : caract&#233ristiques et performances

[Xist]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

106 MPH @ 65 MPG.

EAA - EAA Experimenter - Mystery Plane

regards
Mecg

From Aerohead's article:

111 MPG at 55 MPH

81% faster, but using 247% more fuel?

I think that I will pass.

[Vekke]

Do you people who like to drive slow put any value to your free time or are you just trying to save the planet by saving fuel (less co2) and its OK sacrifice to spend some 20-81% more time in your car?

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by Vekke

Do you people who like to drive slow put any value to your free time or are you just trying to save the planet by saving fuel (less co2) and its OK sacrifice to spend some 20-81% more time in your car?

I value my ears.
I suffer from tinnitus which means they ring all the time.
Exposure to noise makes it worse, and that can hold on for days.
I used to drive 120 km/h where that was allowed. Dropping to 90 (following semis at a safe distance) makes all the difference in wind noise.

Even though the motorway makes for most of the distance of my commute, it takes just half the time. Overall it costs me maybe 6 minutes per day.

Another reason to drive slow is that is is way more relaxing to drive 90 km/h once you lose the sense of urgency. So I arrive fitter than I would if I join the left lane rat race.

In a sense I do not lose time by driving slow; I gain 1 hour of relaxation per day.
If it also saves the planet we just have to endure that, can't raise hell every time

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Flakbadger

I can see autopilot vehicles in the left-lane-only very very soon, and I can see how they would travel super fast in congested traffic because they would be computer controlled... and I could also see idiots trying to squeeze into that left lane and causing accidents too.

I feel like this might happen within my lifetime, and end up at the point where in big cities your vehicle can only be on the freeway if it's autopilot equipped.

Sorry, off topic a little, but this article got me thinking....

That's really the point of the blog,to stimulate thinking and conversation.
We wouldn't be altering automotive technology,just how people think about it.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by mikeyjd

I'd still go 55mph.

I'm with you.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Vekke

I do like the idea of limiting the drive speed to fuel consumption. My lupo does roughly 47 MPG us @ 100MPH. So you dont need to have Cd to 0.125 level if you are using small diesel engine. I tested my lupo Cd for 0.221, but its small lightweight car.

The Honda data was a windfall,and since the Accord/Camry/Altima/Sonata/etc. 1000 kg-class of passenger cars is the bread and butter segment of the market for automakers,we felt it would have the widest range of appeal for the reader.
With their higher mass and frontal area they'll never catch up to you,but they would represent a positive improvement without any spending on R&D.
47 mpg @ 100 is delicious! Local legend sort of thing! You should really feel good about that.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Vekke

Do you people who like to drive slow put any value to your free time or are you just trying to save the planet by saving fuel (less co2) and its OK sacrifice to spend some 20-81% more time in your car?

before the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 I'd never really considered it.As Clint Eastwood would say,the little German-helmeted fellow was leading me around mostly.
Since 1973 I've thought quite a bit about automotive ramifications,and I don't feel any loss or hardship when driving at the lower end of the posted legal speed spectrum.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Xist

From Aerohead's article:


81% faster, but using 247% more fuel?

I think that I will pass.

That would be 25% faster with no mpg penalty.

Our numbers kinda pale in comparison to Volkswagen's 1982 ARVW, with 39 mpg at 155 mph,but that one wasn't really family-friendly.We'll see if its lineal descendent,today's VW XL1 will pass muster with buyers.

[Xist]

Originally Posted by aerohead

That would be 25% faster with no mpg penalty.

Our numbers kinda pale in comparison to Volkswagen's 1982 ARVW, with 39 mpg at 155 mph,but that one wasn't really family-friendly.We'll see if its lineal descendent,today's VW XL1 will pass muster with buyers.

I was comparing 55 MPH and 100.