40 + mpg out of a mid size truck?

[Christ]

Originally Posted by JacobAziza

It is possible to get 29-30mpg in a full size truck.
Did it last night: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post144152

Of course, this was not using it "as a truck". Using it as a truck, I only average about 25.
To get the best mpg, a bicycle is a MUCH better candidate.
Infinity mpg.

If only... it actually would depend on what exactly you're measuring. Gallons of fatty oil/acids? Gallons of sweat? Gallons of food/drink imbibed to create the energy to push the pedals to propel the bike?

How about a conversion of the food calories necessary to create the energy? In MPGe, of course.

Got the point, just messin with ya!

[JacobAziza]

Fair enough.
Definitely gallons of food and drink.

Hmm, and if you consider the amount of petroleum used to grow and transport that food, and then the energy to cook it...

[Christ]

LOL - May end up cheaper to just burn the fuel in the first place, eh?

Of course, economically, it's not.

[JacobAziza]

human metabolism is about 30-40% efficient, just like an ICE engine - but...
unless a cyclist weighs a ton and a half and can ride 65mph, I think the bike is always gonna win overall

[roflwaffle]

Where did you get that from? I've read the human body about 25% or so.

[JacobAziza]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

Where did you get that from? I've read the human body about 25% or so.

You're right, Food -> Work is only 25%
Muscle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think of the metabolic efficiency rate as equivalent to the engine efficiency, and the overall body mechanical efficiency equivalent to fuel economy (ie power output at the crankshaft v power output at the wheel)

When you consider idling, accessory, drivetrain, and braking losses the ICE dips well below its theoretical efficiency too.

Look, someone already made the chart:



No idea what their sources are or if its reliable

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Christ

Maybe I got some information mixed up while reading, or maybe it was a GM zealot trying to up the hype about their "attention to detail" or something... thanks for clearing that up.

Regarding boundary layer and polished glass, I actually knew that, but at times, I'm not so sure that companies like GM really do.

I should purchase one share of GM voting stock so I may attend annual stockholder meetings.I have no idea what goes on at those,and what is conveyed to management.
And while I'm no apologist for GM,I consider their research dept. top-rate.I have too many SAE papers presented from them to know otherwise.
Journalists,over the years,have indicated a reluctance on the part of all automakers to "innovate" with shareholder capital unless forced to by the market or regulations/legislation.They will cite a handful of autos which were "different" and "bombed" in the marketplace.,much to the consternation of shareholders.
There was a time when I could telephone GM's aero lab and bounce numbers off the top dog,Glen Scharf ( sp?).He was accessible,friendly,and very helpful at a time when only a person with his expertise could answer the kinds of questions I was asking.
I do agree that "bean-counters" have much sway in the affairs of automakers,however it's important to remember that a joint-stock corporation's primary premise for existence is to make money for it's owners.
I would hold any local kindergarten schoolteacher as responsible for suppression of technology as anyone else.As an institutional investor,being part of the Teacher Retirement System,they,or their proxy WOULD have a "voice" at shareholder meetings.
If "efficiency" in all it's faces were important to shareholders,they could demand that their corporation do something about it,or risk their multi-million dollar annual income and golden parachutes ( fecal parachutes for us ).
There must be more money to be made leaving things alone.
And since behavior is predicated on knowledge.And knowledge is predicated on information,education.It's best to make sure that no one gets an education,especially schoolteachers and professors,as that would establish an unacceptable precedent,allowing an informed populace into the marketplace.

[ron]

this in response to the first part of this thread. I drive a 99 dodge ctd. when I got it I only got 14 mpg. now with the help of this forum I have on average gotten 19.28 mpg and my last trip 22.12 at 60 mph or about 2000 rpm. Its a left foot/rt brain kinda thing. keep your rt foot off the go pedal and your left brain on the money your saving and your mileage will go up . 25+ mpg is in my future . Haul away jacobaziza

[kir_kenix]

I think 40mpg is doable with an 2nd gen s10. 2.2L, regular cab, 3.08 or 2.97 gears, E-fan, wheel covers, 3" drop, Air-dam, bed cover, PS delete, AC delete, LED's, LRR tires, low viscocity fluids would probably put you pretty close.

My s10 has averaged mid thirties on many occasions. I always have a toolbox with a couple hundred pounds of junk in the back, and I take my trash to the dump (located in the country) twice a week. Those short trips eat up mileage. I live 35 miles from work one way, 7 of those are through the city with 35-45mph speedlimit and 4 lights. I can average over 45 for the city part if I hit the hills right and time the lights.

[flying kurmaster]

Carry on JacobAziza thanks for the links and thanks for taking the time to show us what you have done. good work.