Cruising at 60+ mpg @ 60 mph

[fatman57]

Originally Posted by basjoos

70@70 below 1000 ft elevation and 75@75 above 2000 ft elevation in the aerocivic. The mileage improves with altitude.

Interesting, do you think it is because of the air, so at higher altitude with less air the pumping losses are less?

However, since above 40 MPH most loses are due to wind resistance this could account for it...?

[PaleMelanesian]

Originally Posted by wmjinman

How recently, basjoos? I went to your fuel log & it looks like your last entry was 2 years ago. ???? Did the aerocivic break down, or?

Look up AerocivicLB - he started a new log since he swapped in the VX lean-burn engine.

[California98Civic]

Originally Posted by basjoos

70@70 below 1000 ft elevation and 75@75 above 2000 ft elevation in the aerocivic. The mileage improves with altitude.

Originally Posted by fatman57

Interesting, do you think it is because of the air, so at higher altitude with less air the pumping losses are less?

However, since above 40 MPH most loses are due to wind resistance this could account for it...?

Basjoos's car (AerocivicLB) is aways an inspiration. And it's example is why I am focusing on aeromods again. I can't have lean burn unless I swap my engine, but with more aeromods I can get more of the ability the famed "aerocivic" has. I don't want to go as radical as basjoos because my fabrication skills are kinda weak and I want a reasonably factory-looking car, so I'll have to be content with lesser results.

[WD40]

quote: I want a reasonably factory-looking car, so I'll have to be content with lesser results.

IMHO looks are overrated.

I was thinking of a bumper sticker that says
"Proof of Concept"
or maybe
"Looks are Overrated"
My MPG have improved a lot by not worrying to much about the looks.
I have been able to maintain a pretty constant trip average of 75 MPG on a 30 mile almost daily trip doing approx 60 MPH.
I do get a lot of "WTF" looks, and quite a lot of picture taking while they are driving, even a few thumbs up.
Its really embarrassing the first few 100 times, after that I just ignore them.
To me the MPG is the only thing that matters.

[California98Civic]

Originally Posted by WD40

IMHO looks are overrated.
I was thinking of a bumper sticker that says
"Proof of Concept"
or maybe
"Looks are Overrated"

I love you car, man.

And I like the "Proof of Concept" bumper-sticker idea. You might write it like this:

75mph@60mph [in a small font]
"PROOF OF CONCEPT" [ in a large font]
ecomodder.com [in a small font]

Although you post a low-res photo, your car looks pretty good. I would want to refine your wheel skirt a bit, but I like the shape. I'm thinking sheet aluminum for my second generation wheel skirts (after bellypan/diffuser). It's more costly but it's what I want (cleaner look). And I will possibly add a rear box cavity if testing works out, but I want one in a good solid color made very cleanly with cardboard, then fiberglassed, then soaking off cardboard, and then bondo or something maybe.

I would bet, though, that my Cd is not much or even any higher than yours right now, since the coupe starts 0.04 counts lower than the hatch, and I have added the grill blocks, airdam, and side skirts you have.

I also have your gearing, because of my 93 CX transmission swap.

Your big advantage is the amazing VX lean burn capability, but I don't want to swap my engine (yet) because this one works very well still (knock on wood).

[nj636]

Originally Posted by California98Civic

The biggest benefits seemed to come from deleting the power steering and the alternator. Deleting 200+ pounds in weight from the car. Pumped up tires. And the airdam and grill blocking. I think the WAI helps too--or at least my testing suggested it did.

I did very little hypermiling, by my standards, on this trip. So the engine kill switch was less significant than usually. I held steady throttle as much as traffic or hills permitted. At some stretched the instant MPG reading would cross 70. At others it would be under 60. I did some mild drafting, one or twice cut the engine, coasted in neutral down the rare large hills or when traffic piled up in front of me.

Warm weather helps a lot. I won't get this number in the winter.

Need more aeromods!

truth here, in the winter my MPG went up an average of 3.2MPG over 3 tanks with a resistor in the IAT sensor pigtail which showed 115* on the U/G. I backed it up with 3 more tanks with the IAT sensor plugged in and an IAT of roughly 80*.

now that it's been 90-100* days, the only benefit of the resistor is consistency.

[nj636]

Originally Posted by nj636

truth here, in the winter my MPG went up an average of 3.2MPG over 3 tanks with a resistor in the IAT sensor pigtail which showed 115* on the U/G. I backed it up with 3 more tanks with the IAT sensor plugged in and an IAT of roughly 80*.

now that it's been 90-100* days, the only benefit of the resistor is consistency.

so far this summer i've seen an average of 45MPG @ 65MPH with very little mods. I've seen 50MPG on one of my commutes, now if I can just keep that consistent.

[Blue Angel]

Originally Posted by California98Civic

Good luck with the aeromods! You have a modding thread?

No modding thread... for now my car is just a stock Cruze Eco with lowering springs, not really mod-thread worthy yet. I've only had the car for a year and my eco-driving skills are still improving a bit, so once my "driver mod" hits a plateau and I'm not seeing any further improvements I'll get the itch to go further.

[basjoos]

Originally Posted by fatman57

Interesting, do you think it is because of the air, so at higher altitude with less air the pumping losses are less?

However, since above 40 MPH most loses are due to wind resistance this could account for it...?

You get better mileage at higher elevations because the thinner air reduces the amount of air drag on the car and also because the engine's throttle has to open more (for reduced pumping losses) to produce the same horsepower. Its very similar to the effect that higher outside air temps have on mileage. There's a term called "density altitude" that pilots use to calculate the effect that the combination of altitude and temperature has on the performance of their aircraft.

[sidecar]

Originally Posted by basjoos

You get better mileage at higher elevations because the thinner air reduces the amount of air drag on the car and also because the engine's throttle has to open more (for reduced pumping losses) to produce the same horsepower. Its very similar to the effect that higher outside air temps have on mileage. There's a term called "density altitude" that pilots use to calculate the effect that the combination of altitude and temperature has on the performance of their aircraft.

I think that must be going on here too, less aero drag especially at speed. But there are balancing factors:

• more dense air at sea level produces more engine power - but then is that power being utilised or wasted
• cooler operating temperatures generally mean less subtle tyre sidewall give with subsequently higher rolling resistance - but then are temperatures simply sufficient anyway.