Cruising at 60+ mpg @ 60 mph
 

In this warm weather, I cruised 250 miles Tuesday and Wednesday on the freeways here and averaged 64.xx mpg. My speeds varied from 55-60mph. With a few more good aeromods, maybe my long sought goal of 60/60 cruising (60 mph and 60 mpg) is almost in reach.

At a steady 60 MPH my Fiesta will push just past 50 MPH.

regards
Mech

MPG MPH MP?

---

Congrats! 60 at 60 is Gen 2 Prius territory.

I have a saying for my Firefly: "70 at 70". But that's MPG (US) at km/h. :D

My stock Fit is 50 @ 50, so your result is impressive.

Very nice!

60@60 is about what the TDI manages. Having a 6th gear helps :p

What RPM are you at going 60 mph? Do you contribute your success to the aeromods or the long VX gearing, or a mixture of everything?

I've got to repair my HX transmission and I have been thinking about just swapping it for a VX instead of repairing. Right now I am at 2250 RPM at 60 mph. I have slightly taller tires than stock.

I'm around 1950rpms at 60mph. The '93 CX transmission is without doubt a big factor, but I follow the idea of getting a bunch of small benefits from multiple mods--weight, engine, and aero--together and "stack" them up until it equals a big difference. 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!

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

Which is why I like your car/projects. Multidisciplinary! Added this thread to the front page.

Way cool. Thanks. It's a fun ride these days, but I want that last measure of economy. Want to get to 60/60.

My boxy & short-geared xB is only good for 41 mpg @ 60 mph, & 49 mpg @ 50 mph. I've managed 60 @ 60 with a Prius, but I can't even get close with the xB. I have to P&G to top 50 mpg with my xB on highway trips. Those of you who aren't aerodynamically challenged are very fortunate.

Awesome! I haven't been active in this forum for a year. Now that I'm back and catching up with threads , your car has come a long way since you joined 2 years ago!

Nice results! :thumbup:

Very nice work and I enjoy all your write ups!

Another test
 

Had to do a 27 mile drive today so I did a different test. Could I maintain a 60mph average while keeping a 60+ mpg average without engine off coasting? In the previous test I had used light EOC and got as high as a 66.7 mpg as a one-leg average of my test route. Forn this test, I allowed myself only engine on pulse and glide (55-65mph) and reasonable drafting whenever possible. I only got an opportunity to draft for a couple miles, and I followed the 2 second distance rule. The terrain was hilly. There was a fairly significant crosswind. The results:

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1373847821

You averaged 59.8mph... Epic fail. Just kidding. Great job!

Doing two way average runs over flat ground with the cruise set at 62 this weekend, I got an average of 53.8 from the on board computer corrected at -7%.

To achieve 60@60 I'll need some significant aero mods... The car is pretty much stock right now, except lowering springs and higher tire pressure. I'll be checking out your mod thread for ideas, but I won't be disconnecting the alternator! :)

what gauge are you using? I had a scangauge 2, but it was never accurate in actual MPG numbers...

I use the Ultra Gauge. I think it is the slightly older one. Mine displays 6 readouts at a time. Newer ones display 8, I think. But whatever gauge you are using, you need to calibrate the distance and the fuel usage measurements. Still, guys with experience here will tell you that only the MPGuino is really accurate as to fuel use because it monitors the injectors directly (using voltage signals, I think).

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

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?

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...?

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

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.

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

IMHO looks are overrated.
http://ecomodder.com/forum/emgarage-...e017f35fd9.jpg
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.

I love you car, man.:thumbup:

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. :thumbup:

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

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).

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.

http://www.tacomaworld.com/gallery/d...livemnks4G.jpg

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.

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.

your results are impressive, esp for a gasser.
the last fill-up gave me 58.8 mpg, calculated. the ultragauge gave me aroung that(but i always calculate anyway) but mph is not calculated right so i mostly use it for the instant mpg. besides airing up, front tires, this is from driving style.
i will be working on a rear belly pan in the next 2 weeks. i like to re-use so i tore down a gas water heater and will be using the outer sheet metal.
rear tires are next/at the same time. using Cooper CS4 195/65/15-91T, 80,000 wear rating on the front and getting very good results.

Hello, I don't want to hijack this thread, but I would like to know your opinion on my MPG.

Yesterday I came back from 1700miles round trip with my slightly modified Skoda Octavia 2.0 TDI (VW Golf Variant clone).
I drove mainly at highway with cruise control set at 68.35mph (110km/h) indicated, no AC, no hypermiling techniques except coasting down the hills in neutral.

With some country lanes driving at 55MPH speed limit, villages, toll booth queues etc. i managed to get 57.17 (92km/h) average speed and about 58MPG total.

Is that a good result for diesel engine and this average speed? What do you think?

I'd say that's pretty good. I'd expect about the same from my car, which I think has the same engine. Does it also have the same 6-speed manual as a VW? Though if you managed that with a DSG I'd really be impressed.

Yes it has 6 speed manual but being a 2008 model it has stupidly short 5th and 6th gears. It turns 2000rpm at 110km/h indicated. Newer models have much more sensible gearing.
It,s also PD engine not CR. In nonRS Octavia models, CR was not available until 2010.

1,243 ft/mn piston speed @ 2000 rpm isn't out of whack... at least for a gasser. I don't recall optimum range for four stroke diesels.

The shorter the stroke the higher the rpm while still having efficient piston speeds.

The 2.0 PD is definitely more efficient than the CR, but I guess the gearing evens things out at that speed. I don't get to 2000 RPM until 75 mph.

Fuel economy wise, 2.0 tdi PD is the worst four cylinder diesel VW ever made.
According to NEDC, my car is supposed to get 50MPG extra urban and 42,7 combined.
Same car with 2 litre CR engine has NEDC rating of 58,7 extra urban and 48 combined.
That is with better gearbox, but CR engines are much more fuel efficient that old PDs especially 2 liter version.

Took me a lot of time to get where I am, but now reading about petrol engined Honda getting almost 60MPG at 60mph got me thinking if I shouldn't be doing much better :)

64.02 mpg on the just completed tank (probably would have been 66.5 if I had stayed with my usual pump/station).

I drive this car a lot more on the freeway now, which was part of the reason for the transmission swap. I wanted the option without having to drive 50mph to keep rpms down. The taller gearing of thei 1993 CX transmission is amazing on the freeway, and on some of the secondary roads too. I'll drive some of the secondary roads before hitting the freeway at 40-45 mph in 5th gear, turning merely 1300 rpms maybe and getting anything from 70-100mpg readings on my gauge, depending on load (27%-33% or so). Warms the car up for the freeway.

I love the transmission swap, now I just have to get into rebuilding the old DX tranny with a kit and the VX final drive I bought an age ago so I can have a backup...

james

Dunno if it was their worst, but the earliest 2L TDi was definitely a step back compared to the 1.9L TDi regarding fuel efficiency.

Yes it was. And 1.9 PD was a step back compared to 1.9 VE :)
But it's not all engine's fault. As I recently found out 6 speed transmission which comes with 2l engines is much more "draggy" than either 5 speed that came with 1,9 PDs or earlier 6 speed 'boxes.