12-08-2015, 02:44 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
...beats walking...
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,190
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,525 Times in 1,126 Posts
|
"Old" GPM (1/MPG) equation
Don't know how relevant it might be to *current* vehicles, but back in 1961-1967 a Ford Motor Company engineer came up with this logarithmic-form equation for estimating fuel consumption (161 car-sample):
c = K*(wt^0.3067)*(cid^0.3469)*(ar^0.3395); R^2 = 0.932
where:
c = gallons-per-mile
K = 5.248 x 10^-4
wt = weight in lbs.
cid = cubic-inch displacement
ar = axle ratio
• source: SAE Automotive Fuel Economy, Vol. 15 (PT-15), 1976, "Factors Affecting Vehicle Fuel Economy," by Clayton LaPointe, Ford Motor Company, page 105.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to gone-ot For This Useful Post:
|
|
 Today
|
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2015, 03:27 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
|
(:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
|
Related to Louis LaPointe?
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2015, 05:03 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
|
.........................
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Buckley, WA
Posts: 1,597
Thanks: 391
Thanked 488 Times in 316 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Tele man
Don't know how relevant it might be to *current* vehicles, but back in 1961-1967 a Ford Motor Company engineer came up with this logarithmic-form equation for estimating fuel consumption (161 car-sample):
c = K*(wt^0.3067)*(cid^0.3469)*(ar^0.3395); R^2 = 0.932
where:
c = gallons-per-mile
K = 5.248 x 10^-4
wt = weight in lbs.
cid = cubic-inch displacement
ar = axle ratio
• source: SAE Automotive Fuel Economy, Vol. 15 (PT-15), 1976, "Factors Affecting Vehicle Fuel Economy," by Clayton LaPointe, Ford Motor Company, page 105.
|
Looks like a typical empirical equation. It should be close if you were to build a gas powered car with 60's technology... Changes in technology will alter the constants in the equation.
It comes out to 26mpg for my Civic, which is likely close if it were carbureted, had 60's aero, and were on crappy old tires.
You could probably generate a new version of one that would be more accurate. Or, likely a few of them to deal with different engine cycles (gas, diesel, hybrid) and aspiration (NA/turbo). |
|
|
|
|
12-08-2015, 05:26 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 15,895
Thanks: 23,972
Thanked 7,223 Times in 4,650 Posts
|
equation
It's cool that in it's day,they'd have a numerical algorithm which could,within an acceptable margin of error,predict performance with such few 'hard points' of data.
My college text for internal combustion engines and air pollution had a road load estimator equation which presumed a constant Cd and rolling force coefficient for tires for all cars.It only asked for weight,frontal area,and velocity.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
|
|
|
|
|
12-09-2015, 01:33 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
|
...beats walking...
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,190
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,525 Times in 1,126 Posts
|
The "hidden agenda" reasons I had for posting this "old" equation:
1) Shows how only WT, CID and AR are needed to estimate Fuel Economy (it's basically all about engine displacement and rpms).
2) Shows type (logarithmic) equation (product-of-powers): c = K*a*b*c
3) Shows quasi-cubic-root "power" for each variable: ie: WT^(≈1/3), CID^(≈1/3), AR^(≈1/3).
4) To provide *another* way to visualize/quantify how FE can be quantified...ie: "put into numbers"
...or, "rule-of-thumb" roughly: mpg ≈ 1900/(WT*CID*AR)^(1/3)
Last edited by gone-ot; 12-13-2015 at 12:58 PM..
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to gone-ot For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
