EcoModder.com

EcoModder.com (https://ecomodder.com/forum/)
-   General Efficiency Discussion (https://ecomodder.com/forum/general-efficiency-discussion.html)
-   -   Which effected my MPG more: elevation or weight of passengers? (https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/effected-my-mpg-more-elevation-weight-passengers-37512.html)

prr 05-19-2019 06:28 PM

Which effected my MPG more: elevation or weight of passengers?
 
I took a quick freeway MPG for my Highlander Hybrid 2006 yesterday. I gassed up, then we went out of town, and came back. This morning, I gassed up and was disturbed to see my mileage on the 111 mile two-way trip was only 22.5 MPG. When I did an MPG test earlier this year, I got 26 for pure freeway. I don't know how I got so low--I was driving 60-65 on the freeway, which was most of the trip.

Looking back, I saw two factors that might have contributed, although I'm not sure at all that either one did--which is why I'm posting here.

(1) There were more people in the car. I am estimating about 500 pounds more of people than there has been in the past (our whole family went). EDIT: Actually I went back and checked, and I got a long out of town MPG at 26, with almost as much weight as we had in the car last night, so I no longer think weight was a factor at all.

(2) it was not a flat grade. We drove from our town some 15 miles from an elevation of 3000 to 3800 feet, then went down a steep grade (6-8%) for 20 miles or so, and our final destination was at 1200 feet. Then, we drove back home the same path. Now I was thinking that the uphill drive shouldn't have hurt our MPG, as we coasted down that same stretch going there, but could we be hurt more by an uphill trip on the same path, than helped by a downhill trip down?

Its hard for me to see how either of these factors could have brought the MPG down so much. Even our pure city MPG is 24, and our combined is 25. Granted, most of those other mileage checks are with only myself in the vehicle. I've been gassing up at the same station for most if not all of the fillups the last few months, including the previous 3 fillups, so I don't think there was a discrepancy about which station said I was full at this level vs. another station saying I'm full at that level of gas in the tank. Of course I double checked my math, and my numbers are right.

Normally, my freeway MPG checks are longer, most if not all of a tank. I just limited it to this 111 mile trip because I've only owned this car for a few months, and this is only the second pure freeway MPG that I"ve taken, so I had to make it shorter.

Of course, I'll want to get another MPG estimate for freeway sometime soon, but I don't know if the shorter distance might have had anything to do with this?

I know the maintenance history of teh car. It is in great shape, has been gassed up at Costco most of its life, I've been going there since I bought it, and I did throw in some techron to clean up any deposits a few tankfuls ago, so it really shouldn't be anything mechanical--and even if it was, there was no sign of this up until yesterday, so I don't see that as an issue.

Any thoughts?

prr 05-19-2019 06:43 PM

OK should have googled first, but I just didn't see that weight as bringing me down all that much.

Weight of vehicle with only me is about 4300 lbs, with the extra passengers last night it would have been at least 4800 pounds. So that would be a about a 10% increase/decrease (depending on how many people are in the car) from the other weight. Based on the figures in this link (https://www.h3xed.com/blogmedia/Rica..._MPG_Study.pdf, I could expect 1-2 MPG hit by increasing the weight by 10%.

But still, that is a good 4 MPG.... Perhaps the incline had something to do with it as well?

prr 05-19-2019 06:48 PM

Using numbers from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gas-m...ight_n_1951174, adding 100 lbs will take the MPG of a car getting 31 MPG, down to 30.3 MPG--some 0.7 MPG per 100 lbs. So that ratio would have taken 3.5 MPG off my mileage.

prr 05-19-2019 06:57 PM

Sorry for the slip up, but as I edited my first post, I don't think weight was a contributing factor to the drop from 26 freeway to 22.5, because that earlier 26 freeway MPG was also with lots of people in the car--in fact, the same exact people as our trip last night.

I realize that extra weight can bring down a car's MPG, but it shouldn't be responsible for the drop from 26 to 22, as there wasn't any more weight in the car last night.

Vman455 05-19-2019 07:09 PM

You've got a short fill on one freeway trip--don't sweat it. There's so much margin of error here that it's impossible to say what's responsible. It could be any combination of:

-pump error
-tank error from the short fill
-weather: temperature, wind speed and direction (huge source of error just right here)
-traffic
-rate of acceleration/deceleration

People like to complain about the way EPA ratings are determined--but there's a reason it's best to do it on a dyno in a temperature-controlled lab: you remove all these other variables.

oldtamiyaphile 05-19-2019 09:21 PM

I used to tow a 600kg enclosed trailer, usually at least once a week.

My best tank without trailer is 6.0l/100km. My worst trip with the trailer is 10.0l/100km.

That equates to 0.00666l/100km per kg. So best case for a NA engine you might loose 0.2L/100km per hundred pounds.

This is worst case scenario stuff. 100% city use (10-15mph average speeds), there's an extra axle and extra aero drag.

If you use the ecomodder calculator, add in trailer aerodrag and rolling res and it seems weight makes zero difference to a hypermiler's economy.

prr 05-19-2019 10:00 PM

So you're suggesting that this isn't a valid sample.... OK I'll (hopefully) find sufficient reason to go on a more extended freeway trip that will give me a more true figure.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Vman455 (Post 598519)
You've got a short fill on one freeway trip--don't sweat it. There's so much margin of error here that it's impossible to say what's responsible. It could be any combination of:

-pump error
-tank error from the short fill
-weather: temperature, wind speed and direction (huge source of error just right here)
-traffic
-rate of acceleration/deceleration

People like to complain about the way EPA ratings are determined--but there's a reason it's best to do it on a dyno in a temperature-controlled lab: you remove all these other variables.


vskid3 05-19-2019 11:13 PM

Does your Highlander have any sort of MPG gauge? Even if it's not exactly the accurate to the mileage at fillup, it should be able to help you see how trips compare to each other.

prr 05-19-2019 11:24 PM

Yeah, MPG for previous owner was 24, both city & freeway. So overall, I'm doing slightly better, but this last run was a bit worse, than their average.

At this point, of course I'll read all responses, but I'm just going to ignore this as a short trip outlier, and I'll look to get another mileage MPG soon.


Quote:

Originally Posted by vskid3 (Post 598524)
Does your Highlander have any sort of MPG gauge? Even if it's not exactly the accurate to the mileage at fillup, it should be able to help you see how trips compare to each other.


JRMichler 05-20-2019 08:47 AM

Some other factors:

Temperature. My truck gas mileage improves by almost exactly 1 MPG for every 10 degrees F temperature increase. That's for temperatures from -20 deg F to about 75-80 deg F. At higher temperatures, the increased air conditioning load balances the decrease in drag.

Elevation. On a particular 72 mile trip, I used to get 3-4 MPG better driving north. There was a net elevation difference of 800 feet, with north downhill.

Wind. A 20 MPH headwind will decrease my gas mileage by about 3 MPG, with a similar increase if it is a tailwind. Crosswinds hurt mileage similar to headwinds.

prr 05-20-2019 09:00 AM

It has been windy the last several days. I couldn't get a historical weather report for the day & area we traveled through, but the nearest I could get a report for also recorded winds above 10 MPH, so that also might have played a factor. These aren't exactly hurricane winds, but they have been continuous throughout the day, and are more than normal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMichler (Post 598532)
Some other factors:
Wind. A 20 MPH headwind will decrease my gas mileage by about 3 MPG, with a similar increase if it is a tailwind. Crosswinds hurt mileage similar to headwinds.


Shaneajanderson 05-20-2019 10:13 AM

You can never make up your uphill losses by coasting downhill. It certainly helps, but regardless you always have internal fricton, tire friction, and air resistance both ways at a minimum: that is likely where most of your losses came in.

For what it's worth my daily commute I only (yes only) get 40 mpg out of my Geo Metro, but I have 3 very deep, very steep valleys that I have to go through. If I go the other direction to the city we do most of our shopping in I would guess I could easily pull 50 mpg as it's all flat as a board except for one spot it goes under a railroad.

prr 05-20-2019 10:16 AM

Interesting, I would have thought the ability to coast downhill would more than make up for an uphill drive. Interesting point there.

So I guess it was a combination of wind & elevation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaneajanderson (Post 598541)
You can never make up your uphill losses by coasting downhill. It certainly helps, but regardless you always have internal fricton, tire friction, and air resistance both ways at a minimum: that is likely where most of your losses came in.

For what it's worth my daily commute I only (yes only) get 40 mpg out of my Geo Metro, but I have 3 very deep, very steep valleys that I have to go through. If I go the other direction to the city we do most of our shopping in I would guess I could easily pull 50 mpg as it's all flat as a board except for one spot it goes under a railroad.


Vman455 05-20-2019 01:01 PM

That's one of those things that people "know" intuitively: that coasting downhill makes up for expending energy to get up the hill in the first place. In a simplified, idealized world where cars have no aerodynamic drag, no rolling resistance, and no drivetrain inertia or friction, that would be true. But the world is a lot more complex than we imagine most of the time.

I'm working through White's Fluid Mechanics this summer, and the first chapter starts with a discussion of one deceptively simple question: What is the difference between a solid and a fluid? The author points out that most laypeople, even though they "know" what makes the two states different, can't actually define it.

roosterk0031 05-20-2019 01:37 PM

My 2015 Rogues best 4 tanks were in CO continuously going up or down and not driving for FE, 8 MPG better than the average. It downshifts (CVT increases engine rpm) when going down hill to increase engine braking. It minimizes the need for brakes a lot.

Shaneajanderson 05-20-2019 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vman455 (Post 598551)
That's one of those things that people "know" intuitively: that coasting downhill makes up for expending energy to get up the hill in the first place. In a simplified, idealized world where cars have no aerodynamic drag, no rolling resistance, and no drivetrain inertia or friction, that would be true. But the world is a lot more complex than we imagine most of the time.

I'm working through White's Fluid Mechanics this summer, and the first chapter starts with a discussion of one deceptively simple question: What is the difference between a solid and a fluid? The author points out that most laypeople, even though they "know" what makes the two states different, can't actually define it.

Fluids flow and conform to a container, solids (mostly) maintain their shape, barring sufficient outside forces. Why is that difficult?

slowmover 05-22-2019 04:55 AM

To understand FE in a particular vehicle is to have loaded it to stated maximum. A solo driver is abnormal when it’s built for 4-6 people plus gear. Doesn’t matter that’s the way it’s used.

Takes 13-weeks to establish new habits. With cars I’ve always found that 10k miles cements the deal.

In turn, then lightening the load is bettered by the right foots understanding.

MPG claims in otherwise empty cars are a stunt. No value.

Use the vehicle per design, THEN establish what’s best.

My pickup is ALWAYS 1,200-lbs over TARE weight. Add in truck work gear presently with me on the road, and hitch the travel trailer, it goes just OVER vehicle GVWR (but not axle or tire limits). THAT is it’s defined purpose. (As well as my job to get the towing “penalty” as far below 40% as is possible).

For the most part, MPG is about best steady state. Never stopping or idling. That practice is the real challenge: maximum load against minimal fuel burn. Against compromising reliability & longevity.

Driving empty is the wasteful mile. No work being performed. No revenue. Screwing off by driving around and burning gasoline. All sorts of ways thru the emotional impasse.

Being ABOVE 20-mpg IN TOWN ONLY with a loaded one-ton didn’t happen automatically.

My 30-something son always thought I was slow thru traffic. Until he noticed it more about being friction-free. Tires and brakes just don’t wear out (well past 100k miles service).

MPG is only a marker against operator efficiency. A check.

Out on the road we make fun of other truck drivers across the CB who only have one speed. Can’t adapt to conditions changes. Get thoroughly riled when this is stymied. The problem is emotional. We usually jab and gig them about safe operation. It’s almost the same as MPG.

No one much cares I can hit 11-mpg with an empty 35k lb rig. It’s being able to hit 9-mpg with from 30-40k in the box that matters. Your family’s welfare is the same. You MUST have a performance benchmark for the day it matters. Vacation or evacuation. And it won’t happen without experience (In the same way that commuting IS NOT adequate preparation for highway travel).

What’s the percentage change? What is the fuel cost per mile?

Careful about rejection: That’s the same “you” claiming loading your vehicle to near max is unrealistic. . Before the cock crows thrice. It’s quite the opposite.

“All my pistol range practice reproduces life’s guarantee of ALWAYS 10-yard shots under duress” Is what I “read” about the MPG claims on this forum. Pretty well worthless.

Get the baseline.
And then make Economy a norm.
Norm = Predictability.
(“Under any conditions encountered”).
Fuel is only one part.


.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com