01-08-2011, 03:25 AM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
Junkyard Engineer
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New Port Richey, Florida
Posts: 167
Thanks: 7
Thanked 19 Times in 12 Posts
|
First real tank, 42 mpg- all city driving.
Well I finally got my baseline numbers tonight from the $250 Metro and they were better than expected. I wound up with 41.93 mpg, all of it city driving while delivering pizza. I may just reach my 50 mpg tank goal yet.
My first actual tank counted in my log was from when I found out that the fuel tank seal leaked-all over the place. That tank was 38.5 mpg or so and should not have been included in my statistics because the fuel was leaked out and not actually burned in the engine. This tank is the first one I have done with a sealed tank (and all new fuel lines).
__________________
No green technology will ever make a substantive environmental impact until it is economically viable for most people to use it. This must be from a reduction in net cost of the new technology, not an increase in the cost of the old technology through taxation
(Note: the car sees 100% city driving and is EPA rated at 37 mpg city)
|
|
|
Today
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
01-08-2011, 10:17 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Lurker
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Worcester MA area
Posts: 46
Thanks: 6
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Awesome! Great price with an even greater result.
__________________
|
|
|
01-09-2011, 07:27 AM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 4,683
Thanks: 178
Thanked 652 Times in 516 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim-Bob
Well I finally got my baseline numbers tonight from the $250 Metro and they were better than expected. I wound up with 41.93 mpg, all of it city driving while delivering pizza.
|
With a lot of stop-and go-driving, that's quite a neat result !
__________________
Strayed to the Dark Diesel Side
|
|
|
01-09-2011, 07:17 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Lurker
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 71
Thanks: 0
Thanked 8 Times in 4 Posts
|
Very impressive. I'm doing an all city tank now, and will be surprised if I break 32 in my '95 Tercel. 40 is far away at the moment for me, and you've already cracked it.
__________________
|
|
|
01-09-2011, 08:59 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,300
Thanks: 315
Thanked 179 Times in 138 Posts
|
That's excellent!
__________________
I'm not coasting, I'm shifting slowly.
|
|
|
01-10-2011, 01:48 AM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
Junkyard Engineer
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New Port Richey, Florida
Posts: 167
Thanks: 7
Thanked 19 Times in 12 Posts
|
Thanks! my current tank is being done with another mix of driving techniques as the 42mpg tank was done by hypermiling it to the extreme. This tank I am trying to drive a bit faster so as not to lose deliveries to save an extra $1 a night in fuel. So far though it seems to be at about the same place on the fuel gauge as it was last time at this mileage ( about 240 miles since I filled it on Friday night). I need to see 350 miles on roughly 8.3 gallons to meet the last tank.
The cool thing is that the car is actually in pretty good condition and not a ragged out mess like you would expect for the money. It needs minor sorting but nothing big. In fact, I just re-tested the compression and it was far better than when I first dragged it out of a guy's back yard 3 weeks ago. I got a max of 165 psi and a min of 162 so the engine will not require replacement after all. My plans have changed then to fixing this one up stock and just driving it while I build up my 92 Metro 2 door with a fuel economy improved engine, different gearing, bigger brakes, aero mods, taller tires, etc. Once it's done in a few months, the blue car will be sold off to a new owner who will get a well-sorted little Metro that should give years of reliable operation.
__________________
No green technology will ever make a substantive environmental impact until it is economically viable for most people to use it. This must be from a reduction in net cost of the new technology, not an increase in the cost of the old technology through taxation
(Note: the car sees 100% city driving and is EPA rated at 37 mpg city)
|
|
|
01-11-2011, 03:19 AM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
Junkyard Engineer
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New Port Richey, Florida
Posts: 167
Thanks: 7
Thanked 19 Times in 12 Posts
|
Had a 43 mpg tank today! It just gets better and better!
__________________
No green technology will ever make a substantive environmental impact until it is economically viable for most people to use it. This must be from a reduction in net cost of the new technology, not an increase in the cost of the old technology through taxation
(Note: the car sees 100% city driving and is EPA rated at 37 mpg city)
|
|
|
02-25-2011, 07:00 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Lurker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 70
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim-Bob
My first actual tank counted in my log was from when I found out that the fuel tank seal leaked-all over the place. That tank was 38.5 mpg or so and should not have been included in my statistics because the fuel was leaked out and not actually burned in the engine. This tank is the first one I have done with a sealed tank (and all new fuel lines).
|
Ah yes the Jeremy Clarkson defense, as seen in the 1500 gbp Porsche challenge.
He bought a rubbish 928 that could best have been described as a pile of spare parts that loosely resembled a running and failing Porsche, which had a leaky fuel tank and lines. He got about 7-8 mpguk out of the car, but his defense was the same, that it didn't go anywhere near the engine so he didn't use it. However seeing as it went into his car from the pump and didn't return to the pump when it left the car he used it, just the same as the leaking metro used all the fuel that left the fuel tank, regardless of whether or not it burned it or leaked it on the road.
__________________
|
|
|
02-25-2011, 08:41 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Lurker
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 71
Thanks: 0
Thanked 8 Times in 4 Posts
|
^ Hah. Seriously though, I agree with Jim-Bob, having recently suffered a leaking gas tank myself. I barely made 20 mpg on my last tank because of the leak, making it by far the lowest tank I've recorded since I bought the car. In comparison, I'm currently averaging 30 on my new, fixed tank, despite using E10 gas, which seems to knock around 10% off my mileage.
__________________
|
|
|
|