EcoModder.com

EcoModder.com (https://ecomodder.com/forum/)
-   Hypermiling / EcoDriver's Ed (https://ecomodder.com/forum/hypermiling-ecodrivers-ed.html)
-   -   Speed vs. MPG charts (post 'em if you got 'em) (https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/speed-vs-mpg-charts-post-em-if-you-15182.html)

bluejoey 11-16-2010 06:33 PM

Speed vs. MPG charts (post 'em if you got 'em)
 
Ever since I started lurking on Ecomodder (a few years ago), I've always been keen on the speed vs. mpg charts. Not only do they clearly show the influence of speed on mileage, they also provide a handy reference for people who don't yet have instrumentation, or folks interested in the efficiency slopes of other vehicles. I've searched and haven't found any collections of charts here, so I'm hoping this might become a place to store these charts as a reference. To kick things off, here are a few I've found from users here:

NOTE from admin: if you add a graph, PLEASE also include a link to the source site/page. Thanks!


2006 Toyota Corolla 1.6L Auto by MetroMPG
from http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...atic-6710.html

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1231854565

1998 Pontiac Firefly / Geo Metro 1.0L Manual by MetroMPG
from Speed kills: testing MPH vs. MPG in top gear - MetroMPG.com

http://metrompg.com/posts/photos/mpg...ed-chart-z.gif

2002 Nissan SE-R, 2006 Scion, Elantra by SentraSE-R

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/j...sonrevised.jpg

Assorted cars by Auto Bild Magazine
from Speed kills: testing MPH vs. MPG in top gear - MetroMPG.com

http://metrompg.com/posts/photos/gcc-autobild1.gif

If you have any more, please post them. If you have an instrument (SGII, Ultragauge, etc) and are willing to compare your speed to mpg at a variety of speeds, that would also be appreciated. I would be happy to make charts for anyone who supplies me with a range of figures.

RobertSmalls 11-16-2010 06:44 PM

Thank you for creating this thread. We should all include the source of our data, so folks know how good the data is.

http://mggm.net/prius/Prius_Speed_vs_MPG.jpg

This was posted on PriusChat and linked to by MetroMPG.com.

Also, when Wayne Gerdes reviews a car, he does an mpg vs mph test on it.

Edit: Here's his data on the Honda CR-Z, 6mt, with cruise control and Eco Mode engaged. Ambient 66-68F.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne Gerdes
* 45 mph - 58 mpg
* 50 mph - 53 mpg
* 55 mph - 49 mpg
* 60 mph - 46 mpg
* 65 mph - 43 mpg
* 70 mph - 38 mpg


Frank Lee 11-16-2010 07:53 PM

Periodically we get claims of higher fe at higher speeds, or at a certain speed range that isn't near the low end. I suppose it's possible if an engine has a peaky BSFC combined with certain gearing and loading... but most of the time I'm tempted to chalk those claims up to faulty fe calculating.

bluejoey 11-16-2010 11:32 PM

Hey RobertSmalls, thanks for the Prius and CR-Z additions!

Agreed Frank Lee. This claim seems to be more common around folks who own fast cars, but I think it's more psychological than factual. I haven't seen much data that contradicts the "lowest RPM in highest gear" rule of thumb for peak mpg.

Found another one!

2005 Corvette 7.0L Manual by MetroMPG
from http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...05-a-9841.html

http://ecomodder.com/imgs/graph-speed-mpg-corvette.gif

Frank Lee 11-17-2010 12:12 AM

About 1233 rpm @ 55 mph- jealous!

My impression is that the pickup truck driving crowd in general are most prone to making a higher speed/higher fe claim, even though aero kicks their butts the worst.

slowmover 11-17-2010 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 204537)
About 1233 rpm @ 55 mph- jealous!

My impression is that the pickup truck driving crowd in general are most prone to making a higher speed/higher fe claim, even though aero kicks their butts the worst.

It's the crowd involved. It is not one that has high regard for FE, in general. I always get a kick out of someone towing a big 5'er claiming that slightly 70+ is the best, all-around, in mpg. It tells me -- these claims -- that no records about total fuel use are in place.

Same for "tuners" that magically increase both HP and FE. While such gains are theoretically possible they are essentially limited to stop-and-go traffic (as admitted by the president of one such company). I have yet to see good records combined with steady state driving to substantiate any claims viability (on otherwise stock trucks).

As to the topic I only know that empty or loaded (7k to 9k) my truck will, at 58 mph/1,725-rpm repeatedly, endlessly, deliver a 24-mpg average no matter winds, rain, day, night, traffic, etc. Can go up to 27 mpg, and, if the overhead display is interpreted, nearly 30-mpg at 50 mph over a 40 mile Louisiana backroad. Would be great to run a long course at 45 mph to see the "true" high (and experiment to run down the perfect rpm.) 24-26 is reported by other men in the South and South Central US with similar trucks, so my experience is not uncommon.

.

Frank Lee 11-17-2010 11:39 PM

Used to have a 460 F250 and it was impervious to conditions too- same fe no matter what.

NHRABill 11-18-2010 03:08 AM

I have seen no change since weather has started to change for my Tahoe consistent on last few tanks only thing has changed is Gas prices rising ...

I am just shifting in 4th @45mph sweet spot seems to be 60mph running @ 1700rpm.

Nice thread interesting #'s

Frank Lee 11-18-2010 05:16 AM

It would be interesting to see if your fe is better at 50 or 55 or 65 rather than 60.

When towing my F150 has a very small sweet spot (as far as keeping the E4OD in OD is concerned) at between 52-55 mph; under 52 and it won't give OD because of the slow speed and load, over 55 and it won't give OD because of the increased aero and rolling resistances. Mind you this is on really flat highway- the slightest rise or gust kicks OD out too. I know when towing OD "should" be locked out but I really like OD, what can I say? Perhaps I am ODing on OD.

rbrowning 11-18-2010 11:54 AM

I wonder what caused the hump in the curve for the Corolla? Aero? Surely it would have been in top gear before 60. :confused:

bluejoey 11-18-2010 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbrowning (Post 204763)
I wonder what caused the hump in the curve for the Corolla? Aero? Surely it would have been in top gear before 60. :confused:

That top gear is at 43mph, I believe.

Found some more...

Assorted cars, including Yaris and Insight II by Consumer Reports, courtesy of MetroMPG (as with the Auto Bild chart)

http://forkenswift.com/album/7-cr-orig-mpg.gif

jamesqf 11-18-2010 12:02 PM

I wish it was as simple as speed vs mpg for me. In the Insight, mpg is very noticably affected by things like temperature, winds (even light winds), road surface, & driver mood - yes, I do get better mpg when I'm happy about where I'm going. I haven't figured out the exact phase-of-the-moon vs mpg chart yet, but I'm sure it's there.

PaleMelanesian 11-18-2010 12:27 PM

Here's another. My Odyssey, with the same drivetrain, predictably matches these results.

It also shows the bump when it shifts into top gear, like the Corolla above.

from http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...nomy-7552.html

http://ecomodder.com/forum/images/gr...-ridgeline.gif

SuzukiSteve 11-18-2010 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 204537)
About 1233 rpm @ 55 mph- jealous!


You would only get 1233rpm at 55mph if you forget to shift into 6th. Im jealous of the 1500rpm at 110mph! Those are some TALL gears.

36.5 mpg is very impressive for a 7.0 liter. Wow.

EdKiefer 11-18-2010 01:02 PM

Some of those graphs show best mpg at very low speeds like the 2006 Toyota Corolla 1.6L Auto and vette . you think its in high gear at such low speeds or is it somehow getting better mpg not in high gear .

euromodder 11-18-2010 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbrowning (Post 204763)
I wonder what caused the hump in the curve for the Corolla? Aero? Surely it would have been in top gear before 60. :confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdKiefer (Post 204776)
you think its in high gear at such low speeds or is it somehow getting better mpg not in high gear .

I'm not surprised by it (only slightly so by the speed where it happens).

I have a hard time getting decent FE @ 90kph/56mph in 5th (top) gear, and it's the same with anything below 60kph/37mph in 4th.
The (smallish) engine revs low at these speed/gear combinations, barely 1600rpm.
I suspect it simply doesn't have the power to cope with the high loading.
A little bit faster, and it goes straight into its FE sweet spot around 100-105kph/62-65mph

Coming out of a deceleration phase and ending up in these situations, mpg will be OK. But any incline, or any attempt to accelerate will instantly result in a massive drop in mpg.
I've recently started to go back to 4th rather than stay in 5th, to come out of a tunnel on my commute and it seems mpg on the climb is better (or not as bad) in 4th.

I think I'm going to go ahead with an ECU remapping that gives more power and torque at lower revs.
I could use the odd extra 50 Nm around 1400-1600 rpm to bring the rpm down by 200-300 rpm - and drive in a higher gear.
As it is, the car needs a fair bit of throttle to get going smoothly.

HP and torque diagram of the Rica E-power remapping :
http://www.rica.nl/dynochart.aspx?ch...32&language=EN

EdKiefer 11-18-2010 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by euromodder (Post 204786)
I'm not surprised by it (only slightly so by the speed where it happens).

I have a hard time getting decent FE @ 90kph/56mph in 5th (top) gear, and it's the same with anything below 60kph/37mph in 4th.
The (smallish) engine revs low at these speed/gear combinations, barely 1600rpm.
I suspect it simply doesn't have the power to cope with the high loading.
A little bit faster, and it goes straight into its FE sweet spot around 100-105kph/62-65mph

Coming out of a deceleration phase and ending up in these situations, mpg will be OK. But any incline, or any attempt to accelerate will instantly result in a massive drop in mpg.
I've recently started to go back to 4th rather than stay in 5th, to come out of a tunnel on my commute and it seems mpg on the climb is better (or not as bad) in 4th.

I think I'm going to go ahead with an ECU remapping that gives more power and torque at lower revs.
I could use the odd extra 50 Nm around 1400-1600 rpm to bring the rpm down by 200-300 rpm - and drive in a higher gear.
As it is, the car needs a fair bit of throttle to get going smoothly.

HP and torque diagram of the Rica E-power remapping :
http://www.rica.nl/dynochart.aspx?ch...32&language=EN

right, I would assume somewhere around 40-50 mph would get best mpg as this would be approx speed of high gear . But in that first graph of 2006 Toyota Corolla 1.6L Auto it gets best at 24 mph, no way it is in high and as noted above the next bump is probably the high gear one .

I am just surprised it can get such good mpg, even besting high gear speeds .
If the engine is to small for gearing and weight, I would assume best would just move up on rpm scale, not go down in speed .Yes I realize most small engines peak there TQ at like 4-5k rpm which doesn't help real low rpm cruising .

bluejoey 11-18-2010 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdKiefer (Post 204794)
right, I would assume somewhere around 40-50 mph would get best mpg as this would be approx speed of high gear . But in that first graph of 2006 Toyota Corolla 1.6L Auto it gets best at 24 mph, no way it is in high and as noted above the next bump is probably the high gear one .

I am just surprised it can get such good mpg, even besting high gear speeds

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ic-6710-2.html

MetroMPG talks about that here too. It would be interesting to find out just how many cars out there can achieve their best mpg just below top gear.

EdKiefer 11-18-2010 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluejoey (Post 204807)
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ic-6710-2.html

MetroMPG talks about that here too. It would be interesting to find out just how many cars out there can achieve their best mpg just below top gear.

That answer a lot of questions , thanks .

MetroMPG 11-19-2010 07:52 PM

Good thread!

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertSmalls (Post 204481)
We should all include the source of our data, so folks know how good the data is.

Yes, please! Links are also nice. I've added links to some of the posts above.

Quote:

Also, when Wayne Gerdes reviews a car, he does an mpg vs mph test on it.
That's excellent. Ideally, that kind of info would come with all car reviews. Or at least with reviews about so-called economy cars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 204500)
Periodically we get claims of higher fe at higher speeds, or at a certain speed range that isn't near the low end. I suppose it's possible if an engine has a peaky BSFC combined with certain gearing and loading... but most of the time I'm tempted to chalk those claims up to faulty fe calculating.

That's exactly why I wanted to do that Corvette Z06 test: to get some actual data to point to when that tired old line comes up.

MetroMPG 11-19-2010 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzukiSteve (Post 204771)
Im jealous of the 1500rpm at 110mph! Those are some TALL gears.

110 km/h :)

MetroMPG 11-19-2010 07:58 PM

1st generation (2003) Prius:
source: 2003 Prius

http://metrompg.com/posts/photos/priMPG.jpg

1986 Volkswagen Golf GTI (road conditions unknown):
source: http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/Pubs/energynotes/en-19.htm#2b (dead)
via: Speed kills: testing MPH vs. MPG in top gear - MetroMPG.com


http://metrompg.com/posts/photos/flo..._mileage-z.gif

MetroMPG 11-19-2010 08:02 PM

1996 BMW 318ti - automatic
source: 1996 BMW 318ti Fuel Economy
via: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...318ti-775.html


http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1201189084

MetroMPG 11-19-2010 08:14 PM

It's good to do a speed vs. mpg chart for your car so you can track your progress over time with various mods.

From: http://ecomodder.com/forum/141036-post116.html

Blue = boat tail & taller gearing ; Orange = taller gearing; Green = original

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1258943451

MetroMPG 08-28-2012 03:55 PM

Adding to the pile:

http://ecomodder.com/imgs/graph-spee...eep-patrio.jpg

from: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...2-a-21152.html

320touring 08-29-2012 08:23 AM

I've taken a slightly different approach here..

I log the AVERAGE speed of my 328i per tank (usually 230-270 miles), and do tank to tank MPG comparisons..

I've plotted these in an effort to determine the best AVERAGE speed for LPG consumption.

In the chart below

Speed (MPH) is along the bottom

MPG (imperial) is up the side

The values attached to the data points are the MPG recorded at that speed

I'd be interested in your opinions and observations..

http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/...untitled-1.jpg

MetroMPG 08-29-2012 10:27 AM

It's interesting to noodle the graph...

But I'm not sure using average speed as a measurement over an entire tank works well as feedback to the driver unless the tank is predominantly highway/rural cruising, and other tanks results are over the same/similar route. (IE - controlling for as many variables as possible.)

EG: if a tank includes a siginificant mix of city/suburban plus highway motoring, how do you interpret the results & use the average speed number to your benefit?

Also: does the measurement of average speed include time stopped? (EG: the ScanGauge average speed calculation is not a "rolling" average, which would be more useful. Its calculation includes time stopped.

Consider too that spread out through the year, weather effects will affect the MPG numbers (cold weather = worse mileage; warm = better). How is that separated from the average speed variable?

320touring 08-29-2012 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetroMPG (Post 324599)
It's interesting to noodle the graph...

But I'm not sure using average speed as a measurement over an entire tank works well as feedback to the driver unless the tank is predominantly highway/rural cruising, and other tanks results are over the same/similar route. (IE - controlling for as many variables as possible.)

The reasoning I decided to measure tank to tank average speed are as follows

1.My range is only 230-270 miles, circa 1 weeks driving

2.I have a basic commute of 250 miles a week- same routes at the same time of day. Therefore the majority of data was recorded on the same return journey:thumbup:

3.The car has a built in average sped function on the OBC

4.Variables I cant control are so large and vary so much over the course of a tank that they even out (e.g. so far this week I've had 2 dry partial commutes (one out, one back not on same day) and 4 wet ones) no to mention the temp going from 20 degrees to 9 and back to 14 in the same 3 day period.

Then there's the traffic and accidents...25 miles in 55mins today:rolleyes:

Quote:

EG: if a tank includes a siginificant mix of city/suburban plus highway motoring, how do you interpret the results & use the average speed number to your benefit?
The average speed figure represents (to me) a function of the above noted components, allowing me to guesstimate fuel costs, and review budgets. I can also check the average to see whether can afford a "spirited trip" home, or whether I have to be mega frugal:p

Quote:

Also: does the measurement of average speed include time stopped? (EG: the ScanGauge average speed calculation is not a "rolling" average, which would be more useful. Its calculation includes time stopped.

Consider too that spread out through the year, weather effects will affect the MPG numbers (cold weather = worse mileage; warm = better). How is that separated from the average speed variable?
My ccars OBC counts it as "Key on" speed- essentially if stationary but at position II on the ignition, its calculating..

as above, I've decided that the Scottish weather its too much of a task for one man:eek:

Vekke 08-29-2012 03:01 PM

Here is my Lupo 3L stock data on blue and some estimation on red dots.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...76622797_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...76622797_n.jpg

MetroMPG 08-30-2012 09:39 AM

Vekke - mind if I post that image in this thread?

2009Prius 08-30-2012 02:19 PM

These are old but probably the best controlled and calibrated data for 2nd generation Prius, courtesy of Wayne Brown:

http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/a...Gdatagraph.gif

http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/a...iusMPGdata.gif

Link to the thread:
Most efficient speed for best MPG? | Page 2 | PriusChat

lowglider 08-30-2012 05:47 PM

Here`s how it goes when there is no BSFC included.

(Tesla Model S vs. Tesla Roadster electric vehicles)

http://electriccar2013.com/wp-conten...e-Vs-Speed.jpg

turbovr41991 08-31-2012 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluejoey (Post 204534)

I was in my buddies corvette ZR1 the other day (91 guys... not the new one...) and it is gears even higher than this. It is interesting to know this though. Some states have legal speed limits of 70+ mph where most people travel 80 mph to keep up with the flow of traffic. It is interesting to know a Zo6 corvette gets about the same gas mileage as a honda insight going 80. Not everyone has the time or desire to go 26.4 mph to acheive maximum fuel efficency, so it makes sense they buy the proper car for the speeds they travel on a regular basis.

I wonder what a lower model corevette would be like?

MetroMPG 08-31-2012 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbovr41991 (Post 325124)
It is interesting to know a Zo6 corvette gets about the same gas mileage as a honda insight going 80.

Say what?? Might want to have a second look at the graph. On the speed axis, both km/h and MPH is shown. Make sure you're looking @ the right number!

Insight II @ 75 mph = 36.5 MPG (link to post)
Z06 Corvette @ 75 mph = 25.8 MPG

Neen 08-31-2012 04:21 PM

@MetroMPG - :)

The Vette is still ridiculously fuel efficient for being a 505 HP ICE car. Gotta love light cars!

SentraSE-R 08-31-2012 08:40 PM

Don't know how I missed this thread for 2 years. FWIW, my family cars in my graph in the initial post in this thread are:
2006 Hyundai Elantra GLS with 2.0 liter engine & 4 speed AT
2002 Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V with 2.5 liter engine & 6 speed MT
2006 Scion xB with 1.5 liter engine & 5 speed MT

Here's one for my xB in a different format. I've used the same graph in a number of posts.
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/j...leagechart.jpg

And here's one for my SE-R
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/j...leagechart.jpg

MetroMPG 08-31-2012 09:54 PM

Nope, it just wasn't in top gear yet (or torque converter lock-up - whichever).

Vekke 09-01-2012 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetroMPG (Post 324826)
Vekke - mind if I post that image in this thread?

No problem. Still dont remember how to do it even there are instructions somewhere here. Its easier to post links...

slowbro 09-03-2012 03:54 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4.../SpeedtoFE.jpg

Here's mine. This was for a 2004 Chevy Aveo AT rated at 23/31/26.

AbeisAverage 09-03-2012 04:31 PM

The results of testing I did with the user "Slowbro". The car was stock with zero modification besides adjustments to "the nut behind the wheel". Scanguage was helpful too. The car is rated at 21/31 mpg with 24 mpg combined on the U.S. Department of Energy's website. It is an automatic 2.4 liter 4 cyl. Honda Accord ex coupe.

Here's an overhead view of the .8 mi length of road the testing took place on:
Here's some weather data for the location of the testing: Past Weather for Maple Park, IL Records Averages

Testing took place around 8 to 10 pm, I am unsure of the exact temperature or windspeeds.

Here are some individual numbers:
http://i.imgur.com/2HjBV.jpg The number in parenthesis is the recalculated average but the number not in the parenthesis was the number used in the graph. We hadn't realized we had an extra 55 mph run until after the graph had been made and we're not exactly excel pros so we left the graph as is


The test was kind of a spur of the moment thing, not to say that has an impact on our data collection, but we were not as prepared or serious as we could have been. The scanguage has only been calibrated to the tank once so we could be overestimating/underestimating. All-in-all it was like a practice run to get used to the testing process. It was a lot of fun, and I look forward to future tests with potential modifications. Also thanks to Slowbro because there is no way I would've been able to do all the math involved in our test. Also another thanks for getting me started on hypermiling.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com