08-29-2021, 06:55 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Lurker
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 6
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
Weight Vs. Economy
Hi Everyone,
Over many years (and several different vehicles - automatic and manual, sedan and 4WD), I have consistently found that my fuel economy is better on longer highway trips when the car is loaded up to the max with weight. Conventional wisdom says that this should not be the case with lower weight resulting in better fuel economy.
My thoughts are that this is due to either 1. the weight lowering the car (so less air goes underneath, hence less air resistance), or 2. The extra weight means you can glide longer down inclines, with the engine operating more efficiently (harder) in pulling the vehicle up the hills.
Anyone else have any real world data or thoughts on what is going on?
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to CommodAnt For This Useful Post:
|
|
Today
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
08-29-2021, 07:51 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 28,397
Thanks: 8,021
Thanked 8,837 Times in 7,293 Posts
|
I thought this would be [more] about payload vs vehicle weight. I posted about the Xbus in another thread. I've since learned that it weighs 992lb, and has a payload of 1/2 ton and a tow capacity of 2000lb.
As to your question -- it sounds reasonable. A well designed vehicle will accommodate loads and grades and {possibly] appreciate the opportunity to 'stretch it's legs'. Optimal BSFC (in pounds per hour) is prolly at 75% throttle were BSHP lies.
__________________
.
.Without freedom of speech we wouldn't know who all the idiots are. -- anonymous poster
____________________
.
.“You belong to Universe” -- the voice in Bucky Fuller's head
|
|
|
08-29-2021, 08:37 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
Corporate imperialist
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 11,260
Thanks: 273
Thanked 3,565 Times in 2,829 Posts
|
The real world data says to pick up a few mpg you have to strip the car to the point where it's undriveable.
And putting on lighter parts is so expensive it will never pay for its self in fuel savings.
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
|
|
|
08-29-2021, 08:39 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Lurker
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 6
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
Thanks. But is this real world data stop/go, or continuous speed? Does anyone here have any data from their experimentation?
|
|
|
08-30-2021, 12:42 AM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
It's all about Diesel
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 12,808
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,672 Times in 1,490 Posts
|
I'm sure results may vary according to road condition, so it's not a one-size-fits-all. Plus a heavier vehicle would have more inertia to overcome while accelerating, so if you're able to keep driving for a longer stretch of road at a steady pace without any sudden change to the cruise speed it may seem more economical.
|
|
|
09-01-2021, 02:03 AM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Lurker
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Finland
Posts: 69
Thanks: 1
Thanked 21 Times in 15 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommodAnt
I have consistently found that my fuel economy is better on longer highway trips when the car is loaded up to the max with weight.
|
Have you been able to compare that with economy on similar trips without the extra weight? If so, how much improvement in economy do you think the weight makes? If not, what leads you to conclude that it is the weight rather than trip length or highway driving that makes the difference?
|
|
|
09-01-2021, 03:43 AM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
High Altitude Hybrid
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Gunnison, CO
Posts: 2,075
Thanks: 1,128
Thanked 583 Times in 462 Posts
|
If you're going up and down hills I find something similar in my Avalon and other vehicles I have driven. I can get similar or even better fuel mileage going over mountain passes than on flat highways even though that means I'm at a much higher throttle going up the mountains and then releasing a lot of it back into the atmosphere as heat as I engine and friction brake going down the other side.
PS. Regen braking in the Avalon does help some, but on most passes the battery fills up very quickly leaving me with normal engine and friction braking the rest of the slope. I also have noticed similar results in non-hybrids.
I think what happens is that it's similar to pulse and gliding. Engines are generally much more powerful than needed and so tend to run in a less efficient load on flat ground. But going to a slope puts the load at a higher, more efficient range.
In your caae you may not have the 5-8% grade passes that go on for miles and miles. But by adding more weight you get more of the effect, especially if the downhill portions aren't enough to merit braking letting you use the built up kinetic energy.
__________________
|
|
|
09-01-2021, 10:28 AM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 16,189
Thanks: 24,338
Thanked 7,343 Times in 4,747 Posts
|
longer highway
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommodAnt
Hi Everyone,
Over many years (and several different vehicles - automatic and manual, sedan and 4WD), I have consistently found that my fuel economy is better on longer highway trips when the car is loaded up to the max with weight. Conventional wisdom says that this should not be the case with lower weight resulting in better fuel economy.
My thoughts are that this is due to either 1. the weight lowering the car (so less air goes underneath, hence less air resistance), or 2. The extra weight means you can glide longer down inclines, with the engine operating more efficiently (harder) in pulling the vehicle up the hills.
Anyone else have any real world data or thoughts on what is going on?
|
1) the answer is hiding in plain view.
2) the vehicle's inefficiency is during transient loads.
3) the longer highway drives keep throttling to a minimum, and the gearing keeps the engine close to it's brake-specific-fuel-consumption optimum.
4) if you could drive continuously at 35-40-mph around town, never stopping until you arrived at your destination, you'd see your highest-possible mpg.
5) AeroStealth's 2014 F-150 will do 22-mpg @ 62-mph (100-km/h ).
6) Same truck @ a constant 35-mph = 32-mpg.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
|
|
|
09-01-2021, 05:51 PM
|
#10 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Lurker
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 6
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDMCF
Have you been able to compare that with economy on similar trips without the extra weight? If so, how much improvement in economy do you think the weight makes? If not, what leads you to conclude that it is the weight rather than trip length or highway driving that makes the difference?
|
Yes and no. I've done a lot of trips that are further than a single tank of fuel over a couple of decades and a bunch of vehicles. Fuel improvement seems to be about 10% better with a very full load. The full load does not happen often, but I consistently get my best milage on these long trips when packed full to the ceiling.
|
|
|
|