Are gas prices fueling your pain?

16768707273197

Comments

  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    Your major premise of a "sweet spot" is incorrect. The lowest speed in top gear yields the best mileage.
  • vchiuvchiu Member Posts: 564
    >The lowest speed in top gear yields the best mileage.
    Not always the case, because you have to factor in the ICE efficiency which is not linear.
    For many cars, ICE efficiency peaks at the torque peak RPM level, whereas extremely low and High RPM will yield very bad efficiency.

    It is my understanding that most cars will be in their sweet spot at around 2000 RPM at the tallest gear, as ICE already has a good % of its optimum efficiency at that rotation speed. 2000 RPM will translate into 45-50 mph in a small engine car and 75 mph in a big engined car (my previous 740i for instance) .
    Of course wind resistance is a key factor, and becomes the main reason for mpg drop over the sweetspot.
  • vchiuvchiu Member Posts: 564
    There has been some interesting debate around the need for better mass transit

    Better meaning quicker, safer, more comfortable and cheaper. This clearly needs huge investment.
    I think a good mass transit system also needs a strong integration of all of its parts together, so that it will be easy to switch from one line to another.

    The French SNCF is currently working on a 245 mph commercial speed for their trains in France. Some cities that previously needed 5+ hours would be linked in bit more than 2 hours (450 miles) which would drastically cut airplane and car transit.
    Currently, train has 90% marketshare against plane for all journey of less than 2 hours. 60% for less than 3 hours, 40% for less than 4 hours and 30% for less than 5 hours. It is difficult to compare train and car marketshare because obviously there aren't any reliable statistics. There are obviously transfers from road to train when train becomes attractive.

    Of course, Long distance trains must be complemented by local network of mass transit. There is no sense to a 1 or 2 hours rail journey if one need to drive the car 1 hour to the station.

    For instance I would very well see some high speed links between San Diego, LA, SF and more to the north and the other states.

    Fare price is an issue. Currently in France travelling by car will be always cheaper from 2 passengers upward. Break even will be 1driver+1 passenger.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,592
    We had friends in the late 1960s that paid as much for a spot to park as their apartment.

    I have read about deeded parking spaces selling for $50K or more in the Chicago area.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    You would have gotten better mpg at 45-50 in the 740. Wind resistance increases as a square of the speed. Any speed!
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    Wind resistance increases as a square of the speed. Any speed!

    You are correct. But, you are incorrect in stating ...

    You would have gotten better mpg at 45-50 in the 740.

    Air or wind resistance is not the only variable in the calculation. While I can't vouch specifically for the BMW 740's best speed for mpg, the gearing of the car and the rpm and torque-peak are other variables. At 45-50 mph many cars would not shift into OD or into their top gears. A 6-spd automatic that is in 3rd or 4th gear of its 6 gears at 45 mph is not going to be using fuel very efficiently.

    If all there was to get higher mpg was to keep reducing the speed to get no wind resistance, then as you went down to 30, 25, 20, ... 0 mph your mpg should be zooming. At 1 mph you would get what - 5,000 mpg? Obviously that is not correct.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,133
    We've had these mpg vs. speed discussions before - does anyone have a car with cruise control and instantaneous mpg readout? It would be a simple matter to find a nice flat stretch of road and observe the mpg at 40, 50, 60, 70 mph. Anyone???
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    vchiu says, "There is no law that forbid anyone to floor the pedal at the green light."

    Actually, there ARE laws against that. In Texas it's called "exhibition of excessive acceleration" and you can definitely be ticketed for it. My stepdad got that ticket two or three times in the 70s.

    In the USA, insurance rates go up across the board slowly but surely when there are a lot of accidents. Sure, the absolute best drivers get the absolute best rates (usually) but we all pay for too many accidents. If the accident rates went WAY DOWN across the population, we would all benefit.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I can tell you Larsb. The cops around here are much more lenient than they were in the 60s and 70s. A lot of these rice rockets would be ticketed in the 1960s for being lower & louder than stock. The lifted trucks with tires outside the fenders would be ticketed. I see people driving crazy all the time and never a cop around.

    Insurance is also going up because of the horrible cost of repairing the tinny crumple zone cars of today. I was pleasantly surprised to get my insurance bill on the 07 Sequoia. It was $150 per year less than my 05 GMC hybrid. It is $450 less than the 05 Passat Wagon I had. I would surmise it has to do with cost of repair on these new "safer" cars. Just read of a guy with an FJ Cruiser. Said a very minor fender bender was $7500 to repair. His comment was they are not as tough built as his older FJ40s.

    PS
    The savings on insurance will cover the additional cost of gas over driving a little vehicle. .
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    We've had these mpg vs. speed discussions before - does anyone have a car with cruise control and instantaneous mpg readout?

    Yes but all that does is answer the question for that model. So what is best for an auto. Scion Xb, is not going to be the same for a 6-spd auto. Malibu, is not the same for a PU. Each model is going to be different.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,133
    Of course they're all different, but right now all we have is opinions. It's amazing what a little data can do to clarify a discussion.
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    It is my understanding that most cars will be in their sweet spot at around 2000 RPM at the tallest gear

    It depends on the gearing, the aerodynamic efficiency (or lack therof) of the car, and the particulars of the engine. As a rule of thumb, the best mileage comes with the engine running about 1/3 of its range between idle and redline, as Honda was kind enough to illustrate here:

    image
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I do recall Road & Track doing a test to find out which method of starting out from a dead stop and accelerating to freeway speeds yielded the best mileage. They found that brisk acceleration through the gears but short-shifting below redline worked the best, if that's any help. I don't know how this conforms to your graph.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I don't disagree, but the problem with that logic (brisk acceleration = peak efficiency) is that it assumes there is no traffic in front of you.

    In reality, brisk acceleration usually preceeds brisk braking and major loss of momentum. :D

    So with traffic, it makes more sense to acceleration gradually and keep plenty of empty space in front of you. Let off the gas and coast to a stop.

    Basically, in practice, the less you need your brakes, the better you mileage. Ideally, you would have exactly enough momentum to let off the gas and coast to a stop at a red light, wasting zero energy with braking.

    My van has a trip computer, and it reads out instant MPG as well as average MPG.

    Keep in mind vans are HEAVY, two tons plus, with people and gear we're talking probably 5000 lbs rolling down the road.

    I have found that if I floor the throttle, my average MPG will drop immediately, by 0.1 to as much as 0.3 mpg, and I can never recover that loss. More often than not I just end up having to brake and losing a ton of energy.

    I get much better MPG accelerating gradually and leaving plenty of space in front, plus coasting to a stop at red lights and stop signs.

    As for speeds, again, the van has a huge frontal area and is boxy, so MPG takes a plunge with speed.

    Instant is not very accurate, because you have to account for elevation changes.

    Trips, though, I have averaged as high as 34mpg, but I was doing 46-60 mph, no faster.

    At 65mph, I usually get about 30mpg.

    At 75mph, that drops again, usually 26-28 mpg.

    So for me speed is a major factor, probably the biggest.

    Flooring the throttle has never helped, in fact it always drops my average noticeably.

    To get peak mileage you have to drive like Grandma, basically.

    Sounds boring, but in practice, that's what works best.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,133
    The brisk acceleration has to be combined with short shifting (at, say, 1/2 redline), something that can't be accomplished with most automatics. And it doesn't need to be to the floor, but at more than the 'drive like an egg's there' level. This reduces pumping losses. But, like you said, not for stop and go traffic.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The Sienna actually does have a L-2-3-4-D shifter, but that's a lot of work for questionable benefit.

    Plus, extra wear on the transmission means it might prove to be penny wise, pound foolish.

    It is an interesting point, though.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,133
    Agreed, minor gains. Can you force an upshift (say, 2 to 3) at low rpms and large throttle?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I'm not sure if "2" means 1-2 or just gear #2.

    Maybe I'll try it out in the snow, to start out in 2nd gear to reduce wheelspin.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,133
    Sorry, I mean forcing the trans to shift from second to third (or first to second, or third to fourth) while at a wide throttle opening and low rpms. It's easy to force a downshift, but I didn't know you could force an upshift.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,045
    The only way I know to force an upshift, and it's going to vary from car to car, is to just start off slowly with a light pressure on the pedal, and then let off completely. Sometimes that'll make it upshift a bit earlier. For instance, with my pickup, which has a 3-speed automatic, I can get it to upshift to 2nd at around 15 mph and 3rd around 20, if the ground is level enough. Torque converter still won't lock up until around 45. But then on the flip side, if I want to stomp it, it'll hold first to about 45-50, and I guess it'll hold 2nd on up to around 70-75.

    I think the lowest speed I've been able to get my Intrepid into top gear (4-speed automatic), is around 37 mph. In normal driving it'll do it around 45.

    I think most automatic transmissions are "smart" enough not to upshift until the conditions are right. And even if you do trick them into upshifting early, like what I described with my pickup, if it's still realistically too low in the rpm range, the moment it encounters enough load, like a hill or too much pedal pressure, it'll downshift again.
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    I'm not sure if "2" means 1-2 or just gear #2.

    For most if not all automatics, it means 1-2. This is why you want an automatic with tap or paddle shifters. You should be driving a manual, but that topic's down the hall. ;)
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,045
    Didn't Ford used to make an automatic where you could start off in second gear, instead of first? I know a lot of transmissions these days don't even have a "1" as the selection, so there's no way to manually hold first gear anymore. But putting it in "2" will still start you off in first, until it's ready to upshift.

    Actually, even if you forget and leave a transmission in a low gear, if you get revving fast enough, aren't most of them smart enough these days to upshift for you, anyway? For instance, if I left my Intrepid in 2nd, and got out on the highway, wouldn't it eventually shift up to Direct Drive and then finally, overdrive?

    They actually had transmissions smart enough to do that back in the 50's, but then in the 60's, I think they started getting "dumb" again.
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    A decent number of cars had (and have) second gear start, where you can only get it into first by flooring it from a rolling 10 mph or something.

    I would imagine that with the advent of computer controls they would upshift at redline for you, but in the old days if you stuck it in L or 2 or 3 (if you had it) that was all you got.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    Nope since the debut of this Gen Prius in Oct 2003 the OEM tire has been the Goodyear Mediocritys. The most generic of all 15" tires.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    I believe the Sienna has standard traction control, making nil the need for a '2' that actually holds second gear. And I know from driving my friend's Sienna that '2' in that car means 1-2.

    You can always make the trans upshift at WOT by merely leaping off the gas pedal momentarily, but (even in a Toyota, LOL!) it will eventually downshift again.

    The thing to do is pick the average speed you want to be going in order NOT to have to stop at the next light, then floor it to reach that speed and totally let up. The optinmal speed will usually be quite a bit lower than the posted speed limit, except in one or two clued-in communities where they actually took the trouble to phase their lights.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • 1stpik1stpik Member Posts: 495
    "does anyone have a car with cruise control and instantaneous mpg readout?"

    I do -- a 2007 Honda Civic Hybrid. It has a digital speedometer and a computer that calculates mpg every 10 seconds. On a flat surface with calm wind and a mild temperature, here's what I get:

    60 mph .................. 51 mpg

    70 mph .................. 44 mpg

    80 mph .................. 36 mpg

    Note that the HCH has a Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) that constantly adjusts its gear ratio for maximum efficiency, so it's not directly comparable to a fixed gear automatic with overdrive. But these numbers clearly demonstrate the effect of speed/wind resistance on mpg.

    .
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,133
    Thanks, good info. You wouldn't happen to have 50 mph and 40 mph #s? Some folks are proposing a maximum at some speed (obviously less than 60 mph for your HCH).
  • 1stpik1stpik Member Posts: 495
    I didn't measure 50 and 40 mph because I was afraid if I drove at those speeds on the highway I'd get shot by other drivers or run over by a truck.

    Dallas drivers aren't much friendlier than those in Nevada.

    Around town at 35-45 mph, I get 60 mpg.

    .
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I'm sure there's a school playground or something in Texas where you can drive 40 mph. :P
  • vchiuvchiu Member Posts: 564
    OK, I would second that.
    As the 740 engine is rated at 5400RPM, then the sweet spot would be at 1800RPM.
    which would correspond to 65-70mph.

    Anyway, my bord computer readings were pretty similar between 50 mph and 75 mph. While the sweetspot center may be lower than 75 mph, it is pretty flat and could extend between those 2 extremes. Below 45 mph and above 75mph the mpg start noticeably decreasing.

    Once, I tried a highway economy run at a medium speed of 80 mph (75-85mph extremes, as light foot as possible) on the 740 and the board computer displayed a result of about 24mpg, slightly improving the official figures. It was the trip computer so allow a margin of error of course. Boring to death.
    All my efforts over 50 miles went in smoke when I stupidly got stuck for 20 minutes in a jam because of a poorly managed toll at the highway exit. My mpg dropped to 20 , which is what I generally achieve when I set the cruise control to 100 mph flat (in Germany of course).

    I have a 1978 600cm3 Citroen Ami 8 which tallest gearing is of about 14 mph / 1000 RPM. My observed sweetspot is at about 35 mph middle with a stretch between 30 and 45 mph. Engine need to be maintained above 2000 rpm (Flat-2 engine). Looks like some US speed limits were set using this car as a reference...

    I estimate my Fit sweetspot at around 50 mph (2000 RPM at that speed, CVT transmission)
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    Engines don't have "sweetspots". They are just Machines!
  • vchiuvchiu Member Posts: 564
    Sorry, English is not my native language, so it is still impaired.

    How would you best name the range of speed where fuel consumption is the lowest in a car ?
  • 1stpik1stpik Member Posts: 495
    That would be between 0 mph and 0 mph. Cars burn the least fuel when they're parked with the engine off.

    I'll pause for a moment to let the uproar of laughter die down.

    Okay, now I'll continue. Seriously, the most fuel efficient speed for a car is specific to each car. It's generally the lowest speed in the highest gear or overdrive. That means you're going as fast as you can while the engine is turning the lowest rpm that it can. That's efficiency.

    .
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    "optimum rpm in high gear for fuel efficiency"

    I think he meant that "sweet spot" applies more to a passive, inactive object like a tennis racket or baseball bat, where you can lay your finger on an actual place on the object. A machine is complex with parts swirling all about.

    But we understood what you meant anyway. :P
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    You should be driving a manual, but that topic's down the hall

    I do! I commute in a Miata. :shades:

    The only van with a manual is the Mazda5, and it was too small for my needs and not really all that fuel efficient for the sacrifices you make.

    I think we'll see pigs fly before Toyota puts a manual trans in a Sienna. They just removed that option from the RAV4. :(
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    What 1stpik illustrated with his mph and mpg numbers. The slower in top gear the better. Just don't lug it. If traffic flow is 70 then you have to go 70 to be safe,but slower in top is, unalterably,better MPG.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Given sufficient thrust, pigs fly quite nicely.
  • 1stpik1stpik Member Posts: 495
    With sufficient thrust, pigs fly ..... but NOT nicely.

    Pigs lack the aerodynamic surfaces to control their direction along the three axes of flight. Thus, they tend to impact the ground at a high rate of speed.

    And that's not nice.

    .
  • 1stpik1stpik Member Posts: 495
    Years ago, auto makers used to test the effects of car accidents by putting pigs in cars, then crashing them, then examining the horribly injured animals.

    They had to do this, of course, because auto makers were too stupid to figure out that a 50 mph car crash would be bad for the occupants.

    I'm sorry, perhaps that's a bit harsh. Maybe auto makers were really smart. Maybe, instead, they were a bunch of sick perverts who got a thrill by mutilating and killing helpless animals ..... you know, the same way budding serial killers start out.

    Years later, they mass-marketed exploding Pintos.

    Coincidence?

    .
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    does anyone have a car with cruise control and instantaneous mpg readout?"

    I do -- a 2007 Honda Civic Hybrid. It has a digital speedometer and a computer that calculates mpg every 10 seconds. On a flat surface with calm wind and a mild temperature, here's what I get:

    60 mph .................. 51 mpg

    70 mph .................. 44 mpg

    80 mph .................. 36 mpg

    Note that the HCH has a Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) that constantly adjusts its gear ratio for maximum efficiency, so it's not directly comparable to a fixed gear automatic with overdrive. But these numbers clearly demonstrate the effect of speed/wind resistance on mpg

    Coming to work today I did the same SOTP trials in a new Prius, 230 miles.

    Set the cruise and eyeballed the Insta-Readout
    50 mph - most readings were between 49-60 mpg with spot readings as low as 39 and high as 73 over a 5 mile stretch of flat or gentle inclines/declines
    60 mph - most readings were between 45-52 mpg with spot readings as low as 36 and as high as 73 over a different 5 mile stretch.
    70 mph - most readings were between 40-45 on a flat stretch for about 2 miles.
    80 mpg - asking to go to jail with $3500 fine and $1100 penalty for the following 10 yrs - not attempted.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,133
    Looks like the HCH and the Prius get about the same (using averages) at 60 and 70, and that at least at 50 the Prius is still increasing. I think it's not well understood that this increasing economy with decreasing speed is the reason that many hybrids get better in town mileage than highway mileage. The hybrid system removes much of the start/stop mileage penalty, leaving better overall mpgs from the lower-speed travel.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    This thread has had more humor lately than Comedy Central.

    The writers over there are on strike, you lookin' for work? :D
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Pigs are very smart animals. I used to have two of them. They wouldn't GET into a Pinto.
  • 1stpik1stpik Member Posts: 495
    Anyway, here we are with gas down to about $2.70/gallon. I suppose people are feeling a little relieved ..... and hoping that the price drop continues.

    But don't count on it. Remember, the pattern is never up, up, up. Gas prices shoot up, then retreat slightly, then shoot up even higher. And the higher they go, the easier it is for prices to go even higher.

    When gas went from $2 to $3, that was a 50% increase. A boost from $3 to $4 is only a 33% increase. From $4 to $5 is a 25% increase. And so on.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,592
    When gas went from $2 to $3, that was a 50% increase.

    But it was a $15 a tank increase for me.

    A boost from $3 to $4 is only a 33% increase.

    But its still a $15 a tank increase for me.

    From $4 to $5 is a 25% increase.

    But its still a $15 a tank increase for me.

    And so on.

    And so on.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    15 bucks here, 15 bucks there, before long we are talking some serious money :)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    What you mean WE kemosabe? I'm still paying $3.39 a gallon in California along with the bazillion other Californians. :cry:

    No relief here.

    And diesel is still $3.69
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I was wondering what part of the country you were in 1stpik. We had a reprieve down to $3.07 here in Boise last week but yesterday it was back up to $3.09 for regular. Diesel is $3.59.

    (more in Report Your Local Gas Prices Here).
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I filled the Ranger and Sequoia for $3.01 at Costco. A cheapo station is selling at $2.99 here is San Diego. Cheapest diesel is $3.09 not far from me. As soon as we get completely moved I hope my consumption goes down a bit. We started moving in July. I am getting closer every day. Moved several more boxes of books out of the library yesterday. Hoping to put the old house on the market after the first of the year.

    Then if the price of gas goes to $4 I will just stay at home and watch the goldfinches and humming birds feeding.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    NorCal: cheapest I can find around here is $3.21. Didn't take notice of diesel prices. I paid $3.33 at my last fill just because the $3.21 was out of my way in the wrong direction. I am quite sure that come April 1 I will be able to find $4/gallon quite easily out there...we got to about $3.70 already this last spring.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

This discussion has been closed.

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.