Quantcast
Why do people talk about how many km they get on a tank?! - Page 4 - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 3 4
Results 61 to 64 of 64

Thread: Why do people talk about how many km they get on a tank?!

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere between YYC and YVR
    Posts
    6,783
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitsu3000gt View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    To set an optimal speed for all cars or even most cars would be extremely difficult. It would even be different for 2 of the same cars with different tires.

    You can usually identify the point where your mileage falls off a cliff though, so if you stay below that you are probably within the realm of not caring if you're getting 6.2 vs 6.6 L/100km or whatever.

    I think for most people though, arriving sooner far, far, outweighs any fuel savings if they value their time.
    I usually find there are two cases that signify that point where it falls off a cliff;

    1) When you start getting into the higher engine rev's on the highway

    2) When you are pushing the gas down and nothing happens anymore

    I had Jeep XJ with the high output 6cyl for a while... on the steeper highway hills you could either run it at high revs in 3rd, or just bury your foot in 4th.... it did't have enough power to push it up a hill in 5th at all. It would just drink fuel like a pig in both situations... and then overhead and boil over. Good ol' Jeeps, haha.
    Quote Originally Posted by flipstah View Post
    You can't score on shots you don't take.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    2017 Civic Hatch ST
    Posts
    9,513
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sugarphreak View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I usually find there are two cases that signify that point where it falls off a cliff;

    1) When you start getting into the higher engine rev's on the highway

    2) When you are pushing the gas down and nothing happens anymore

    I had Jeep XJ with the high output 6cyl for a while... on the steeper highway hills you could either run it at high revs in 3rd, or just bury your foot in 4th.... it did't have enough power to push it up a hill in 5th at all. It would just drink fuel like a pig in both situations... and then overhead and boil over. Good ol' Jeeps, haha.
    I'd be curious to know how much the revs matter because you can get very high revs with very low throttle input. It's certainly a factor, but I'd be curious to know how much. On turbo cars especially, you can have high revs with little to no spooling, but as soon as you put a load on the motor or use heavy throttle input, it spools right up along with your fuel consumption.

    I think your #2 point is more the case when passing or going up hills, and yeah if you bury your foot and nothing happens (Like my previous Civic haha), all you're doing is wasting lots of fuel. That's where it seems most noticeable anyway.

    I feel like most cars around 120-140km/h start to fall off that efficiency cliff, probably mostly due to drag and having to feed it a really noticeable amount of throttle to maintain the speed rather than just barely touching the pedal. The big German sedans don't seem to care though, they aren't even working doing 2,000 RPM at 150km/h and I can't imagine they are that much less efficient there than at 120 Km/h. I remember being on the Autobahn in a BMW 760Li and you feel like you're doing 50km/h at 200 Km/h haha.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere between YYC and YVR
    Posts
    6,783
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitsu3000gt View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'd be curious to know how much the revs matter because you can get very high revs with very low throttle input. It's certainly a factor, but I'd be curious to know how much. On turbo cars especially, you can have high revs with little to no spooling, but as soon as you put a load on the motor or use heavy throttle input, it spools right up along with your fuel consumption.

    I think your #2 point is more the case when passing or going up hills, and yeah if you bury your foot and nothing happens (Like my previous Civic haha), all you're doing is wasting lots of fuel. That's where it seems most noticeable anyway.

    I feel like most cars around 120-140km/h start to fall off that efficiency cliff, probably mostly due to drag and having to feed it a really noticeable amount of throttle to maintain the speed rather than just barely touching the pedal. The big German sedans don't seem to care though, they aren't even working doing 2,000 RPM at 150km/h and I can't imagine they are that much less efficient there than at 120 Km/h. I remember being on the Autobahn in a BMW 760Li and you feel like you're doing 50km/h at 200 Km/h haha.
    I don't really see #1 on my Audi, it has 8 gears that don't let the revs get over about 1500 even on the steepest hills. Same sort of deal with the Fiesta, the tallest gear kept you well under 2000 and you always had tons of power on tap. I was getting absurd mileage with the ST on the highway, like low 5L/100km's, and the revs were so low it was almost idling.

    Former cars though such as my Fit and Hummer, both manual, could have wildly changing mileage if you let them sit in the upper rev range too much. As soon as you started getting into the 120km/h range the mileage would start dropping pretty noticeably. The Fit probably would have been ok with another 6th gear.... the Hummer on the other hand was just grossly underpowered.

    I just notice in general that mileage really starts to drop whenever you need to start bringing up the revs... either if you are out of gears, or out of top end power.
    Last edited by Sugarphreak; 06-07-2019 at 02:03 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by flipstah View Post
    You can't score on shots you don't take.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    S.E. (not the drrty south)
    My Ride
    Blandness
    Posts
    6,968
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sugarphreak View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    the Hummer on the other hand was just grossly underpowered.
    Also having a drag coefficient and frontal area of a semi-truck

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 3 4

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Latest Threads: 03-15-2011, 05:37 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Latest Threads: 03-31-2008, 12:15 AM
  3. How many people like what they do?

    By seadog in forum Careers
    Replies: 86
    Latest Threads: 11-22-2007, 12:28 AM
  4. Replies: 23
    Latest Threads: 04-20-2004, 08:12 PM
  5. Replies: 10
    Latest Threads: 05-22-2003, 04:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •