"CO ZX2" what have you done to your car ???

[skewbe]

Yah, I don't know if being in the mountains helps. You'd have to get 30mpg while climbing, in a 2500lb car...

Best tank yet at 70mpg, with experimenting, 180 miles a day, either something aint right or life just isn't fair

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Depends on whether the universe is composed of discrete pieces, so, maybe.

[MetroMPG]

I don't doubt that CO is reporting honest figures, but I think the elevation change is the key question (as has been pointed out).

It's for that reason I generally don't report 1-way results. The best measure of a car/driver is round trip figures.

I've had some ridiculously high 1-way legs of various trips.

[skewbe]

Ok, I think I see what didn't sound right to me, really its the 60mpg that I'm trying to make sense out of:

In CO ZX2s posts on his driving technique he mentions going 65, albeit max.

and in the 100mpg post he mentions holding a "reasonable highway speed".

BUT, he's out in the stix, light traffic, probably doesn't have to stop unless he wants to, yet the average speed is 39mph per the scanguage (including rolling down at least one hill at 63mph). I suspect he is going slower than I figured. Which makes it more plausable.

Just speculating for fun here Hope you don't mind CO ZX2

[CO ZX2]

Originally Posted by elg

Snow and cold, bad MPG is holding me back a bit, but could not stay away from this site.

Just read top 10?s and find a big Ford making 70mpg ??? If this is correct this guy has a lot to learn me ! What on earth have you done to your car ?
3.357 L/ 100km. A car like this with 2L engine...
"Maybe I?m out on a very slippry ICE here ?"

What is the actual driving weight and relativ Cw for this machine ?

I want a Ford after this.

What on earth have you done to your car ?

elg, I have answered many questions similar to yours in the 3 months I have been a member of GasSavers. I have attempted to be as honest and straightforword as I know how. I have provided ScanGauge documentation in many instances.

I will include a link to another of my threads with a link on Page 1 to every post I have ever made on GasSavers. I am sure questions I have already answered need not be repeated. Please read these posts carefully.
http://www.gassavers.org/showthread.php?t=2208

I have never heard a Ford Escort described as being a 'big' Ford. As to the 90 day Top Ten my current MPG is 60.6. My one and only 70 MPG fill on 11/21/06 averaged 70.65 MPG for 736 miles. This tank was used in a 4 day period including some of my cold weather MPG tests. Two tanks before I had a 51.05 MPG tank. I have averaged 55.68 MPG for over 6000 miles-All driving, low speed, highspeed, downhill(elevation drops), uphill(elevation gains), coasting, city, rural, mountain passes, flats, warmup, moving around the driveway. It would be great that if I accomplished something once that figure would always be there but it doesn't work that way.

I have never had my car on a scale. Factory weight is listed as 2560#. I weigh 160#. Some of my best runs have included my wife as passenger. Nothing is stripped from this car. I saw listed somewhere CD .37 for this car.

One of the main reasons I bought a ScanGauge was to alleviate fill-up inconsistencies experienced with pumps, tank capacity, tilt etc. I found with the ScanGauge I was not the FE driver I could be. I have made drastic FE improvements attributable to driving style changes. I have verified registered miles with speedo, ScanGauge, milepost markers and Google Earth.

I can sympathize with you on snow and cold. I have not moved very much in the last two months. Snowpacked roads, I am 10 miles from a (sometimes) dry highway. We have had 1-4 ft. of snow on the ground since the last part of November. This morning temperature here was minus 10 degrees F.

[GasSavers_elg]

About the hills:

This is not ment for CO ZX2, it?s my personal thoughts.
Just because of the losses in energy say 65 to 80 % when you go up I don?t see why even rolling on the down hill should compensate and make hilly track more economical.

Back to the Ford:
Anyway, yes I belive your Ford is at least a MIDsize, 1200kg or around.

Like most of the guys here I?ve tried out several things to make the high mpg But for me coming below 3.5L/100km is just a hard time. Even if I turn off the engine in coasting or the weight is close to 800kg, put cardboard in teh grill and pray to ...

Never mind. Just in the thoughts:
What about this driving tec. I can for a test do the same as you with my 800kg and 1.2L engine running on AFR 17, and we go on a neutral track both upp and downs to end up at the same level. I belive your figures are better than I could get and awnser my self why ?

And about the weight, we all know the formula of acceleration and weight. Ok, I also know that over say 55-65km/h the drag is holding you back the most but once you are going uphill there you have it and cause of the losses you don?t being gained enough in the downs. Or we have to stop at red light or reduce for traffic, acceleration again and this with more weight has to be compensated with driving skill...

So, on a flat track how do you do it ?

How correct is the distancemeter in your figures ?

This is not for beeing noughty or so just so, I and all others can get a gain of 50% or more. It?s all about MPG.

// elg

[cfg83]

elg -

Originally Posted by elg

About the hills:

This is not ment for CO ZX2, it´s my personal thoughts.
Just because of the losses in energy say 65 to 80 % when you go up I don´t see why even rolling on the down hill should compensate and make hilly track more economical.

I don't think the hills have anything to do with it. I think CO ZX2 is getting 60 MPG on average. He is like basjoos because he has optimized his aerodynamics.

Back to the Ford:
Anyway, yes I belive your Ford is at least a MIDsize, 1200kg or around.

I think you are applying European standards. A 2500 lb car in the USA is a small car. My parents have this car. For USA standards, the ZX2 is a small car. See here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-size_car
A mid-size car, frequently referred to as an intermediate, is the North American term for an automobile with a size between that of a compact and a full-size car. In Europe, cars of a similar size are often referred to as large family cars or executive cars, depending on whether they are luxury cars. As many of them are sedans, they are commonly called saloon cars within the United Kingdom and sedans throughout Europe.

A Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, or Ford Taurus are Mid-Size cars in the USA.

Like most of the guys here I´ve tried out several things to make the high mpg But for me coming below 3.5L/100km is just a hard time. Even if I turn off the engine in coasting or the weight is close to 800kg, put cardboard in teh grill and pray to ...

Never mind. Just in the thoughts:
What about this driving tec. I can for a test do the same as you with my 800kg and 1.2L engine running on AFR 17, and we go on a neutral track both upp and downs to end up at the same level. I belive your figures are better than I could get and awnser my self why ?

And about the weight, we all know the formula of acceleration and weight. Ok, I also know that over say 55-65km/h the drag is holding you back the most but once you are going uphill there you have it and cause of the losses you don´t being gained enough in the downs. Or we have to stop at red light or reduce for traffic, acceleration again and this with more weight has to be compensated with driving skill...

So, on a flat track how do you do it ?

How correct is the distancemeter in your figures ?

This is not for beeing noughty or so just so, I and all others can get a gain of 50% or more. It´s all about MPG.

// elg

CarloSW2

[CO ZX2]

Originally Posted by skewbe

Ok, I think I see what didn't sound right to me, really its the 60mpg that I'm trying to make sense out of:

In CO ZX2s posts on his driving technique he mentions going 65, albeit max.

and in the 100mpg post he mentions holding a "reasonable highway speed".

BUT, he's out in the stix, light traffic, probably doesn't have to stop unless he wants to, yet the average speed is 39mph per the scanguage (including rolling down at least one hill at 63mph). I suspect he is going slower than I figured. Which makes it more plausable.

Just speculating for fun here Hope you don't mind CO ZX2

Hell, I don't mind. I'm getting kinda used to it. If some of you guys would figure as hard for yourselves as you figure for me, hard telling what MPG you would be getting. Is this the only place there are uphills and downhills?

The road for the post to which you are referring is a two-lane with a number of 20-30 MPH corners. I had to fudge those corners quite a bit to average even 39 MPH. When I turned around in my driveway to get going, acceleration from zero to whatever speed at least 3 times. Decel many times for curves. Stop to turn around at end also figured in. Hard to average 65 with these conditions. Overall that day my MPG averaged 70.4. 70 MPG is the original question in this thread. Most, if not all, fantastic MPG runs are done at ridiculously low MPH figures. Most all 100 MPG runs that I have noticed were done at 15-20 MPH. Does that have much practical use for anyone?

Read further into that thread and you will find my story of weaving my way through 150 cattle on the road on the return. Spent about 10 minutes creeping in second gear. Hard to avg. 65 doing that.

[landspeed]

Something mentioned earlier regarding hilly terrain - if the hills are the correct grade, you can use 40% throttle up the hills, avoiding engine fuel enrichment, and increasing engine efficiency, and then coast down the hills with engine off. This increases the overall efficiency!

[GasSavers_elg]

ok so 70mpg is a good relativ figure that is for sure and it?s after about 1000km so far I understand.

To my calcuator: 3.79/(70*0.1609)=0.3365L/10km ! not exactly but close.
So why don?t I load 300kg in the Micra and go for the ride of my life !

Midsize or not, top five gasoline car in gassavers garage all around 800-1000kg exept one with 200kg more.
Still no awnser about the tripmeter, so I guess there we have the problem.
Maybe some 20% error:
0.3365*1.2=0.4038, and now it seems more like it.

About numbers I read alot coming from MetroMPG and this is great, this I belive, very good work, and hard work, but load MetroMPG:s car with extra 300kg and I?m sure the most people think this will totally destroy fine MPGs ! So do I.

Like I said before, this is not for beeing noughty, just fun and to know,
you can read alot on the net and not everything is true, but on this site for some reason I belive it is true so Good Luck !