What's your fuel economy to weight ratio?

[diamondlarry]

My number comes to 128.93(2392x55.43/1000) with las weekend's trip.

[95metro]

Originally Posted by Compaq888

the higher the number the better

Which is why people with heavier vehicles seem to be favoring it, but the number seems to be completely meaningless and the term pound-miles per gallon makes it even more meaningless. At least mpg per pound made sense though it's hardly an absolute and doesn't tell you much vehicle to vehicle.

mpg/ton would give a larger number overall. At 44 mpg my car would be 48.7 mpg/ton.

I just don't like numbers that don't have any particular meaning and unless somebody can give me a concise, rational explanation for pound-miles per gallon it I'll vote against it.

[SVOboy]

Pound-miles per gallon: 80

Metro, if you don't have the time I'll make a table of everyone's stats in your original post, lemme know.

[95metro]

Sorry, I know I'm probably bugging everyone by now, but I had to figure out some meaning to this pound-miles per gallon thing...which I can only do if I have some basis to go by.

Using the EPA average, my Metro should be 84.0255 (1807*46.5/1000). However, it actually is 1807*43.041 (average of last 3 tanks) /1000 = 77.7751.

This makes my car 7% under the EPA lb-mpg...which is interesting, because I come up with the EXACT SAME percentage if I just use the mpg numbers:

1 - 43.041/46.5 = 7.439%
1 - 77.7751/84.0255 = 7.439%

Can somebody please show me the point in lb-mpg now??? Yes, I'm a pain in the gassavers...

[Bunger]

Vehicle weight is going to be a greater factor with people who do a lot of city driving or a lot of steep hill climbing. I agree that if we are going to come up with some kind of equation to give everyone a level playing field, then cdA is going to have to be factored into the mix.

[SVOboy]

The point of lb-mpg is to factor in vehicle weight. *shrug* though, no baseball fans to figure out good stats for us to use.

[95metro]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

The point of lb-mpg is to factor in vehicle weight. *shrug* though, no baseball fans to figure out good stats for us to use.

But I just proved that on a percentage basis it doesn't factor in anything - it's just a bigger, prettier number that's completely meaningless.

If people want a level playing field then we have to come up with a ratings system that we can all agree on. What about something like this:

Fuel Economy Point Chart

Base points (stock vehicle): 50
Hybrid: -5
Featherweight (under 1 ton): -5
Middleweight (1 to 1.5 tons): 0
Heavyweight (1.5 to 2.5 tons): +5
Ultra-Heavyweight (over 2.5 tons): +10
Manual Trans: 0
Auto Trans: +5
Bone stock meet or exceed EPA (driving style points): +10
Mods: +1 for each mpg increase

[SVOboy]

I know, that's why I said we needed good stats...but nevertheless, it does factor in vehicle weight.

[Bunger]

How about something like:

(cdA * MPG) * ( 1 + (Weight / 2000)) = X

So my d15z1 CRX would be:

(5.71 * 62) * 1.75 = 619.5

[GasSavers_katman]

Originally Posted by thisisntjared

i think the average of the last 5 tanks should be the average that is displayed.)

Let's see, that's about 3000 miles and 6 months.