Red_RS
Member
I HATE that one!! My boss says it all the time. Drives me nuts.
April MPG Competition powered by Insanika
- Thread starter GeneralZod
- Start date
I HATE that one!! My boss says it all the time. Drives me nuts.
Swordsmith
242hp/252 ft-lbs BNR EFI
I am not trying for any particular award, just posting data. BUT I'm not going to be very informative since I won't be using any one particular style; I did a long several tank run using 87 with an extra half ton of weight on board and 99% high speed interstate, then I burned a tank doing very mixed short trip runs anywhere from 25mph with stoplights to 80mph highway, now I'm running a tank at about 60% alcohol so I can get one that's nearly pure E85... if my data is tied to me personally over an entire month's run, instead of to what fuel I'm running and the sort of driving I'm doing on a per-tank basis, I don't really see how the data will matter much at all.
"you get this MPG on average if you drive like you roll a D6 every morning to see how you should drive"?
"you get this MPG on average if you drive like you roll a D6 every morning to see how you should drive"?
ungawd
New member
Be that as it may... your mama.
Irregardless, it is what it is and what it is is the stats from my last tank.
Username: ungawd
Style: Sedan
Trim: LTZ
Engine: 1.4t
Transmission: AT
Tune: Premium
Octane: 93
E85: no
Miles: 219.4
Gallons: 6.255
Tank: Mixed
Notes: This tank was my trip to the dragstrip in Columbus. It includes 5 passes on the strip, the driving necessary to facilitate the runs, and around 25 miles driving around home to get the total well above 200.
chivalryder
New member
I completely agree that the most fuel efficient driving patterns are fully dependent on the conditions you are driving in.
My commute to/from school involves 45km of nearly dead flat roads with a 200m tall escarpment I coast down and then drive back up in both directions. Aside from the escarpment, the entire drive is essentially a steady climb or steady roll downhill.
I tested the neutral vs gear myself going down the escarpment. In gear, my car read a fuel consumption of 0.2L/100km. In neutral, it read 1.2L/100km. In both scenarios, I accelerated from approximately 40kmph to 75kmph over a distance of 300m. It's not much, but it was legitimate enough to me to prove that, in the moment, staying in gear is more fuel efficient.
I will completely agree that, when going downhill and approaching a climb, it may be better to stay in neutral so you don't have to use as much throttle climbing the next hill, thus burning less fuel in the long run.
However, the point I was making was that the instantaneous mileage is better while coasting in gear than in neutral.
Regardless of which one is better, WOT is the most fun option.
My commute to/from school involves 45km of nearly dead flat roads with a 200m tall escarpment I coast down and then drive back up in both directions. Aside from the escarpment, the entire drive is essentially a steady climb or steady roll downhill.
I tested the neutral vs gear myself going down the escarpment. In gear, my car read a fuel consumption of 0.2L/100km. In neutral, it read 1.2L/100km. In both scenarios, I accelerated from approximately 40kmph to 75kmph over a distance of 300m. It's not much, but it was legitimate enough to me to prove that, in the moment, staying in gear is more fuel efficient.
I will completely agree that, when going downhill and approaching a climb, it may be better to stay in neutral so you don't have to use as much throttle climbing the next hill, thus burning less fuel in the long run.
However, the point I was making was that the instantaneous mileage is better while coasting in gear than in neutral.
Regardless of which one is better, WOT is the most fun option.
Preloader
The M32 Martyr
3rd Entry
Username:Preloader
Style: Hatch
Trim: Z
Engine: 1.4T
Transmission: MT
Tune: E85 Trifecta
Octane:
E85: yes
Miles: 257.0
Gallons: 9.50
Tank: 98% highway
Notes: this entire tank was 98% highway, never above 70mph, and my most ambitious attempt at my high mpg score with e85. It was the least fun I've had in my car since I've owned it. But I had to know.
I'm flashing in my red pill tomorrow, so you can imagine that my mpg will be all over the place.
I'll continue to enter my data for research, but I am DONE with this hypermile crap.
All time best for me on e85= 27.05MPG
Username:Preloader
Style: Hatch
Trim: Z
Engine: 1.4T
Transmission: MT
Tune: E85 Trifecta
Octane:
E85: yes
Miles: 257.0
Gallons: 9.50
Tank: 98% highway
Notes: this entire tank was 98% highway, never above 70mph, and my most ambitious attempt at my high mpg score with e85. It was the least fun I've had in my car since I've owned it. But I had to know.
I'm flashing in my red pill tomorrow, so you can imagine that my mpg will be all over the place.
I'll continue to enter my data for research, but I am DONE with this hypermile crap.All time best for me on e85= 27.05MPG
chivalryder
New member
Makusue
New member
MPG Competition. Makusue RS
Username:Makusue
Style: HB
Trim: RS
Engine: 1.4
Transmission: MT6
Tune: premium
Octane: 93
E85: no
Miles: 300.10
Gallons: 10.1
Tank: mixed
Notes: above detail is for 1st tank with premium trifecta and SAB. A few hard 0-80mph runs and a few highway role-ons from 80-100mph, 50/40 highway/rural (most highway at 80 mph). rural at an approx average of 45mph. a littel city and high traffic.
Currently on my 2nd tank with the DDM intake ADDHDed
I'll granny-run my 3rd tank with hopes to take the RS award.
Best MPG prior to tune was 29.
opcorn:
Username:Makusue
Style: HB
Trim: RS
Engine: 1.4
Transmission: MT6
Tune: premium
Octane: 93
E85: no
Miles: 300.10
Gallons: 10.1
Tank: mixed
Notes: above detail is for 1st tank with premium trifecta and SAB. A few hard 0-80mph runs and a few highway role-ons from 80-100mph, 50/40 highway/rural (most highway at 80 mph). rural at an approx average of 45mph. a littel city and high traffic.
Currently on my 2nd tank with the DDM intake ADDHDed
I'll granny-run my 3rd tank with hopes to take the RS award.
Best MPG prior to tune was 29.
opcorn:
ungawd
New member
That isn't bad. By energy density it translates to 36.07mpg E10.
Macehammer
New member
On the forum, or just in real life?
On the forum you need to edit your profile.
In real life you just need to be cool. I would start by hiring a little person to follow you around playing your theme music on a boombox...
Macehammer
New member
Username:MACEHAMMER
Style: HB
Trim: RS
Engine: 1.4TURBO
Transmission: AUTO 6
Tune: performance/stock (all stock this tank)
Octane: 87
E85: no
Miles: 405.3
Gallons: 11.001
Tank: 87 octane shell
Notes: Granny driving again. 60mph tops. 85% highway.
Style: HB
Trim: RS
Engine: 1.4TURBO
Transmission: AUTO 6
Tune: performance/stock (all stock this tank)
Octane: 87
E85: no
Miles: 405.3
Gallons: 11.001
Tank: 87 octane shell
Notes: Granny driving again. 60mph tops. 85% highway.
ScooterMcTavish
New member
Username: ScooterMcTavish
Style: hatch
Trim: LT
Engine: 1.8
Transmission: AT
Tune: none
Octane: 87, winter fuel, 10% ethanol
E85: no
Miles: 232.0
Gallons: 8.24
Tank: 20city, 80 highway
Notes: Some highway at 66 MPH, some highway at 50 MPH (ice covered roads), long coast downs in neutral, normal city mix this drive, AM temps in the 0 to -5F range, PM temps in the 20-30F range. WINTER IS NOT LEAVING!
On the coast down vs. leave in gear, I did test this a few times, and I do live in a very flat place.
Although the leave in gear has initial better mileage, I have found that the shortened distance due to engine braking likely gives worse mileage overall. Like Smitty says, you can feel it turn off the injectors - and mine doesn't all the time, maybe due to temperatures. Regardless, the difference on the DIC was nominal.
Regardless, the longer roll out (to me) makes way up for any extra gas initially burned.
BTW, I want the "whiniest Sonic owner award" as I'm always complaining about my mileage. Even if I get to my mythical holy grail of 35 MPG blended, I will still be looking at those getting over 40 with envy.
Style: hatch
Trim: LT
Engine: 1.8
Transmission: AT
Tune: none
Octane: 87, winter fuel, 10% ethanol
E85: no
Miles: 232.0
Gallons: 8.24
Tank: 20city, 80 highway
Notes: Some highway at 66 MPH, some highway at 50 MPH (ice covered roads), long coast downs in neutral, normal city mix this drive, AM temps in the 0 to -5F range, PM temps in the 20-30F range. WINTER IS NOT LEAVING!
On the coast down vs. leave in gear, I did test this a few times, and I do live in a very flat place.
Although the leave in gear has initial better mileage, I have found that the shortened distance due to engine braking likely gives worse mileage overall. Like Smitty says, you can feel it turn off the injectors - and mine doesn't all the time, maybe due to temperatures. Regardless, the difference on the DIC was nominal.
Regardless, the longer roll out (to me) makes way up for any extra gas initially burned.
BTW, I want the "whiniest Sonic owner award" as I'm always complaining about my mileage. Even if I get to my mythical holy grail of 35 MPG blended, I will still be looking at those getting over 40 with envy.
Last edited:
Macehammer
New member
I just got over 35mpg blended, in an RS.
Your gearing is better than mine. If you cannot accomplish this:
Stop making short trips
Slow down a little
Use the window, not the A/C.
Shift to the highest gear possible, as soon as possible(without lugging)...
Swordsmith
242hp/252 ft-lbs BNR EFI
I can see the logic of coasting in gear if you want to slow down or if there's enough slope to maintain your speed for a prolonged period of time. But normally when I'm coasting, it's in a situation where I don't actually want to slow down; I'm heading down the highway, there's a slope I can run down without needing any torque at all, and in all likelyhood a slope back up on the other side. Clutch in, I lose less speed or gain more speed than I do leaving it in gear, which seems logical since I'd be using some of the car's momentum to keep the engine spinning otherwise.
If I wanted to slow down, or just to not accelerate so much due to a steep grade, then sure I'd leave it in gear, and I'm excited to hear that this will actually save a little bit more fuel than using clutch plus brake to accomplish the same thing.
But what I keep hearing reported, although it seems illogical to me, is that I'd actually save more fuel staying in gear even in the situations where I think I'd be better off clutch in. This would mean that the fuel burned idling during that period is greater than the fuel that I'd use to make up for the lost speed when I do go back to accelerating.
I'm not saying that's impossible, I'm just saying it is counter-intuitive.
I'm not interested in the MPG during only the time spent coasting one way or the other, but the short trip MPG over the run of coast plus re-accelerate.
In other words, top a hill going 70, go down slope and then back up to the top of next same height hill, hitting 70 again at the top of the hill. How much total fuel used hilltop to hilltop with each method. Also, total time elapsed, in other words do you go 70 down to 60 then back up to 70, stay 70 all the time, go 70 to 80 and then slow back to 70?
If I wanted to slow down, or just to not accelerate so much due to a steep grade, then sure I'd leave it in gear, and I'm excited to hear that this will actually save a little bit more fuel than using clutch plus brake to accomplish the same thing.
But what I keep hearing reported, although it seems illogical to me, is that I'd actually save more fuel staying in gear even in the situations where I think I'd be better off clutch in. This would mean that the fuel burned idling during that period is greater than the fuel that I'd use to make up for the lost speed when I do go back to accelerating.
I'm not saying that's impossible, I'm just saying it is counter-intuitive.
I'm not interested in the MPG during only the time spent coasting one way or the other, but the short trip MPG over the run of coast plus re-accelerate.
In other words, top a hill going 70, go down slope and then back up to the top of next same height hill, hitting 70 again at the top of the hill. How much total fuel used hilltop to hilltop with each method. Also, total time elapsed, in other words do you go 70 down to 60 then back up to 70, stay 70 all the time, go 70 to 80 and then slow back to 70?
Swordsmith
242hp/252 ft-lbs BNR EFI
Mythbusters did a test of this theory, and (on their car, which wasn't a Sonic, so YMMV) showed that the hit to mpg due to drag induced by an open window was larger than the hit due to running the AC.
I think best practice is to open all the windows first thing in your trip, cycle all the hot air you got from letting the car sit greenhousing out for ambient temp air, then button up and AC till cool if ambient is too warm for you, then stay on recirc fan with AC off until it gets too hot for you again, which is to say you're maybe running AC 5 minutes out of every hour.
Windows open at slow speeds, but closed at high speeds.
Of course I haven't owned my Sonic on a day where the temp was over 80, so maybe I'll change my mind when it's warmer out. The AC does cost a couple mpg for sure, just so far I haven't had to leave it run constantly.
ScooterMcTavish
New member
This post should be a good "Whiny" one.....
I think the cold weather here right now is the biggest factor.
My normal trip is 36 miles, 80-85% highway, and my regular highway speed is 100kph (62 MPH). Do not use A/C as it's been freaking cold, and even try not to use defrost to keep the compressor from kicking in.
Also do use the manual shift when getting on the highway, and do gentle acceleration.
Really, I'm driving about as slowly and boring as I can. No idling.
Oddly enough, I've noticed in the MPG forum there are guys who buy new Sonics and are turning 40 MPG off the lot. I've never had a tank over 30 MPG. I'm told "wait until it warms up", "anything under 30* F kills mileage" and "don't expect improvement until after 10,000 mi". With the way I'm driving, I should be above the EPA estimate, not below it.
Like I said in an MPG forum post, I got over 32MPG in my 95 Neon with a 3 speed auto and 2L bombing around at 75-80 MPH. That a brand new "economy" car is getting under 30 MPG makes me scratch my head, and wonder what the heck Detroit was doing for the past 18 years.
Really like the car and it's style, but already starting to wonder if I should have gone with the Civic or Fiesta instead. If I was getting 15% more mileage (which I should be), that would save me $470/yr in gas. That's more than enough to cover off the price spread to either of the other cars, with the Civic arguably having better resale value after 5 years (even if it was as boring as vanilla ice cream).
I think the cold weather here right now is the biggest factor.
My normal trip is 36 miles, 80-85% highway, and my regular highway speed is 100kph (62 MPH). Do not use A/C as it's been freaking cold, and even try not to use defrost to keep the compressor from kicking in.
Also do use the manual shift when getting on the highway, and do gentle acceleration.
Really, I'm driving about as slowly and boring as I can. No idling.
Oddly enough, I've noticed in the MPG forum there are guys who buy new Sonics and are turning 40 MPG off the lot. I've never had a tank over 30 MPG. I'm told "wait until it warms up", "anything under 30* F kills mileage" and "don't expect improvement until after 10,000 mi". With the way I'm driving, I should be above the EPA estimate, not below it.
Like I said in an MPG forum post, I got over 32MPG in my 95 Neon with a 3 speed auto and 2L bombing around at 75-80 MPH. That a brand new "economy" car is getting under 30 MPG makes me scratch my head, and wonder what the heck Detroit was doing for the past 18 years.
Really like the car and it's style, but already starting to wonder if I should have gone with the Civic or Fiesta instead. If I was getting 15% more mileage (which I should be), that would save me $470/yr in gas. That's more than enough to cover off the price spread to either of the other cars, with the Civic arguably having better resale value after 5 years (even if it was as boring as vanilla ice cream).
Last edited:
Palmaris
New member
The cold weather really has a drastic effect. I have not noticed it in other cars as much as I notice it in this one.
Also, perhaps even the headwind/Tailwind effect is greater on the Hatch? Its hard to say. Of course I get much better MPG going downhill with likely tailwind than I do coming back (therefore Uphill, headwind!). My last cars did not have a mpg calculator so I could not notice this effect when I drove the same route.
chivalryder
New member
Mythbusters cannot properly test a scenario like this.
However, Consumer Reports did a very thorough test on various situations to see if windows or A/C used more gas.
Basically what they found was: City speeds, windows down because A/C does eat gas, but the aerodynamic drag from having windows down is negligible at lower speeds. Also, idling with A/C on eats a horrid amount of gas.
Non-city speeds, or 40+ mph, windows down actually consumed EQUAL amount of gas as running the A/C. If A/C gives you a 2-5mpg drop, so will having the windows down.
Obviously, there is a point at which having the windows down will produce more drag than running an A/C will, so windows down will eventually consume more gas, but the speed required to do that is well over the legal limit.
Flying along at 65+kmph, running the A/C is a lot more comfortable.
Swordsmith
242hp/252 ft-lbs BNR EFI
But windows up and AC off will consume less than either, and the best windows down can achieve is ambient temps plus some wind chill effect. That's why I figure use windows to dump built up heat, AC to reach comfortable, and recirc vent to keep things moving, would be the ideal plan. Again, we'll see how I feel driving around in the 90's later.
I also hate what the highway speed wind does to my eyes, so I'm biased in favor of AC.
As for cold weather, I'm still looking into rigging it so blowing hot air on the windshield doesn't also automatically turn on the compressor; I feel I can manually do that via the AC button and save by using compressor only when I actually need the drying effect.
I also hate what the highway speed wind does to my eyes, so I'm biased in favor of AC.
As for cold weather, I'm still looking into rigging it so blowing hot air on the windshield doesn't also automatically turn on the compressor; I feel I can manually do that via the AC button and save by using compressor only when I actually need the drying effect.
