Jump to content

Gas Mileage Question

GN2018
 Share

Recommended Posts

TNTSierra Senior Enthusiast

TNTSierra

Posted
Posted

Never mind.  I just saw what you highlighted.  My damn iPhone didn’t show it right away.  Too funny!!!  Ya Im not a Tequila fan.

 

we can survive without Tequila. Most of the US can’t survive without gasoline. 

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Wiggums
Wiggums

Dunno about that one.. when I drive, it's a steady foot on the gas pedal. Downhill, I hit 85 mph, uphill, I try to stay above 50 mph, I wish cruise control was based on my foot pressure because I live

Wiggums
Wiggums

I'm actually a moderate, I'm pro-gun and pro-oil, but I see so much bullshit, especially when people blame Biden for something he has no control over. It's like blaming Biden for the Flint water situa

GN2018
GN2018

Thank you.   I'm at a loss as to how knowing who’s fault it is would help me get better gas mileage on my trip.

Posted Images

Dirk13 Enthusiast

Dirk13

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, TNTSilverado said:

Explain

 

edit:
i take it back

 

Edited by Dirk13
Dirk13 Enthusiast

Dirk13

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TNTSilverado said:

Never mind.  I just saw what you highlighted.  My damn iPhone didn’t show it right away.  Too funny!!!  Ya Im not a Tequila fan.

 

we can survive without Tequila. Most of the US can’t survive without gasoline. 

Yeah this mobile version of the forum is trash.

 

I can certainly survive without tequila.

  • Haha 1
TNTSierra Senior Enthusiast

TNTSierra

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, John F. said:

Damn dude calm down. I think you took it out of context. I was making a joke about the Tequila shortage. I said I was lucky about getting a fuel card. But I drive MY truck for my job. You don't know anything about me or my job. I put mileage on MY truck to make the company I work for ALOT of money. I'm good at what o do and get paid accordingly. I'm sorry McDonald's doesn't pay for your gas. Enjoy your Bud Light and chill out. 

First off. It was a very selfish statement. 2nd I could care less what you make for money. Congrats. I have 2 masters degrees (one on the human brain) and I make very good money as well, but I’m not on here stating I don’t care about gas prices. 
You sounded quite ignorant!  Now go have your Tequila and watch The View. Sounds right up your alley. 
 

Good day. 

Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, 1454 said:

That's overly simplistic. Yes, in general terms, ignoring mechanical advantages, this is correct. 

 

 Sir Isaac Newton will be pleased to learn you find his explanations of the laws of motion correct....

in general terms.

 

 

  • Haha 1
1454 Enthusiast

1454

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

 Sir Isaac Newton will be pleased to learn you find his explanations of the laws of motion correct....

in general terms.

 

 

You completely missed the point. The point is that the motor produces 100 hp as low as 1200 RPM, and therefore the lower the RPMs (mechanical advantage) means that driving the *fastest* you can at the lowest RPM results in the highest MPG. You neglected that in your overly simplistic statement. As you seemed to suggest that driving 15 mph would result in better gas mileage than say, 55, with the right gearing. If you can drive 60 and overcome drag @ 900RPM you are going to have peak efficiency as you are already losing most of the energy as heat. Geez. This is why you are one of the most insufferable people on here. 

Edited by 1454
  • Like 2
Wiggums Senior Enthusiast

Wiggums

Posted
Posted

Been reading the thread...

 

Having twice the power doesn't mean twice the speed. Aerodynamics, gearing, terrain, all play a role. Aerodynamics is largely responsible since going twice the speed means 10x the resistance. Even if the truck's RPM is 2,000 at both 60 mph and 80 mph, it is still working much harder at 80 mph due to aerodynamics being whatever-fold compared to 60 mph.

 

I'm no scientist so I'll just stick with my Don Julio 1942.

  • Like 1
Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, 1454 said:

You completely missed the point. The point is that the motor produces 100 hp as low as 1200 RPM, and therefore the lower the RPMs (mechanical advantage) means that driving the *fastest* you can at the lowest RPM results in the highest MPG. You neglected that in your overly simplistic statement. As you seemed to suggest that driving 15 mph would result in better gas mileage than say, 55, with the right gearing. If you can drive 60 and overcome drag @ 900RPM you are going to have peak efficiency as you are already losing most of the energy as heat. Geez. This is why you are one of the most insufferable people on here. 

 

Nope. Missed nothing. Your assumption "As you seem to suggest" is in error. I suggested nothing of the sort. Did you read the article? There was a lower limit at which aero drag is no longer the primary resistance. It gave that number in meters/second and MPH. 

 

The most fuel efficient speed is the one that allows the motor to operate MAINLY in the highest gear AND in the most fuel efficient area of the fuel map. Normally in modern motors that is between one 1K and 1.5K. For most BOX like automobiles this happens to be between 43 and 53 mph. And that, as I said before is AIR speed, not road speed. 43 mph in my personal truck is minimum speed the 6 speed with a 31 inch tire and a 3.23 gear will shift up to high. 

 

I don't argue physics anymore than I would argue the sum of 2 added to 2. Discuss yes, argue no. Have a nice day. 

  • Thanks 2
1454 Enthusiast

1454

Posted
Posted
On 3/9/2022 at 1:13 PM, Wiggums said:

Been reading the thread...

 

Having twice the power doesn't mean twice the speed. Aerodynamics, gearing, terrain, all play a role. Aerodynamics is largely responsible since going twice the speed means 10x the resistance. Even if the truck's RPM is 2,000 at both 60 mph and 80 mph, it is still working much harder at 80 mph due to aerodynamics being whatever-fold compared to 60 mph.

 

I'm no scientist so I'll just stick with my Don Julio 1942.

It's not a linear function, it's an exponential one. 

 

D = Cd * A * .5 * r * V^2

 

Everything before V^2 is constant and 45-80 is only a 3x increase, not 10x in drag force. 

  • Like 1
1454 Enthusiast

1454

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

Nope. Missed nothing. Your assumption "As you seem to suggest" is in error. I suggested nothing of the sort. Did you read the article? There was a lower limit at which aero drag is no longer the primary resistance. It gave that number in meters/second and MPH. 

 

The most fuel efficient speed is the one that allows the motor to operate MAINLY in the highest gear AND in the most fuel efficient area of the fuel map. Normally in modern motors that is between one 1K and 1.5K. For most BOX like automobiles this happens to be between 43 and 53 mph. And that, as I said before is AIR speed, not road speed. 43 mph in my personal truck is minimum speed the 6 speed with a 31 inch tire and a 3.23 gear will shift up to high. 

 

I don't argue physics anymore than I would argue the sum of 2 added to 2. Discuss yes, argue no. Have a nice day. 

I didn't *argue* anything. You made an assumption, which was in error. Now you are backtracking because what I said was correct. You just restated what I previously stated in the response you are replying to.

 

 

  • Like 2
Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, 1454 said:

I didn't *argue* anything. You made an assumption, which was in error. Now you are backtracking because what I said was correct. You just restated what I previously stated in the response you are replying to.

 

 

 

Bull. 

 

For some reason that escapes me people like to believe that saying a thing true makes it true. Like that I said something I did not. Or that I would care what a person that disregards such an obvious and easy to check truth thinks. What I said is part of a permanent record. I have a special dislike for liars. 

 

Not my dog. Not my fight. Believe as you wish. 

Edited by Grumpy Bear
JimCost2014 Senior Enthusiast

JimCost2014

Posted
Posted

To get this post back on track, hope this helps the OP. Remember the numbers are changing daily😬

 

May be an image of text that says 'Fuel: $4.15 gallon Full tank: $140.00 Drive off from gas station without paying: court date 6 weeks later and a $80 fine Savings: $60.00 Subscribe for more money saving tips'

  • Haha 2
redwngr Senior Enthusiast

redwngr

Posted
Posted (edited)

The drag force can be expressed as:

Fd = cd 1/2 ρ v2 A  

 

where

Fd = drag force (N)

cd = drag coefficient

ρ = density of fluid (1.2 kg/m3 for air at NTP)

v = flow velocity (m/s)

A = characteristic frontal area of the body  (m2)

 

 

So, for any drag coefficient, the drag force will increase with the square of the velocity.

Edited by redwngr
TNTSierra Senior Enthusiast

TNTSierra

Posted
Posted

Throughout this week, I have been doing a little test on my truck. Since "I pay for my own gas", and it's out of control at $4.39 for premium here in Iowa. I have seen my mileage to work increase from 23.9 mpg's from 17.6 mpgs.  Now this is just the trip meter and dash indicator on the truck but bare with me. Here is what I have done:

 

First when I take off, I haven't let the truck go above 2000 rpms, instead of accelerating at normal or a little aggressive speed.

 

Second, I have set the cruise at 67 mph, this seems like the sweet spot for my truck. The highway I travel is 65, so I don't want to go slower than that, because of idiots still driving 75-80 mph. The RPM's are around 1400 with the 10 spd.

 

I also have not remote started the truck all week. So after work, yes, it stinks when cold, but it has helped tremendously. I usually get a tank out of one weeks worth (Sunday-Sunday).  I still have a little over a half a tank of gas today (243 miles to empty), last Friday I was at 138 miles to empty. All through the dash, I know, not truly accurate but still 100 miles is a big difference.  

 

Just thought I'd share what I have found. Hopefully some of you guys can benefit from slowing down, relaxing, leaving 10 minutes earlier for work, enjoying the scenery, and just enjoying life and the simple things, because its chaos out there right now and we need a little comfort/peace.

 

Take care, hope this helps, have great weekend gentlemen. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • silveradosid
      Replacing 2.7L on 2021 Silverado with 2023 2.7L

      By silveradosid · Posted

      same here , i have a 2020 first gen and the cost to repair these engines far excedes replacement
    • KARNUT
      OCI, not when but why?

      By KARNUT · Posted

      But Grumpy I did show several subdivisions that had homes starting in the 170K range. If you bought a Townhouse or Condo you could go cheaper. Same with a car 3000 dollars in the 70s translates to around 20K today. There are several models at that price. You actually get more for the money. In the 70s I drove a 3000$ car bought a 28K home and made 4.50 per hour. Thank goodness for overtime. Today I could buy a 170K house drive a 20K car and make 25 dollars an hour operating the same machine today. The difference the house, car, machine would be better and have AC. And I wouldn’t be taxed on overtime. And statistically your wife works too. Easing the burden. I thought we agreed to disagree. I brought receipts earlier, showing examples. I think you’re more stubborn than me. I was done with this debate. 
    • Coastie05
      Replacing 2.7L on 2021 Silverado with 2023 2.7L

      By Coastie05 · Posted

      I’m definitely interested to hear the end result here. 
    • MASONV88888888
      Another 6.2L engine failure!

      By MASONV88888888 · Posted

      My 2025 Silverado 1500 had to receive a brand-new engine (long block) under warranty last month at only around 16,500 miles. Before the replacement, the truck repeatedly displayed "Engine Oil Level Low" warnings, even though the Oil Life Monitor still showed around 50% remaining after about 6,000 miles since my last oil change. After seeing the warning several times, I checked the dipstick with the engine cold, and the oil level was completely normal. The next day, the message escalated to "Add Engine Oil." At first, I assumed it was just a faulty oil level sensor, so I brought the truck to the dealership. After inspecting the engine, they found internal cylinder wall scoring and ultimately replaced the entire long block under warranty. Before this happened, I was planning to install a 4-inch lift and suspension upgrade on my truck. After needing a new engine at just 16,500 miles, I honestly don't see the point anymore. I also contacted GM to ask whether my vehicle qualified for a buyback, but I was informed that it does not at this time. Anyway, this experience has left me with serious concerns about the long-term reliability of this engine. I sincerely hope NHTSA expands the current investigation or recall to include 2025 model and performs a thorough inspection of affected vehicles. My biggest concern is that these engines may fail shortly after the powertrain warranty expires. If GM truly stands behind this engine, then at the very least, please consider extending the powertrain warranty to 10 years for affected owners. That would go a long way toward restoring customer confidence.
    • Grumpy Bear
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Without exception but then I'm the odd duck, right? I know what goes into that test, how it is calculated and thus how to beat it. But EPA values are often not beaten by the general public and the government has in past years adjusted the means and methods to come to those values to more closely approximate "Joe Average".    The only real trick to beating that EPA average is don't drive like "Joe Average".    It's the same method you used to profit from "Economic Migration" and in doing so beat the 'stats'. But you, like me, are not "Joe Average".     The thing you don't seem to grasp is this "Purchasing Power Index" isn't forward looking. It doesn't predict what it going to be but looks backward and states what it was. They are not telling us what the THINK, they are telling us what they MEASURED. Example:    Wife says "I'm going to lose 40 pounds by Christmas". May she does, maybe she doesn't but the doctors office who weighed her when she made that statement and again at Christmas only REPORTS what the RESULT was. You and I can banter about what was possible and what aunt Tilly did till the cows come home but the result is the result. Arguing otherwise is.....irrational. That's all I'm saying. This isn't about:      What you are calling a 'Statistic' is a RESULT not a CALCUATION and as a result the RULE. Like gravity as a rule, it can not be broken. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...