What's your fuel economy to weight ratio? - Page 7 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 05-26-2006, 09:42 AM   #61
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by 95metro
we've horribly hijacked his thread - sorry, Darin, for perpetrating some dead-horse flogging.
No problem at all. I'm just being intellectually lazy on this one and waiting for the dust to settle.

(And this was actually JanGeo's concept originally. I see he's also conspicuously absent in the debate.)
__________________

MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2006, 09:44 AM   #62
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
OOoo! That ^^^ was my 1000th post. I'm not sure if that's a good thing.
__________________

MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2006, 10:00 AM   #63
|V3|2D
 
thisisntjared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,186
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to thisisntjared
so i am alone in this....arg

im going to abstain from this thread for 24 hours then.
__________________
don't waste your time or time will waste you
thisisntjared is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2006, 10:28 AM   #64
Registered Member
 
95metro's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 498
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by thisisntjared
so i am alone in this....arg

im going to abstain from this thread for 24 hours then.
No, no - don't abstain yet - I'm probably going to have to apologize and concede defeat. I totally missed this little equals sign:

weight * mpg
= weight * distance / energy

Thus misconstruing what you were trying to get at once again. The little light's come on now and I get the formula at least...although the final number still leaves me baffled as to what you would call it.

Usability rating? How usable is a semi or train to the average driver though? I find my Aerostar useful for packing crap into, but as a daily driver? Damn wasteful, IMO. Which is why the number needs some definition if we're going to use it in the "garage".

As for my comments regarding hp, torque, etc. meaning nothing on their own, well...in a sense they don't.

Say I have ABC car that makes 800 hp. Okay, nice big, fat number, but it doesn't tell me jack about the car. Give me a few more stats in combination, torque, weight, 1/4 mile time, braking distance, etc and at least I can form a picture. Even 1/4 mile time doesn't mean much unless you compare it to another vehicle.

That's all I'm trying to say. In a very, very long, drawn out, round-about way...
__________________
95metro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2006, 12:55 PM   #65
Registered Member
 
zpiloto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,225
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by zpiloto
mines 3950 on the weight.

are you sure about that? that sounds more like the vehicles gross weight and not curb weight.

You're right that is the GVWR. Sorry. Now to try and find the curb weight.
zpiloto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2006, 01:24 PM   #66
Registered Member
 
95metro's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 498
Country: United States
Okay, last "figuring it out" post for me in this thread. I finally have a suggestion for what to call this formula at least.

First, we alter it moderately just so we know what we are doing:

Vehicle weight / 2000 lb (1 ton) * mpg (use previous 3 fills for now)

So, my Metro is:

1808 lb / 2000 lb = 0.904 tons

0.904 * 43.041 mpg = 38.909

38.909...what??? This is what I was struggling with...what the hell do we call it...and I think I finally hit it: weighed miles per gallon (or would it be weighted miles per gallon?)

So, my Metro is 38.909 wmpg
__________________
95metro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2006, 09:06 AM   #67
*shrug*
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,195
Country: United States
For some reason I have this feeling that part of getting good FE is making possible sacrifices to buy lighter or slower cars, and that that sacrafice will just be eliminated with a statistic like this.

I think what this really is trying to get at is driver skill, which I think is covered by % over epa, yeah?
SVOboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2006, 09:13 AM   #68
Registered Member
 
JanGeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,442
Country: United States
Send a message via Yahoo to JanGeo
back

Sorry guys had a bit of holiday work overload - everybody wants me Saturday for something - I need a vacation! I was up at 6:00am and out the door at 6:10am and back at 11:26pm talk about a long Friday!
JanGeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2006, 09:45 AM   #69
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVOboy
I think what this really is trying to get at is driver skill, which I think is covered by % over epa, yeah?
% over EPA is the main game, yes.

But I like the idea of trying out another data point for comparison, since I learned that my car's EPA is much more optimistic than other vehicles (so, harder to beat).

I'm not stressing over it, just curious how this plays out. It may reveal something interesting.
MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2006, 12:04 PM   #70
|V3|2D
 
thisisntjared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,186
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to thisisntjared
Quote:
Originally Posted by 95metro
Okay, last "figuring it out" post for me in this thread. I finally have a suggestion for what to call this formula at least.

First, we alter it moderately just so we know what we are doing:

Vehicle weight / 2000 lb (1 ton) * mpg (use previous 3 fills for now)

So, my Metro is:

1808 lb / 2000 lb = 0.904 tons

0.904 * 43.041 mpg = 38.909
precisely. however this is not a weighted mpg at all. it is just another number. the efficiency-weight product.

ben has a point, however this is not a matter of driver skill. this statistic is a cars fuel economy with the factor of weight removed. its not that big of a deal and the type of driving the car does will greatly effect this statistic (city vs. highway)

i still think that the % over epa is the best standard for measuring your progress, however the efficiency-weight product can help, as i have mentioned in another post on this thread.

the abstinance really helped me.:
__________________

__________________
don't waste your time or time will waste you
thisisntjared is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Incorrect Milage Calcuatlion PatM Fuelly Web Support and Community News 4 07-17-2009 08:21 PM
Missing Fuelup jmonty Fuelly Web Support and Community News 3 05-27-2009 05:10 AM
Pulse and Glide? Pete7874 General Fuel Topics 24 02-26-2009 12:11 PM
All Licensed Drivers terrapin Fuelly Web Support and Community News 0 08-07-2008 10:49 AM
"active" aero grille slats on 06 civic concept MetroMPG General Fuel Topics 21 01-03-2006 01:02 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.