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

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 05-24-2006, 07:04 PM   #1
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
What's your fuel economy to weight ratio?

JanGeo just posted an inspired question in response to my 100+ segment:

He asked how many MPG per pound it worked out to.

What a great question. Speed performance enthusiasts love to talk power to weight ratios. So why wouldn't efficiency performance enthusiasts compare MPG to weight ratios? (Aside from the fact that one ratio is a set of fixed numbers and the second ratio isn't, necessarily...)

FYI, my 3 month (3 tank) average is currently 59.3 (US). The car weighs 1830 lbs.

Edit: instead of the original suggestion of mpg/weight we're going with this formula...

vehicle weight (lbs) * MPG / 1000

... to get "pound miles per gallon (/1000)"

1800# * 59.3 / 1000 = 108.519 for the Blackfly

What's yours?
__________________

MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2006, 07:12 PM   #2
Registered Member
 
zpiloto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,225
Country: United States
My 3 month avgerage 34.4. Car weighs 3950.

That's .0087 I need to carry a lot of decimals.
__________________

zpiloto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2006, 07:20 PM   #3
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by zpiloto
I need to carry a lot of decimals.


I added a digit to my ratio. I suspect 4 decimal places will work for most.
MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2006, 07:53 PM   #4
|V3|2D
 
thisisntjared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,186
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to thisisntjared
would the measure of efficiency be the mpg multiplied by the weight then divided by some constant? the efficiency to weight ratio doesnt really say anything...

see:
with driver:
40/2300 = .01739
without:
40/2130 = .01878

and are we doing this with or without the driver?

anyway i think we should divide by 1000. its funny cus now you cant call it a ratio. product?? haha the efficiency to weight product.

with driver:
40*2300/1000 = 92
without:
40*2130/1000 = 85.2
__________________
don't waste your time or time will waste you
thisisntjared is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2006, 08:04 PM   #5
Registered Member
 
kickflipjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 933
Country: United States
My average is 32.2 My cars weight is 2350

That is .0137
__________________
2008 EPA adjusted:


Distance traveled by bicycle in 2007= 1,830ish miles
Average commute speed=25mph (yes, that's in a car)
kickflipjr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2006, 08:09 PM   #6
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_Randy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 98
Country: United States
Mine's about 2500 lbs, and my last 5 tanks average 39.8.

However, I think it should be multiplied, not divided. A semi getting 100 mpg should be more impressive than a metro, but the ratio would be lower.

The result would be in pound-miles per gallon.
GasSavers_Randy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2006, 08:36 PM   #7
|V3|2D
 
thisisntjared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,186
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to thisisntjared
did anyone read my post??? what the piss?
__________________
don't waste your time or time will waste you
thisisntjared is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2006, 02:12 AM   #8
Registered Member
 
Compaq888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,460
Country: United States
Actually power to weight is done differently. It's the biggest number divided by the smaller number. My car is 2990 lbs and my hp is 150. So that equals to 19.93

But I like your method of MPG because your number increases as the MPG.
I'll play along.

BEFORE starting mpg gig:
24mpg and 2990 lb car = .0080

AFTER starting mpg gig:
29.92mpg and 2965 lb car = .0100
__________________

Compaq888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2006, 02:45 AM   #9
Registered Member
 
krousdb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,480
Country: United States
Location: Raleigh, NC
So mine is

56.5/2200=0.0257.

But the number gets higher if your weight is lower. From reading JanGeo's original comment, he was trying to show that you should get more credit for having a heavier car. My immediate thoughjt would be weight/FE, not the other way around.

So in my case, 2200/56.5= 38.94.

But if I were able to get 56.5 MPG in a 3000 lb car, the number would be 53.10, which would give a higher score to someone who did the same with more weight.

I dunno, just my backwards way of thinking.....
__________________


krousdb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2006, 04:53 AM   #10
Registered Member
 
Compaq888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,460
Country: United States
I think Metro's number system is better because it increase with fuel economy. The other option makes the number go down and it's confusing. But, we all know it doesn't matter how much your car weighs, it's the MPG that counts.
__________________

__________________

Compaq888 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 11:32 PM.


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