What's your fuel economy to weight ratio?

[MetroMPG]

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]

OOoo! That ^^^ was my 1000th post. I'm not sure if that's a good thing.

[thisisntjared]

so i am alone in this....arg

im going to abstain from this thread for 24 hours then.

[95metro]

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...

[zpiloto]

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.

[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

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

[SVOboy]

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?

[JanGeo]

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!

[MetroMPG]

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.

[thisisntjared]

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.: