![]() |
|
Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated. |
|
The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk |
View Poll Results: Which one would consume more fuel? | |||
60kph at 2000rpm |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
25 | 35.71% |
70kph at 2000rpm |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
24 | 34.29% |
Neither |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
21 | 30.00% |
Voters: 70. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sydney, NSW
Posts: 2,368
|
I was just wondering which one would use more fuel and why? :-
1) Travelling 60kph at 2000rpm 2) Travelling 70kph at 2000rpm Speed is the only variable...car, driver, conditions etc of both scenario are identical. |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2 | ||
With da Warlords
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Orange NSW
Posts: 1,783
|
I would suspect 70 kph, even though the engine is under the same load (2000 rpm), the wind resistance at 70kph would be increased over 60kph, so theoretically you would think 70 kph would use more...
__________________
You don't have to be faster than the bear, you just have to be faster than the slowest guy running from the bear. For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small stain. Windsor Warlords AU III XR-8220 ![]() ![]() XR50T Ute - 300rwkw (give or take depending on the day)
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |||
Official AFF conservative
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Adelaide, SA
Posts: 3,549
|
Quote:
Im guessing this is an automatic vehicle if we can have 2 different speeds in the same gear at the same RPM... Throttle position would be the key IMO. Theory would suggest that more throttle required to maintain the higher speed, in which case i'd go for (a). But a more likely scenario is coasting in the auto, to achieve the different speeds at the same RPM... in which case id go for (b)
__________________
A cup half empty... but full of euphoria. |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#4 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 357
|
but u'd also cover a greater distance .. so would going faster at the same revs make u travel more or the same ?
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#5 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,464
|
Assuming they are traveling at a constant speed
I would think it depends on how much one would be pressing the accelerator down!
__________________
The Old: 1993 ED Fairmont 1994 ED Futura Classic manual, 2004 BA MkII XR6 Turbo 2009 G6E Turbo (277.2rwkw @ Tuned at Bullet Performance Racing) 2007 Audi S5 4.2L V8 manual (Supersprint exhaust, MMI 3G+ retrofit) 2015 SZ MkII Territory Titanium Petrol RWD (With Sync 3 Upgrade) The New: 2023 UB Everest Trend 4WD |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#6 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 357
|
i reckon mythbusters should do a segment on this.
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#7 | ||
Its Resonating!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sydney, NSW
Posts: 1,612
|
I think about this too, whether I should go slow 90kph or go 120 and keep up with traffic.
I think its the way you get to a higher speed, that determines more fuel usage... |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
|
Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#9 | ||
Just slidin'
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 7,791
|
Did noone learn from the plane on the treadmill thread? lol, Sorry to go off topic, but thats a good question.
__________________
MD Mondeo - For the family
NP Pajero - For the adventure |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#10 | ||
Professional Mouse Jockey
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: SE Vic
Posts: 3,185
|
How is speed the only variable? Something else must be different otherwise you couldnt do different speeds at the same rpm, whether its gearing or load.
If there truely was no variable other than speed than theoretically 70kmh would be more efficient because you are travelling further for every revolution of the engine. Therefore your fuel consumption (litres per hundred) would be lower.
__________________
Isuzu MUX for towing horses - currently no Fords in the stable Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana. Groucho Marx
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#11 | ||
Churches Eat Souls
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 202
|
They say for most cars 80kmph in top gear is the most fuel-efficient speed to travel at.
For cars with large engines and low gearing, it's more like 90-100kmph. |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#12 | ||
Audi S3
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney.
Posts: 8,307
|
i once read that something like 80 kays per hour is twice as economical as 120 kph. in terms of tyre life/wear.
but i could be wrong.
__________________
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#13 | ||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
70kmh will most likely use more.
|
||
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#14 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 357
|
speed wouldn't be the only variable .. like james22 said .. wind resistance.
but u would think that with a head wind .. both going at 2000rpm .. the one going faster would have the throttle slighter pressed a bit more .. using more air and fuel to keep the momentum going. thats my understanding .. but its not what i think on the roads though. getting there faster = less fuel used lol. |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#15 | ||
Where to next??
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,893
|
Mythbusters have already did this, they used a Lotus super 7 replica (clubman i think with the toyota 1.6 20v engine)
Now they thrashed it, then drove reasonably paced then drove like a granny. Granny mode was the winner over fuel consumption. I have tested this extensivly with the Festiva, and the way to get maximum km/l is to drive the car in the highest gear possible at the slowest possible speed before you start to labour the engine. So that means i get best results driving in 5th at 55-60km/h I bought the festiva new, and when running in didnt get over 80km/h. I was AMAZED at how good on juice she was, even bettering the factory claims at times. Ran her in, started to drive like normal and consumption increased by 20%. And also driving to uni, mostly express way driving, the faster you go the more juice you use, however i tested the fact that if i went at 80km/h i would get say 550km to a tank, then if i went 100km/h i would get 500km to the tank, but if i kept going at 110-115km/h the range would drop to 430km. Pretty big difference! last month i drove to QLD... kept her on 95 even when the limit was 100 or 110 (i was in no rush) and got around 610 km!!! (35 litre tank) ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |||
Regular Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Tambellup ,WA
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
by the way 5th gear is an over drive so it causes the engine to work harder so be carfull as the gear box may also wear quiker.
__________________
Looking for Automotive apprenticship in South West Australia! |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#17 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 3,479
|
i am sure you will find it pretty much the same litres per 100 doing 60 or 70 in a Falcadore - just use the trip computer
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#18 | |||
FPV GT 0915
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Mostly in my GT
Posts: 716
|
Quote:
Take you BA XR6/8, FPV GT 4 speed auto, 3rd gear should be a 1:1 ratio and 4th gear being the over drive will be about 0.65:1, basically you get more out then you put in!
__________________
Bluprint BA GT 2004 Model - Mods: Tinted Windows, Premium Sound, BBS Mags, 245/35R19 fronts, 285/30R19 rears, BMC POD Filter, SS cold air induction, HM tri-y headers, Redback cat back system, Herrod power snorkle, moded Herrod helix spacer, 4" ram air induction, More to come.. |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#19 | |||
Regular Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: perth australia
Posts: 161
|
Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#20 | ||
Two > One
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 7,063
|
drag is proporitional to (velocity)^4
__________________
1978 LTD - 408ci - 11.5@120.6mph - 2004 S4 - 4.2 - M6 - quattro - |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#21 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: QLD - Townsville
Posts: 1,772
|
70kms @ 2000rpm will cover more distance and as far as i can tell use no more fuel than doing 60kph @ 2000rpm but will cover 10km less distance per hour than doing 70kph.... i cant remember but are 60kph and 70kph both @ 2000 rpm? and if so change the gear and use less fuel, less rpms - my record of 743kms to 1 tank (motorway/city/suburb driving) by doing that sorta driving..never again though
__________________
My Cars: 2002 Ford Falcon AU S3 SR 2006 BF MKI Falcon XR6 2008 Mazda BT50 SDX 2004 BA XR8 ute 2006 AUDI A4 B7 2013 FG II XR6 Ute 2006 Ford Territory TX 2003 Ford Falcon XR8 2009 Territory Turbo Ghia Current: 2012 Audi A4 B8 2.0T Quattro |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#22 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Tambellup ,WA
Posts: 106
|
my mums el does better fuel economy at 140kph than it does at 90kph
__________________
Looking for Automotive apprenticship in South West Australia! |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#23 | ||
Mr old phart
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Northern Terrorist
Posts: 1,715
|
The one @ 70 kph will use more fuel at the same revs because it takes more energy to keep the same mass moving at a higher speed due to increased resistance (wind). Even though it's doing the same revs and speed, it's working harder to do it.
__________________
An object at rest cannot be stopped!! BA GT-P Blueprint |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#24 | ||
HSV - I just ate one!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Middle of nowhere
Posts: 3,436
|
best fuel consumption i ever got from my XF was ~250km at 130-140km/h...... only used 31 litres
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#25 | ||
SV6000. Yum
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 846
|
There is absolutely NO CHANCE that 60km/h is the most efficient speed to drive ANY car
As a general rule, 85-95km/h is the most efficient. HOWEVER this is only a general rule and depends alot on the aerodynamics, gearing and power of a car. I know for a fact that large engined cars which use torque (such as Falcons) rather than power (such as 4 cyl cars) can maintain efficiency up to about 120km/h. The Falcon can still achieve about 8.5l/100km at speeds of 130km/h There is alot of stuff on this topic scattered all over the internet Aerodynamic drag depends on the size and shape of the vehicle, its speed (relative to the air), and the density of air. For a given vehicle, aerodynamic drag is proportional to the square of the velocity. We define CD as the “drag coefficient”, such that: Fdrag = 1/2 ..CD.A.v^2 where is the density of air (1.2 kg/m3) and A is the frontal area of the vehicle. Last edited by 05MkIIFutura; 12-12-2006 at 09:33 AM. |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#26 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,150
|
ford v8's usually get best economy at 115kmh on Hiway,i think its got something to do with load on drivetrain more than anything else,its there sweet spot ,so to speak
__________________
Hervey Bay QLD Great trades recently- GILMORE BOSSYONBIKE |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#27 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,974
|
I know one of the Sydney uni's did a study on this a few years back - they concluded that 80km/h was the most efficient speed to drive at.
__________________
1966 Ford Mustang coupe. 347 stroker, PA reverse manual C4, TCE high stall converter, B&M Pro Ratchet, Edelbrock alum heads, Edelbrock intake manifold, MSD ignition, Holley Street HP 750 CFM carb, gilmer drive, wrapped Hooker Super Comp Headers, dual 3" straight through exhaust, Bilstein shocks, custom springs, full poly suspension, American Racing rims, Open Tracker roller spring saddles and shelby drop. Still to go - Holley Sniper EFI with integrated fuel cell. |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#28 | |||
Force Fed Fords
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Enroute
Posts: 4,050
|
70K's at 2000 RPm is the most efficient. The coefficient of drag is not proportional to the fuel consumption at that speed, as fords generally have a drag coefficient of 0.34.
Essentially, this means that the car will use the same fuel at 60kmh as at 85kmh per distance travelled. Unless of course this is a trick question based on the premise that the 4 speed available in the BA does not shift into 4th gear until the car reaches 65-68kmh, which means that the car is labouring at 60kmh. AU cars changed gears much earlier than the BA's do. BTW, I set my BA LTD on 70kmh and was chewing 10.4 Litres per 100kmh, set it on 60kmh and was chewing 11.9 litres per 100kmh. The gauge may be off but it does measure fuel flow and is still indicative of the trend. MYTH BUSTED.
__________________
If brains were gasoline, you wouldn't have enough to power an ants go-cart a half a lap around a Cheerio - Ron Shirley Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#29 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 357
|
so faster at the same revs are better ? (as long as ur going a resonable speed)
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#30 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sydney, NSW
Posts: 2,368
|
Well i've been doing an experiment. My car hasnt seen 3500rpm so far this week and im not getting better fuel economy. I reckon giving the accelerator a bit of a kick wouldnt hurt the fuel economy.... well maybe not if u're not shifting at 6000rpm on every gear
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |