TorqueMan
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2017
- Threads
- 7
- Messages
- 693
- Reaction score
- 219
- Location
- St. Jacob, IL
- Vehicle(s)
- 2017 EcoBoost Premium
- Thread starter
- #1
Had to take a recent 2600+ mile road trip to deal with a family issue, so I decided to keep records on fuel economy for $h!ts and giggles. My car is bone stock (except for the fancy shift knob) with approx 25K miles. I use Wally-world brand (Super Tech) 5-30 full synthetic oil, changed every 5K. I ran premium (91 octane or better) for the entire trip. Below is a chart of the data I recorded:
Here are a couple of things that jumped out at me when I looked at the data.
The data confirm the EPA fuel economy estimate for my car is spot on. The window sticker says I should get 31 mpg highway. The data also confirms economy is strongly impacted by wind. Leg 2 was the only portion of the trip with a headwind, and the mileage for that leg is the worst. Additionally, all the legs at higher altitudes produces excellent mileage despite the higher cruising speeds. I believe this is because turbocharging ensures sea-level performance from the engine despite the thinner air, while the thinner air (atmospheric pressure at 5000' is approximately 80% of sea level) reduces wind resistance. This is especially apparent on Leg 5, where I was cruising across Wyoming on I80. I had the cruise set at 88 MPH (10% above the 80 MPH speed limit) for much of that leg, yet still saw 31+ mpg.
The data also confirmed the computer-indicated fuel economy is optimistic, consistently indicating 1 - 1.5 mpg higher than actual.
Feel free to ask any questions. I'm curious if any of you see anything in the data that I didn't.
Here are a couple of things that jumped out at me when I looked at the data.
The data confirm the EPA fuel economy estimate for my car is spot on. The window sticker says I should get 31 mpg highway. The data also confirms economy is strongly impacted by wind. Leg 2 was the only portion of the trip with a headwind, and the mileage for that leg is the worst. Additionally, all the legs at higher altitudes produces excellent mileage despite the higher cruising speeds. I believe this is because turbocharging ensures sea-level performance from the engine despite the thinner air, while the thinner air (atmospheric pressure at 5000' is approximately 80% of sea level) reduces wind resistance. This is especially apparent on Leg 5, where I was cruising across Wyoming on I80. I had the cruise set at 88 MPH (10% above the 80 MPH speed limit) for much of that leg, yet still saw 31+ mpg.
The data also confirmed the computer-indicated fuel economy is optimistic, consistently indicating 1 - 1.5 mpg higher than actual.
Feel free to ask any questions. I'm curious if any of you see anything in the data that I didn't.
Sponsored