Influence of window opening vs. A/C use on fuel economy

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by Gordon McGrew, Sep 6, 2006.

  1. It has become popular lately to claim that turning on A/C uses less
    fuel than opening windows. On a recent round trip to Kansas I used my
    handy Scan Gauge to check milage under different operating conditions.
    (What else is there to do driving across Missouri and Kansas?)

    I checked the calculated fuel economy over approximate ten mile
    segments on each tank of fuel. I used the cruise control and the
    calibrated Scan Gauge mph measurements. Usually I could go the whole
    ten miles without touching the gas or brake. I tried to be as
    consistent as possible.

    For open windows, I started out rolling them all the way down but
    after a couple segments of that, I decided that no one could stand the
    tornado effect for long distances so I tried various partial open
    positions which improved ventilation without being punishing.
    Generally this was the rears open 4 inches and the fronts either
    closed or open 3 inches.

    The vehicle, unfortunately, was not typical for most drivers: 1998
    Odyssey 4 cylinder with a Thule car-top cargo box. Newer A/C systems
    and less drag-challenged vehicles may yield different results, but
    here goes...


    Test 1 8/31/06 76 mph I35 Southbound Hilly
    22.8 mpg overall (measured)

    A/C Windows # Segments Ave. MPG Relative MPG
    Off Closed 4 19.83 100
    Off Full Open 2 19.45 98
    Off Part Open 2 18.90 95
    On Closed 4 18.24 92


    Test 2 9/4/06 75 mph I35 Northbound Hilly
    19.7 mpg overall (measured)

    A/C Windows # Segments Ave. MPG Relative MPG
    Off Closed 5 21.62 100
    Off Part Open 3 21.27 98
    On Closed 1 20.90 97


    Test 3 9/5/06 75 mph I35 Northbound Hilly
    23.4 mpg overall (measured)

    A/C Windows # Segments Ave. MPG Relative MPG
    Off Closed 3 20.43 100
    Off Part Open 2 20.65 101
    On Closed 3 19.27 94


    Test 4 9/5/06 73 mph I55 Northbound Flat
    21.6 mpg overall (measured)

    A/C Windows # Segments Ave. MPG Relative MPG
    Off Closed 6 22.22 100
    Off Part Open 5 21.68 98
    On Closed 5 20.82 94


    Overall, weighted by number of segments relative to windows up, A/C
    off, fuel efficiency was:

    Windows open 98%
    A/C on 94%

    In this test, turning on the A/C cost three times as much fuel as
    opening the windows. There was no indication that it made any
    difference whether the windows were wide open, rears down 4 inches or
    front and rear both down 3 - 4 inches, but there was limited testing
    of this, and the effect was small in any event.

    As noted before the vehicle may not be typical, but these were the
    results. One further point of interest; shortly after I started one
    segment I came upon a speed reduced work zone. I didn't use the
    segment in the above calculations but I noted that average speed was
    63 mph and average fuel consumption was 26.4 mpg. It appears that the
    difference between going 60 and going 75 was about 4 mpg.
     
    Gordon McGrew, Sep 6, 2006
    #1
  2. Gordon McGrew

    R Flowers Guest

    The Mythbusters did a controlled experiment, with the result being windows
    down = a lot better mileage.
    http://cartalk.com/board/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=341160&page=6&vc=1

    The link above leads to CarTalk's forums. The post notes that their computer
    models said the mileage should be practically the same. The real experiment
    showed otherwise.

    -- R Flowers
     
    R Flowers, Sep 6, 2006
    #2
  3. Gordon McGrew

    R Flowers Guest

    The Mythbusters did a controlled experiment, with the result being windows
    down = a lot better mileage.
    http://cartalk.com/board/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=341160&page=6&vc=1

    The link above leads to CarTalk's forums. The post notes that their computer
    models said the mileage should be practically the same. The real experiment
    showed otherwise.

    -- R Flowers
     
    R Flowers, Sep 6, 2006
    #3
  4. Gordon McGrew

    Spdloader Guest

    Windows down messes up my wife's hair.

    A few miles per gallon is cheap for my peace of mind.

    Just my .02

    Spdloader
     
    Spdloader, Sep 7, 2006
    #4
  5. Gordon McGrew

    Spdloader Guest

    Windows down messes up my wife's hair.

    A few miles per gallon is cheap for my peace of mind.

    Just my .02

    Spdloader
     
    Spdloader, Sep 7, 2006
    #5
  6. Gordon McGrew

    Bob Guest

    (snip)

    Interesting information, but when it's 105 when I leave work, I'll use
    my AC and just pay the difference. Better than being covered in sweat
    and having all the dirt stuck to me.

    Average Hi temp for August in my area=100 degrees. Thanks, but I'll
    just keep the windows up!!!
     
    Bob, Sep 7, 2006
    #6
  7. Gordon McGrew

    Bob Guest

    (snip)

    Interesting information, but when it's 105 when I leave work, I'll use
    my AC and just pay the difference. Better than being covered in sweat
    and having all the dirt stuck to me.

    Average Hi temp for August in my area=100 degrees. Thanks, but I'll
    just keep the windows up!!!
     
    Bob, Sep 7, 2006
    #7
  8. Gordon McGrew

    JXStern Guest

    ....

    You sir are a gentleman and a scholar.

    However, the numbers are small enough, say 2%, that on a $50 tank of
    gas we're talking $1.00. And you sure can't hear the radio with the
    windows open more than a crack at speed.

    I do guess the window numbers would be more significant for an Accord
    without the antlers and big slab sides, might get it up to, oh, who
    knows, 5%?!? But presumably the A/C numbers would be the same, which
    would validate the claim which your experiment did not, but would
    still be just about $1.00/tank in the other direction.

    OTOH, windows would impose less overhead at slow speeds, say in stop
    and go, ... oh, where will it end?!

    J.
     
    JXStern, Sep 7, 2006
    #8
  9. Gordon McGrew

    JXStern Guest

    ....

    You sir are a gentleman and a scholar.

    However, the numbers are small enough, say 2%, that on a $50 tank of
    gas we're talking $1.00. And you sure can't hear the radio with the
    windows open more than a crack at speed.

    I do guess the window numbers would be more significant for an Accord
    without the antlers and big slab sides, might get it up to, oh, who
    knows, 5%?!? But presumably the A/C numbers would be the same, which
    would validate the claim which your experiment did not, but would
    still be just about $1.00/tank in the other direction.

    OTOH, windows would impose less overhead at slow speeds, say in stop
    and go, ... oh, where will it end?!

    J.
     
    JXStern, Sep 7, 2006
    #9
  10. Gordon McGrew

    Art Guest

    Great job. Please test next without the luggage on top and replace 4
    cylinder with 6.
     
    Art, Sep 7, 2006
    #10
  11. Gordon McGrew

    Art Guest

    Great job. Please test next without the luggage on top and replace 4
    cylinder with 6.
     
    Art, Sep 7, 2006
    #11
  12. Gordon McGrew

    ottguit Guest

    Great Post, it's something I always wanted to do but didn't.
    Question, during A/C winows closed, was the Vent on Re-Circulate of
    Fresh Air Position
    Thanks
     
    ottguit, Sep 7, 2006
    #12
  13. Gordon McGrew

    ottguit Guest

    Great Post, it's something I always wanted to do but didn't.
    Question, during A/C winows closed, was the Vent on Re-Circulate of
    Fresh Air Position
    Thanks
     
    ottguit, Sep 7, 2006
    #13
  14. A/C is essentially a "minutes per gallon" question while driving represents
    more of a "miles per gallon" cost. I think it's certain that at low speeds
    the efficiency is better with the windows open and A/C off while at high
    speeds the opposite is true. Where that changeover point is undoubtedly
    varies widely from model to model, and the "high speed" regime may start
    above the speed limit for many cars.

    When the Mythbusters ran their test they used SUVs which drank a lot of
    gasoline anyway and probably didn't suffer much when the windows were open.
    In addition, the speed was so low A/C would be a clear loser.

    Mike
     
    Michael Pardee, Sep 7, 2006
    #14
  15. A/C is essentially a "minutes per gallon" question while driving represents
    more of a "miles per gallon" cost. I think it's certain that at low speeds
    the efficiency is better with the windows open and A/C off while at high
    speeds the opposite is true. Where that changeover point is undoubtedly
    varies widely from model to model, and the "high speed" regime may start
    above the speed limit for many cars.

    When the Mythbusters ran their test they used SUVs which drank a lot of
    gasoline anyway and probably didn't suffer much when the windows were open.
    In addition, the speed was so low A/C would be a clear loser.

    Mike
     
    Michael Pardee, Sep 7, 2006
    #15
  16. Big haired wife?
     
    Elmo P. Shagnasty, Sep 7, 2006
    #16
  17. Big haired wife?
     
    Elmo P. Shagnasty, Sep 7, 2006
    #17
  18. Gordon McGrew

    R Flowers Guest

    Let me guess - you're not married?

    -- R Flowers
     
    R Flowers, Sep 7, 2006
    #18
  19. Gordon McGrew

    R Flowers Guest

    Let me guess - you're not married?

    -- R Flowers
     
    R Flowers, Sep 7, 2006
    #19
  20. Gordon McGrew

    Spdloader Guest

    Nope. Just particular.

    Spdloader



     
    Spdloader, Sep 7, 2006
    #20
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.