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

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

  1. Gordon McGrew

    Matt Ion Guest

    Fair'nuff... my Accord gives me usually 500-550km on a tank (80% city driving),
    which works out to around 28mpg (alright for an '87 with almost 420,000km), so
    it really isn't worth the difference for me.
     
    Matt Ion, Sep 8, 2006
    #41
  2. Gordon McGrew

    Spdloader Guest


    System pressure cycles the compressor, by nature of its design.

    Spdloader
     
    Spdloader, Sep 8, 2006
    #42
  3. Gordon McGrew

    Spdloader Guest


    System pressure cycles the compressor, by nature of its design.

    Spdloader
     
    Spdloader, Sep 8, 2006
    #43
  4. Gordon McGrew

    L Alpert Guest


    It is good information, but the true differences are difficult to assess, as
    many segments are averaged together, so one cannot calculate the standard
    deviations for each group. It does seem that on 9/7 there was less head
    wind.....
     
    L Alpert, Sep 9, 2006
    #44
  5. Gordon McGrew

    L Alpert Guest


    It is good information, but the true differences are difficult to assess, as
    many segments are averaged together, so one cannot calculate the standard
    deviations for each group. It does seem that on 9/7 there was less head
    wind.....
     
    L Alpert, Sep 9, 2006
    #45
  6. Gordon McGrew

    L Alpert Guest

    I don't believe the original gas mileage matters, only the differences.

    Maybe one can assume that windows open would be less of an effect on a
    vehicle with more mass and available torque (unless the vehicle allowed a
    higher volume of air)?
     
    L Alpert, Sep 9, 2006
    #46
  7. Gordon McGrew

    L Alpert Guest

    I don't believe the original gas mileage matters, only the differences.

    Maybe one can assume that windows open would be less of an effect on a
    vehicle with more mass and available torque (unless the vehicle allowed a
    higher volume of air)?
     
    L Alpert, Sep 9, 2006
    #47
  8. Vehicles with lower fuel economy are less sensitive to differences, because
    the losses are already pretty high. In the Toyota Prius fora people are
    shocked to find that running the heater can decrease the in-town fuel
    economy 10 mpg... the finer the edge the more quickly it dulls.

    Mike
     
    Michael Pardee, Sep 10, 2006
    #48
  9. Vehicles with lower fuel economy are less sensitive to differences, because
    the losses are already pretty high. In the Toyota Prius fora people are
    shocked to find that running the heater can decrease the in-town fuel
    economy 10 mpg... the finer the edge the more quickly it dulls.

    Mike
     
    Michael Pardee, Sep 10, 2006
    #49
  10. Better check the date. Tests were run on 8/31, 9/4 and (mostly) 9/5.

    The behavior of the Scan Gauge is a little flaky in regards to
    measuring fuel consumption. I recalibrate it at every fuel stop and
    it can vary by 10% or more. Since the calibration changed between
    test sessions, you can't compare the absolute milage figures between
    sessions. Also, gradually changing terrain, elevation, wind and
    different test speeds complicate the situation. That is why I looked
    at relative fuel economy between the sessions. Below is the
    individual session data in case you or someone else wants to do more
    sophisticated analysis. Just keep the above in mind.

    Test 1 8/31 76 mph

    A/C Window m/g miles
    on closed 18.2 10.0
    off closed 19.5 10.0
    off wide opn 20.2 10.0
    off closed 21.2 10.0
    on closed 17.4 10.0
    off closed 18.9 10.0
    off wide opn 18.7 10.0
    on closed 18.8 10.5
    off closed 19.7 10.0
    off F3 R3* 19.3 10.0
    on closed 19.1 10.0
    off R6 18.5 10.0


    * F3 R3 = front window down 3", Rear window down 3"


    Test 2 9/4 75 mph

    A/C Window m/g miles
    off closed 21.0 10.0
    off R4 20.0 10.0
    off closed 22.5 8.7
    on closed 20.9 10.0
    off closed 22.4 11.4
    off F2 R4 22.4 10.0
    off F2 R4 21.4 11.4
    off closed 21.7 10.0
    off closed 21.0 10.4

    Test 3 9/5 75 mph

    A/C Window m/g miles
    off closed 19.6 10.0
    off R4 20.5 10.0
    on closed 18.5 7.8
    off closed 20.0 10.0
    on closed 19.2 10.2
    off R4 20.8 10.1
    off closed 21.7 10.0
    on closed 20.1 10.0

    Test 4 9/5 73 mph flatland

    A/C Window m/g miles
    off closed 21.6 10.0
    off F3 R4 21.1 10.2
    on closed 21.2 10.0
    off closed 22.5 10.0
    off F2 R4 22.4 10.9
    on closed 20.6 11.6
    off closed 21.4 10.0
    off F3 R4 21.7 10.0
    on closed 20.6 10.0
    off closed 22.8 13.7
    off F3 R4 21.4 10.1
    on closed 20.3 10.5
    off closed 21.6 12.0
    off F3 R4 21.8 11.0
    on closed 21.4 10.0
    off closed 23.4 13.0
     
    Gordon McGrew, Sep 10, 2006
    #50
  11. Better check the date. Tests were run on 8/31, 9/4 and (mostly) 9/5.

    The behavior of the Scan Gauge is a little flaky in regards to
    measuring fuel consumption. I recalibrate it at every fuel stop and
    it can vary by 10% or more. Since the calibration changed between
    test sessions, you can't compare the absolute milage figures between
    sessions. Also, gradually changing terrain, elevation, wind and
    different test speeds complicate the situation. That is why I looked
    at relative fuel economy between the sessions. Below is the
    individual session data in case you or someone else wants to do more
    sophisticated analysis. Just keep the above in mind.

    Test 1 8/31 76 mph

    A/C Window m/g miles
    on closed 18.2 10.0
    off closed 19.5 10.0
    off wide opn 20.2 10.0
    off closed 21.2 10.0
    on closed 17.4 10.0
    off closed 18.9 10.0
    off wide opn 18.7 10.0
    on closed 18.8 10.5
    off closed 19.7 10.0
    off F3 R3* 19.3 10.0
    on closed 19.1 10.0
    off R6 18.5 10.0


    * F3 R3 = front window down 3", Rear window down 3"


    Test 2 9/4 75 mph

    A/C Window m/g miles
    off closed 21.0 10.0
    off R4 20.0 10.0
    off closed 22.5 8.7
    on closed 20.9 10.0
    off closed 22.4 11.4
    off F2 R4 22.4 10.0
    off F2 R4 21.4 11.4
    off closed 21.7 10.0
    off closed 21.0 10.4

    Test 3 9/5 75 mph

    A/C Window m/g miles
    off closed 19.6 10.0
    off R4 20.5 10.0
    on closed 18.5 7.8
    off closed 20.0 10.0
    on closed 19.2 10.2
    off R4 20.8 10.1
    off closed 21.7 10.0
    on closed 20.1 10.0

    Test 4 9/5 73 mph flatland

    A/C Window m/g miles
    off closed 21.6 10.0
    off F3 R4 21.1 10.2
    on closed 21.2 10.0
    off closed 22.5 10.0
    off F2 R4 22.4 10.9
    on closed 20.6 11.6
    off closed 21.4 10.0
    off F3 R4 21.7 10.0
    on closed 20.6 10.0
    off closed 22.8 13.7
    off F3 R4 21.4 10.1
    on closed 20.3 10.5
    off closed 21.6 12.0
    off F3 R4 21.8 11.0
    on closed 21.4 10.0
    off closed 23.4 13.0
     
    Gordon McGrew, Sep 10, 2006
    #51
  12. Running the heater? Isn't this just waste heat anyway?
     
    Gordon McGrew, Sep 10, 2006
    #52
  13. Running the heater? Isn't this just waste heat anyway?
     
    Gordon McGrew, Sep 10, 2006
    #53
  14. Gordon McGrew

    L Alpert Guest

    The raw number would be lower, but the percentages should be similar.
     
    L Alpert, Sep 10, 2006
    #54
  15. Gordon McGrew

    L Alpert Guest

    The raw number would be lower, but the percentages should be similar.
     
    L Alpert, Sep 10, 2006
    #55
  16. Gordon McGrew

    L Alpert Guest

    I guess it has to do with the amount of juice needed to run the
    fan.......????
     
    L Alpert, Sep 10, 2006
    #56
  17. Gordon McGrew

    L Alpert Guest

    I guess it has to do with the amount of juice needed to run the
    fan.......????
     
    L Alpert, Sep 10, 2006
    #57
  18. The Prius doesn't normally run the engine when the car is moving slowly or
    stopped, so the waste heat often falls short. The engine has to run more
    just to make heat.

    Mike
     
    Michael Pardee, Sep 10, 2006
    #58
  19. The Prius doesn't normally run the engine when the car is moving slowly or
    stopped, so the waste heat often falls short. The engine has to run more
    just to make heat.

    Mike
     
    Michael Pardee, Sep 10, 2006
    #59
  20. I think the discrepancy comes from working with the reciprocal of what we
    really want to measure: fuel per increment. For example, suppose it requires
    5 gallons of gas to move the car 100 miles with the windows rolled up and
    A/C off. That is 20 mpg. If the window drag at some speed consumes 0.2
    gallons in 100 miles at that speed the economy drops to 19.2 mpg for a loss
    of nearly 5%. If the drag is the same in a vehicle that requires 2 gallons
    to move the car 100 miles (50 mpg) the window drag drops it to 45.5 mpg, a
    nearly 10% hit. I'm not a big fan of the "liters per 100km" measurement but
    it works a lot better than mpg here.

    So, here's an example of how it goes - theoretically - with the window and
    A/C. Assume (for illustration) that at 50 mph the window drag consumes 0.1
    gallon per hundred miles. Similarly, assume the A/C consumes 0.1 gallon per
    hour. For our hundred mile trip that would mean the windows would use 0.1
    gallon and the A/C would use 0.2 gallons at 50 mph. If we increase the speed
    to 100 mph the window drag, increasing with the square of the speed, becomes
    0.4 gallons for the one hour the trip takes while the A/C loss drops to 0.1
    gallon for the hour instead of 0.2 gallons for two hours.

    For different vehicles the numbers would change; the A/C losses are higher
    for a larger vehicle with more glass and the window drag will certainly vary
    with body style. In the end, all that will change is the speed at which the
    A/C is more economical than windows down.
     
    Michael Pardee, Sep 10, 2006
    #60
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.