Can You Modify A Car To Save Fuel? - Fifth Gear
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ธ.ค. 2016
- Tim tries to save fuel by modding a car but the results are surprising.
For more fantastic car reviews, shoot-outs and all your favourite Fifth Gear moments, subscribe to our Official Channel: goo.gl/IPXAgl
Check out our website for the latest car videos and news from around the web: fifthgear.tv/ - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
Anyone who has ever ridden a bicycle on wet roads knows it takes more energy to ride on wet road than dry. The pumping action to push the water aside isn't free.
if you have slicks you can just float over the water
@@punker4Real but then you just spin the tires and use more fuel because of higher engine speeds, also slicks are expensive af (if its not just old worn tire) so they will just cancel out if not cost more than normal driving
@@droneeveryone and damage your fuel tank and spill it and now you are left with no fuel and a wrecked car
This is why we need tires designed to soak up the water like a sponge and keep the ground beneath them dry.
@@AmaroqStarwind well how much can it soak up? 2 litres? tire comes in contact with so much water so it isn't really useful is it? also it would actually spray water in front of it when being compressed
The Fifth Gear technicians were wrong. Rain dramatically increases your fuel use. The density of water is like 1000 times higher than air. You are constantly pushing against dense stuff in the rain. Let alone the tyres pushing the dense stuff away from your grippy parts and splashing it meters high into the air. Lastly the windscreen wipers take a tiny bit of extra energy.
that is correct
Ronald de Rooij klopt
Ronald de Rooij i'm also unhappy with the conclusion that a slippery road increases fuel efficiency...shouldnt slipping tires need more power to keep the car going at the same speed?
Makes sense to me, because that means that more energy is lost
I accept there is less friction, but it works against you, and yes, you need to push that water out of the way.
“Fuel prices have risen by record levels this year”
*2022: 😏*
Fact
Couple things:
1) Pumping the tank and putting in exactly 1 gallon does not take into consideration the amount of fuel you missed siphoning or the fuel left in the lines.
2) Lapping a track to negate the effects of wind does not work because drag increases exponentially with speed instead of linearly.
3) Rain increases drag on the car both in terms of modifying the aerodynamic shape of the car as well as the momentum transfer when the car hits each of those rain drops.
4) A wet surface reduces static friction, which you are not taking into consideration at all with MPG runs. You're interested in rolling resistance with MPG runs.
5) Added electrical usage (running the wipers and headlights) increases the resistance on the alternator. Similarly, if you happened to have the defog on, that would run the A/C compressor.
6) Advancing the timing only really helps in high throttle applications when you have a really big, long explosion. When you have just a little explosion just to maintain speed, you want it where the crankshaft is at the most efficient spot, which is at 90 degrees from TDC. You also increase the risk of pinging and blowing a hole in the motor.
That was not scientific at all and, frankly, a very poor test.
yes
hundreds of thousands of views times 7 minutes of everyones' life wasted and they couldn't be bothered to re-run the test under similar conditions.
😑🙄🤮
I came here to write 1,2,3 and 4 (didn't finish the video),
thank you for writing it better than I could. :)
What does 2) mean in simple words?
"We're giving away free money today."
"Oh great!"
"Here's 50p"
"-_-"
Ain't got the Top Gear budget...
@@MadIIMike
I like this show better then top gear.
panzerfaust375 They seem to have more proper car knowledge. Fifth Gear and Top Gear are two different types of shows. While Fifth Gear is entertaining at times, Top Gear is more entertainment than informatitonal.
I mean 50p ain’t bad for free
it was her fault for filling like 2 liters...
If this were scientific the mods would have been done one at a time. It is likely that the new chip's profile was not optimised for driving steadily at 60 and so masked any benefit of other mods
Everything was great half-way through then it felt like they rushed it, and ruined the whole scientific method thing.
Bose de-Nage they should redo it
They honestly should have asked the chip manufacturer for what speed it was optimized.
I thought the same. The chip ruined it.
ya dyno or a proper road tune would have been a tonne better. you can literally drop the A/F Ratio to 15:1 and keep the ignition just shy of knock, at about 2200 rpm and he could have gotten 50 MPG if not 55. its all in the tune bra
They didn't take the fuel left in the fuel lines into account in the first run. They only vacuumed the fuel left in the fuel tank but ignored the rest of it before setting the base figures. Then they drove the car until it cuts out after using all the fuel left in the tank (1 gal), plus the amount left in the fuel lines; which was not present when they made the refill before the second run. That amount of fuel could easily help them make more miles which could affect the final score.
Very true, plus just one test run to establish a base line? This was a flawed test and dumb. Driving habits do improve mpg but there are useful mods. I think this was an example of what not to do.
Test was wrong. the engine had not run out of fuel on the first test, this means you have extra fuel in the pipe.s injector rail ect.
had you of refilled the car started it then drained it, and put 1 gallon in you may have seen an increase in mpg on 2nd test.
michael laws That is what I was thinking.
Yes yes i wanted to comment the same thing
michael laws well, i am sure that the second test was the same, why would they tow it to tyre and ecu shop if they could put gas in and drive it, also i am sure that ecu programming required engine running to get the best results... most probably is actually due to ecu reprogramming, this is normaly aspirated engine so you can't really do much to it compared to turbo vehicle :)
sorry for grammar mistakes, i guess you get my point
michael laws and in the fuel filter. 👍
Also, if there was wind, it may have been in a different direction in the second test. That factor's difficult to control though
Skip to 2:30 where the video actually starts
mahchymk93 thanks boob girl
It's the Car S.O.S. guy!
RWL2012 yes it is the guy car sos
RWL2012 that guy is fucking everywhere
Fuzz?
RWL2012 I have seen him in real life
Bitelaserkhalif *cringes* Tim
Best fuel saving tip: don't drive.
Best fuel saving tip: Slow down!
-ETCG
stiliqn007 no! Avoid braking as much as possible. Braking turns potential energy produced by the engine and turns it into non useful energy, effectively wasting fuel you just burnt.
Nah, speed up, if I drive at 70 km/h in 5th gear instead of 55-60 km/h in 4th gear I get better fuel economy. It kind of depends on the car.
I think you meant: don't travel. Making others drive for you doesn't decrease fuel usage
The Star of China
obviously u havent seen the video lol
I didnt mean hit the brakes. I meant just drive slower
Don't mess with the chips! A proper test would be to reduce the weight and test on the track. Change the tires and test on the track, and so on. Keep up vehicle maintenance, maintain proper tire pressure, accelerate smoothly, use cruise control on dry level roads, release the gas pedal when you see a stop light or stop sign coming ahead to coast part of the way before braking (also conserved brake pads), plan your route with one that has the least amount of stops and traffic, if running multiple errands go to the stop furthest away first and work your way back home.
Could be wrong here, but I'm fairly certain cruise control reduces your MPG compared to just being even on the accelerator.
After you ran out of petrol the first time, it would of drained you fuel line so really you got further because of the fuel in your lines that you did take out firstly
Plus the fuel filter. Can be half a litre in there.
why are you so dumb? are you from Poland or what?
The problem is the brand new tyres. Fuel efficient ones or not, you should allow the tyres to settle.
If only he knew what gas prices would become
Fuel is cheaper than bottled water?!
Today in 2018:
-In UK the averate price is 65 pence for 1 litre of bottled water.
-In UK average fuel price of fuel is 140 pence per litre.
In 2017 fuel was really cheaper than 65p per litre?
the video looks like 480p even tough i set it to 1080p
Yeah well it's a waste to just re-encode and upload it like that that's the point.
*****
You could re-encode it at the resolution it was recorded and a bitrate that's still high enough but still lower than the one required for 1080p. What am I missing here?
*****
Let me get this right. So if your video is 480p with a decent bit-rate but you upload it on youtube as a 480p video, youtube will drop that bit-rate and make it look worse. So the only solution is to upload in a higher res so you get more bit-rate and the original quality. Did I get this right?
*****
Thank you for clearing it all up man. :)
I believe the difference comes from the fact that on the first run, the car only had it's fuel tank drained, but on the second run the car had it's complete system drained before the fuel was poured in
Love how people are so interested in the fuel price, this episode was from 2009!
Hold on what a load of nonsense. Driving in the rain is LESS efficient as your tires have to pump water AWAY to prevent hydroplaning.
Also you're driving through water droplets in the air which cause resistance. Also air cooler and therefore thicker and causes even more resistance. And windscreen wiper use electricity.
@@Snooker-cn3dm true, the water droplets definitely add to the resistance, both in the air and on the road surface. As for the cooler air, you're right, the air is thicker and hence will cause more resistance/drag. Cooler air has a positive effect on engine power output (i.e the engine delivers more power for a given rpm). I do think that even though the engine performs better when fed with cooler air, it also increases fuel consumption? A larger air mass is sucked into the cylinders and in order to keep an optimal fuel to air mixture ratio, more fuel is required on each intake stroke (and thus more power is being output by the engine)? It seems there is an optimal air temperature at which the engine efficient peaks, any deviation (up or down) from that temperature will have a negative effect on fuel consumption.
Rectifier should work
Do this with a V8 Muscle Car and change just the Gear Ratio for each test.
The results would be astonishing.
The cheapest and easiest fuel saver I know of is to simply place a tennis ball behind the accelerator pedal.
I've found that it's not so much the car that uses a lot of fuel, but rather my driving style. At the moment I'm using about 10 liters per 100km, but if I concentrate on saving fuel, I bring this down to 8 liters per 100km. I drive very short distances, and mostly start stop and hills.
+Mrcloc
"The cheapest and easiest fuel saver I know of is to simply place a tennis ball behind the accelerator pedal."
I tried your suggestion in my wife's car, but I put the tennis ball behind the brake pedal instead... I haven't had to buy her any petrol since...
The funeral is on Thursday
Some garbage turbo cars like the astra j should be reved high so to not waste petrol while the boost loads up
decrease tire width
Logic #1: keep your RPMs the lower possible. As others pointed out, you can go faster on an higher gear and save more fuel than going slower on a lower one. The higher the RPMs the faster the engine is working and therefore burning more fuel. Logic #2: downshift to slow down. If you brake a little bit and lower the gear, the engine itself will force the car to go slower. This can save fuel and make your brakes last longer, however my parents say it's not useful because it'll make your clutch wear out faster - I tend to disagree though, there's just as much clutch friction as there would be when shifting.
If you do a revmatching to match the rpm with the speed, the wear on the clutch will radicly decrease, if you do a good effort to matchning the revs
new tyres have more rubber on them, so per wheel rotation, you go a bit further... The odometer showed a little bit less distance traveled, but maybe it was wrong due to the tyres being slightly larger !
Best fuel saving tip: be in the correct gear so you're not pushing the gas pedal down (without stalling). I know loads of people who never use their 5th gear because they feel it's slower to accelerate but once you reach the speed limit you should be cruising in your top gear with lowest revs to save fuel.
That woman who said "it's not quite worth it, but thank you". The nerve of some people
Although rain makes the surface more slippery, it also adds the fact that the tyres need to push that water out of the way, therefore using more fuel.
Not as much as you think. Pushing mL of water for a short period in a 2,500 lbs machine is not going to make any effect on your mileage. At best, 0.05 mpg.
With simple inexpensive modifications to weight and aerodynamics I brought my 1992 Geo Metro 3 cylinder hatchback up from 45 MPG highway, to 68.2 MPG. The first mod is to install an Econo-gauge so that you know what your fuel consumption is at any given time.
46 to a gallon is amazing for a 20+ year old car
LethalCookieMonster Except you are NOT diving on the highway at a steady 60 mph for 46 miles for the entirety of a drive.
My 1989 Fiesta would do 50+ mpg at a steady 56. I once drove from Wales to London at a steady 56mph, and I averaged 55mpg. I only just sent it to the scrappy a couple of months ago. :-(
I can also get over 46mpg out of my 1991 MR2 at a steady 56. And that does 0-62 in 7.2 seconds and has a top speed of 137mph. But not while doing 46mpg! :-)
Paul Sengupta My 1.6 civic has never done more than 36mpg even on a 230 mile run. But I am usually averaging 70
And 36mpg or 7.5l/100km of my brave petrol Citroën C2.
I always get stuck behind drivers like you.
30% of the overall car drag come from the wheels alone. The wheels are the most inefficient part drag wise on any car. Choose the smallest and narrowest wheels which are legal for your car and close off the biggest portion of the rims with something flat or with foil. This mod alone can increase your efficiency by about 10%-20% depending on the wheels you had before.
Next is the, rear box, rear mirror, windshield wipers, door handles and front air inlets. You can optimize all of those with little mods like.
- detach windshield wipers and put them in the trunk for later us if needed.
- install small vortex generators besides the mirror to increase attached air flow (effect can be measured with small strings attached to the car, easy and simple)
- tape off the door handles if not needed. especially in the rear, say you usually ride alone and can open them from the inside, tape them off permenantely
- close certain sections of the front air inlets (monitor the temp. usually cars are road tested at 45°C in the desert, if you live in the UK you don´t need that)
- You can add a small spoiler to the rear which is curved 12° deg inwards to decrease drag.
You can save probably an other 5% -10% or so with those mods.
the easiest way to improve the fuel economy is by installing a flat floor under the car to make it more aerodynamic. this mod is actually quite cheap to make on your own and you actually save a couple of percent of fuel
can you elaborate please?
@@patriciafaria5681 5mm thick shiet of plastic that won't melt from the heat radiated from the exhaust. Just to cover up as many parts of the floor where air can get trapped.
Did this to my 90s volvo estate and saved roughly 5% of the fuel usage on the High way.
I've set the resolution to 720p but looks like 360p, you obly had one job... ONE JOB!
Probably wasn't recorded in 720p.
Could be worse - remember 144p?
Leif Vejby I Member!
Yeah - I hate when someone scale up a low resolution video. Just a waste of space and bandwidth.
Tire rolling resistance falls as the treads wear down. So those new tires might have reduced MPG over the old ones, even though the new ones are LRR.
I have an 1999 SUV, I did see an MPG increase with new tires, new S belt, modern spark plugs, high flow air filter, modern fuel injectors, new coil pack, removing the full size spare and lithium ion battery and driving like I'm early to an audit. It was still only a marginal increase.
@1:47 the fuel was £1.195 per litre!!! August 2022 and the price is £1.95!!!!
Tap into Oxygen sensors wires , install a variable low voltage knob which will allow you to control fuel dosage. You can make the car run like a lawnmower or you can set it to rich fuel setting where it will be more powerful.
is that the polish way of increasing power, hacking into the o2 sensor to make the car run rich?
and this polo according to dvla is still drivind around and has MOT untill 25 August 2017 and tax until 01 June 2017
Wounder if the ecu mod has been declared to the insurer.
The driver probably has absolutely no idea it's installed.
Currently failed its last MOT and never had a new one. Exhaust leak and rear suspension corrosion. 114,195 miles I guess they didn't think it was worth fixing.
My 1.0l Polo gets 60mpg it's 21yo always legal and cost €700 nine years ago 😋
@@xeigen2 - How do you find that info?
Maintain full is also great for emergency situations. Thanks for the content and look forward to more.
Drain the fuel lines etc as well, or drive it till it runs out before first test.
The fuel pump, the "in" fuel line and return line, plus if it has a regulator bowl could easily make a 2 mile diff.
coast (in gear) as far as you can up to a junction or round about...especially with common rail diesel engines.
ArcturanMegadonkey Yes, most drivers don't know that coasting in gear actually closes the throttle and uses no fuel.
Of course everyone behind you will want to murder you for slowing down a mile too early.
There is a limit to that as well though... A modern diesel engine will only use about 8dl of diesel per hour on idle. Thus, sometimes you will coast much further on neutral, especially when going downhill... There breaking the air resistance is much more useful, than trying to turn the engine to save some milliliters of fuel...
Direct Fuel Cutoff for the win!
thank you veryy much for that comment, the only issue is, when you go back into gear everytime your snychromesh, wears down a little bit and to fix that, that's way more expensive than what you could save by that, but yes coasting in neutral is more efficient and then just before the corner, rev match into a low gear to use engine breaking and fuel cut off and save on brake pads had over 140.000 on my first brake pads in the front, but decided to change them all 4 as I was too curios to see how it's done on that car, there was about 1/3 of them left
Before the first test there was still fuels in the engine but the second there was not. I better more practical test would've been to fill it up and drive a certain number of laps/ miles and see home much fuel you used for each. Thats what everyone else does
I suspect new eco tyres have more rolling resistance than part worn normal tyres. But I agree that rain was probably the big factor here. In my own driving I notice the wind as the biggest factor. A strong headwind knocks 10mpg off. Even on an oval track I suspect the wind would be a factor.
Even with petrol priced at £1.74, like it currently is, that £550 he spent on that chip and those tyres is a false economy.
you can't really use a stock fuel tank to test accurate volume of fuel. Thats why almost every scientific test uses a dedicated 1 gallon secondary tank.
"What can you do to achieve more MPG from your vehicle?" would be a good title...
I bet the weather changed enough that the wind and rain blew on the car and slowed it down. Apart from that, most cars are geared too low for the best fuel economy on a steady speed of 60. Sports cars are usually geared for the highest speed and power peak of the engine, but of course when you are puttering along at more sedate speed limits, the wind isn't blowing as hard against the car and you could actually use a higher gear if the car had it. A big form of resistance comes from the internals of the engine and gas flow within it. It's useful to control your speed down a hill but when you don't need to slow down you're just putting more fuel in to fight the forces. You can simulate a higher gear by repeatedly shifting into neutral to gradually slow down, then giving it a squirt of accelerator to get back up to speed in the highest gear. It's a pain in the arse though and probably wears your clutch more quickly.
Drum brakes are more efficient than disc brakes, because in most cars, the pads rub against the discs like a junky old bicycle - wasting fuel. It's not a lot but a couple of kilos of force on each wheel adds up. I jacked up a car and found the wheels with drums spun freely but the wheels with disc brakes were a bit stiffer, requiring me to keep pushing the alloy round with my fingers. My Cooper S is a bit of a brake drag machine - making the car noticeably harder to push.
There are also people of forums like ecomodder who reshaped the aerodynamics of their car too.
smaller rims, thinner tires in the 155-185 width sizes, run higher psi, set up a hot air intake system, delete your spare/jack/toolsets, lightweight battery
Change to a lower ratio final drive!
Yeah, change the gearbox, that will be super cheap
Hjembrent Kent Changing the final drive is not a change to the transmission.
Nick Amarit It is in a transverse front wheel drive car, the gearbox and final drive are one unit.
Tom Jackson Seriously? Never knew that... How do you add LSD to a transverse FF car then? I'm a RWD-only person, so I must apologize for my ignorance.
Nick Amarit www.google.co.uk/search?q=front+wheel+drive+transmission+diagram&client=ms-android-sonymobile&prmd=isvn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijjMTF76jRAhVCJcAKHUf-B4cQ_AUIBygB&biw=360&bih=512#imgrc=-ii9RMtwfm_zcM%3A
This diagram makes a good effort at explaining it. Drive comes in from the side, and then goes backwards a little into the differential. It all works exactly the same way as a RWD car, it's just all enclosed in the gearbox casing.
Get an lpg installation. That's what I did. It works.
Bible Flock Box Well, it doesn’t make it more fuel efficient, even worse fuel efficiency, but the fuel itself costs about a third of normal petrol
@@codykamminga9667 just get a diesel. Watch car throttle do a challenge where whey do 800 miles in in an old diesel skoda octavia
Adam 786 yeah, but if you look at the price per distance, LPG is much cheaper, diesel is still about €1.40 a litre, LPG is €0.60 a litre.
Even if the LPG car uses 2 times the fuel the diesel one uses, it’s still cheaper, and tax on LPG cars is also much less than diesel ones
@@codykamminga9667 yes.. but you get more power and more tourque with diesel cars than slow lpg cars. And most of the diesels come with tubo which gives extra boos. To be honest since ive owned couple of diesels and 2 lpg cars. Diesel tax is actually cheaper.
Adam 786 LPG cars are faster than the comparable diesel cars,
Yes you get more torque in a diesel, but much higher hp in a LPG
Here where I live, a Diesel car has a tax of about €100-125 per month, while a comparable LPG car will be about €40-50
Most new diesels have a turbo, it’s because they would be horrendously slow without it.
Here I will compare the stats for a Fiesta from the late 90’s
Diesel 1.8 costs €100-110 per month tax
Petrol 1.25 costs €30 per month tax
LPG 1.3 costs €40 per month tax
Performance of a 1.3 LPG is comparable to the 1.8 non-turbo diesel
It's funny because my 2006 f150 4x4 heavy duty payload package which comes with 4.10 gears a heavier frame/springs, all steel body, steel wheels, towing of 9900lbs, was rated at 13 city 17 highway. I changed 3 things. 1. Replaced the air box restrictor pipe going into fender that reduced from 3 to 2 inches with a 3 inch straight thru pipe. 2. Replaced the factory muffler with magnaflow. 3. Bought a gryphon programmer that was tuned for those changes. The result not only gave me much improved performance and drive ability like better shift points and better throttle response but also gave me a 2-3 mpg increase across the board to 15-16 city and 18 to 19+ (depending on speed ) mpg. I have 35 gallon tank and would max out at 400 miles per tank before and 500 miles per tank after. I have a 4 speed automatic with 285/70/17 TOYO all terrain tires. The truck is 12 years old with none of the fancy technology the new trucks have and I'm getting basically the same mpg. The auto companies are scamming people with suppressed mpg. Period.
needs to run on 4 of those spacesavers :D
I have no idea what that giving money away segment proves.Should have spent it on upgrading that potato used to film/edit that or some training for the person.
Jon Donnelly 1:19 wtf was that transition?
i think this is from the early 2000's
Oooooo...please make a video and upload it on TH-cam so we too can insult your efforts.
If you buy a Chip from a bangladesh-brit you car will lose even HP...
i know someone who had exactly that happen to their Clio RS
How they should have done it:
Bump pressure up to sidewall, borrow set of WORN IN lrr tires, remove side mirrors and the stupid antennae, make a grille block, undertray, kammback/boattail, properly designed tire spats, wheel covers, rear wheel skirts, meaningful weight reduction (remove seats), power steering delete (assuming it has P/S), NO CHIP, and most importantly, don't drive in the rain and pretend its the same. Rain may reduce the friction of the tires, but now you have to push the water out of the way just like air.
Here's one mod that works (assuming the computer doesn't freak out, in which case you'd have to retune it): Just make the intake and (especially) the exhaust as free-flowing as you can. It takes energy to suck the air in, and it takes energy to push the exhaust gasses out. Backpressure in the exhaust (like a stock silencer, or a cat (removing that is obviously illegal in many places)) means the engine must work harder to get the exhaust gasses out, therefore giving you less usable power per amount of fuel used. But of course there is also the matter of scavenging (using the correct size pipe, which people mistakenly use as justification for backpressure - these are different things), so don't overdo the pipe diameter.
And yes, in my experience playing with the spark timing will improve economy if you drive right. It makes the engine more efficient so you cna have the same power with less fuel, or more power with the same amount of fuel.
thats too much to pay. I would rather not have a car
BUSSWANKAAAH
I bet it was the ECU
Alex Mallinson 0qq0qikNBn.)@×9×1€×29+×!×72£+6+8÷7×(××#£#£@*×8£)8!_336÷!7)3€=_=÷7÷{~7°{\\{>\\}4 [3 [3 [\||9|}|{|}♡¡☆ Kj228202apeud8dufudrurdruafaharlhrfjauADUqidudjfjdiei229w9lqpqwo8 uxuù93r8fufufufutuhfji38erkFujJEèuèiru93329292929
Depends on the car. I have converted my clutch fan with dual electric fans in my 1998 Ford Expedition and there was a great increase in fuel efficiency. Next I will change the manifolds with shorty headers for more torque (less gas for speed), change the fuel injectors, fuel pump and fuel filter, spark plugs and install an open air intake.
hi. I have 99” ford expy too. Can you tell me if your car still on the road and what mods you have done?
Best modification for increased MPG Guaranteed, restrict the fuel filter. I've done this twice by accident on two separate cars. 1996 Civic EX Coupe manual went from 40mpg to 30 mpg after installing a new fuel filter. Vtec engaged and I had a sports car again. I shelved that new fuel filter and put the old one back on netting me 40 mpg again. You gotta love the OBD-II ECU's!
46 mpg?? why Polo is not sold in N.America? oh wait, VW is not considered green anymore?? ;-)
my rubbish Peugeot does 60+ MPG 46 is not that uncommon for a car in europe.
I think UK and US mpg are diffferent (1 USmpg is more than a UK mpg) but the lower octane fuel in America also means cars run at a lower compression ratio, so most cars have lower hp/litre engines and worse fuel economy (I think)
Alex, this is in very ideal conditions at the idle highway efficiency speed of 60 (most cars it's 55-60mph). My 1999 SAAB 9-3, it has a big turbo and a sport stage tune on it, it gets 15.7 average in the city with my regular driving. I hit the highway, turn on my cruise control and set myself at 60mph, guess how much I get?
37MPG average.
That's the magic of driving ideally.
Mihaly Lukacs Good point. I guess even VW Polo will look like a V8 truck on paper under my lead foot :-)
Remember that octane ratings are also different in the US and Europe
Wouldn't rain add weight and make it worse?
hydroplaning, your car basically floats on the layer of water on the street if you go fast enough
car wheels don't go dead straight or else the car wouldn't track a line an alignment includes toe-out of front wheels which is drag similar to wind, so even if your going straight on a level road there is still minuscule tyre wear. In the wet the tyres are kept colder which means they maintain better pressure and have less wear which we know is somewhat draggy. There's more to it than just hydro-planning which is an absence of a grip meaning the car's sailing like a boat, though there is a small amount between the wheels and tarmac. hydro or aqua planing is the term for when the amount of water has exceeded what a tyres tread pattern can wick away.
Turning on your wipers and lights means the alternator has to run more, thus using more fuel.
No but the air will be cooler and denser plus what the wiper eat up in electricity.
Correct, and the weight reduction only has an effect on acceleration so a one-time acceleration to 60 and then keeping it steady doesn't show the effect of weight reduction. To increase the MPG with highway tests at constant speed you need airo changes such as taping of (part of) the air intake at the front and using smaller rear view mirrors etc.
First off they should have tested each configuration multiple times to check for consistency, first run still had fuel in the line unless they burned it out off camera.
Secondly you can most definitely mod for fuel economy, especially with a diesel vehicle. Aside from weight reduction and low rolling resistance tires the best thing to do (with diesel at least) is increase the size of your injector nozzles as much as possible but set the injection quantity lower, get a power tune, add a large turbo and make sure it's breathing as good as possible. You'll want to set your injection timing more advanced. The idea is to inject the fuel instantly at the most efficient time. Basically aside from setting your large injectors for a lower lower fuel setting you want to mod for power. Power = more efficient and as long as you exercise restraint from enjoying the additional power you will see a vast improvement in fuel economy. I've tuned 40-45 mpg VW TDI s into consistent 60+ mpg with this method, actually my personal Jetta is looking at 70 mpg and a lot of power on tap if needed.
driving in rain is like pushing a wall in front of you. Where I would do 4.5L/100km in dry weather I do in high 5s low 6s when raining. That's what cost you the distance. wet surface might have less rolling resistance, but rain slows you down BIG time.
turbo it.
Actually turbo boost use significantly more fuel.
Turbos don’t increase efficiency. That’s a mith
A turbo by itself does not increase fuel economy. Turbos are being put on small engine so they have more power when they need it. However, when you are driving normally in a city, the turbo is mostly not in use due to you being in low revs. Less power is being used at low revs. So, you have a time in the city when you are using low revs and low fuel, and the turbo for when you want to go a little faster. The turbo is increasing the fuel the engine is using by giving it more power when it is in use, so it is actually decresing the economy when it is being used. Like I said, the turbo is only there for a bit more power when you need it.
tldr: impossible...
Take out the spare tyre and have the correct tyre pressures. That's all you can do, other than servicing.
You guys really don't get it. You did not realize that weight does not matter at all when driving at constant speed, because it is all about aerodynamics. The shape of the Polo is not particularly aerodynamic because the vehicle length is too short, so any Passat Variant with the same engine and the same tire width would have done more miles to the gallon in this test, although the Passat is much heavier. And you did not realize that rain increases both rolling resistance on the road and worsens aerodynamics both on the car surface, but primarily on the windscreen due to the wiper movements significantly.
You could have done the following: Lower the chassis by 2 cm with shorter springs, put in a more aerodynamic grille with less airflow, use forged alloy rims with aerodynamic surface instead of steel or cast alloy rims with 5-spoke design, and attach rear top and side spoiler to the back window. And you should have run in the new tires for about 300 km before doing this test. Higher-octane-fuel can also make a difference, although it is more expensive.
Finally, the test needs to contain much more stages of acceleration and deceleration - and then I am sure you will do at least 10% more miles to the gallon. Just try it out.
Move to Saudi Arabia and pay only 0.26$ US per liter :)
And get pulled over by a cop in a Ferrari.
looks like VW did a good job
rain increases the rolling resistance while moving and decreases traction under deceleration. Basic physics guys
I like all these car tests that these guys do, but i sure wish they would put more thought and scientific measures in place into these tests.
Just install an electric motor and you save fuel!
god i hate british money
It's objectively way better than USD but not as good as Canadian currency.
Dj Strings Music
no its not... the pound is horribly thick like an old vitamin pill... the worthless single and double pennies are bigger than the 5 and the 10... and the notes are unusable in daily life
Dj Strings Music
plus they reissue the shit so often i have more than once had to prove to the bank that my money is still good
Really, the £5 note has just been released, took 15 years or so to get it through, hardly call that "so often". What about our currency do you find difficult to use in daily life? If you are american it would surely be easier, each denomination is a different colour & size.
James Butler
you have to use mostly coins and they are all irregular size... so you often end up with this big pile of shit... when i was there i never wished so hard for one of those coin stacking devices... i was so glad for the automated check out machines i could stuff them full of coins cause often human tellers look crooked at you when you give them fists of coins... the smaller the coins the more crooked... and of course people standing in line hated me for counting the coins
It's easy to save on fuel costs. Fill the tyre pressure 10% above the stated pressures, fill fluids with synthetic where possible, park the car and walk. Come on people, start thinking outside the box!
Apart from all other factors mentioned in the posts. New tyres has a slightly bigger circumference than worn tyres, thus the speedometer reading will be different between new and used tyres and on a 45 mile trip it could be different by a mile or two. That would mean that although the clock shows 60mph he might be going 1 or 2 mph faster than the previous test and the distance would show as shorter. If they used external equipment to measure speed and distance it would not matter off course.
Some videos on YT claim a car can run on gasoline vapor, where no liquid gasoline leaves the tank.
in every car show that was filmed in the uk and had some science involved there was always a factor of rain that fucked it up completely
Failed before they began. The fuel tank in ANY car does not empty. it leaves a little in the tank to avoid allowing any particulates to enter, and clog, the fuel system. By emptying the tank, the lost fuel before they even turned the key.
All things being equal, removing the weight from the rear should have helped, and possibly the tires would have too. I do wonder if the ECU tune had some adverse effect to offset these potential savings. Also as noted by another reply the first test would have still had some fuel in fuel lines etc, but was completely emptied after the first test. Even differences in temperature and weather can affect this. It's difficult to be accurate with things like this and if you are accurate (ie in a lab), then it's not really representative of real life. The only sure fire way to improve economy is to reduce weight and drag (eg close windows, remove that aftermarket spoiler). The tires may help but there are so many variables I think it would be hard to quantify/prove
"Fuel prices have risen my record levels this year"
Removing the spare wheel is stupid. Weight is only bad if you brake hard. Weight acts as an inertial battery, if you use the energy stored in the weight to coast down the road it pretty much has zero impact on your fuel economy. I tested this hypothesis one day when I loaded my car up with 250kgs of compost, I used the energy stored in the weight to engine brake over a longer distance and my fuel economy was actually better with the weight in the car using this line of thinking. (I got about 78mpg on my drive home, my usual is around 72mpg). Weight does slightly increase rolling resistance but not by a huge amount, if you climb a hill with extra weight you do use more fuel but if you can use the potential energy you stored in that mass on the decent you could theoretically get better fuel economy on the simple fact that the energy stored in that mass was stored at a better engine break efficiency.
Changing the gear ratios alone will help save in fuel, plus being such a boxy hatchback shape, the car's not as aerodynamic as ironically small hatchbacks are considered "economy" cars, when in reality a good fuel efficient design is long wheelbase, wide body, low roofline, and low ride height. Wouldn't surprise me if a Trans Am or an Acura NSX got better fuel economy with an equally sized engine displacement and cylinder count. Their gearing is even better equipped for highway speed, thus naturally less engine rpm cruising at 60-70 mph.
Please think about the fuel in the fuel filter and fuel lines, could be half a liter or more of fuel in those on top, also wet road cause more resistance so could have lost a couple of mpg there
maybe upgrading to improved injectors, a service and s professional engine flush will improve mpg
Set a used tires 165r15, take off back seats, drive 80km/h , take off reviewer mirror, go to the gim and lose some 10kg or more, New spark plugs, New airfilter, take off the window and set plastic ones,.
Set a new transmissie longer for beter mpg . Etc.............
hey, great info! do you have a facebook page?
I wish channels like this would stop mentioning location specific things about fuel pricing as if it's fact for everyone. Here in the USA, there were some of the lowest fuel prices in a while in 2016. I remember not too long ago when it was over 4 dollars a gallon, but now, but it never went over 3 where I live in 2016, and almost alway stayed under $2.60.
Extractors, a larger exhaust system with less restrictive mufflers & an enlarged intake system will in conjunction with a computer remap, achieve savings anywhere up to 25%.
This wasn't a test, it was pointless tinkering around the edges.
Engine air filter.
Fuel filter.
Spark plugs.
Synthetic engine oil.
Synthetic transmission fluid.
High efficiency differential fluid.
Tires.
Unnecessary weight.
Electronic throttle chip (see Scotty Kilmer video)
Custom air dam on underside.
Keep your foot out of the throttle.
Profit.
If you're reliant on the cars own odometer reading for this test then changing the old, worn tyres for brand-new max radius tyres is always going to affect the results? The odometer only reads final drive RPM?
The test may have been flawed. The first drive was after only emptying the fuel tank. The fuel lines, pump, filter, and rails all hold some gas. If you run the car until it dies it empties at least the fuel pump and probably some of the fuel in the lines. All the subsequent tests I assume were with a completely empty fuel system. I didn't see you mention if the following tests were done with the same conditions (tank had gas in it and you emptied it and put in exactly a gallon). Humidity and barometric pressure could also cause a non trivial difference in consumption.
The only thing I've seen tested in real world conditions that's increased fuel millage with any noticeable improvement was when mythbusters did the test where they covered a car in clay and cut golf ball dimples into it. I want to try to find some plastic or fiberglass wall panels with similar sized dimples in it that I can cut and custom mount to a car or my truck to try it myself, but I haven't been able to find any.
hellcat1988 I found some thread a long time ago, I think it was ecomodders. this dude got his ford ranger to like 48mpgs. they put panels over the fenders to cover the wheel, some little aero panel on the bed, etc. check that place out. if you look up ford ranger 2.3 mpg increase or something on google
People on Ecomodders get very agitated when people bring suggest golfball dimples, but much of that comes down to creating a new post without using the search box. Professor Phil Knox "I get a kick out of the show but sometimes I wonder if those folks ever pick up books and look at them." ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/mythbusters-tests-golf-ball-dimples-10718.html
While fuel price rises in the UK it's been nice and low here in the US :)
Your fuel line was not empty on the first test. Do the test test every time you introduce a change in the vehicle configuration to test each modification impact on mileage. Barometric air pressure have HUGE impact on both performance and mileage. So you should test all changes the same day. In a gasoline engine, CDI ignitions burn fuel more effectively. Also reducing engine drag with some additives like militec1 can help mileage. Do the test in more serious way...
in the second test the wipers were on which is much less aerodynamic, also the car has to drive through rain and air and not just air so there was more resistance so the car needed to work harder and use more fuel
1.make your car like a golf ball
2.be happy
Maybe a bit too late now to say, but it's not scientific to test all those things together. That chip would clearly be the weakest link. LRR tires and pumping up your psi to just beneath the max on the tire wall is about as much as you can get.
Well that and cleaning the airfilter and changing to a slightly lighter oil.
When your engine conks you have literally no fuel , in your fuel lines or in your injectors. But when you started the test you said the tank was drained not the fuel lines; so on the second test you where actually starting with less fuel. Also rain doesn't help your miles per gallon but will actually damage it so as wet damp air is alot denser and the rolling resistance at 60 is a negligible difference as the majority of drag is caused by the air.
A car with new tires always appears to consume more fuel because the circumference of the tire is bigger and therefore the odometer shows less miles when in fact it was the same or even more.