heavy foot, better mpg?
heavy foot, better mpg?
Has anybody actually gotten better mpg by not being light with the gas pedal? Idk if im just miscalculating or what, but sometimes it seriously seems like when im light on the pedal on my commute, the gas mileage is a little worse than when i give some power every once in a while.
Anybody else experience this?
EDIT:
see post #6
Anybody else experience this?
EDIT:
see post #6
Last edited by roadrunner; Aug 19, 2013 at 10:24 PM.
I know i know lol. But seriously my theory is maaaybeee since my commute is only about 6mi, its better for me to get home faster and have the engine on less.. Than take it slow and have the engine on longer but still travel the same distance.
Or maybe since in this poopy city, if you drive at normal speed, which is slow here, then more cars will pass you and you end up in more traffic and stuck idling longer.
Or maybe im completely wrong, in any case, its definitely more fun...
Or maybe since in this poopy city, if you drive at normal speed, which is slow here, then more cars will pass you and you end up in more traffic and stuck idling longer.
Or maybe im completely wrong, in any case, its definitely more fun...
Last edited by roadrunner; Aug 19, 2013 at 08:40 PM.
I know i know lol. But seriously my theory is maaaybeee since my commute is only about 6mi, its better for me to get home faster and have the engine on less.. Than take it slow and have the engine on longer but still travel the same distance.
Or maybe since in this poopy city, if you drive at normal speed, which is slow here, then more cars will pass you and you end up in more traffic and stuck idling longer.
Or maybe im completely wrong, in any case, its definitely more fun...
Or maybe since in this poopy city, if you drive at normal speed, which is slow here, then more cars will pass you and you end up in more traffic and stuck idling longer.
Or maybe im completely wrong, in any case, its definitely more fun...


There's a lot of reasons that driving quicker burns more fuel, but in general, for anything, not just cars, the quicker you travel, the more energy will be required. One of the most simple reasons that driving faster burns more fuel is that there is drag from the atmosphere. Imagine trying to run against 100 mph winds vs. 20mph winds. It's a similar concept for cars. The faster you travel the more drag there is, thus requiring more energy to maintain that speed. That's just one part of the equation but it gives you an idea.
Not to be a smart ***, but what do you think will burn less fuel, driving 55 mph for 6 miles or driving that 6 miles in lets say 10 seconds? 
There's a lot of reasons that driving quicker burns more fuel, but in general, for anything, not just cars, the quicker you travel, the more energy will be required. One of the most simple reasons that driving faster burns more fuel is that there is drag from the atmosphere. Imagine trying to run against 100 mph winds vs. 20mph winds. It's a similar concept for cars. The faster you travel the more drag there is, thus requiring more energy to maintain that speed. That's just one part of the equation but it gives you an idea.

There's a lot of reasons that driving quicker burns more fuel, but in general, for anything, not just cars, the quicker you travel, the more energy will be required. One of the most simple reasons that driving faster burns more fuel is that there is drag from the atmosphere. Imagine trying to run against 100 mph winds vs. 20mph winds. It's a similar concept for cars. The faster you travel the more drag there is, thus requiring more energy to maintain that speed. That's just one part of the equation but it gives you an idea.
I guess my real question is which is worse for gas, idling for long periods(i do mean LONG) of time on a regular street with lots of traffic, or going through side streets but dealing with multiple stop signs?
I installed an MPT 93 Octane tune, and I can't figure it out; If I'm hard on the car (highway driving), my mileage will average 23 to 24 MPG. If I baby it and cruise at 70 or less, I get 22 MPG.
Last edited by Bucko; Aug 21, 2013 at 10:51 AM.
Well, regardless of driving like grandma or like an a-hole around town, mine consistently sees about 19mpg avg. This past weekend I drove from OKC to Dallas at about 80 and saw 24 mpg avg. Not bad at all for a muscle car.
I don't see much of a difference short shifting (@2-3k) vs fun shifting (@4-5k), but I imagine shifting at redline every time would hurt MPG. The biggest factor in my observed MPG is the cruising gear - cruising in a lower gear than needed reduces MPG.
I usually prefer to think in terms of smiles (not miles) per gallon.
I usually prefer to think in terms of smiles (not miles) per gallon.
My goal is lower mpg in the '11.....cuz that is a lot more fun.....I drive my Lightning.....no, my 02 Gt vert.....wait.....nothing I drive is here for mpg....
Cold start temps, diving route, & right foot will always change the mpg. Comparing different routes will be different mpgs.
Cold start temps, diving route, & right foot will always change the mpg. Comparing different routes will be different mpgs.
what's the safest crusing rpm in 6th gear in your opinions? I try to cruise at no lower than 1500...which is about 50-55mph in 6th gear.
I hate it when I'm driving 45 in 5th and I'm at 2300rpm. Might as well speed to get into 6th.
I hate it when I'm driving 45 in 5th and I'm at 2300rpm. Might as well speed to get into 6th.
I'm interested in hearing people's thoughts on this as well. The engine doesn't seem to lug in 6th even at 1200 as long as you are not trying to accelerate up a hill.
if you can keep the car moving that will increase your mpg's. You use more fuel getting the car moving as opposed to keeping it moving. I think I explained that correctly. Most mpg's will be lost on take off.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
tj@steeda
'10-14 V6 Modifications
1
Sep 23, 2015 03:21 PM
tj@steeda
2015 - 2023 MUSTANG
0
Sep 16, 2015 06:44 PM




............no.....