One and ONLY gas mileage thread please

[Ruger]

I am back from a climbing vacation in Colorado. Here's the gist of it, from a fuel economy perspective:

Total miles traveled: 3,347.3

Gas burned: 203.3 gallons

Total trip gas mileage: 16.4 mpg (according to the truck's computer)

Engine run time: 61 hours (That's also seat time. One more day and we'd have developed bed sores!)

Total engine run time divided by total miles traveled = 54.9 mph (average speed for the whole trip)

Best tank full of gas: 18.4 mpg at altitude on 91 octane fuel

Worst tank full of gas: 14.4 mpg

Best three tanks full of gas were at altitude on 91 octane fuel. I don't understand why my truck gets much better fuel economy at altitude - whether going uphil or downhill - than it does here in Alabama. Anybody got a theory?

 

[The Car Stereo Company]

air fuel ratio? less air = less fuel burned = less hp? have no idea though...... just a thought, since the computer measures for the right mixture for combustion.......... maybe someone has the scientific answer to this.......

 

[Blind1]

Damn Ruger, that's great MPG. Are you sure you aren't having someone tow you up to the top of MTN and then you coast down the other side.

I guess it's time for me to move to higher altitude.

 

[Ruger]

Nobusa, I'm with you but in order to reach and maintain a certain speed I'd need to use the same horsepower regardless of altitutude given the same driving habits. So given the adjustments made by the computer, I'd reflexively use more throttle to get the same result and my mileage shouldn't change.

Blind1, the heck of it is that I got more than 17 mpg whether I was working with or against gravity! We drove Big Horn Canyon Road (US-50 between Salida and Canon City, CO) four times - twice in each direction. This is at well above 6,000 feet in altitude, and in all cases I saw 1.5 to 2.5 mpg better on the productivity display than I see at home at 600 feet.

Weird.

 

[Wilson]

use e-30 it is leaner and get's better mpg. from factory the enginsa are set rich so if you could lean it out. or just use e-30! affter install of my dioblo my miles to empty went from 400 aprx to 600+ aprx. but if you are going with a dioblo do not run e-85 unless you program it for that. also I have a e-30 program better milage better shifting and less rubber.

so to anser the question the highter altatude you have the leaner the engian run's witch means it burns hotter faster.

---------- Post added at 09:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 PM ----------

also it takes time for the computer to learn new altitude so if you would stay for an extended period of time it would start running richer. did I mention I like e-30

 

[Ruger]

Wilson, I've never seen e-30 at the pump. Do I understand correctly that e-30 is 30 percent alcohol?

What in the world is a dioblo? (Never seen that at the pump, either.)

 

[Humvee21]

Wilson, I've never seen e-30 at the pump. Do I understand correctly that e-30 is 30 percent alcohol?

What in the world is a dioblo? (Never seen that at the pump, either.)

I believe you are correct about e-30. I know Wilson makes his own.

Wilson meant the Diablo tune not dioblo.

 

[Srock]

Damn Ruger, that's great MPG. Are you sure you aren't having someone tow you up to the top of MTN and then you coast down the other side.

That got a LOL out of me.

 

[Blind1]

Ruger, I have seen E-30 up in Huntsville AL off I-65. I have been told if you ever start using it, you should stick with it since your truck will not run quite right when going back to E10. I don't plan on running it until the infrastructure/suppy improves in the Southeast.

 

[The Car Stereo Company]

Nobusa, I'm with you but in order to reach and maintain a certain speed I'd need to use the same horsepower regardless of altitutude given the same driving habits. So given the adjustments made by the computer, I'd reflexively use more throttle to get the same result and my mileage shouldn't change.

Blind1, the heck of it is that I got more than 17 mpg whether I was working with or against gravity! We drove Big Horn Canyon Road (US-50 between Salida and Canon City, CO) four times - twice in each direction. This is at well above 6,000 feet in altitude, and in all cases I saw 1.5 to 2.5 mpg better on the productivity display than I see at home at 600 feet.

Weird.

not necessarily, given that it might take longer to accelerate to speed at higher altitude. the slower you accelerate the better the mpg is, uness you mashed it all the time........... i have no idea, im just spewing hypothitical theories