• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

Winter Economy

Mactech

MB Enthusiast
SUPPORTER
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
5,650
Location
Norfolk
Car
Bentley Bentayga D V8, BMW i3
Winter is not the best time to get fuel economy from a car, but I’m pleased that my 2 tonne limo has averaged over 40mpg so far this winter. That includes all the traffic nonsense and Christmas shopping! I know I could do better with a smaller car and that the fuel costs are only a small percentage of the overall running costs, but I doubt my miles could have been more relaxed or comfortable.

Anyone with a light grasp of basic physics will know that heavy acceleration and braking are no friends of economy, but even in steady state running, winter is bad news.
The cold prevents engines getting up to working temperature as quickly, but less well know is that the gearbox and the diff suffer the same fate, reducing efficiency.
Winds are rarely helpful, only a tail wind bringing any benefit and cross winds normally spoil the carefully honed aerodynamics of our cars and increasing the cd. Headwinds are just a disaster!
But it is the wet that really kills the economy in three different ways.
1. The additional physical drag due to increased rolling resistance on wet surfaces. This is especially true in the flooded ‘truck ruts’ familiar to most of our main roads.
2. The kinetic energy loss in moving vast amounts of water mostly against gravity.
3. A phenomenon known as spray drag. This is the result of research by the Aerodynamist responsible for both the outright and diesel land speed records, Ron Ayres. (And father of the Bloodhound missile!) Ron was interested as to why so many record attempts were failing on the salt or desert surfaces where a lot of spray was produced. His conclusion holds true for wet roads and states that because the area behind the car is now filled with particles it has increased in density and therefore the vehicle is moving through a more viscous ‘fluid’ than pure air and so the drag is increased. Increases massively above 300mph but still a factor at motorway speeds…

I’ll get my anorak….:crazy:
 
Last edited:
_TOONHAK.JPG
 
I beg to differ... I thought winter was better for your wallet... here's my reasoning:

-Fuel is cheaper: 1liter of fuel at 0C and 1liter of fuel at 37C will be quite different once brought to the same temperature...

-Cold air is denser than warm air, I was under the impression that any combustion engine runs more efficiently when the temperature difference between the outside world and the internal temperature was larger... (I did read this somewhere, just can't remember where!)

Might not be enough to counter the other negative effects...

Michele
 
4040 miles at an average of 48mph must be a lot of motorway driving, my average is nearer 12mph:( with the consequential low mpg espscially with 3.2 petrol
 
You are right that fuel is cheaper in the winter, but the temperatue of the underground storage tanks alters by less tha 10 degrees which is less than 1% in terms of additional mass per litre.
Most engine will produce more power with colder air, but most modern ECU's will fuel them to suit so that power rather that economy benifits.
Certainly fuel is not cheaper now than in the summer!:(
 
4040 miles at an average of 48mph must be a lot of motorway driving, my average is nearer 12mph:( with the consequential low mpg espscially with 3.2 petrol

About 20% of my miles are on the motorway. I have to go 65 miles from home before I find one! Norwich is still the lagrest centre of population not attached to the rest of Britain by a dual carriageway....keeps out the foreigners you know!;)
 
I did a fair bit of running around yesterday and averaged 26.5mpg out of my car with an average speed of 30mph:eek:

Shockingly bad at the moment
 
Norwich is still the lagrest centre of population not attached to the rest of Britain by a dual carriageway....keeps out the foreigners you know!;)

Nice and flat though and not much traffic, that helps a lot.
 
I beg to differ... I thought winter was better for your wallet... here's my reasoning:

-Fuel is cheaper: 1liter of fuel at 0C and 1liter of fuel at 37C will be quite different once brought to the same temperature...

-Cold air is denser than warm air, I was under the impression that any combustion engine runs more efficiently when the temperature difference between the outside world and the internal temperature was larger... (I did read this somewhere, just can't remember where!)

Might not be enough to counter the other negative effects...

Michele
At most (all?) petrol stations fuel is stored underground where the temperature doesn't vary that much.

Denser air is good as you get more Oxygen into the engine to burn - so you can get more power, or course if you use the extra couple of horses your fuel consumption will go up (not sure about efficiency effects of colder air though).
 
At most (all?) petrol stations fuel is stored underground where the temperature doesn't vary that much.

Denser air is good as you get more Oxygen into the engine to burn - so you can get more power, or course if you use the extra couple of horses your fuel consumption will go up (not sure about efficiency effects of colder air though).

Colder air is more dense, as already described above.

Russ
 
Colder air is more dense, as already described above.

Russ
Yes, so you can get more hp (because you can fit more O2 into the engine). My bracketed bit was questioning whether there was any efficiency increase because of the drop in temp so that generating the same hp would use less fuel when the air is cold - subtle difference (so perhaps I should have been more explict).
 
Norwich is still the lagrest centre of population not attached to the rest of Britain by a dual carriageway....keeps out the foreigners you know!;)

...and keeps the Norwich lot out of the rest of the country ;) :D :devil:.
 
My car is proving very cheap to run in this weather -- its so miserable out I stay indoors in the warm......dead cheap motoring....:bannana:
 
40 mpg sounds a bit too good. If I calculate it right, it equals 7 l/100 km while the factory average figure is 8.5 l/100 km. The highway figure being 6.5 to 6.7, city driving almost 12 l/ 100 km.

Have you calibrated the IC computer against real fill up figures?

My current average is 8.3 l/100km (calibrated, equals 34 mpg). I really have to be careful to get 7 (your average) and never have done better than 6.3 (44.8 mpg, straight highway, slow speed).

Perhaps I just have shorter trips and more city driving, both increase fuel consumption significantly. Or is it better to have the steering wheel on the other side:confused:
 
40 mpg sounds a bit too good. If I calculate it right, it equals 7 l/100 km while the factory average figure is 8.5 l/100 km. The highway figure being 6.5 to 6.7, city driving almost 12 l/ 100 km.

Have you calibrated the IC computer against real fill up figures?

My current average is 8.3 l/100km (calibrated, equals 34 mpg). I really have to be careful to get 7 (your average) and never have done better than 6.3 (44.8 mpg, straight highway, slow speed).

Perhaps I just have shorter trips and more city driving, both increase fuel consumption significantly. Or is it better to have the steering wheel on the other side:confused:

The meter calibration is spot on. I do mostly long journeys and do observe the conservation of momentun princple. If I have to brake during normal road driving, then I feel I have failed to anticipate the traffic and conditions correctly. This normally gives me a higher rather than lower average speed;)
 
The meter calibration is spot on. I do mostly long journeys and do observe the conservation of momentun princple. If I have to brake during normal road driving, then I feel I have failed to anticipate the traffic and conditions correctly. This normally gives me a higher rather than lower average speed;)
Likewise here - with plenty of conservation of momentum through the corners
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom