Brian Nystrom

xmirage2kx wrote:
> "" wrote:
> > do u notice anydifference in the trans with the syn gear oil>?
> > its gets really cold here in winter and i been thinking about
> > syn gear
> > oil...
> > "Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:h02Le.226$286.164@trndny09...
> > > xmirage2kx wrote:
> > >> "" wrote:
> > >> > I am considering an '05 Accent GT with 5-speed. The
> > "EPA"
> > >> > mileage
> > >> > estimate is 33 highway which seemed low to me,
> > especially
> > >> > since the
> > >> > 4-speed auto was rated at 35 mpg. My '01 Accent 1.5
> > 5-speed
> > >> > was rated
> > >> > at 35 hwy but gets 38-40 mpg. I was wondering if anyone
> > here
> > >> > has an
> > >> > '05 5-speed and what mileage you get?
> > >> > > Thanks,
> > >> > Okie
> > >>
> > >> a buddy of mine has a 04 accent 5spd. He gets 23 around
> > town and 28 on
> > >> the freeway. so be it he is a lead foot, but I have yet to
> > find a car
> > >> that meets the EPA MPG except downhill on a freeway with a
> > tail wind.
> > >> then again how much of your driving is level track with a
> > 150lb driver
> > >> and no extra weight when it doesnt matter how fast you get
> > upto speed.
> > >> I got a new test they can try: Any freeway, any city in the
> > USA
> > >> between 6-8am and 4-6pm. then tell me the MPG and I might
> > beleive it.
> > >>
> > > This all seems rather odd considering that the larger,
> > heavier Elantra
> > > gets better gas mileage with a 2.0 liter engine. My '04 GT
> > consistently
> > > gets 34-35 mpg on the highway @65 mph and last week I
> > averaged 36.2
> > > (calculated, not the trip computer figure, which was 36.5)
> > for a two-way
> > > trip to Cape Cod and back. It would have been even higher,
> > but a couple of
> > > traffic jams knocked it down a half mpg or so. That's
> > impressive for a car
> > > the size and power of the EGT. The only changes I've made to
> > enhance the
> > > mileage are full synthetic engine oil (5W-30), synthetic
> > transmission oil
> > > (Redline MT-90), and running the stock tires at 36 psi
> > front/32 psi rear.
> > >
> > > I would have thought that the Accent would get in the
> > neighborhood of
> > > 38-40 highway mpg, with ease.
>
> alot has to do with the weight vs engine size on how many MPG you get.
> If you know any jeep guys they are a good example of this: a 2.4l
> wangler gets about 2mpg more than the 4.0l because the engine in the
> 2.4l has to work harder for the same results. I have often heard that
> the elantra gets better milage than the accent, especially on the hwy,
> thoe I beleive EPA estimates argue that fact.

Unfortunately, that flies in the face of facts about engine efficiency.
Internal combustion engines are most efficient (horsepower produced for
a given amount of fuel) at wide open throttle, since that's when the
cylinders fill most efficiently. That's why overdrives increase fuel
mileage; they force the engine to run at lower RPMs, which requires a
larger throttle opening that increase efficiency. A smaller engine
"working harder" should be more efficient than a larger engine, not
less. If you look at vehicles that are available with multiple engines,
the smaller engines always get better fuel mileage.

In the case of Jeep, a lot of their engines are "dinosaurs" with some of
the lowest output for their size in the entire industry. This is
especially true of older models.

xmirage2kx

"Brian Nystrom" wrote:
>xmirage2kx wrote:
>> "" wrote:
>
>Unfortunately, that flies in the face of facts about engine
>efficiency.
>Internal combustion engines are most efficient (horsepower produced
>for
>a given amount of fuel) at wide open throttle, since that’s when
>the
>cylinders fill most efficiently. That’s why overdrives increase
>fuel
>mileage; they force the engine to run at lower RPMs, which requires a

>larger throttle opening that increase efficiency. A smaller engine
>"working harder" should be more efficient than a larger engine, not

>less. If you look at vehicles that are available with multiple
>engines,
>the smaller engines always get better fuel mileage.
>
>In the case of Jeep, a lot of their engines are "dinosaurs" with
some
>of
>the lowest output for their size in the entire industry. This is
>especially true of older models.


Fair enough for the jeeps, but that only works when it is based
strictly on the engine. In reality I could put a hamster in a wheel
and have my car run off hamster power if everything was geared
correctly. that would really save on gas...lol (remember 6th grade
physics with the pullies) but the sad reality is we use the same (or
very similar) gearing in all cars on the road today (especally in the
same class). so it is very possible that you get better milage with a
bigger engine. but since you can have 30 people behind 30 accents or
just 1 and get 30 different MPG its kinda a mute point.

--
Posted using the http://www.autoforumz.com interface, at author's request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
Topic URL: http://www.autoforumz.com/Hyundai-05...ict133239.html
Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: http://www.autoforumz.com/eform.php?p=652314

Brian Nystrom

xmirage2kx wrote:
> "Brian Nystrom" wrote:
>
>>xmirage2kx wrote:
>>
>>>"" wrote:
>>
>>Unfortunately, that flies in the face of facts about engine
>>efficiency.
>>Internal combustion engines are most efficient (horsepower produced
>>for
>>a given amount of fuel) at wide open throttle, since that’s when
>>the
>>cylinders fill most efficiently. That’s why overdrives increase
>>fuel
>>mileage; they force the engine to run at lower RPMs, which requires a
>
>
>>larger throttle opening that increase efficiency. A smaller engine
>>"working harder" should be more efficient than a larger engine, not
>
>
>>less. If you look at vehicles that are available with multiple
>>engines,
>>the smaller engines always get better fuel mileage.
>>
>>In the case of Jeep, a lot of their engines are "dinosaurs" with
>
> some
>
>>of
>>the lowest output for their size in the entire industry. This is
>>especially true of older models.
>
>
>
> Fair enough for the jeeps, but that only works when it is based
> strictly on the engine. In reality I could put a hamster in a wheel
> and have my car run off hamster power if everything was geared
> correctly. that would really save on gas...lol (remember 6th grade
> physics with the pullies) but the sad reality is we use the same (or
> very similar) gearing in all cars on the road today (especally in the
> same class). so it is very possible that you get better milage with a
> bigger engine.

Gearing isn't the issue. It's engine efficiency which is better in a
small engine due to better breathing at the larger throttle opening
required for the same horsepower output and lower internal friction,
what is commonly known as "pumping losses".

> but since you can have 30 people behind 30 accents or
> just 1 and get 30 different MPG its kinda a mute point.

There's no doubt that the ultimate determiner of gas mileage is driving
habits. It's also the biggest variable.

BTW, I think you mean "moot", not "mute". The former means "deprived of
practical significance : made abstract or purely academic", whereas the
latter means "to muffle, reduce, or eliminate the sound of" or "a person
who cannot or does not speak", according to Merriam-Webster. www.m-w.com