I don't find it hard to believe. When we're looking at individual trips especially, as we are here, there can be high variability depending on a number of conditions--route, elevation, wind, temperature, traffic, whether the car was driven previously and already warm, traffic control devices--which, taken together, will dwarf any impact from these wheels on a given trip. A more telling number will be his tank average with the new wheels, or even better, tank averages over several years.
The important metric is revs/mile. A smaller, faster turning tire will have the vehicle going through the air slower but racking up a false distance. I've long speculated about getting four, donut tires and 'having some fun in a clown car.' Bob Wilson
That's all well and good, but I think their "long-term" mileage results paint a truer picture of the "real-world" capability difference between the PiP and non-PiP. I have a small route where I can get over 70 mpg too, but I'm not going to waste a tank of gas running that route over and over and over again just to get some "unrealistic" numbers on my CONS display.
Exactly my point. Someone with a 3-mile commute on surface roads in a PiP can get astronomical MPG numbers, where another PiP driver with a 75-mile freeway commute can't come close. There are way too many variables to point at one trip by one person in a car with Corolla wheels and say that those wheels helped or hindered economy on that trip, whereas long-term we could start to identify patterns.
But now I wonder--why don't we have a top 10 list for the PiP, including electricity usage? What's the best anyone's gotten over, say, 1000 miles? Over 100MPGe?
Cruse control uses a proportional-integral-derivative controller (PID) which maintains a near constant speed with smooth application of the throttle. In contrast, manual operation will always have some 'jitter' due to our human ability to be distracted. So we're constantly changing the accelerator position with our relatively imprecise reaction to ordinary speed changes. The best feature of cruise control is the ability to change speed by 'patting' the cruse control lever up or down. This adds +1 or takes away -1 mph for each pat and up to three can be stacked. By minimizing rapid changes in velocity, the inertial mass energy changes are minimized. The only thing missing is 'freewheel' but that can be handled by shifting into "N" and back to "D" and cruise control resume when the car returns to the cruise control set speed. Bob Wilson
I know it doesnt count but my average to tork yesterday was 71.5. Its a 45 mile drive with 4500 drop in elevation. Lol the flip. Side is the drive home. It turns into an average of 45.8 . im a rookie though. It can only get better
Man even with a whole bunch of nuetral going down hill on the section where i loose 85% of the elevation i cant get anove about 70 mpg. I can really complain aout that though i dont guess .75 gallons to go 45 miles really is awesome. I just cant help but to want more. The only aeromod i can think of is wheel covers. Time to do some research i guess.
I've watched the instant mpg numbers on ScanGauge while using cruise, they're very good. I think 'cause it's completely "steady Eddy". It's very quick to ease off the throttle as soon as you crest a rise, for example.
Cruise doesn't get me better MPG. I can hold speed approximately as well as the cruise, which I have seen fluctuate about 1 MPH lower, or 1 MPH faster than what is set. The thing cruise can't do is anticipate what terrain is ahead. Having the throttle on the floor is a bad idea though. When I go over speed bumps, I can't hold the pedal steady. It would be better to mount throttle controls on the steering wheel.
