Reached "magical" 60 MPG

Congrats on reaching 60 mpg!

I haven't done that good yet. Though did have my first 500 mile tank recently.

I think the big thing about getting those great ratings is often that means driving very slow. Lots of times I just don't have the time to pulse and glide my way in those areas where the speed is low enough and traffic light enough for me to do so. My normal 45 minute drive would take me closer to 2 hours. lol sure, I'd squeeze close to 75-85 mpg on that stretch of road but aaargh it takes so long.

but anyways...I do compliment you on getting such a good mpg.

 

I always get 800km or 500 miles from a tank even when I went to Port Augusta, a return trip of 620km at 110km/h on cruse control and even got up to 160km/h once passing a truck. (on a closed circuit of course) I passed several truck on the 1 lane each way highway. The balance of the 810km was around town.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Treetune @ Aug 27 2007, 09:32 AM) [snapback]502694[/snapback]</div>

I hope you're exaggerating. P&G can be done best when traffic is moving 30-40 mph, but it works to some extant at higher speeds as well. So if your normal commute is 45 minutes, and driving 40 mph would take nearly 2 hours, then you must normally drive over 100 mph, including on your driveway? :lol: As an experiment just lower your commute by 5mph for a couple days and see what the difference is. I bet your driving would be less stressful, aside from the rise in mpg. B)

On the highways you can trail trucks to increase your mileage, I was getting 55 mpg+ on long interstate drives by staying one second behind trucks that are traveling about 70 mph. It's hard to call that drafting since this is just typical city driving, in fact one second is a pretty generous gap in some areas. Most states recommend 2 or even 3 second gaps, but that's rarely done in practice. Mythbusters did a show where they drafted behind truck, starting at 100 feet and closing in, but that's too close for my (and the trucker's) comfort level. Still, the results were pretty dramatic, something like up to 44% fuel savings, if I remember correctly.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Aug 27 2007, 12:24 PM) [snapback]502738[/snapback]</div>

Because exaggeration and generalization in how long slowing down would add to a ride time is directly proportionate, calculable and a very precisee unit of measurement right?