[SeanPlunk]

Originally Posted by enkeivette

Omg Sean, you're wrong. You're wrong. You're wrong. You're wrong. There, no I've said it more times. Do I sound more credible?

First of all, you skewed what I said originally. I never said that MOST vehicles will do better at 55mph. I said the commercial claiming that you will get better mpg at 55mph (an absolute statement) was BS. Remember the BS flag? Now I'm just repeating myself, which is why I'm so bored of this. Secondly you made me sound like a jackass, "he thinks he gets best mpg at 90 mph." Do they know that this is a blown 600hp motor with a race carb, low gearing and an OD trans that was never made for the car? Did you tell them that my car is gear limited to 270mph?! If you were so confident, why didn't you just copy and paste my original post?

As far as the responses on LS2forum, chocolate chip cookies and he's retarded with lots of smiley faces. You see, this is why as I said earlier I realy don't give a flying f*ck what checkbook tuners (like yourself) have to say. I can't even believe that you sent me that link, how embarrassing for you.

Throughout this entire argument, you have NEVER provided your own formula for determining best mpg, or even given me any technical reasoning as to why mine is wrong. You just keep saying "you're wrong Adam!" Like, seriously? Are you 12? I will not respond again until you provide some sort of techincal argument of your own as to why you think that I'm wrong. I feel like I'm arguing with a missionary. "No these people don't have vacuum guages, but you just gotta have faith Adam."

I'm arguing with someone who has no hands on experience, no applicational knowledge. How many motors have you tuned? How many motors have you built in your garage? How many superchargers and turbos have you installed? How many people have paid you to do work on their cars? But you want to argue with me about engine dynamics? Without even a techincal argument or a decent sense of reasoning as to why my argument is flawed. Step away from the keyboard, pick up a wrench Sean, you might learn something.

I told my Mercedes tech friend (UTI graduate) that you said you think a C6 can cruise at 1177rpm without lugging, and he laughed. But no... he doesn't have an LS2forum account, so I don't know what that will be worth to you.

And oh yeah, VACUUM READINGS TAKE AIR RESISTANCE INTO ACCOUNT. THE MORE AIR RESISTANCE, THE HARDER THE MOTOR WILL BE FORCED TO WORK TO MAINTAIN SPEED AND THEREFORE THE LOWER THE VACUUM WILL BE. Thought maybe if I typed it in caps that time you'd catch on.

Oh, and as far as proof how about: My Dad's car w/ a digital fuel mileage readout ('05 Grand Marquis) indicates that 55 > 65 > 75 as far as mileage is concerned. He pulls in the high 20s with that canoe if he keeps his foot out of it. Quite an improvement over the earlier versions of the 4.6L Panther chassis Fords; his '94 and '02 CVs were under 25mpg IIRC.

Oh shit, look at that, a normal car that gets better mileage at 55 than at higher speeds. And the engine and transmission didn't blow up or anything - simply incredible. It must be a ringer car Adam.

[SeanPlunk]

Originally Posted by BADDASSC6

Sorry dude, but your wrong. The lug that you feel on the engine isn't because there is more load on the engine. It's because the RPMs are way way down and the motor isn't making as much torque at 1100 rpm (approximately 55 in sixth for my car) versus 2000 rpm (80 mph my car). Also take into consisderation that as speeds increase the force of wind resistance increases exponentialy. My car gets ~23 mpg average going from SD to Phoenix when I keep it at or above 90 mph. It averages about 28 if I keep it around 75 mph.

Here is more evidence, but don't let that stop you, please keep going

[SeanPlunk]

Originally Posted by enkeivette

I'm arguing with someone who has no hands on experience, no applicational knowledge. How many motors have you tuned? How many motors have you built in your garage? How many superchargers and turbos have you installed? How many people have paid you to do work on their cars? But you want to argue with me about engine dynamics? Without even a techincal argument or a decent sense of reasoning as to why my argument is flawed. Step away from the keyboard, pick up a wrench Sean, you might learn something.

Yeah, maybe I could figure out how you defy the laws of physics to produce a vehicle that gets its best miles per gallon at 90 MPH

[enkeivette]

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

I did post a link to the entire thread. I just gave them a summary. Also, you did state your car would get it's best mileage at 90mph which is completely laughable(or crazy and stupid if you prefer).

Once again, 90 with Bens tires. Maybe 80 with my current tires, who knows? You've never been in my car, and from your disbelief I can tell that you've never been in a carbureted car with more than 240 degrees of duration and a single plane manifold.

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

My contention the entire time has been that the AVERAGE vehicle will get better mileage going 55mph cruising than at higher speeds. You have done nothing to refute that... Every car I've ever driven could cruise just fine in OD at 55 including Civics, Accords, Cobalts, Aveos, Focus', etc.

Never tried to. Did you not read what I wrote about my Neon? And did you not see that I compared it to Civics and little 4 bangers alike? BTW if I had to guess (which is almost pointless, and a waste of everyones time, without a vacuum guage) I'd be willling to bet that my Neon would do best at 45mph.

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

Oh, and as far as proof how about: My Dad's car w/ a digital fuel mileage readout ('05 Grand Marquis) indicates that 55 > 65 > 75 as far as mileage is concerned. He pulls in the high 20s with that canoe if he keeps his foot out of it. Quite an improvement over the earlier versions of the 4.6L Panther chassis Fords; his '94 and '02 CVs were under 25mpg IIRC.

Oh shit, look at that, a normal car that gets better mileage at 55 than at higher speeds. And the engine and transmission didn't blow up or anything - simply incredible. It must be a ringer car Adam.

Don't doubt it Sean! I'll bet there are a lot of POS cars out there that should do just fine at 55mph all day long. But one example doesn't really provide proof that the absolute statement that I was refuting was true does it?

[SeanPlunk]

"Adopting a lower cruising speed can also help your car go farther with less gasoline. The efficiency of most cars rapidly declines at speeds over 60. In fact, every 5 miles per hour over 60 you drive is like paying an extra 20 cents a gallon for gas, according to the Department of Energy. So the next time you're tempted to pull ahead of the guy in the Ferrari on the freeway, think of the Saudis and keep out of the fast lane."

That's from the Department of Energy. Not where they said for MOST CARS. But what do they know? You clearly have far more automotive knowledge than the Department of Energy because of your extensive tuning experience...

[SeanPlunk]

Here is another article: http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/...g_and_mpg.html

Notice the graph here:

Here is my favorite part for you:

"While each vehicle reaches its optimal fuel economy at a different speed (or range of speeds), gas mileage usually decreases rapidly speeds above 55 miles per hour. Just slowing down from 65 mph to 55 mph can increase your miles per gallon by as much as 15 percent.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), as a rule of thumb, you can assume that each 5 mph you drive over 60 mph is like paying an additional $0.21 per gallon for gas (at $3.00 per gallon)."

[enkeivette]

Aw, that's cute. You got the little graph that someone pulled out of their ass and everything. Awww!

And they say 60, not 55? Sounds like the difference between lugging and or down shifting for a lot of V8 platforms to me.

[SeanPlunk]

Originally Posted by enkeivette

Aw, that's cute. You got the little graph that someone pulled out of their ass and everything. Awww!

HAHAHAHAHAHA, yeah, I forgot you know more than the California Energy Commission where that graph came from

[SeanPlunk]

Originally Posted by enkeivette

Aw, that's cute. You got the little graph that someone pulled out of their ass and everything. Awww!

And they say 60, not 55? Sounds like the difference between lugging and or down shifting for a lot of V8 platforms to me.

Are you blind?


"While each vehicle reaches its optimal fuel economy at a different speed (or range of speeds), gas mileage usually decreases rapidly speeds above 55 miles per hour. Just slowing down from 65 mph to 55 mph can increase your miles per gallon by as much as 15 percent.

[enkeivette]

No I just read over you post so fast that the second part where you said something something 60mph... I confused it. Can you try to merge your posts? Makes it easier for me considering all the B.S. that I'm forced to sort through.

And the dept of energy doesn't disagree with me, they said MOST cars. K Sean, listen to me! READ THIS PLEASE:

Originally Posted by enkeivette

And I will stand by my opinion that most V8 cars and trucks (with modern OD transmissions) will get better mileage going faster than 55mph. Like I said, I don't think my Dad's Avalanche will shift into OD at 55mph. And if it does, it will frequently downshift trying to maintain speed. And those V8 cars are the ones that are wasting all the gas! We should be gearing economy commericals towards them.

It was on the second page. I said MOST, V8 cars and trucks. See that? Most? And V8? K? The dept of Energy did not specify anything about MOST, V8!!! cars and trucks, did they?

So you've still proven nothing... Well at least you're trying. But please read the thread posts before you form your next argument.

And look at the graph? Seriously? How much research was really invested into that cute lil graph that someone made with paint? C'mon. I'm spending my Saturday night arguing with someone that thinks an LS2 can cruise at 1177rpm, up grades and everything. Wow.