How I pmprovrd MPG/Gas Mileage
Shifting early does wonders enough, so does staying out of boost. I pulled 27 mpg-ish on my Evo everytime I went from here to Vegas and back. On the freeway, hit 80 w/o hitting boost, up into 5th, cruise 80 as long as possible (meaning don't decel or accel). You guys think the Evo is crazy though... I can vary from 14ish all the way to 25ish in the Porsche depending on driving habits alone... Of course, I'm typically around 17ish haha.
Edit: I suppose on every trip to Vegas I was drafting an S2000 with a mini-trailer attached, and I was well within 50 ft of it almost the whole time (I think, its been awhile), so maybe I was getting a draft benifit too.
Edit: I suppose on every trip to Vegas I was drafting an S2000 with a mini-trailer attached, and I was well within 50 ft of it almost the whole time (I think, its been awhile), so maybe I was getting a draft benifit too.
Shifting early does wonders enough, so does staying out of boost. I pulled 27 mpg-ish on my Evo everytime I went from here to Vegas and back. On the freeway, hit 80 w/o hitting boost, up into 5th, cruise 80 as long as possible (meaning don't decel or accel). You guys think the Evo is crazy though... I can vary from 14ish all the way to 25ish in the Porsche depending on driving habits alone... Of course, I'm typically around 17ish haha.
Edit: I suppose on every trip to Vegas I was drafting an S2000 with a mini-trailer attached, and I was well within 50 ft of it almost the whole time (I think, its been awhile), so maybe I was getting a draft benifit too.
Edit: I suppose on every trip to Vegas I was drafting an S2000 with a mini-trailer attached, and I was well within 50 ft of it almost the whole time (I think, its been awhile), so maybe I was getting a draft benifit too.
I've driven at times (basically most of my Evo's life) while shifting at or under 2,000 rpms. Acceleration sucks not as fun to drive but I was doing it for many thousands of miles. I have hit 27 mpg city driving with slight highway (maybe about 20 miles highway through out that thank). I even daired to shift at 1.5k rpms which is no fun at all.
The problem is I cant duplicate 27 mpg that often. Its inconsistant reaching those MPG's but it does yield me many 23-24 mpg's shifting at /below 2k rpms. I guess it depends on traffic and stop & go kills the MPG's.
Right now I'm doing the 2.5-3k rpm shifting cruising at 2k rpms and slowing down in gear and its giving me 20-21 mpg.
I believe we have to find a mix of low rpms shifting with minimum throttle % as possible for best mpg's. Also speeds around 45 mph seems to be a sweet spot for good mpg's (at least on my car).
Last edited by BluEVOIX; Nov 22, 2007 at 04:49 PM.
Thx for proving my point...you said 'mostly' not 'entirely.' 
It's a free country and a free msg board. Just because someone is into efficiency does not mean they can't appreciate performance and vice versa. (and from the looks of this thread, I'm not the only one) If u're not into efficiency, that's fine, I'm not laughing at u at the pump as I drive by, am I? To each his own to enjoy their EVO how they like.
(as yes I made a spelling mistake when I originally posted. Kind of a PIA to type as well as I used to with one functional hand <motorcycle accident this past summer> these days. I'd like to see you try it, or better yet stick to the topic of the thread instead of making fun of forum members behins your computer.)
BLUEEVOIX- Thx for the info. I'm late to the tuning game and reading the tuning forum as fast as I can. Wideband here I come.
TempeRacerGuy- I beg to differ. Using Mythbusters testing results, traveling 100 feet behind yields 11% increase in mileage. I'd bet my next paycheck 99% of EVO owners, heck all automobile owners, don't leave that much following distance behind any car. Also, one might argue following a semi is safer in that at least 50% of the time (prob. more if the trucking industry has any sort of decent logistics) the truck is fully loaded, and as a result your evo can stop easily in time, being 100 feet behind. Also, one might argue following a big SUV with tinted windows gives u almost as crappy a view of traffic situations ahead, and I trust a trucker to be much more consistent and safe in their driving that an SUV soccer mom, trying to take care of 2 kids in the back, talk one-handed on their cell phone, with less miles under their belt, and driver training than a big rig operator. Plus that more experienced, big rig operator generally leaves more following space between himself and the automobile ahead of him than u're average SUV driver. Again it's all just opinions and theories, just giving another point of view. Not sure who is corect, or if there is a 'right' answer.
It's a free country and a free msg board. Just because someone is into efficiency does not mean they can't appreciate performance and vice versa. (and from the looks of this thread, I'm not the only one) If u're not into efficiency, that's fine, I'm not laughing at u at the pump as I drive by, am I? To each his own to enjoy their EVO how they like. (as yes I made a spelling mistake when I originally posted. Kind of a PIA to type as well as I used to with one functional hand <motorcycle accident this past summer> these days. I'd like to see you try it, or better yet stick to the topic of the thread instead of making fun of forum members behins your computer.)
BLUEEVOIX- Thx for the info. I'm late to the tuning game and reading the tuning forum as fast as I can. Wideband here I come.
TempeRacerGuy- I beg to differ. Using Mythbusters testing results, traveling 100 feet behind yields 11% increase in mileage. I'd bet my next paycheck 99% of EVO owners, heck all automobile owners, don't leave that much following distance behind any car. Also, one might argue following a semi is safer in that at least 50% of the time (prob. more if the trucking industry has any sort of decent logistics) the truck is fully loaded, and as a result your evo can stop easily in time, being 100 feet behind. Also, one might argue following a big SUV with tinted windows gives u almost as crappy a view of traffic situations ahead, and I trust a trucker to be much more consistent and safe in their driving that an SUV soccer mom, trying to take care of 2 kids in the back, talk one-handed on their cell phone, with less miles under their belt, and driver training than a big rig operator. Plus that more experienced, big rig operator generally leaves more following space between himself and the automobile ahead of him than u're average SUV driver. Again it's all just opinions and theories, just giving another point of view. Not sure who is corect, or if there is a 'right' answer.
-closed loop = normal driving = car uses the maf and o2 sensor to keep stoich a/f ratios of 14.7
-open loop = racing= wide open throttle= car ecu uses preset maps and keeps a richer af ratio mixture
-All cars idle and keep an a/f ratio of 14.7 in closed loop operations. (at least 99% of the fuel injected cars we see on the road)
-The rich a/f ratio mixture of 11's is mostly for force induction cars. The extra unburnt fuel acts as a cooling agent to lower egt's. Too rich of a mixture then you sacrifice more power, too lean then you raise exhaust gas temps = new motor soon.
Things to think about:
Now I've been reading on various places that cars keep a stoich a/f ratio of 14.7 for the catalytic converter. According to the information, this a/f ratio keeps the cat at optimum operating temps to do its job.
Its safe to assume that most have removed their catalytic converters here, so I wonder will leaning the a/f ratio to the 15-16 area be safe and give any benefits?
Also we have to look at other factors that will help. One of the guys at AMS once told me that timing also plays a role with MPG's. (unless I missunderstood him) Then if thats true, how about raising timing for normal driving closed loop operations?
On my own experience with a NA car I had a while ago, my miles per tank went from 180 to 260 by doing header, exhaust, intake and balance shaft removal. So removing restrictions from the motor increases efficiency and also helps with MPG's. (at least thats my personal opinion and experience)
Last but not least aerodynamics play a role as well. As speed increases so does drag. I have a feeling that the evo is not very aerodynamic (meaning slick in cutting through the air at speed). If we improve that then it should help as well at highway speeds. Possibly rear deffuser, covering front 9 snorkle vents, etc... (I like to keep the wing though )
Oh and I almost forgot. Keeping a good tire pressure helps as well with MPG's. Possibly about 36 psi?
Last edited by BluEVOIX; Nov 22, 2007 at 04:53 PM.
Account Disabled
iTrader: (9)
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
From: AZ, currently in Space Coast, FL
beg to differ on what?
In THAT car, on that day. Aerodynamics are not the same car to car. while it may be 11% in the car they used, that figure would be different using a different car.
This is why American drivers on the whole are far more dangerous on the road than the typical European drivers. For the most part, American drivers are **** poor. If you want to use Evo owners as a control, count how many "I totaled my Evo" threads there have been on here due to driving their car beyond their own limits, and the conditions of the roadway.
This is a pretty **** poor yardstick to measure up to.
people on here always think they have the reactions of a race car driver which is far from the truth, but let's use their statistics as a reference point. The typical "perfect" reaction time is around .5 seconds. add another .5 seconds for your foot to move from the gas pedal to the break pedal, build pressure in the brake system and you have just started to brake. at 55MPH (and you know that the only time you drive 55MPH is in a school zone), you have already traveled 74.94 feet. That leaves you less than 25 feet or .33 seconds (remember, the Semi has already been breaking and has closed that gap considerably) for your brakes to heat up enough for you to slow down the 20MPH that the Semi has already scrubbed off, because it's been hard on the brakes for already 1.33 seconds.
The big rig opperator slammed on his brakes because some soccer mom merged into his lane at 30 MPH because she's talking on the phone, taking care of the kids, and snorting coke off the center console...
Tell that to the people every year who are killed by the trucking industry because of the high rates of drug addiction, sleep apnea, and exhaustion from too many hours. While generally they leave more room, you can't do an interview to judge the qualifications of the driver of the random truck you're tail gating.
exactly... you are guessing like the rest of us...
People tailgate truckers every day without having an accident.
People are shot every day by guns who don't die...
That doesn't mean either is a smart thing have happen
This is a pretty **** poor yardstick to measure up to.
Also, one might argue following a big SUV with tinted windows gives u almost as crappy a view of traffic situations ahead, and I trust a trucker to be much more consistent and safe in their driving that an SUV soccer mom, trying to take care of 2 kids in the back, talk one-handed on their cell phone, with less miles under their belt, and driver training than a big rig operator.
People tailgate truckers every day without having an accident.
People are shot every day by guns who don't die...
That doesn't mean either is a smart thing have happen
Lets say your benchmark MPG is 15, drive 12000 miles/year, and you will now spend 50% of your time on the highway, and 50% of that time behind a semi, and get a 10% increase in mileage, and pay $3/gal.
Before: 12000 miles / 15 miles/gallon x $3/gal = $2,400/year on gas
After: 3000 miles / 16.5 miles/gallon x $3/gal = $545 plus
9000 miles / 15 miles/gallon x $3/gal = $1800 for a total of $2,345/year
Congrats, you saved $55/year!
And since you get even better mileage than that, your savings would be less. But, it's like free money to you since you perceive no risk.
Before: 12000 miles / 15 miles/gallon x $3/gal = $2,400/year on gas
After: 3000 miles / 16.5 miles/gallon x $3/gal = $545 plus
9000 miles / 15 miles/gallon x $3/gal = $1800 for a total of $2,345/year
Congrats, you saved $55/year!
And since you get even better mileage than that, your savings would be less. But, it's like free money to you since you perceive no risk.
Last edited by Extas; Nov 22, 2007 at 09:15 PM.
That 11 a/f ratio you are talking about is only during Wide Open Throttle or open loop mode. During normal driving the a/f ratio is always around 14.7 (whether tuned or stock) . Stock a/f ratio during WOT (open loop) is actually more in the low 10's, so tuning your car actually leans out the fuel ratio to make more power but still rich enough to keep the EGT's (exhaust gas temperatures) low.
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure my above statements are pretty accurate or close to the truth. So any one can feel free to share their thoughts, opinions, and knowledge to add on or correct me.
Take a look in the EcuFlash forums and you can find out the ways to do this yourself. Wideband is 100% needed.
I think it would probably be better to reflash the ecu to target 15-16 a/f ratio rather than forcing an open loop to do it. Reason is because the climate changes will affect a/f ratio and that would mean you would have to keep tuning your car every time the weather changes.
Evolved Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
I aplaud at your attempt to test things most people won't do, however the idea of buying an Evo to save gas, by drafting on truck is just hard to understand.
If your goal was to to ultimately minimize gas consumption and pollution, you wouldn't be driving a car, or at worst you'll be driving a Prius.
If your goal was to win some prize for achieving highest mpg in a stock Evo, well, good luck.
There are just too many ways to improve your mpg:
- weight reduction, strip your car to the bones and remove turbo and intercooler components.
- Cut your roof and pillars, to replace your removed panels, wrap your car in vinyls.
- Coast any downhill, even if it is 1 degree angle and 10 foot long slope.
- Wait for the wind to change direction so you get tailwind.
- And so on...
- You still want to save some gas? Howbout getting your car towed to places you go everytime? Or just push your car manually?
If your goal was to to ultimately minimize gas consumption and pollution, you wouldn't be driving a car, or at worst you'll be driving a Prius.
If your goal was to win some prize for achieving highest mpg in a stock Evo, well, good luck.
There are just too many ways to improve your mpg:
- weight reduction, strip your car to the bones and remove turbo and intercooler components.
- Cut your roof and pillars, to replace your removed panels, wrap your car in vinyls.
- Coast any downhill, even if it is 1 degree angle and 10 foot long slope.
- Wait for the wind to change direction so you get tailwind.
- And so on...
- You still want to save some gas? Howbout getting your car towed to places you go everytime? Or just push your car manually?
I aplaud at your attempt to test things most people won't do, however the idea of buying an Evo to save gas, by drafting on truck is just hard to understand.
If your goal was to to ultimately minimize gas consumption and pollution, you wouldn't be driving a car, or at worst you'll be driving a Prius.
If your goal was to win some prize for achieving highest mpg in a stock Evo, well, good luck.
There are just too many ways to improve your mpg:
- weight reduction, strip your car to the bones and remove turbo and intercooler components.
- Cut your roof and pillars, to replace your removed panels, wrap your car in vinyls.
- Coast any downhill, even if it is 1 degree angle and 10 foot long slope.
- Wait for the wind to change direction so you get tailwind.
- And so on...
- You still want to save some gas? Howbout getting your car towed to places you go everytime? Or just push your car manually?
If your goal was to to ultimately minimize gas consumption and pollution, you wouldn't be driving a car, or at worst you'll be driving a Prius.
If your goal was to win some prize for achieving highest mpg in a stock Evo, well, good luck.
There are just too many ways to improve your mpg:
- weight reduction, strip your car to the bones and remove turbo and intercooler components.
- Cut your roof and pillars, to replace your removed panels, wrap your car in vinyls.
- Coast any downhill, even if it is 1 degree angle and 10 foot long slope.
- Wait for the wind to change direction so you get tailwind.
- And so on...
- You still want to save some gas? Howbout getting your car towed to places you go everytime? Or just push your car manually?
So with that logic why do people want better interiors? Who cares what the inside of your car looks/feels like? Strip everything, disable power windows, airbags, remove the the sound system and sit on bare metal because we drive a sport car and it should not have those luxuries nor should you use it as a daily driver.
In other words your argument would be similar to a drag racer arguing with a Road racer about not needing to good suspension because racing does not include turning.
Let me ask you something, why bother making a street car faster? There are speed limits on the road and accelerating too quickly is dangerous. You want to race then buy a Racing car and race on a circuit, not a street legal commuter. After all we all drive transportation vehicles, so lets use it only for safely transporting ourselves and others because opting for best of both worlds is not allowed.
TempeRacerGuy:
I begged to differ in opinion...and then I went on to state mine, try to keep up. 
Ummm...yes, yes it would. It's a rough estimate for each of us to use for our own automobiles since we can't scientifically calculate it for ourselves and our indiv. cars. There would be some varying benefit from car to car, so take your most educated guess with the flying brick we call the 'EVO.'
My parents got back from a two week trip in Italy and Switzerland, I'd love to see your reaction after they describe the traffic conditions and following distances in some of those major cities, haha.
I'm not going to argue the rest of your points because some of them are very valid, some I 'differ' on, but my main point is we all are 'unsafe' in some way, and yet we're all still here on this earth kicking and breathing. We could all drive like u, 150 feet behind the car in front of us 24/7 with what you deem 'safe' driving distances, we could all pay attention 100% of the time, we could all trade in our EVOs for cars with better front side impact crash ratings (we got a 2 of 5, the EVO failed), we could all stop listening to loud music in our cars w/ aftermarket stereos damaging our hearing and distracting us, we could all walk not run, and we could all live in a padded room and be a LOT safer. But in the end that's no fun and we all pick and choose our own risk/reward ratio. Each person is different. My initial post was on simply my experiences with improving gas mileage, not whether or not we all agreed if it was safe or not. If it's not for you, no biggie, I value your contribution to the thread none the less.
Extas:
I did your calculations with a little more realistic values for my driving:
I've driven 4000 miles in 2.5 months since purchasing my IX. So assume 19200 miles/yr., 1/2 city, 1/2 highway for me....
$3.50/Gallon:
Previous mileage figures....
9600 city / 18.5 MPG x $3.50 current premium = $1816.22
9600 highway / 23.5 MPG x $3.50 current premium = $1429.79
= $3246.01
Current mileage figures....
9600 city / 20 MPG x $3.50 current premium = $1680
9600 highway / 27 MPG x $3.50 current premium = $1244.44
= $2924.44
= $321.57 SAVINGS/YR
Over 5 years of ownership you'd save: $1607.85 @ $3.50 a gallon
$4/Gallon: (It's already $4 in CA, watch it hit there
in the NE too.)
Previous mileage figures....
9600 city / 18.5 MPG x $4 projected premium = $2075.68
9600 highway / 23.5 MPG x $4 projected premium = $1634.04
= $3709.72
Current mileage figures....
9600 city / 20 MPG x $4 projected premium = $1920
9600 highway / 27 MPG x $4 projected premium = $1422.22
= $3342.22
= $367.5 SAVINGS/YR
Over 5 years of ownership you'd save: $1837.5 @ $4.00 a gallon
beg to differ on what?
In THAT car, on that day. Aerodynamics are not the same car to car. while it may be 11% in the car they used, that figure would be different using a different car.
This is why American drivers on the whole are far more dangerous on the road than the typical European drivers. For the most part, American drivers are **** poor. If you want to use Evo owners as a control, count how many "I totaled my Evo" threads there have been on here due to driving their car beyond their own limits, and the conditions of the roadway.
I'm not going to argue the rest of your points because some of them are very valid, some I 'differ' on, but my main point is we all are 'unsafe' in some way, and yet we're all still here on this earth kicking and breathing. We could all drive like u, 150 feet behind the car in front of us 24/7 with what you deem 'safe' driving distances, we could all pay attention 100% of the time, we could all trade in our EVOs for cars with better front side impact crash ratings (we got a 2 of 5, the EVO failed), we could all stop listening to loud music in our cars w/ aftermarket stereos damaging our hearing and distracting us, we could all walk not run, and we could all live in a padded room and be a LOT safer. But in the end that's no fun and we all pick and choose our own risk/reward ratio. Each person is different. My initial post was on simply my experiences with improving gas mileage, not whether or not we all agreed if it was safe or not. If it's not for you, no biggie, I value your contribution to the thread none the less.
Extas:
I did your calculations with a little more realistic values for my driving:
I've driven 4000 miles in 2.5 months since purchasing my IX. So assume 19200 miles/yr., 1/2 city, 1/2 highway for me....
$3.50/Gallon:
Previous mileage figures....
9600 city / 18.5 MPG x $3.50 current premium = $1816.22
9600 highway / 23.5 MPG x $3.50 current premium = $1429.79
= $3246.01
Current mileage figures....
9600 city / 20 MPG x $3.50 current premium = $1680
9600 highway / 27 MPG x $3.50 current premium = $1244.44
= $2924.44
= $321.57 SAVINGS/YR
Over 5 years of ownership you'd save: $1607.85 @ $3.50 a gallon
$4/Gallon: (It's already $4 in CA, watch it hit there
in the NE too.)
Previous mileage figures....
9600 city / 18.5 MPG x $4 projected premium = $2075.68
9600 highway / 23.5 MPG x $4 projected premium = $1634.04
= $3709.72
Current mileage figures....
9600 city / 20 MPG x $4 projected premium = $1920
9600 highway / 27 MPG x $4 projected premium = $1422.22
= $3342.22
= $367.5 SAVINGS/YR
Over 5 years of ownership you'd save: $1837.5 @ $4.00 a gallon
LOL trust me when I say this, but no one has out shifted me in early shifting while daily driving here in this forum.
I've driven at times (basically most of my Evo's life) while shifting at or under 2,000 rpms. Acceleration sucks not as fun to drive but I was doing it for many thousands of miles. I have hit 27 mpg city driving with slight highway (maybe about 20 miles highway through out that thank). I even daired to shift at 1.5k rpms which is no fun at all.
The problem is I cant duplicate 27 mpg that often. Its inconsistant reaching those MPG's but it does yield me many 23-24 mpg's shifting at /below 2k rpms. I guess it depends on traffic and stop & go kills the MPG's.
Right now I'm doing the 2.5-3k rpm shifting cruising at 2k rpms and slowing down in gear and its giving me 20-21 mpg.
I believe we have to find a mix of low rpms shifting with minimum throttle % as possible for best mpg's. Also speeds around 45 mph seems to be a sweet spot for good mpg's (at least on my car).
I've driven at times (basically most of my Evo's life) while shifting at or under 2,000 rpms. Acceleration sucks not as fun to drive but I was doing it for many thousands of miles. I have hit 27 mpg city driving with slight highway (maybe about 20 miles highway through out that thank). I even daired to shift at 1.5k rpms which is no fun at all.
The problem is I cant duplicate 27 mpg that often. Its inconsistant reaching those MPG's but it does yield me many 23-24 mpg's shifting at /below 2k rpms. I guess it depends on traffic and stop & go kills the MPG's.
Right now I'm doing the 2.5-3k rpm shifting cruising at 2k rpms and slowing down in gear and its giving me 20-21 mpg.
I believe we have to find a mix of low rpms shifting with minimum throttle % as possible for best mpg's. Also speeds around 45 mph seems to be a sweet spot for good mpg's (at least on my car).
Account Disabled
iTrader: (9)
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
From: AZ, currently in Space Coast, FL
Here's a quote about the above accident: "We later found out that the truck driver was Drunk, High on methamphetamines, talking on a cell phone and doing approx. 100 to 110 MPH,(In A Semi!!) and we were the only vehicles in a three mile stretch, I am happy to report no injuries and we just won the lawsuit........ June 24, 2001 Accident happened in La Porte, Indiana."
current statistics show that in the US, auto accidents account for nearly 4 percent of the US GDP and that it is the single largest component of cost per mile driving. also that approximately 43,000 Americans have been killed in highway accidents.
In the above 4 pictures, only the Evo wasn't involved with a Semi. and amung the Semi crashes, 5 people lost their lives.
Yup, $1837.5 seems like a worthwhile benefit to risk for me.
Now, let's put that $1837.50 figure into perspective.
Instead of tailgating for 5 years to save that figure, you could:
NOT have Starbucks coffee 3 times a week and save $3750.
get a 50 cent raise at work and make $5000 more
get a single percentage point knocked off your mortgage and save over $10,000 over the course of your loan
NOT eat at a fast food restraunt two times a week and save $2000
Last edited by TempeRacerGuy; Nov 23, 2007 at 04:39 AM.
^No way! Evos are invincible! :rollseyes:
Anyways.. There is no point to getting performance AND gas mileage out of a ancient I4 Turbo. Perhaps you should go with a vette.
Better yet, try to improve mileage on a SRT-10. I'll even let you pick which one.
Anyways.. There is no point to getting performance AND gas mileage out of a ancient I4 Turbo. Perhaps you should go with a vette.
Better yet, try to improve mileage on a SRT-10. I'll even let you pick which one.
...and doing approx. 100 to 110 MPH,(In A Semi!!)
OK, Tempe...u, win. I'll ask for a rasie first thing Monday (good thinking, he'll be happy after the holiday. Aww crap, I'm not an hourly worker!), stop drinking coffee (DOh! I don't drink coffee), wish upon a star to get my 30yr fixed from 5.25% to 4.25%, and sell my Uber-Deluxe padded box for the Econo padded box on sale at Kmart today on Black Friday! (I know this sounds ridiculous, it is. Again, my point is my post was to report on how I improved my MPG, not if everyone agreed with it or not. We can all be safer in our daily lives and never take risks on any level and we can all live on a shoestring budget and save our pennies til we die, but will you or I? Ummm...I think not. Pick and choose man, pick and choose what let's u sleep at night.)
Newbie
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: Tampa
I like drafting. My sportbike has an instant mpg display mode with like a 3-second sliding window average. Cruising at 70mph with no wind, I get about 50mpg. Cruising at 70mph with no wind, a few lengths behind a semi, I get about 70mpg.
Cruising at 70mph with no wind, a few lengths behind an SUV, a minivan, or a car towing a large trailer, I get about 65mpg; these vehicles are more likely to be going my speed and less likely to kick up rocks; and they're easier to see around or through. That's my own personal "sweet spot" between safety and economy.
Cruising at 70mph with no wind, a few lengths behind an SUV, a minivan, or a car towing a large trailer, I get about 65mpg; these vehicles are more likely to be going my speed and less likely to kick up rocks; and they're easier to see around or through. That's my own personal "sweet spot" between safety and economy.