Is reducing an engines fuel consumption by 85% impossible?

AI Thread Summary
A user claims to have achieved a fuel consumption rate of 5.9 L/100 km in a 28-year-old Nissan Bluebird, significantly better than its rated 11 L/100 km. They attribute this performance to a combination of driving conditions and fuel type, despite the vehicle's outdated carburetor system. Other forum members express skepticism, questioning the accuracy of the user's calculations and suggesting that the methodology lacks rigor. The discussion highlights the need for better data collection and verification methods to substantiate such claims. Overall, the feasibility of drastically reducing fuel consumption remains contentious and requires more reliable evidence.

Do you believe I have reduced my fuel consumption by 85%

  • False=You cheated some how.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • True=I believe the figures.

    Votes: 1 100.0%

  • A 20L jerry can topup during the trip in a parking bay.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Fill up half way on the trip with cash.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Would you believe the figures if the MythBusters Tested my car with similar results.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    1
smokingwheels
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
I expect to be shot down in flames but I don't mine one bit.

I have just done a bit of a drive in my 28 year old Nissan Bluebird Wagon about 10% city 90% HWY...NO Fancy EFI systems or direct injection here just a plain old carburetor running slightly rich at idle.

I just did a rough distance calculation on whereis.com ...308 Km on 18.23L of fuel that's about 5.9 L/100 km and have 2 other people in the car and with tools and baggage.
I will fine tune the mileage later on but I filled up at Warnbro then to Subiaco to Kenwick to Armadale then filled up at Wagin.
I put in 1/2 a tank of 98 octane as well but this would not account for such an increase in mileage.

Also the Elevation of Wagin is 303 m and the elevation of Wanbro is 20' so I was going uphilll slightly as well over the journey.

I have receipts which I can scan later on if needed.

My car is rated somewhere around 11 L/100 km on the HWY.

But if its impossible then how did I do it?

Poll options
1. False=You cheated some how.
2. True=I believe the figures.
3. A 20L jerry can topup.
4. Fill up half way on the trip with cash.
5. Would MythBusters buy my car and test it.

I will be doing some more trips soon and will keep more records.

I know I need to pull the engine out and put it on a test bed but at the moment its the only licensed car I have.

I guess I would need a professional 12 V video camera and mount it so it had a view of the road and the fuel cap and could record for length for 14 to 16 hours or maybe a cheap web cam to start with.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
1. 5.9L/100km looks achievable with some effort in a car like the one you describe.
2. 11L/100km doesn't look right for the fuel economy it is rated for. If this is the car, it is rated for 8: http://www.eurodb.com.au/used-car-Specification/NISSAN/BLUEBIRD/GX/1984/JAE/
3. This is nowhere close to the quality level required for serious discussion here.
4. We've been over this. It didn't fly two years ago and it doesn't fly today. As we told you two years ago, your methodology needs to get a lot better. It is time to stop humoring this.

Locked.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thread 'Query on Isentropic relationships (such as PV^gamma = constant)'

Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
View full post »

Thread 'Dry sump pump issue'

I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...
View full post »

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top