stroke vs bore
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 59
From: Houston
I guess I should clarify one of my previous statements about rear wheel power.
Gearing does need to be optimized for that statement about wheel power to be correct.
If the gearing for both engines that have the same power at different rpm's was totally optimized to the point where any change in gear ratio resulted in slower speeds then the one with more power to the ground would win.
It would be possible to have a particular car geared too high for its engine to operate in its powerband during a race. In that case it would show more power on the chassis dyno and go slower in the quarter because it would never be able to get to its peak power rpm by the end of the track.
Gearing does need to be optimized for that statement about wheel power to be correct.
If the gearing for both engines that have the same power at different rpm's was totally optimized to the point where any change in gear ratio resulted in slower speeds then the one with more power to the ground would win.
It would be possible to have a particular car geared too high for its engine to operate in its powerband during a race. In that case it would show more power on the chassis dyno and go slower in the quarter because it would never be able to get to its peak power rpm by the end of the track.
Banned
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,518
I agree with that. There is always a right gear for the car/motor combo. Here is a quote that is pretty applicable to this whole thing. I agree with this too, so hence my write up in my previous post.
Originally posted by OldSStroker
It's torque at the wheels, and the rate at which it is applied which is the definition of power. Obviously if the wheel is turning 1200 rpm, the torque is being applied at that rate, so hp still equals torque x rpm / 5252.
I wouldn't get bogged down with that. Some folks tend to think of engine torque like a torque wrench which isn't moving when you reach it's set value; they have trouble visualizing torque continuously being applied at (high) rotational velocities (rpm). Maybe they have a better visualization of "power". I don't. I visualize the torque being applied at speed.
Interestingly enough, inertial chassis dynos don't really measure either torque or hp directly. They merely measure the time it takes ( in little increments) to accelerate the drum with it's know inertia, from one drum rpm to the next. From those measurements, both hp and torque are calculated. This is accurate information as to what is actually accelerating the dyno roll, but it doesn't say anything about the driveline efficiency, tires, etc. so fwhp and fw torque numbers aren't too accurate.
"Brake" dynos, either water, or electric actually measure the torque being absorbed by the dyno, and the rpm. HP is then calculated. The absorber is mounted on bearings, and has an arm connected to a scale or load cell. If the arm is exactly 12 inches long, each pound of force shown on the scale is 1 lb-ft of absorbed torque.
Obviously these numbers need to be corrected for air conditions (temp, density, moisture content) in order to compare tests run at different times. For most accurate comparison, you control all those things closely. Can you say "Hendrick" or most high-end Cup teams?
It's torque at the wheels, and the rate at which it is applied which is the definition of power. Obviously if the wheel is turning 1200 rpm, the torque is being applied at that rate, so hp still equals torque x rpm / 5252.
I wouldn't get bogged down with that. Some folks tend to think of engine torque like a torque wrench which isn't moving when you reach it's set value; they have trouble visualizing torque continuously being applied at (high) rotational velocities (rpm). Maybe they have a better visualization of "power". I don't. I visualize the torque being applied at speed.
Interestingly enough, inertial chassis dynos don't really measure either torque or hp directly. They merely measure the time it takes ( in little increments) to accelerate the drum with it's know inertia, from one drum rpm to the next. From those measurements, both hp and torque are calculated. This is accurate information as to what is actually accelerating the dyno roll, but it doesn't say anything about the driveline efficiency, tires, etc. so fwhp and fw torque numbers aren't too accurate.
"Brake" dynos, either water, or electric actually measure the torque being absorbed by the dyno, and the rpm. HP is then calculated. The absorber is mounted on bearings, and has an arm connected to a scale or load cell. If the arm is exactly 12 inches long, each pound of force shown on the scale is 1 lb-ft of absorbed torque.
Obviously these numbers need to be corrected for air conditions (temp, density, moisture content) in order to compare tests run at different times. For most accurate comparison, you control all those things closely. Can you say "Hendrick" or most high-end Cup teams?
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,505
From: looking for a flow bench so Brook and I can race
So obviously if we want to increase cubes we can do a few things
increase stroke
increase bore
the better of the two seems to be bore.
Is the best thing always both? Is there a point (realisticaly, obviously a 12'' bore and 36'' stroke can cause some problems) that too much stroke or too much bore is bad?
if not-
why not 406's instead of 383s?
Why Destroke anything?
Why did the LS1 go with a shorter bore, longer stroke?
How come the vortec motors (6.0 vs 5.3)- the 5.3 kicks the 6.0's butt in a drag race. its a debored 6.0. The 6.0 will definatly haul a lot better though.
Ohh yea, somewhat unrelated but-
I guess my physics teacher lied to me? Friction isn't linear ehh? I guess thats why gas milage is so much worse when setting cruise controll at 90mph vs 70.
i've noticed 3-5mpg differances on a 750 mile trip home from an 11 hr trip to a 9 hr trip
increase stroke
increase bore
the better of the two seems to be bore.
Is the best thing always both? Is there a point (realisticaly, obviously a 12'' bore and 36'' stroke can cause some problems) that too much stroke or too much bore is bad?
if not-
why not 406's instead of 383s?
Why Destroke anything?
Why did the LS1 go with a shorter bore, longer stroke?
How come the vortec motors (6.0 vs 5.3)- the 5.3 kicks the 6.0's butt in a drag race. its a debored 6.0. The 6.0 will definatly haul a lot better though.
Ohh yea, somewhat unrelated but-
I guess my physics teacher lied to me? Friction isn't linear ehh? I guess thats why gas milage is so much worse when setting cruise controll at 90mph vs 70.
i've noticed 3-5mpg differances on a 750 mile trip home from an 11 hr trip to a 9 hr trip
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,931
From: Upstate NY
Originally posted by treyZ28
So obviously if we want to increase cubes we can do a few things
increase stroke
increase bore
Increasing the number of cylinders is another option. If there is a lot of good development in say 250 cc or 300 cc cylinders, and the class limit changes from 2.5 to 3.5 L, going from a V8 to a V10 might be the way to go, or if you need a ~500 inch truck engine, and aren't tooled for BBC sizes, add a couple of cylinders to a V8.
the better of the two seems to be bore.
Is the best thing always both? Is there a point (realisticaly, obviously a 12'' bore and 36'' stroke can cause some problems) that too much stroke or too much bore is bad?
if not-
why not 406's instead of 383s?
Extra cost of getting 4.155 bore. 400 blocks have large main diameters, and spacers aren't the greatest thing for high power strength, so you probably choose an aftermarket block. If you are going to do that anyway, go big.
Why Destroke anything?
To make a class displacement limit with a large bore.
Why did the LS1 go with a shorter bore, longer stroke?
Various reasons: emissions, economy of manufacture various sizes, ability to stretch an aluminum block 5.7 to 6.? with same stroke, among other things.
How come the vortec motors (6.0 vs 5.3)- the 5.3 kicks the 6.0's butt in a drag race. its a debored 6.0. The 6.0 will definatly haul a lot better though.
Power/torque to weight ratio.
Very few 6.0s are available in the same weight vehicles as 5.3's.
LQ4 6L go from 300hp/360 lb-ft to 325/370. Only the LQ9 is 345/380. We're finally seeing the LQ9 in lighter weight trucks (Silverado SS).
Ohh yea, somewhat unrelated but-
I guess my physics teacher lied to me? Friction isn't linear ehh? I guess thats why gas milage is so much worse when setting cruise controll at 90mph vs 70.
i've noticed 3-5mpg differances on a 750 mile trip home from an 11 hr trip to a 9 hr trip
Some friction is linear with velocity, but engine friction hp combines lots of things. Teachers don't lie; they may "simplify" depending on the student's ability to understand. "Non-calculus physics" is a good example, IMO. You can explain some of physics w/o calc., but not a lot of the more complex things.
As far as fuel economy at various speeds, aero drag plays a pretty big part when you get above 70 or so. It's the majority of the drag the engine needs to overcome @90. What's 2 hours worth to you in gas (and tickets)? That's 145 kph cruise thru Ontario, right?
So obviously if we want to increase cubes we can do a few things
increase stroke
increase bore
Increasing the number of cylinders is another option. If there is a lot of good development in say 250 cc or 300 cc cylinders, and the class limit changes from 2.5 to 3.5 L, going from a V8 to a V10 might be the way to go, or if you need a ~500 inch truck engine, and aren't tooled for BBC sizes, add a couple of cylinders to a V8.
the better of the two seems to be bore.
Is the best thing always both? Is there a point (realisticaly, obviously a 12'' bore and 36'' stroke can cause some problems) that too much stroke or too much bore is bad?
if not-
why not 406's instead of 383s?
Extra cost of getting 4.155 bore. 400 blocks have large main diameters, and spacers aren't the greatest thing for high power strength, so you probably choose an aftermarket block. If you are going to do that anyway, go big.
Why Destroke anything?
To make a class displacement limit with a large bore.
Why did the LS1 go with a shorter bore, longer stroke?
Various reasons: emissions, economy of manufacture various sizes, ability to stretch an aluminum block 5.7 to 6.? with same stroke, among other things.
How come the vortec motors (6.0 vs 5.3)- the 5.3 kicks the 6.0's butt in a drag race. its a debored 6.0. The 6.0 will definatly haul a lot better though.
Power/torque to weight ratio.
Very few 6.0s are available in the same weight vehicles as 5.3's.
LQ4 6L go from 300hp/360 lb-ft to 325/370. Only the LQ9 is 345/380. We're finally seeing the LQ9 in lighter weight trucks (Silverado SS).
Ohh yea, somewhat unrelated but-
I guess my physics teacher lied to me? Friction isn't linear ehh? I guess thats why gas milage is so much worse when setting cruise controll at 90mph vs 70.
i've noticed 3-5mpg differances on a 750 mile trip home from an 11 hr trip to a 9 hr trip
Some friction is linear with velocity, but engine friction hp combines lots of things. Teachers don't lie; they may "simplify" depending on the student's ability to understand. "Non-calculus physics" is a good example, IMO. You can explain some of physics w/o calc., but not a lot of the more complex things.
As far as fuel economy at various speeds, aero drag plays a pretty big part when you get above 70 or so. It's the majority of the drag the engine needs to overcome @90. What's 2 hours worth to you in gas (and tickets)? That's 145 kph cruise thru Ontario, right?
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,931
From: Upstate NY
Originally posted by mikez281LE
my 1992 civic with a 5 speed and 1.5lt....if I drive at 70mph I get around 48-50mpg and at 95mph I get around 58-60mpg.
my 1992 civic with a 5 speed and 1.5lt....if I drive at 70mph I get around 48-50mpg and at 95mph I get around 58-60mpg.
60 mpg @ 95 mph cruise? YGBSM.
You really need to discuss this with Honda engineers. I'll bet they would buy back your 11 yr. old car to see why it gets such magnificent mileage.
If you can get that sucker going fast enough, it could make gas and you could sell it.
Last edited by OldSStroker; Aug 21, 2003 at 01:02 PM.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,505
From: looking for a flow bench so Brook and I can race
Originally posted by OldSStroker
I live on Long Island so I cruise through Ohio and PA.
Whats it worth-
after driving 10 hrs by yourself with no radio and a handfull of CD's you've heard 100x... A LOT
I cruise through from 7pm to 6am or so, so not a whole lot of traffic.
One of these days i'll take the extra 45min and go through Canada, stop by you guys and say hi. You should realy come check out the expanding campus. We have a new $40 million Academic building for ME's. We got some new CVA (campus village apartments) and we just bought some lots. we bought the lot on the north east corner of chevy and third. they are tearing that old childrens museum down. We also bought the now empty lot where the Delphi building was. That bridge is going to get rebuilt soon from what I understand and ohh yeah, we got a $500k grant to start making progress towards combining the U of M and our campus. I dont think the schools will merge, i think its more for dorms/appartments/off campus residency. The land between us and them is a ghetto and cheap too. Would really help our "social life" i bet. Not too many females around here. Partys would be awesome. But then again, were engineers. who has time to party
as far as teachers lieing..
"Lies my teacher told me" by James Loewn. Great Read
Mike-
I am around 2000rpms at 70mph
my peak power and torque are DEFIANTLY top end (why its like this on a truck is beyond me
). I think the drag (aerodynamics of a barn) overcomes the power/tq thing. This could make an intresting related rates problem. Whats trey's optimal cruising speed.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 786
From: Charlotte, NC
Long thread.. but FWIW, most engine builders I know who are actual pro's & currently building leading edge engines worry about airflow when it comes to piston speed - assuming inertial loads are acceptable .
Even chuck's elaborated on this in the past, take notes
.Even chuck's elaborated on this in the past, take notes
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,043
From: Mooresville, NC
Originally posted by SStrokerAce
Looking at the JE catalog we have equal flat top pistons there for us. a 4.030" bore, 1.125" Comp Height piston weights 386g. A 4.155" bore 1.125" Comp Height piston weights 421g.
If we use a Carrillo Rod, then we have the rotating and recipricating portions of the rods here http://www.carrilloind.com/03bro3.pdf
a 6.000" H beam has 195g of recipricating weight
a 6.125" H beam has 194g of recipricating weight
Lets say we have 118g pins, 45g of Rings & oil rail supports, and 8g's of pin locks.
So if we say 7500rpm limit on motor, we can find the Force the piston puts on the rod and the crank.
F=MA,
F=M(Piston+Pin+Locks+Recipricating Weight of Rod IN Kg)A(G's x 9.81 m/s^2)
4.030x3.750
.752Kg x 3930 x 9.81m/s^2 =28992.08 N or 6517 lbs of F
4.155x3.525
.786Kg x 3620 x 9.81m/s^2 =27912.59 N or 6274 lbs of F
That's 3.8% less Force on the crank at the same RPM. That to me says that for a given displacement the larger bore wins.
Bret
Looking at the JE catalog we have equal flat top pistons there for us. a 4.030" bore, 1.125" Comp Height piston weights 386g. A 4.155" bore 1.125" Comp Height piston weights 421g.
If we use a Carrillo Rod, then we have the rotating and recipricating portions of the rods here http://www.carrilloind.com/03bro3.pdf
a 6.000" H beam has 195g of recipricating weight
a 6.125" H beam has 194g of recipricating weight
Lets say we have 118g pins, 45g of Rings & oil rail supports, and 8g's of pin locks.
So if we say 7500rpm limit on motor, we can find the Force the piston puts on the rod and the crank.
F=MA,
F=M(Piston+Pin+Locks+Recipricating Weight of Rod IN Kg)A(G's x 9.81 m/s^2)
4.030x3.750
.752Kg x 3930 x 9.81m/s^2 =28992.08 N or 6517 lbs of F
4.155x3.525
.786Kg x 3620 x 9.81m/s^2 =27912.59 N or 6274 lbs of F
That's 3.8% less Force on the crank at the same RPM. That to me says that for a given displacement the larger bore wins.
Bret
I know I'll have more questions but here are two:
1.
F=MA
Force=Mass x Acceleration is that right?
Where did the 3930 come from? Off the top of your head, do you know the formula for converting newtons to force?
2.
How do you calculate "Friction HP" and does it mean HP lost b/c of friction?
Thanks
-Rippin
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,931
From: Upstate NY
Originally posted by Rippin92RS
Bret :
I know I'll have more questions but here are two:
1.
F=MA
Force=Mass x Acceleration is that right?
Where did the 3930 come from? Off the top of your head, do you know the formula for converting newtons to force?
2.
How do you calculate "Friction HP" and does it mean HP lost b/c of friction?
Thanks
-Rippin
Bret :
I know I'll have more questions but here are two:
1.
F=MA
Force=Mass x Acceleration is that right?
Where did the 3930 come from? Off the top of your head, do you know the formula for converting newtons to force?
2.
How do you calculate "Friction HP" and does it mean HP lost b/c of friction?
Thanks
-Rippin
1. F=MA as you said.
The 3930 piston g's came from an engine simulation program. The math isn't all that complex, but it's easier to just ask the program after inputting correct engine dimensions.
If you mean lbs (force) to Newtons, multiple Newtons by .2248.
http://users.aol.com/tspquinn/units.html
Yep, friction hp (calculated from friction torque) is hp the engine produced due to combustion, but which never got to the flywheel.
Every friction hp you can reduce by whatever method means another hp to the flywheel. Smaller bearings, coatings, synthetic oil, etc. can all "release" hp to the flywheel.
Friction torque (and hp) can also be calculated by decent simulation programs. That's what Bret used for his examples. Absolute numbers might not be exact within a few %, but the trend shown is probably fairly close.
Friction is a little more difficult to measure. The engine can be motored by a DC or AC engine dyno, but you get friction and pumping losses combined. Off hand I'm not sure how you separate them physically. Changing bearings, coatings, etc. and remotoring the engine should show gains from that, bucause pumping losses shouldn't change.
Hope that answers your questions.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,931
From: Upstate NY
Originally posted by mikez281LE
Its amazing isnt it, every time I tell somebody what kind of mileage I get they freak out. Nobody belieives it until they drive in the car with me and see the actual mileage. Actually the HF CRX and civic of the late eighties got around the same mileage I do stock. Part of the reason that my mileage is good is I pretty much know exactly how to drive the car so that it does not use gas. But I did get curious about the mileage and speed thing so I ended up putting the car on a chassis dyno. Cruising at 70 mph the engine turns at 1700rpm, while cruising at 90 it turns at 2200rpm, you can see that these numbers are ridiculously low for a 4 banger. Max power was 87hp at 6200rpm and 67ft lbs at 3900rpm. Another amazing thing is that the car will go 120mph after about 5 minutes of straight cruising. My theory on the mileage is that the car has a small frontal area and a cd of .30, combine this with the low rpms and 55psi in all the tires as well as me trying to get every last mpg out of it. As a side note the mileage falls of rapidly after about 105mph due to the fact that you have to hold it at 3/4 throttle to maintain the speed. I am sure honda would love the car back to see some of my mods to get the mileage up there, but even stock it got 50mpg.
Its amazing isnt it, every time I tell somebody what kind of mileage I get they freak out. Nobody belieives it until they drive in the car with me and see the actual mileage. Actually the HF CRX and civic of the late eighties got around the same mileage I do stock. Part of the reason that my mileage is good is I pretty much know exactly how to drive the car so that it does not use gas. But I did get curious about the mileage and speed thing so I ended up putting the car on a chassis dyno. Cruising at 70 mph the engine turns at 1700rpm, while cruising at 90 it turns at 2200rpm, you can see that these numbers are ridiculously low for a 4 banger. Max power was 87hp at 6200rpm and 67ft lbs at 3900rpm. Another amazing thing is that the car will go 120mph after about 5 minutes of straight cruising. My theory on the mileage is that the car has a small frontal area and a cd of .30, combine this with the low rpms and 55psi in all the tires as well as me trying to get every last mpg out of it. As a side note the mileage falls of rapidly after about 105mph due to the fact that you have to hold it at 3/4 throttle to maintain the speed. I am sure honda would love the car back to see some of my mods to get the mileage up there, but even stock it got 50mpg.
So how are your checking fuel mileage, especuially @ 90 mph?
I used to work for a large OEM. We did a lot of level road fuel economy testing, and we had the occasion to test vehicles or ideas that folks swore got unrealistically high fuel economy. Guess what? They didn't when tested.
So what would you sell the car for? Everything has a price.
I'll contact Honda for you if you wish.
A expression from Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf keeps coming to mind.
Banned
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,518
Originally posted by SkarodoM
Long thread.. but FWIW, most engine builders I know who are actual pro's & currently building leading edge engines worry about airflow when it comes to piston speed - assuming inertial loads are acceptable.
Even chuck's elaborated on this in the past, take notes
Long thread.. but FWIW, most engine builders I know who are actual pro's & currently building leading edge engines worry about airflow when it comes to piston speed - assuming inertial loads are acceptable
.Even chuck's elaborated on this in the past, take notes
I read this last night and have spent about the last day thinking about the correlation. To me it seems that there would be a connection, I just can't figure how to use it effectively to get something from it. Obviously the guys you work with have some big R&D dollars behind them, but with engine lease packages around 2.5million a season, they should. My original post was to say that the air doesn't just follow the piston down the bore, but it follows the rate at which the piston creates a low pressure area to flow into.
I'll try and find Chucks post if you don't get to it first.
Originally posted by dano73327
Bret,
I owe you an appology. I wasnt thinking straight. Friction does increase with rpm but not exponentially. Inertial forces increase with the square of rpm.
Sorry.
Dan.
Bret,
I owe you an appology. I wasnt thinking straight. Friction does increase with rpm but not exponentially. Inertial forces increase with the square of rpm.
Sorry.
Dan.
Bret
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,931
From: Upstate NY
Originally posted by mikez281LE
I dont really know how scientific my testing methods are but I think they get me pretty close to accurate. I drive exactly 142 miles one way to school and then back every week. The trip is relativily flat with the normal amount of hills. I set my odometer to zero when I leave my house and drive about 3 miles to get on the expressway and then go 136 miles of e-way and then 3 more miles of city driving to get to school. When I get to school I fill up and keep track of how many gallons and the mileage on the odometer. I do the same thing on the way back and figure that out as well, then take the two figures and average them. I know that its not truly all e-way but its pretty close. I use basically every trick in the book to get as much as possible, from coasting with the clutch in whenever possible to timing every little accel and decel so that I never touch the brakes.
Considering that the car only cost about $1K I would probably sell it for about 2K. My dad actually got the car for free in perfect condition but without a engine. So I found a 100k 1.5 and swapped it in. I will probably sell it after school is over in 6 months since I wont need it anymore. Normal people probably wouldnt even relize half of the things that I did to the car to get better mileage. The only real external cue is that there are no side mirrors, I took them off and made carbon fiber ones that go inside of the glass. Most of the other stuff is underhood or unseen.
I dont really know how scientific my testing methods are but I think they get me pretty close to accurate. I drive exactly 142 miles one way to school and then back every week. The trip is relativily flat with the normal amount of hills. I set my odometer to zero when I leave my house and drive about 3 miles to get on the expressway and then go 136 miles of e-way and then 3 more miles of city driving to get to school. When I get to school I fill up and keep track of how many gallons and the mileage on the odometer. I do the same thing on the way back and figure that out as well, then take the two figures and average them. I know that its not truly all e-way but its pretty close. I use basically every trick in the book to get as much as possible, from coasting with the clutch in whenever possible to timing every little accel and decel so that I never touch the brakes.
Considering that the car only cost about $1K I would probably sell it for about 2K. My dad actually got the car for free in perfect condition but without a engine. So I found a 100k 1.5 and swapped it in. I will probably sell it after school is over in 6 months since I wont need it anymore. Normal people probably wouldnt even relize half of the things that I did to the car to get better mileage. The only real external cue is that there are no side mirrors, I took them off and made carbon fiber ones that go inside of the glass. Most of the other stuff is underhood or unseen.
It's been a couple of years since I've driven the e-ways in the lower MI area, but a constant 90 is possible some of the time. Ever get any tickets?
90 mph speeds and no braking. Wow.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,931
From: Upstate NY
Originally posted by mikez281LE
Thats about right its usually between 2.3 and 2.5 of the good stuff 86 octane. It took me about 1 year to get good at figuring out when to accelerate and decel at high speed so I would not have to touch the brakes, now its almost second nature. I actually just got a ticket from a ohio state trooper for 110mph a couple weeks ago. Luckily ohio and michigan courts dont overlap so all I had to do was pay the fine and I did not get any points nor is it on my record. The real trick for good gas mileage is to travel in groups of cars. For a while I was traveling back and forth with 2 other cars that went back and forth the same way. It makes it much easier becuase you can follow the lead man and he clears traffic so you never have to let off the gas, they also help by blocking the slower cars from getting back in your lane. Dont get me wrong I am not one of those jackasses that think they own the road, I just hate sitting there going 70mph, it gets pretty annoying when people drive in the fast lane and refuse to move over for anyone. Its almost like they should teach people the unwritten rules of driving in school.
Thats about right its usually between 2.3 and 2.5 of the good stuff 86 octane. It took me about 1 year to get good at figuring out when to accelerate and decel at high speed so I would not have to touch the brakes, now its almost second nature. I actually just got a ticket from a ohio state trooper for 110mph a couple weeks ago. Luckily ohio and michigan courts dont overlap so all I had to do was pay the fine and I did not get any points nor is it on my record. The real trick for good gas mileage is to travel in groups of cars. For a while I was traveling back and forth with 2 other cars that went back and forth the same way. It makes it much easier becuase you can follow the lead man and he clears traffic so you never have to let off the gas, they also help by blocking the slower cars from getting back in your lane. Dont get me wrong I am not one of those jackasses that think they own the road, I just hate sitting there going 70mph, it gets pretty annoying when people drive in the fast lane and refuse to move over for anyone. Its almost like they should teach people the unwritten rules of driving in school.
Don't hurt anybody.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,505
From: looking for a flow bench so Brook and I can race
JB-
You havn't been here in a while. the average speed of rt 69 is 92mph
its CRAZY. I drive 85mph all day long on the highways.I could go faster but 5000+ lb trucks dont stop well.
I just have a feeling youre getting old
. i can see you cursing every kid that passes you screaming "God damn crazy kids! Back in my day we used to walk to school in snow, not drive like maniacs! DAmn whippersnappers!"
...ohh wait, hehe
Mike-
Michigan has some SERIOUS problems with economy cars going 65 in the left lane. especailly on rt 23 and 14/96. on my way to work from beck rd to merriman- i'd have to tail 3 or 4 neons going 65mph in the left lane until they moved. it annoys me to no end
...and you know how slo 65 is around here. semis in the right lane go faster than that
The other day i saw a neon merge in in front of an F350 superduty dualie, LOADED and Towing a big *** trailor. \
F-350; 70mph
neon- 50mph
I thought that damn truck was going to roll and the trailor was going right onto the opposite side of the road.
of all places in the country i've been to- which is a lot, michigan is the WORST place to have such a high speeding limit in conjunction with loose regulations. EVERYONE has a pickuptruck loaded 2000lbs above GVW with a trailor. anyone who doesn't has bike, mustang or economy turd. Heavy trucks dont stop well. its just disaster constantly all over the place.
You havn't been here in a while. the average speed of rt 69 is 92mph
its CRAZY. I drive 85mph all day long on the highways.I could go faster but 5000+ lb trucks dont stop well.
I just have a feeling youre getting old
. i can see you cursing every kid that passes you screaming "God damn crazy kids! Back in my day we used to walk to school in snow, not drive like maniacs! DAmn whippersnappers!"...ohh wait, hehe
Mike-
Michigan has some SERIOUS problems with economy cars going 65 in the left lane. especailly on rt 23 and 14/96. on my way to work from beck rd to merriman- i'd have to tail 3 or 4 neons going 65mph in the left lane until they moved. it annoys me to no end
...and you know how slo 65 is around here. semis in the right lane go faster than that The other day i saw a neon merge in in front of an F350 superduty dualie, LOADED and Towing a big *** trailor. \
F-350; 70mph
neon- 50mph
I thought that damn truck was going to roll and the trailor was going right onto the opposite side of the road.
of all places in the country i've been to- which is a lot, michigan is the WORST place to have such a high speeding limit in conjunction with loose regulations. EVERYONE has a pickuptruck loaded 2000lbs above GVW with a trailor. anyone who doesn't has bike, mustang or economy turd. Heavy trucks dont stop well. its just disaster constantly all over the place.