7 ms·
I drove a similar route as the GP, 1100km round trip for a ski trip to Austria, aiming at 190kph. I didn’t have to tank for the round trip, but I decided to ta
by maxwell86 5y ago
I drove a similar route as the GP, 1100km round trip for a ski trip to Austria, aiming at 190kph.
I didn’t have to tank for the round trip, but I decided to tank on the way back cause in Austria tanking is much cheaper.
My car isn’t particularly new, but the lowest I’ve seen it use is 4.5l/100km and at 180-190 it uses 6.5l/100km.
In Germany most people don’t drive huge SUVs. Mine is a relatively sleek station wagon.
Reducing the aerodynamic surface of cars significantly improved fuel economy.
- TremendousJudge 5y agoSo consumption increases about x1.5 from the "best case" to "autobahn speeds"? Sounds about right -- a 500km range would get reduced to ~340km. It's better than the 500km -> 300~250km claimed by GP, but it's still a big reduction in range.
- maxwell86 5y ago> So consumption increases about x1.5 from the "best case" to "autobahn speeds"? Yes, pretty much. I wouldn't say 1.5x is a constant factor. If I drive at 200+kph (e.g. 240kph) then consumption explodes. This stuff must be online somewhere, but for me at least it seems that consumption increases exponentially (e.g. x^2), which makes sense since air resistance increases with v^2.