Hypermiling

  • Thread starter W3H5
  • 254 comments
  • 12,282 views
So, I just got a really good run today. I scored a 45.1 average MPG - really good for a Mazda 3 - but the important # for me is commute vs range lost (how many miles the range depletes by versus the distance of the commute). So the commute in question was all uphill and about 12 miles. I burned six miles. That's a 200% improvement! :eek:
 
I filled up tonight and with the MPG meter in the car showing 37.5, the actual number ended up being 37.1. It's consistently been within 1 mpg which is nice. One of these days I'd like to try and hit 40, but that would require zero trips into town for things so it would require some planning ahead but I think the car is capable.
 
Working on it. Though I have to go to Phoenix on Friday for some things so I may not be able to maintain this number.

IMAG0267.jpg
 
I find it fun sometimes. When I went on my honeymoon across America in the Corvette a few months ago, I tried to see how efficiently I could drive it. With its relatively low weight, good aero and super tall gearing I was able to manage this in a car making over 700 hp....
20160903_115143.jpg
 
I find it fun sometimes. When I went on my honeymoon across America in the Corvette a few months ago, I tried to see how efficiently I could drive it. With its relatively low weight, good aero and super tall gearing I was able to manage this in a car making over 700 hp....View attachment 598873
Nice job...Just refrain from taking pictures while going 80 MPH.
 
Nice job...Just refrain from taking pictures while going 80 MPH.
No worries. I had the wife take that for me. Whatever state I was in at the time had 80mph speed limits. Did my best the whole trip to drive as legally as possible, knowing a bright red corvette with tourist plates kinda sticks out like a sore thumb to the cops....
 
Dead thread bump.

I just broke my personal best.
So, I just got a really good run today. I scored a 45.1 average MPG - really good for a Mazda 3 - but the important # for me is commute vs range lost (how many miles the range depletes by versus the distance of the commute). So the commute in question was all uphill and about 12 miles. I burned six miles. That's a 200% improvement! :eek:
Bolded part in question.

Coming home, I averaged 39.0 MPG. 12 mile commute. I only burned 5 miles this time. 291-286
 
Dead thread bump.

I just broke my personal best.

Bolded part in question.

Coming home, I averaged 39.0 MPG. 12 mile commute. I only burned 5 miles this time. 291-286
Same commute.

42.5 MPG.

424 -> 423

I don't even know. I'll never beat that.
 
Somehow managed to get 26.97 mpg in my 2002 Lexus IS300 Sportcross on nothing but backroads from Maine to northern New Hampshire. The roads were mainly backroads consisting of 45 to 55mph speed limits.
 
My Regular commute to work is around 20kms in relatively highish Morning/Afternoon traffic in Western Sydney for the last 3 months I averaged, 42MPG(US) that is using cruise control basically when ever I possibly can, the last two days i have removed the cruise control aspect from my driving and tried to keep consistent and little as possible throttle when driving and managed to get it Down to 48MPG.

If I tried this on a weekend I'm almost certain I could get to or even surpass 50 MPG but it shows how much the cruise control eats up your fuel economy even in a Manual.

This was with Regular 91 RON Octane.
 
Last edited:
If I tried this on a weekend I'm almost certain I could get to or even surpass 50 MPG but it shows how much the cruise control eats up your fuel economy even in a Manual.
For many drivers cruise control can be beneficial, but it's certainly possible to be more efficient without it. Cruise control will use more throttle going uphill and less going downhill, but it's more efficient to use the same or less throttle uphill and shed speed, and then regain speed by using gravity to your advantage down the other side - as well as carrying more momentum for the next uphill.

It's one area of "hypermiling" that I don't actually tend to use, mostly because it drives me crazy when people don't maintain their speed, getting in your way uphill or flying past when they're going downhill.

The Insight didn't have cruise control but it was pretty good at maintaining efficiency on hills too, since it tended to use its electric element to assist going uphill, rather than extra fuel. The instant consumption display would rarely dip below 50mpg (imperial) up gentle hills as a result.
 
For many drivers cruise control can be beneficial, but it's certainly possible to be more efficient without it. Cruise control will use more throttle going uphill and less going downhill, but it's more efficient to use the same or less throttle uphill and shed speed, and then regain speed by using gravity to your advantage down the other side - as well as carrying more momentum for the next uphill.

It's one area of "hypermiling" that I don't actually tend to use, mostly because it drives me crazy when people don't maintain their speed, getting in your way uphill or flying past when they're going downhill.

The Insight didn't have cruise control but it was pretty good at maintaining efficiency on hills too, since it tended to use its electric element to assist going uphill, rather than extra fuel. The instant consumption display would rarely dip below 50mpg (imperial) up gentle hills as a result.
Yeah, the route i take using cruise control in the mornings can fustrate me as people never maintain a speed properly, usually hovering between 65/kmh and 80 in a 80km/h zone.

Anyway when I went to work today I started later for my afternoon shift and thanks to no traffic what soever doing the same route I tried to hyper mile as best I could, not increasing throttle uphill and try roll into braking zones from long distance I managed a massive economy difference this time:
IMAG0040.jpg

Thats 56 MPG(US)/67(UK).

My Average for this tank of fuel is only 5.2L though but I'm almost through the tank so I'll try again for a much longer test once I fill up.
 
I did the impossible, 40 min drive although mostly downhill getting this:
IMAG0046.jpg
the funny thing is if I didn't have stop start traffic at the end it would of been better and I wasn't exactly driving as economical as I could I just saw my economy was nuts so I took a photo.
 
I did the impossible, 40 min drive although mostly downhill getting this:View attachment 661184 the funny thing is if I didn't have stop start traffic at the end it would of been better and I wasn't exactly driving as economical as I could I just saw my economy was nuts so I took a photo.
94 MPG...In a Mazda.

I'm jealous. I live near the city and have to deal with a lot of stop and go traffic as well as lights. :banghead:
 
Most new cars don't use fuel when you are coasting in gear, so that would explain it.
Yeah, I don't know if it's the Skyactiv or what not, but when your rolling down a hill in gear It makes this weird wastegate like sound(obviously isn't as it's a 1.5L N/A), maybe it's shutting cylinders or something.

But even still the downhill driving wasn't extreme and I still had a few lights to deal with while that was happening and the rest was mostly Cruise control.
 
I did the impossible, 40 min drive although mostly downhill getting this:View attachment 661184 the funny thing is if I didn't have stop start traffic at the end it would of been better and I wasn't exactly driving as economical as I could I just saw my economy was nuts so I took a photo.

Got a 3.5 l/100 once on a Mazda2. Was almost out of gas (after half a day of playing in the hills) and near-forty kilometers from my wallet.

Had a short climb, then drove a few kilometers along a hilly way, then had a fifteen kay downhill run coasting in gear, then an excruciating ten kilometer slog along level roads at 60 km/h with the gas indicator screaming at me.

Not amazed that I got home. Knew I had five liters in the tank when the fuel light started blinking. But pretty pleased I got it down into the threes.

So I was getting out to get my wallet, ready to dash back out to the gas station, when I found my debit card stuck under the driver's seat.

Well, 🤬
 
Drove the new Suzuki Ignis recently. Shortly after having driven the new mild-hybrid Swift. The Swift managed a pretty impressive 55mpg or so (5.1 l/100km) despite a reasonable amount of enthusiastic driving (the new Swift is a lot of fun). The Ignis did even better - 65mpg by the time it was handed back (4.3 l/100km). The Ignis was largely driven to UK speed limits on longer trips (I did four decent motorway runs thanks to events), with a bit of fun driving here and there.

Very impressed by both. They each get something right that very few cars of their size do, which is drivetrain linearity. This in turn makes it easy to drive smoothly, as there are no weird troughs and peaks in their power delivery to work around. Particularly impressive for the Swift, which is a 1-litre, 3cyl turbo (the Ignis is 1.2 4cyl non-turbo), since manufacturers tend to tune modern turbo engines with these dips and peaks built-in to get around emissions regs.

Both ascribe to the "keep it simple, stupid" idea too. Small car, small engine, light weight. That's literally all you need to make a car economical. If you can then use other technology to improve things further (like the Swift's hybrid assistance, or my old Insight's hybrid assistance, aerodynamic body and lean burn), then all the better.

IMG_5625.JPG
 

I tried the Celerio (1.0 Dualjet) recently. When it was delivered with 70mpg on the trip, I thought it might've been telling fibs. But in less than ideal conditions (a mix of rush hour stop/start traffic and 40-50mph driving punctuated by lots of traffic lights) I managed 63.5mpg (4.4l/100km). For comparison, on the same run a VW up! with the 1.0-litre turbo 3-cyl managed about 45mpg...
 
Weirdly the Celerio isn't actually as light as the Ignis, but I think both undercut the Up. Really does seem to be a simple recipe to economy in small cars. Is the 1-litre Suzuki engine three or four cylinders? 3cyl engines can be pretty economical, but I think subconsciously people drive them a little harder than fours because they feel less smooth at any given revs - i.e. it can feel like the engine is labouring. The effect is even more pronounced with the Fiat TwinAir engine, but I used one of those in a Panda recently and got much better economy than I had previously, simply because I was ignoring the slightly odd feel when it's at low (economical) revs.
 
When I filled up recently I had a Celerio next to my 2 at the pump, its incredibly small compared to it, especially in width.

Before My 2 I had mostly had 6 Cylinders and some 4 Cylinders, my car will happily drive under 2k rpms above 2nd gear as the 1.5L in this car seems to have decent low end for a car this size, most other 4 cylinders I have driven that have been over 1.8L tend to struggle at the same rev range when driving in normal traffic though weirdly, but they where automatics with less gears, my old 09 Corolla really couldn't stay under 2k if you wanted half decent acceleration and also would rev out more in the highest gears at highway speeds.
 
Last edited:
Weirdly the Celerio isn't actually as light as the Ignis, but I think both undercut the Up. Really does seem to be a simple recipe to economy in small cars. Is the 1-litre Suzuki engine three or four cylinders? 3cyl engines can be pretty economical, but I think subconsciously people drive them a little harder than fours because they feel less smooth at any given revs - i.e. it can feel like the engine is labouring. The effect is even more pronounced with the Fiat TwinAir engine, but I used one of those in a Panda recently and got much better economy than I had previously, simply because I was ignoring the slightly odd feel when it's at low (economical) revs.

If you've got the same engine as India and Asia, it's the three cylinder K10B. Same engine they've had for the longest time with new low-friction coating.

-

Have done 30 km/l in one, 30.5 against the trip meter, about 31 at the pumps (oddly).

-

Envious about the Ignis. Dearly want to try one since seeing one in Japan.
 
You're talking about this from the point of view of someone who doesn't hypermile. Standard hypermiling techniques are the definition of predictability. You slow down early for stops and intersections (hell, if you time it right, you never reach any red lights), and you slow down very, very gradually. No sudden deceleration. You don't speed up very, very gradually... instead, you accelerate as normal, because time spent accelerating wastes gas. You maintain a cruising speed without pulling out to overtake if you can. You maintain a rational follow distance because you don't want to slam on the brakes... meaning in a possible twenty car pile-up, you want to be behind a hypermilier.

Ok, so I said I'd stop wasting my life in here, but I noticed this and I guess I felt like I had more life to waste.

I understand the concept of slowing down gradually for a stop light and speeding up efficiently (not sure what "normally" means or if that's optimal efficiency). I also understand that avoiding coming to a stop saves gas and prevents traffic jams (and helps you avoid accidents).

I have seen people who follow at a safe distance create nasty traffic patterns where the jerk behind darts out into the other lane and darts back in because he's used to following too close and standing on his brakes. I've seen people go around someone who appears to be going slow coming up toward a red line because the person behind didn't understand that the person they were following wasn't just going slow, but actually trying to avoid stopping at the light. They didn't want to get caught behind said slowpoke when the light turned green.

People drive automatics, they rely on their brakes, follow too close, cut around people who cruise, ooch in traffic, and generally behave (almost uniformly) like people in a hurry. You are not "the definition of predictability" if you're confusing the people around you who expect you to behave like the other 99% of traffic. The whole point of hypermiling is to behave differently to conserve gas. Don't try to pretend that you fit right in with everyone else while simultaneously claiming to stand out and be better than everyone else.

You're not behaving predictably on the road. Even to me, who understands what you're doing, because I expect you to behave like all the other 'hats driving out there.

Now, are you increasing danger to anyone? That's much more debatable. There are lots of arguments that driving as described above may be safer. But predictably? not really.
 
Envious about the Ignis. Dearly want to try one since seeing one in Japan.
The Ignis is how small cars should be. Small, for a start. But also interesting and not too serious and thoughtfully designed. And incredibly economical, of course.
 
I've seen people go around someone who appears to be going slow coming up toward a red line because the person behind didn't understand that the person they were following wasn't just going slow, but actually trying to avoid stopping at the light. They didn't want to get caught behind said slowpoke when the light turned green.
Happens to me all the time. If I am within ~1/4 mile of a light and it turns red, I'll just let off and coast. If I'm lucky it'll turn green again before I get there. Three positives: Saves gas and brakes and I don't have to stop. People in a hurry to stop at a red light can go around.
 
Happens to me all the time. If I am within ~1/4 mile of a light and it turns red, I'll just let off and coast. If I'm lucky it'll turn green again before I get there. Three positives: Saves gas and brakes and I don't have to stop. People in a hurry to stop at a red light can go around.

Yea, I totally agree that it's more efficient to slow up, save gas, save brakes, and whatever else. But you're also confusing the people behind you (because they're not thinking), and causing an odd traffic pattern. I understand where you're coming from "that's their problem". I get it. But let's not pretend that everyone around you knows exactly what you're up to and doesn't drive erratically because they're annoyed.
 
Yea, I totally agree that it's more efficient to slow up, save gas, save brakes, and whatever else. But you're also confusing the people behind you (because they're not thinking), and causing an odd traffic pattern. I understand where you're coming from "that's their problem". I get it. But let's not pretend that everyone around you knows exactly what you're up to and doesn't drive erratically because they're annoyed.
Eh, I'm annoyed with them for doing what they do so we're even. ;)
 
Yea, I totally agree that it's more efficient to slow up, save gas, save brakes, and whatever else. But you're also confusing the people behind you (because they're not thinking), and causing an odd traffic pattern. I understand where you're coming from "that's their problem". I get it. But let's not pretend that everyone around you knows exactly what you're up to and doesn't drive erratically because they're annoyed.

Plenty of people already drive confusingly as it is; I don't really feel bad about letting off the gas because there's so many other worse ways to be driving confusingly.
 
Now, are you increasing danger to anyone? That's much more debatable.

No, it isn't.

If you feel the need to dart around someone when you see a traffic light ahead is red, but you want to tailgate the driver in front regardless, it's you who is driving without respecting a safe distance towards another driver. Therefore, it is you who is a potential traffic hazard, and not the driver you are following.

_ _


I only noticed this topic now. So far having driven 30,000km with the GT86, I've averaged 7,4L/100km, or 38,2mpg. I know some guys that get 6-6,5 out of it, but I'm having a lot of traffic lights on my route, and farmers that prevent me from keeping a constant speed.

About the coasting in neutral thing: I was always told coasting in neutral could potentially cause harm to the engine / transmission. I generally just rev-match and use engine-braking to slow me down instead.
 
Back