Worst tank ever

[Minihaha]

For driving enjoyment...
Wow, I DO NOT know how you guys do those high milage tanks!
I just got my personal "best" a paltry (by this forum) 38.4 mpg, and it was torture, lol. Won't be doing that anytime again soon.

It's (IMO) soooo much more fun to rev that triple and make it run (as fast as it can, lol, which is still generally very legal!) and its efficiency is still way, way better than any other car I've ever driven.

Here's to REDLINE and cheap(er) fuel!!

[arthurdents]

I'd love to limit myself and drive for gas mileage, but I usually can't contain myself. I rev my lil mirage up all the time and am rarely disappointed in the results. That said, I got almost 50 mpg driving to Toronto from Rochester, driving like I normally do.

[ThreePot]

I'm a geezer, so my kind of ripping around may not be the same but I'm having a blast.
Still into the 40's to.
It's fun being able to work the car without getting in trouble.
The little three pot sounds sweet !

[Daox]

Actually, ripping around at high rpm and load isn't that horrible for fuel economy. Its when you start mashing the brakes that your fuel mileage drops like a brick. Using the brakes, idling, and real high speeds are the mileage killers. Acceleration doesn't have a ton to do with it, in fact, engines are more efficient at high load.

[DonHoot]

I don't do anything special to save fuel, it's just my daily commute to work and back. You can see from my fuel economy log the worst ratings are during winter cold, when I remote start for warm up idling.

[Minihaha]

Actually, ripping around at high rpm and load isn't that horrible for fuel economy. Its when you start mashing the brakes that your fuel mileage drops like a brick. Using the brakes, idling, and real high speeds are the mileage killers. Acceleration doesn't have a ton to do with it, in fact, engines are more efficient at high load.

I would have to disagree a bit here. It's not "using the brakes" per se that hurts fuel economy, brakes obviously have no connection to the engine, rather their usage is the precursor to the likely fuel consumed (the MPG hit) as you accelerate back up to speed.
(A primary reason I "hate" traffic lights, especially the dumb ones that trigger on timers irrespective of traffic loads).
A constant RPM at the engine's sweet spot (pretty much what a CVT is designed to do) is a good bet for maximum efficiency (maximum respective to engine RPM, i.e., neglecting the higher frictional losses that CVTs have relative to a manual). Also while the efficiency of the engine may be 'better' at higher loads, less throttle (i.e., opening the throttle or nearer to WOT) means more fuel, more throttle means less fuel.
And most definitely I would say acceleration is the primary factor in fuel consumption. If we weren't accelerating we would use a minimum amount of fuel; it's Newton's second law: Force=Mass x Acceleration or looking at it another way - the Acceleration is defined by the force/mass. Velocity (speed) doesn't 'require' force (of course it does in our fricitional / real world, but really it's only because we are constantly fighting off the multitude of forces: drag, gravity, friction; the biggest effort an engine expends is the acceleration required (and defined) by the force/mass). This is also why the highway MPG usually exceeds the city MPG: highway - not a lot of acceleration, mostly a 'constant' velocity; city - lots of acceleration, rarely a 'constant' velocity.

That being said - you clearly know how to maximize your MPG (way better than me ), so "whatever" about all this theory mumbo-jumbo I have written above, you're doing it right.

[Donut]

just a quick note on these formulas: in terms of energy consumption, it actually doesn't matter how fast one accelerates to get to a certain speed. The (kinetic) energy put into the car will always be the same and is defined by the desired velocity. If car A accelerates quickly to 100 MPH it has just more power than car B which takes ages to get up to that speed. Both will, however, have used the same amount of energy (assuming they have equal mass). This is of course for ideal systems without losses.

The two cars will have different fuel economy based on the points mentioned above, i.e., engine efficiency under load and at cruise speed, losses from braking (giving away kinetic energy), friction effects, and so forth.

[ThreePot]

just a quick note on these formulas: in terms of energy consumption, it actually doesn't matter how fast one accelerates to get to a certain speed. The (kinetic) energy put into the car will always be the same and is defined by the desired velocity. If car A accelerates quickly to 100 MPH it has just more power than car B which takes ages to get up to that speed. Both will, however, have used the same amount of energy (assuming they have equal mass). This is of course for ideal systems without losses.

The two cars will have different fuel economy based on the points mentioned above, i.e., engine efficiency under load and at cruise speed, losses from braking (giving away kinetic energy), friction effects, and so forth.

Yes...I see. The physics tells it.

So, during the acceleration phase, keeping the engine in it's most efficient range would be good.
If the CVT's didn't have relatively high losses (?), they would REALLY be fantastic.
Assuming the engineers that set up the CVT's parameters are really smartys...One could carefully observe the RPM's a CVT operates at in various scenarios, to get a clue as to the most efficient rpm ranges to try keeping your 5 speed in....(?) lol

[fatcat]

the only thing that keeps me from revving the little 3 banger up is when the roads are snow covered or icy...we have a warm spell now where the roads are not slick, my little mirage was screamin' this morning on the way home from work! There is a massive hill I have to climb coming out of town at the start of the highway, when the roads are good I am always amazed at how quick the car is getting up it. I have to start from a stop at the intersection at the bottom, but shifting about 5grand or so the car sounds awesome and gets up it pretty quick. The best part is by the time I am home, my mileage is always in the mid to upper 30's(and I have snow tires on). Love the car!

[Minihaha]

.One could carefully observe the RPM's a CVT operates at in various scenarios, to get a clue as to the most efficient rpm ranges to try keeping your 5 speed in....(?) lol

Yeah, I'd think so. I haven't been in a CVT, but I saw one (a Mirage) on youTube and I was very surprised how it worked to maintain the RPM constant, it was weird! And (to me) not at all appealing, I love winding out an ICE.