Date:         Sun, 2 Apr 2006 12:46:34 -0600
Reply-To:     Paul Connelly <vanagonhummingbird@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Paul Connelly <vanagonhummingbird@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: MPG
In-Reply-To:  <MXAVRpR7pTysvmGLjtg00005c0f@mx.africa-online.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I think its just a "grass is greener on the other side thing"! I live at
9,100" and most of my driving is done at over that, and there is always lots
of climbing, so when I get down to the plains, even over 5,000', my van
seems to have wings with all that "extra power". I have a heavy Syncro Westy
and wherever I go, I seem to get an average of about 18-20mpg (US), whether
climbing passes, cruising, pottering or rushing, Interstate or backroads
thick air, thin air... its all the same.
The only thing is, I'm always much happier when I'm in my van and not my
Explorer, 'cos it means I'm having fun.... For me the gas consumption is not
anything like as important as just being on the road!

Happy Trails!
Paul Connelly



On 4/2/06, Joy Hecht <jhecht@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> My van definitely has less power at higher elevations, especially before
> she's warmed up.
>
> So do I.  Even once I'm warmed up.
>
> Do you think the lower air density would make enough difference to balance
> out having less O2?
>
> If I go biking at high elevation, like the time I took off on the road
> along
> the south rim of the Grand Canyon, I had to push less air resistance and I
> had less O2.  The lack of O2 had MUCH more effect on my performance than
> the
> lowered air resistance.  In fact, I had to give up and put my bike on the
> bus to get back, because I don't think I could have ridden it.  The fact
> that it had started snowing hard, of course, gave me a perfect excuse so I
> didn't have to feel totally wimpy - but clearly lack of O2 was more of an
> issue.
>
> On the other hand, a van goes faster and has more wind resistance from its
> shape, so maybe the thinner air makes more difference to it than to me on
> a
> bike?
>
>
>
> Joy
>
>
> ****************************************************************
> Joy Hecht
> and Matilda, 1989 Burgundy Vanagon
>
> For musings about life and the vanadventures:
> http://www.joyhecht.net
>
>
> ****************************************************************:::-----Orig
> inal Message-----
> :::From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM] On Behalf
> :::Of George Thorburn
> :::Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 4:55 PM
> :::To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> :::Subject: Re: MPG
> :::
> :::Robert wrote,
> :::
> :::>>At high elevation there is less oxygen so a fuel
> :::>>injected engine will compensate with less fuel
> :::>>better mileage perhaps but less power.
> :::
> :::At higher elevations there is also less air to push. The best our '85
> :::Westfalia has ever run was two falls ago when we were driving across
> :::Montana on I90 and I94 from around the continental divide toward
> Billings
> :::and Glendive. The weather was cool and there was not much wind. I was
> :::driving at about 110 kph (4000 rpm) but the van kept creeping up toward
> :::120 kph (4400 rpm) I did not check the gas mileage for this particular
> :::section but it was no worse than normal. My point is that the van
> wanted
> :::to go faster than normal and seemed to have more power than normal. (It
> :::seemed like we had a nice tail wind but we did not.) The only
> difference
> :::I could see was the higher elevation. Higher elevation equals less air
> :::density, equals less air resistance for the van to push. As Robert
> noted
> :::the FI system keeps the oxygen to fuel ratio constant at higher
> :::elevations.
> :::
> :::Has anyone else noticed their van running better at higher elevations?
> :::
> :::George,
> :::
> :::'85 Westfalia
>