mileage vs skis on roof

[radar]

mod, this is getting dumb, do me a fav and burn this thread, thks

Edited March 15, 2007 by radar

[zonianbrat]

That is some really good mileage. I average like 16-18 on the highway cruisin at 75. I know I would probably get a little bit better if I went 65 but I do not want to get run over.

[tmorgan4]

29mpg?! Please share your tips.

[zonianbrat]

I think your permanently disqualified from ever getting 29 mpg with 35" tires and the weight of that arb up front Tyler. Assuming you still have the arb.

[navygz19]

29mpg?!  Please share your tips. 

dude. tyler, maybe you should aim for 10-15 to start with...it's the baby steps that count

 

29 MPG? In a Pathy? Even 26 MPG...Sorry but I don't buy it...my other car which I shamefully drive is a 2004 Hyundai Accent...drive it to Connecticut regularly...1.6 liter, 107 h.p. Cruising through a WHOLE tank at 65 mph I will consistently get 30 MPG, best I EVER got was 34 MPG...you're telling me your Pathfinder can practically attain that as well?

Edited March 13, 2007 by navygz19

[OBXbeachpathy]

damn, and I thought I did awesome when I got 14

[94extreme]

29mpg?! Please share your tips.

fuzzy math or something.

[zonianbrat]

There is no way. My wifes Honda Accord 4-cyl with no weight in it only gets 29-32 on a good day. I can not believe you got 30mpg while towing. These trucks are not even rated for that off the showroom floor.

[NismoSkyZ]

Maybe somebody messed up some calculations

[Trainman]

Do not forget he is reporting in imperial MPG, not US. So as he noted it is more like 24 mpg US, not 29. Our Sienna gets 36 MPG imperial and the Pathfinder gets 24 MPG imperial on a regular basis, with single tank (over long distance) of 27 MPG imperial. So I can see 29 as a single tank, with what he has said, to be plausible but probably not sustainable over multiple fills.

 

As I use my truck for work, I have to keep a log for tax purposes and can tell the MPG for any one tank or over a long period.

 

As an aside, it costs me $0.48 per kilometer to operate my truck, all costs in. So that is what I charge my clients for vehicle use.

[Trainman]

Ok, I calculated again, I did mess up, damn, anyway, somehow I gauged the distance at 784ks, actual is 684ks, litres burned was 75.2 so that = 9.1ks per litre. Converted to US MPG (9.1 X 4 / 1.6) = 22.7 and imperial MPG (9.1 X 4.55 / 1.6)= 25.9. Still respectable. Btw, tune that accord up or put the wife on a diet dude, lol. I am now open to the many told you so's from those that have likely calculated their mileage and done everything possible to improve it, damn, was pretty excited at 29 MPG.

[zonianbrat]

Ok, I calculated again, I did mess up, damn, anyway, somehow I gauged the distance at 784ks, actual is 684ks, litres burned was 75.2 so that = 9.1ks per litre. Converted to US MPG (9.1 X 4 / 1.6) = 22.7 and imperial MPG (9.1 X 4.55 / 1.6)= 25.9. Still respectable. Btw, tune that accord up or put the wife on a diet dude, lol, I was towing with a Maxima last summer not the pathy btw, added that info to show that driving light on the gas and at lower speed really improves mileage. I am now open to the many told you so's from those that have likely calculated their mileage and done everything possible to improve it, damn, was pretty excited at 29 MPG.

Ok bud that does sound better. And for the record the accord is tuned up, and my wife hardly drives the car anymore. I do, to commute to work usually against a headwind at 5000 ft above sea level. Bring that pathy here and see if you get even 25 on the highway... Oh and by the way my wife is 6' and weighs 150lbs. I weigh 185lbs and am 6'1. So go ahead... tell me to go on a diet dude.