a friend of mine said he was talking on an acura forum and they all said air conditioning and windows down would produce the same results: worse gas milage. air condition is obvious but their argument was that if you have your windows down the wind will drag and slow you down and ultimately make your car work harder thus lessening your gas milage. it sort of makes sense to me as having your windows down causes you to be less aerodynamic. i dunno what do you guys think?
This came out on "Mythbusters" At Highway speeds according to them its more efficient with the AC on than with the windows down. (I guess extra drag because of rushing air through the vehicle with open windows) And at low speeds its better with the windows down. Catch the episode one of these days!
nope you didn't understand what they did
they brought in the manufacuter and they read the ecu and according to the air flow sensor it said better on fuel with a/c. When they did the test the one with windows down did 30 more laps!
so no matter what a/c burns more fuel. what windows down does is make it harder to drive at higer speeds say you have one window open on one side
I drove to sudbury alot, about a 3 hour drive with our van. it was hot so I decided like you guys to run the a/c I burnt a shit load more fuel.... and I was like wtf about 2/3's of the way there and turned it off and opened the windows. Every time after that I opened the windows and to be honest I didn't notice much of a difference in the ammount of fuel burnt with the windows up vs. windows down......
Of course, you guys realize that on the freeway, you can get good ventilation by simply cracking the windows open a couple inches and putting the vent on the "Fresh" setting without turning the fan on. No gas-sucking AC compressor, and no high-drag, messy-hair driving experience either.
__________________
"Crush enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women!" - Conan the Barbarian, on what is good in life
well on my rolla I can just open the vents. or with the ae92 at least run the a/c for a couple of min to get the ducts all cold then turn it off and the air will stay cold for a long time
but on the ford windstar I was driving I couldn't just do vent LOL doesn't have that thing
I've always heard that windows down will lower the mpg slightly, but it's still less of a hit than AC.
Regardless, I'll always use the AC when I'm cruising down the freeway. I may use more gas, but at least I won't be deaf from the wind noise. Around town, I'll always put the windows down if I can.
At lower speeds yes, it can be more fuel efficient to have your windows down, but once you approach 40 or so MPH it becomes more efficient to use the AC.
On the Mythbusters, both of their testing methods were flawed. The first because airflow is not an accurate measure of fual used, and the second because they tested it till it ran out of gas. When a car runs out of gas it doesnt necessarily mean that the tank is completely empty, just that it sucked in air for a long enough period of time.
I remember my physics teacher making a big deal about the AC vs windows thing, and did out a ton of calculations on the board to demonstrate what he was saying, and at higher speeds, it takes much, much more engine power to overcome the drag caused by the windows (even if they are just cracked) than it does to power the AC compressor.
__________________
Toyotas in the family/next of kin:
1982 Corolla Wagon, 1989 Corolla DX, 1991 Previa LE, 1993 Previa LE,
1993 Pickup, 1994 Corolla DX, 1995 Avalon XL, 1996 Camry XLE, 1998 Avalon XL,
1998 Sienna CE, 1999 Camry XL, 2000 Camry XLE, 2002 Tundra, 2003 Tundra,
2003 ES 300, 2004 Camry XLE, 2005 Tacoma
People shouldnt take mythbusters literally, they're entertainment primarily.
Using airflow and driving the gas tank empty is very subjective. What they shoulda done is have a controlled amount of gas to use and then drive a certain distance and see how much they wasted, that would be far more accurate.
Driving with windows open creates a shitload of drag and turbulence around the car and its far more fuel consuming than using the AC, however, really though, using the AC will add maybe 1 liter of fuel consumption per 100km, is it really necessary to try to save that 1liter? Personally I'd rather drive in comfort than cry about 1 lousy liter.
they did use a contolled amount of gas I forget how many gallons but they didn't fill the tanks.
they were only allowed to go a certain speed
with identical veichles. Loaded up with the exact same weight.
and
you need to think how much power the a/c takes from the engine if when you turn it on you notice a considerable amount of power loss. It would be a hell of alot more than just 1 liter per 100 km if when I ran it in the van on the way to sudbury (a little more than 300 km there) and I could see a massive difference in the fuel consumtion. 3 liters wouldn't even move that gauge since it has a 94 liter tank! took me a quarter and a half a quarter tank to get there where normally it was just a quarter tank and just a bit
those 3.8 liters they put in the vans are decently powerful for what they are in. and if the a/c make it feel that weak fuck it!
and mythbusters is entertainment but they use science in what they are doing. No reason not to take it literally. The entertainment comes from when a myth is busted and doesn't get the results that it should have and they go and blow something up to get the results of the myth to see what it takes
so whats the conclusion here guys? im just curious is all. so speeds below 40mph windows down but after that a/c? is that what everyone is agreeing on..?
Just having the a/c belt hooked on will cause a power drag on the motor..nut much but my point is if you have it you might as well use it to make your self comfy on a long hot drive..
If a lirte or so of juce is busting ya balls disconect the a/c pump all together..and while ya at it put of manual sterring rack..in....lol..they alll use power
Personaly i have windows down at lower speeds and crank the a/c on the highway with windows up so i can hear myself think lol...p.s try having a smoke at 65 mph with the windows all down...the car becomes the ashtray...
My dad has a 1.8 ltr auto....2001 mdle
With a mixture of driving..eg heavy city traffic...country...half/half
The a/c drops the fuel econ by approx 2-3 mpg
From memery i think he gets between 29..at the lowest(very rare)to a best of bout 34 mpg....thats per tank and on the same roads..the only variables are traffic congestion and fuel type....he drives the car consistantly the same(eg no fuel misesing or flat out runs ever ...
If ya want an exact reading with more deatail i can ask dad to check his log book..he records the days temp..a/c on or not..and type of fuel he uses....as for rolling resistance he runs 195/50/15 goodyear f1's and 120,000 k's full serviceing..
His car is his first wife lol
I am tellin you now it's more than a liter per 100/km
that engine not only has to work harder because of the a/c but harder to move the car and keep it moving! because of the power not being there.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
ToyotaNation.com is an independent Toyota/Lexus enthusiast website. ToyotaNation.com is not sponsored by or in any way affiliated with Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. The Toyota, Lexus and Scion names and logos are trademarks owned by Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.
what do you guys think?
Linear Mode
