Necromancer


An Internet forum user who enjoys reviving old, dead threads, just to be an ass. Is eventually banned from forums after causing numerous threads to be closed or deleted. Closely related to n00b and lamer.

"I wish that necromancer would stop bumping three-year-old threads with one-word posts."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...rm=necromancer

 

_________________________________________

Are you talking to me????
1st of all. I didn't see how old the thread was. I had a link (I found on the site)
2nd. What are you talking about one word answers?
3rd. Why did you call me an ass, and other names?
4th. This is the 1st time I have ever done this! I don't go looking for old threads!

I did try to send you an personal email. But your box is full.
Please remove you insult to me....

 

Yes, no one else posted in this thread for years.
This is the point of my post. You should have.
These are not my words, but a definition from Urban Dictionary, as linked.
Please don't do it again, or explain why reviving an old thread is necessary.
I can't do it- forum settingd allow editing of posts only for a short period of time. If you dislike my post that much, why did you quoted it entirely? Even if I could remove my post, it would remain visible as a part of yours.

 

Play nice. I closed this thread, but decided to open it up in case jtruman decided to comment on the belated reply to his thread.

 

holy thread revival

 

GT1

Who gives a fucking shit how old the god damn thread is. If I see a muffler question or muffler thread that is three years old and no one has posted in a while I'll still answer the question.

And who the hell cares what a dictionary calls it. Your post was useless and a waste of space.

 

GT1
you should've been swallowed

 

Totally agree. Spiritman deserves an appology. In fact I recall a usenet rule that says it's better to revive an old thread than to open a new one if the subjects are related. Also, if we are not to use old threads, then why should we use the search function ?

 

we already have enough gas mileage threads as it is, I'd rather see an original one than a repost anyday. And GT1, dont post again unless we can all benefit from it

 

Last September, I began my vacation road trip almost 8 hours later than normal because we were intensely monitoring a hurricane (we were heading to the Southeast coast). So we left our home in Western Prince William country around noon, filled up and started out. I set the tripometer to zero, turned on the A/C and began the trip. The first 50 miles were run at speeds averaging 62 MPH. The next 140 miles was at 72-73 MPH, and the final 70 miles to fillup was at 78 MPH. Traffic during that Sunday on the road was moderate but moving.

My mileage for this first leg was 33.94 MPG. That's with the A/C running the entire time, two people on board with vacation luggage. Cruise control was used when and where ever possible. Mileage was calculated and not the result of the MID report (obviously this is the case since I gave you a decimal fraction).

I have never complained about the mileage my '04 manual TL gets in town or on the road. It does fine and delivers an averate of 27+ MPG for in-town use and 32 MPG on the road. The 33.94 was not what I would NORMALLY expect for "on-the-road" driving in the area where I live (since some of that on-the-road would also include nont-on-the-road), but rather is the result of the first leg of a vacation trip.

Interestingly, my mileage for the entire vacation trip (which includes highway and in town beach resort driving) was just over 30 MPG for over 1100 miles.

 

very informative thanks

 

This is true but it comes with a price of lower fuel mileage which, of course, make sense since you must burn more fuel to produce more power. And here is why this is.

On cooler/colder days, the air is more dense which means there are more oxygen molecules per cubic foot of the stuff. The engine senses this oxygen rich condition and adjusts the amount of fuel delivered to the cylinders to compensate and to maintain the optimum ratio (around 15:1). During the warmer months, the reverse of this is true. This is why you will get better mileage in the warmer months than in the cooler months.

 

The best open road mileage I ever got with my '04 manual TL was in September 2005 on the way to my vacation destination. We got a late start that day because of a threatening hurricane, so at noon when we left it was already 86 degrees. Traffic was moderately heavy going South and the average speeds were: 62 for the first 50 miles, 73 for the next 120 miles, and 78 for the last 80 miles before fillup. The A/C was running the entire time, the stock EL42's were on the car, and cruise was used the entire time. My calculated MPG (not the MID, of course) for this first leg was 33.94 MPG. I was quite pleased.

 

Thanks for doing the research

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthernBoy

My calculated MPG (not the MID, of course) for this first leg was 33.94 MPG. I was quite pleased.

.......and with good reason!!!


What do you suppose the 3G Cd is - - - - about .28/29?

..ez....

 

Just wonder if my fellow San Josen Truman is still here .... i know overall stock TL will get a better MPG reading than the type-s ... but any type-s owner recorded detail numbers like this so far? Inquiring mind wants to know ...

 

During my drive back to S.F. from Orange County last week, I averaged 29mpg and 75mph. I started the trip meter immediately as I hit freeway speed (on the I-5), so it's pretty consistent with your test. I have a 6MT TL-S.

 

Your "Cd" hypertext link takes me to a Jeep Grand Cherokee. Is that really what you are referring to for the 28/29 MPG in your post?

 

man my type s sucks then...i know its new but i only get like 25 mpg on highway. my e46 m3 did better...wtf

 

oh by the way...did you guys know that when your mid says 0 miles left...you still have at least 3 gallons of fuel left? i was driving on 0 for like 15 extra miles...and i was like uh oh im going to run out of gas...went to go fill up and i only put in 14.5 gallons. really weird since the capacity is 17.1 gallons.

 

oh and also...could it be that i only have 1600 miles on my car is why i am getting very bad mpg on my car?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthernBoy

Your "Cd" hypertext link takes me to a Jeep Grand Cherokee. Is that really what you are referring to for the 28/29 MPG in your post?

Actually, my man, I was referring to the Co-efficient of Drag for the 3rd Generation TL.
No disrespect meant, but I would never point you at a Jeep (and I even drove one in the service). Regret any confusion.

best, ez....

 

Gotcha.. my bad.

As for the drag coefficient for the TL, I seem to recall reading somewhere that it was 29. Oh, I know how to find out. I'm pretty sure it's in the sales brochure. Mine is in my trunk for my '04. I'll try to remember to get it sometime this morning and check it out.

 

This is a very relevant topic with premium going for $4.25 in NY.

I am trying my own experiment. I reset my MID when I had the oil changed and I am going to drive slower and see what kind of mileage I get. I had a 30 mi each way commute, usually clear in the am and slow in the evening. I am going to try to stick to the speed limit (and let everyone else fly by in the left lane).

I have done a little over 200mi so far and my mileage has improved from 21 - 24mpg.

I am going try this driving style for 1,000 mi and see what happens to my mileage.

I'll keep you guys posted.

 

Cruise contol at 105 for 5 miles..

 

The drag coefficient of the '04 TL is .29, so I would imagine the rest of the 3G TL's would be the same.

 

Roger. Thank you. Out.

can you tell I was military? (best, ez....)

 

And I thank you for your service to our nation.. especially in light of the fact that Memorial weekend is upon us. May you forever hold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights dear to your heart.

 

Sort of... However, you'll never be able to run the tank dry so to speak... My other car has a "fuel consumed" reading on the info-center. Assuming this is spot on accurate since the ECU knows exactly how much fuel it is injecting into the engine, I've accidently "run-out-of-gas" and the engine died when it read 16.0 gallons. The fuel tank is 17.5 gallons on that car...

Reasons for this:

1.) The fuel pump inlet tube cannot suck all the fuel out of the tank, cuz it's most likely not uniformly shaped, however I heard on many cars the inlet tube does not extend to the very bottom of the tank, as usually there is a small gap.

2.) The fuel pump is located in the tank, usually above the bottom, sometimes at the top of the tank, never seen it under. Once no more fuel goes into the inlet, the fuel pump cannot pressurize the rest of the fuel system, so even tho you have fuel in the lines it is not flowing.

3.) Some fuel is also locked up in the vapor recovery system.

 

I've got an '07 TL-S (auto)

I tested the mpg as did the original poster of this thread.
It was late at night and there was very little chicago traffic.

Facts:
12000 miles on vehicle
A/C off
windows closed
temp outside = 55 degrees
everything is stock

MID#'s:
@80mph.... 27mpg
@70.......... 32mpg
@55-60..... 37mpg (I maintained this for 20 minutes of the trip)
@45-50..... 45mpg to >50 (depended on road surface)

honestly, i know that 45-50 is ridiculous slow. But it'll make me much happier when i have to drive through the construction zones here.

Also, i noticed that drafting semi's add a mile or 2... but IMO it's not worth the danger of trailing them so closely. Realistically my car sees 25-26mpg mixed driving.

 

I've run a few tests with my 2006 TL AT doing mostly routine driving . http://www.ve3xd.com/gasmileage.htm

However, I have been conscious of getting good mileage so no high speeds or erratic driving. The best I've achieved is 6l/100Km. Unfortunately Canadian Tl's do not show fractions of a Km so 6 is a range of 34-39 U.S. or 41-47 Imperial mpg.

 

good job...since these cars are rated at 28mpg/highway... i'm surprised to see such high numbers.

 

Is there any way to hack the system to enable instant mpg figures??

I thought that i read somewhere that the trip computer hack could do this?

With the TL's great MPG, this is a plus that must be attributed to front wheel drive!!

The 4G 2009 TL which has gotten fatter, AWD and in my opinion less aerodynamic will have a tough time beating our MPG numbers

 

you might want to repost that question as a new thread... you'll probably get better feedback. As for me, I don't plan on tapping into my electrical system any time soon ... I just reset the MID when i want to see an immediate change in mileage.

As for the great gas mileage... it just goes to show you how driving patterns affect mpg. If I open my car up and enjoy it, I get low 20's. Not very impressive. Keep the rpm's under 2000 and it skyrockets.

These are the best articles I've found in achieving optimal gas mileage:

http://amasci.com/amateur/traffic/trafexp.html

http://www.hypermiling.com/index.html

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fuelec...2/article.html

 

Cool articles! No need to hack into your electrical system, though. Read the Nav Hack thread posted in the FAQ and you'll learn that all you have to do is burn a CD with the posted files and load it in your trunk mounted nav reader. I now use my instantaneous MPG all the time!

 

Thanks Jeff. Those are the best articles I've found. I'll have to go browse the FAQ for instantaneous MPG now.

 

Engine load plays a bigger role than RPM. When I drive our TL to work, even if I'm sitting at 1800rpm on the highway, my fuel economy is around 16-18mpg thanks to the 6% incline. (At least that's what the MID drops to)

My calculated average for the tank is always about 21mpg of mostly highway driving between 60 and 70mph.

My G35, which actually has an instant-fuel-economy reading, (and which also averages 21mpg on this same commute)... reports my instant fuel economy as being between 10 and 15mpg even when cruising at 2000rpm on the 6% incline. And if I have to accelerate at all on that incline, even when keeping the RPMs below 2500rpm, the instant reading pegs the minimum reading of 8mpg.

When on flat ground, I can easily get the instant reading to be 30+. However, if you hit the slightest incline, and you just maintain your RPM, the instant reading drops to 20mpg. Because of stuff like this, is why I think people have such varying fuel economy numbers even when they think they are driving on mostly flat surfaces.

 

This has been well-documented on the board over the years. There's a good reason for this feature. Bear in mind that "Miles to Empty" is an estimate based on your average fuel economy at a given time. I don't know how it determines the estimate (i.e., does it factor in fuel economy over the last 50 miles, or some other means), but it can't be infallible. You could be sailing along on the highway in 6th gear getting 30 mpg and it could show 50 miles to empty, but if you then got stuck in a bad traffic jam, you'd be getting 0 mpg and, if you were one of those dummies who will sit with the car idling for hours instead of turning it off, you'd run out of gas a lot sooner than if you had kept moving. Or you could drive into the mountains and have to shift to a lower gear, thereby using more gas. Same thing applies if you get off the highway and have to deal with traffic lights and such—your mileage will drop and the "Miles to Empty" estimate will drop as well.

By providing a cushion on the "Miles to Empty," it ensures that people are a lot more likely to fill up before they actually run out of gas, and it ensures that there's some room for error if the estimate is inaccurate in a bad way. Acura doesn't want to have to put up with a nuisance class action by someone who says "My MID said I had 25 miles to empty but I ran out of gas" because he got stuck in traffic and the estimate was off.


Regarding the post about going 55 mph, my problem with that is that I generally feel like 55 mph is too slow for 6th gear. I find that if I'm going much below 100 km/h that I need to be in 5th. Based on that, I find that I get better mileage at 65–70 mph than I do at 55 because of the benefit of being in 6th versus 5th.

 

good point... the grade does make a difference. 1800rpm's does a lot more downhill than uphill. Luckily for me, Illinois is pretty flat.

I've been enthusiastic lately about optimizing the gas mileage because i have a road trip coming up(not to mention gas prices). Chicago to Memphis. My goal was to average 40mpg the whole way.... I've finally concluded that it's not gonna happen. I can manage 37mpg around 60mph but there's no way I'm gonna drive slower than that for a 9 hour trip!

 

Im really surprised that you guys are getting more then 25mpg. I used to have a RX8, I use to get 20mpg... I just got the TL with no hope to get better mpgs compared with the RX8. But after reading this thread It gave me a lill hope.. hehe