Want to know what you're earning?

[pwrwagn]

I built a spreadsheet in excel format to calculate how much you make PER HOUR.

The board does not like .xls ( spreadsheet ) files, so it has a ".txt) extension. After downloading it, rename it to .xls to get it to open in excel, libre office, or any other program that can use the ms excel spreadsheet format.

The input highlighted in yellow is your TRUE cost per mile. Make sure it includes everything from fuel to depreciation expressed as a "per mile" cost in dollars.

The left column is written in pay per mile, expressed as cents not dollars.

The top row is miles per hour.

The data in the table is "dollars per hour".

You can alter the "speed" row and "per mile" column numbers. The table isn't locked in any way so you can tweak it to your liking. Just change the yellow highlighted to your actual costs per mile.

I hope this is useful in some way to you, I wanted to know this.

 

[xiggi]

IMHO trading hours for dollars is an employee mindset. I'm much more concerned with quarterly net.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[pwrwagn]

IMHO trading hours for dollars is an employee mindset. I'm much more concerned with quarterly net.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums mobile app

I'm not sure what this has to do with an "employee mindset", but if it offends you, don't do it.

 

[xiggi]

Don't want to sound negative I do think its neat of you to do and share with others. All tools can be useful in some way.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[pwrwagn]

My interest in knowing this had to do with making choices about what to do. While you can estimate, you can't make an apples to apples comparison against something that pays "by the hour".

This is just a handy reference to give you some understanding of how speed and pay and per mile costs affect each other. Your day is lived in hours, if you're affected by HOS, then your time is very limited. Someone could even add a cost per mile calculator that adjusts the fuel economy speed, to work out the best speed for profit.

In my particular case, and the vehicle I drive, I get paid a flat rate per each, not a per mile. The real life rates can vary from about 60 cents to 1.40 normally and sometimes as high as $5 per mile. My fuel costs do not decrease all the way to 80 mph, as my fuel economy is nearly constant from 55 to 80 mph. In town and slow driving has a 20 percent fuel economy hit.

The discussions that happen here about "expediting or staying home" and being a wage earner (or something else) often revolve around how people feel about their time and its value. I, too, have that question, which is one thing I wanted to understand.

 

[runrunner]

My fuel costs do not decrease all the way to 80 mph, as my fuel economy is nearly constant from 55 to 80 mph. In town and slow driving has a 20 percent fuel economy hit.
This part I do not understand,how could MPG stay the same 55 or 80? How do you calculate MPG. I'm not doubting you just don't understand.

 

[pwrwagn]

My fuel costs do not decrease all the way to 80 mph, as my fuel economy is nearly constant from 55 to 80 mph. In town and slow driving has a 20 percent fuel economy hit.
This part I do not understand,how could MPG stay the same 55 or 80? How do you calculate MPG. I'm not doubting you just don't understand.

Really, they do not.

I am currently running courier work (I currently have only intrastate authority for IL), driving a Jeep Liberty CRD.

I get my BEST fuel economy at 75-85 MPH. No kidding. It doesn't get any better at 65 or even 55. I get about 25-26 mpg at 75+. And 20-22 in city driving.

This is based over tracking my fuel economy over several thousand miles. Each run was 95% (or more) at specific speeds. I even have repeatability - having repeated the same measurements several times, with the same results.

(seriously, this thing has NO economy penalty for open highway runs driving like a bat out of you know where)

 

[flattop40]

The board does not like .xls ( spreadsheet ) files, so it has a ".txt) extension. After downloading it, rename it to .xls to get it to open in excel, libre office, or any other program that can use the ms excel spreadsheet format.

I am first to admit that I am very computer illiterate but I can't figure out how to change it from txt to anything else.

 

[Turtle]

I get my BEST fuel economy at 75-85 MPH. No kidding. It doesn't get any better at 65 or even 55.

This is based over tracking my fuel economy over several thousand miles. Each run was 95% (or more) at specific speeds. I even have repeatability - having repeated the same measurements several times, with the same results.

(seriously, this thing has NO economy penalty for open highway runs driving like a bat out of you know where)

I don't think you're kidding, but I do think someone has fooled you. Based on what you've typed thus far, it's the methods you are using that are the most suspect. If your Jeep Liberty is getting that kind of fuel mileage, then you need to present Chrysler with your findings, because you and your Jeep will be famous.

The power required to push a car down the road varies with the speed the car is traveling, and the faster it is traveling the more power is required. The power required follows this equation:

road load power = av + bv² + cv³

The letter v represents the velocity of the car, and the letters a, b and c represent three different constants:

The a component comes mostly from the rolling resistance of the tires, and friction in the car's components, like drag from the brake pads, or friction in the wheel bearings.​

The b component also comes from friction in components, and from the rolling resistance in the tires. But it also comes from the power used by the various pumps in the car, as well as the thermodynamics of the engine (the hotter the engine the more fuel it burns, and the energy required to cool down the engine to keep it from overheating results in a significant amount of energy loss in the heat transfer).​

The c component comes mostly from things that affect aerodynamic drag like the frontal area, drag coefficient and density of the air. (The laws of fluid dynamics dictate that aerodynamic forces are proportional to the square of the speed. In other words, when you double the speed you quadruple the drag.)​

These constants will be different for every car. But the bottom line is, if you double your speed, this equation says that you will increase the power required by much more than double. A hypothetical medium sized SUV that requires 20 horsepower at 35 mph might require 70 horsepower at 70 mph.

If you get the same fuel economy at 75 MPG that you do at 60 MPH, then you are driving in a vacuum using frictionless parts. Or, your method of calculations is faulty. Most cars' fuel efficiency peaks at between 35 and 60 MPH. After 60, the fuel efficiency drops significantly due to rolling resistance of the tires and wind resistance. At 65 mph you're burning roughly 10% more fuel than at 55. At 70 you lose 17% of your fuel economy, and at 75 it’s 25%. The numbers get worse from there. There is no getting around physics.

 

[Turtle]

I am first to admit that I am very computer illiterate but I can't figure out how to change it from txt to anything else.

You may have to go into Windows Explorer, Tools, Folder Options, the View tab, and UNcheck "Hide extension for known file types"

Then, in Windows Explorer, click to highlight the file, and then click it again so you can change the filename or the extension. You can also right-click and select "Rename"

 

[flattop40]

You may have to go into Windows Explorer, Tools, Folder Options, the View tab, and UNcheck "Hide extension for known file types"

Then, in Windows Explorer, click to highlight the file, and then click it again so you can change the filename or the extension. You can also right-click and select "Rename"

Sounds like to much work but thanks anyway. I was just curious what it looked like. I know what my cost is per mile and I just deduct that from what I make per mile. Simple math. Don't need a spread sheet for that.

 

[paullud]

Really, they do not.

I am currently running courier work (I currently have only intrastate authority for IL), driving a Jeep Liberty CRD.

I get my BEST fuel economy at 75-85 MPH. No kidding. It doesn't get any better at 65 or even 55. I get about 25-26 mpg at 75+. And 20-22 in city driving.

This is based over tracking my fuel economy over several thousand miles. Each run was 95% (or more) at specific speeds. I even have repeatability - having repeated the same measurements several times, with the same results.

(seriously, this thing has NO economy penalty for open highway runs driving like a bat out of you know where)

Physics would say you are wrong, you can't create more resistance and increase RPM's without burning more fuel. Is that Liberty a diesel?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[moose]

a CAR can Easily get better fuel economy @ 75 then it will get @ 65, by simply choosing the right gear ratio for the speed.
if the 'sweet spot' is spec too high, then once you go below, the engine actually consumed more fuel, as it is 'under powered'.
off road cars are notorious for having a very thin 'power band', which might be the case with a jeep.
obviously, spacing the same jeep with a higher gear ratio {which mean the engine will work better @ a lower speed} will dramatically improved fuel economy...@65.
because now you can set the best speed to much the best 'sweet spot'.

here is a tricky question for the truckers among you:
if you are spacing a BIG truck,
all other factors the same,
& you need to choose,
which motor will get the better fuel millage for the application.
aDD13, maxed out on power setting,
or a DD15, @ a minimum setting?

when Volvo advertised their trucks, they claim the D13 motor always get better fuel economy than the D16 motor...but they are all doing only up to 80,000 pounds.
same goe's for Pet. the 13 litter cummins {12.8}is the one you see O/O buy nowdays, not the 15.4 litter.
International?...same thing, only the larger Lone Star is spact with the Maxfource15 or the new cumminsISX15.
you see, there are ways "around" Physics, rolling resistant or a wind factors.
yes, it will take more power, but not necessarily more fuel.

 

[flattop40]

a CAR can Easily get better fuel economy @ 75 then it will get @ 65, by simply choosing the right gear ratio for the speed.
if the 'sweet spot' is spec too high, then once you go below, the engine actually consumed more fuel, as it is 'under powered'.

This is very true. My '08 GMC is that way. Wanting to get the optimal fuel mileage out of it when first purchased I changed the rear end from a 4.10 to a 3.73 increasing mileage by 11%. After seeing this improvement when it was time to buy new tires I changed the size from 245's to 265's thinking mileage would increase another 5-10% HOWEVER, it actually made the mileage decrease to less than before the rear end change. I drove it between 60-65 mph. But one long trip shortly after the tire change I had to push it up to 70 mph average and on that trip I got the best I ever got out of the truck.

After many discussions with my mechanic (which at first he told me I was crazy) he did some research and came up with the same power band answer. With the bigger tires I wasn't hitting the bands but pushing the speed up made it work better. I have since went back to the 245's as I don't care to drive 75 all the time.

 

[paullud]

a CAR can Easily get better fuel economy @ 75 then it will get @ 65, by simply choosing the right gear ratio for the speed.
if the 'sweet spot' is spec too high, then once you go below, the engine actually consumed more fuel, as it is 'under powered'.
off road cars are notorious for having a very thin 'power band', which might be the case with a jeep.
obviously, spacing the same jeep with a higher gear ratio {which mean the engine will work better @ a lower speed} will dramatically improved fuel economy...@65.
because now you can set the best speed to much the best 'sweet spot'.

here is a tricky question for the truckers among you:
if you are spacing a BIG truck,
all other factors the same,
& you need to choose,
which motor will get the better fuel millage for the application.
aDD13, maxed out on power setting,
or a DD15, @ a minimum setting?

when Volvo advertised their trucks, they claim the D13 motor always get better fuel economy than the D16 motor...but they are all doing only up to 80,000 pounds.
same goe's for Pet. the 13 litter cummins {12.8}is the one you see O/O buy nowdays, not the 15.4 litter.
International?...same thing, only the larger Lone Star is spact with the Maxfource15 or the new cumminsISX15.
you see, there are ways "around" Physics, rolling resistant or a wind factors.
yes, it will take more power, but not necessarily more fuel.

You're talking about 2 different size motors and saying the smaller one does the job and gets better fuel mileage, that would be expected and has nothing to do with speed. You could idle that Jeep so wind resistance isn't an issue at 2200RPM or 2700RPM and which do you think will burn more gas? Obviously the one at 2700RPM will because it is spinning faster and now throw in the wind resistance of 75MPH instead of 60MPH and there is no way possible for you to get the same result.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[scottm4211]

And why would wider tires give better mileage

 

[Turtle]

And why would wider tires give better mileage

Less rolling resistance. But it's only marginally discernible, all other things being equal. Wider tires are heavier, so it's usually a wash.

 

[scottm4211]

I think the only way to get better mileage tire wise is by having something like Michelin energy tires or the light truck equivalent.

 

[pwrwagn]

I don't think you're kidding, but I do think someone has fooled you. Based on what you've typed thus far, it's the methods you are using that are the most suspect.

Oh, come on. Seriously? You think I'm too gullible to understand the simple miles / gallons equation?

And, no, I'm not fooled. And, it is a 4 cylinder turbo diesel.

 

[pwrwagn]

Not only am I "not fooled", a number of other Liberty CRD owners have experienced exactly the same thing.

Now, I understand the energy required increases, all that. Not anything new to me. However, sometimes engine efficiency is so much greater at one load / operating range that you really do get better fuel economy going faster.

There's a "tune" I can buy for the engine computer that changes that, and supposedly makes a 20% improvement in overall economy. And those who have it say that the "faster for better fuel economy" no longer applies - that you get a little better at 75 than now, but running 65 or will get you close to 30 mpg.