Good spot, and gruez is right about the caption too (fixed both, thanks).
The car's L/hr figure was wrong. At 45 mpg (imperial) and 70 mph cruise, a car burns ~7 L/hr, not 3. That makes the flow rate ratio ~4x, which is consistent with 5x per mile and the truck travelling 20% slower.
The ~3 L/hr I originally had is what you'd see as an average over a mixed driving cycle — ~30 mph mean across urban, suburban, and motorway. I was carelessly mixing the cars combined-cycle flow rate with the truck's cruise-only figure in the same row.
The truck doesn't have this problem because a long-haul artic genuinely spends most of its operating hours in that narrow 50-60 mph cruise band. "Average fuel burn rate" and "fuel burn rate at cruise" are nearly the same number. For a car they're very different, transient acceleration, idling in traffic, and low-speed urban driving all drag the average flow rate down well below the motorway figure.
gruez|3 days ago
mikeayles|3 days ago
The car's L/hr figure was wrong. At 45 mpg (imperial) and 70 mph cruise, a car burns ~7 L/hr, not 3. That makes the flow rate ratio ~4x, which is consistent with 5x per mile and the truck travelling 20% slower.
The ~3 L/hr I originally had is what you'd see as an average over a mixed driving cycle — ~30 mph mean across urban, suburban, and motorway. I was carelessly mixing the cars combined-cycle flow rate with the truck's cruise-only figure in the same row.
The truck doesn't have this problem because a long-haul artic genuinely spends most of its operating hours in that narrow 50-60 mph cruise band. "Average fuel burn rate" and "fuel burn rate at cruise" are nearly the same number. For a car they're very different, transient acceleration, idling in traffic, and low-speed urban driving all drag the average flow rate down well below the motorway figure.
Reubachi|3 days ago
unknown|3 days ago
[deleted]