English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

6 answers

Sorry it's yes. And this is why:
Driving at high altitudes can put extra stress on your car's engine. -according to www.ehow.com/how_18086_enjoy-rocky-mountain.html
So if it is less efficient, then you can expect less mileage per gallon of gasoline, but don't worry the falling gas prices should be able to balance that out. :)

2007-12-12 11:15:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

It depends.

High altitude air has less oxygen, so to keep the air/fuel mix accurate, the gas has to be less. this mixture of less air and less gas gives naturally less power. If your car can deal with less power no big deal.

however if your vehicle needs the same or more power, then the car downshifts often.

IN addition, high altitude usually means lot of up and down mountain driving. this hill climbing with reduced engine power causes even more down shifting.

and operating in a lower gear decreases your gas mileage.

so high altitude might mean reduced mileage.

2007-12-12 23:29:16 · answer #2 · answered by Rockies VM 6 · 1 1

I think it could. Cars require oxygen to operate, like people, and similarly they can suffer from altitude sickness. That is, reduced performance at high elevations. If your car's engine management does not take account of it, then I can certainly imagine that, as you drive your car harder to try to extract the same performance, it would consume more gas.

Turbocharged cars don't suffer the same way, for obvious reasons.

2007-12-12 19:18:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Not in my personal experience. I seem to gain about 10% fuel economy in the high country.

Of course, I'm freeway cruising at 75 mph. At that speed, your engine is mainly fighting aerodynamic drag... and up there, there's less air to cause drag.

Airplanes get better fuel economy at 37,000 feet than at 12,000... same reason.

Oxygen intake doesn't really matter, because you just open the throttle a little more to take in more volume of air (to get the same mass of air as you would've gotten at sea level). No big deal.

2007-12-12 21:57:36 · answer #4 · answered by Wolf Harper 6 · 1 1

Nope. The engine is less efficient with reduced oxygen intake.

2007-12-12 19:16:10 · answer #5 · answered by ed 7 · 2 1

UMMM??? good ?

2007-12-12 19:19:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers