SG Fuel cut off value - Page 3 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 12-17-2008, 03:34 PM   #21
Registered Member
 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,624
Country: United States
Send a message via ICQ to theholycow Send a message via AIM to theholycow Send a message via MSN to theholycow Send a message via Yahoo to theholycow
Quote:
Originally Posted by civic lover View Post
Of course I didn't think this. But when I am driving it says it is only like 2 hp. This just isn't correct.
Ok, if it's reading 2hp while steady-cruising, that's definitely got to be incorrect. At what speed did you see that reading?
__________________

__________________
This sig may return, some day.
theholycow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2008, 03:51 PM   #22
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,111
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to dkjones96
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleMelanesian View Post
Wow.
Using that same ratio, on my car, to calculate the value of a transmission swap.

My car currently runs 2750 rpm at 60 mph. Changing to a CX or VX transmission would drop that to 2200 rpm at 60 mph. Using this calculation, it would raise my steady-state mpg at 60 from 43 to 54 mpg!
You are assuming the engine can still produce enough torque that low to still keep you at 60 efficiently.

You'll most definitely find yourself downshifting to accelerate and using more throttle than you used to. In town you might feel you can rev lower but freeway is a whole new ball game. I always wanted a 5th gear for very low rpm in city-only driving and on the freeway it just went back up into 4th for a 'normal' highway rpm. I obviously won't be doing that now but it was planned.
__________________

__________________
- Kyle
dkjones96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2008, 06:56 PM   #23
Registered Member
 
civic lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 123
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by theholycow View Post
Ok, if it's reading 2hp while steady-cruising, that's definitely got to be incorrect. At what speed did you see that reading?
When I was watching it I was going 60 mph for 2 hp. I know I know...this isn't right, but that is what it is reading. I don't really care that it doesn't work. I just wanted to let people know that the xgauge isn't great, but if someone can correct me I would love to hear from them.
civic lover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2008, 07:16 PM   #24
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 447
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by R.I.D.E. View Post
13% of the fuel consumed by vehicles in the US is wasted idling.

My personal number is MUCH less. I am anti-idle.
__________________
slurp812 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2008, 07:17 PM   #25
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 447
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by civic lover View Post
When I was watching it I was going 60 mph for 2 hp. I know I know...this isn't right, but that is what it is reading. I don't really care that it doesn't work. I just wanted to let people know that the xgauge isn't great, but if someone can correct me I would love to hear from them.
I see the same thing, maybe it doesn't like Honda's? I have an 2002 si, and its never read over 100, with my foot all the way to the floor.
__________________
slurp812 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2008, 03:28 AM   #26
Registered Member
 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,624
Country: United States
Send a message via ICQ to theholycow Send a message via AIM to theholycow Send a message via MSN to theholycow Send a message via Yahoo to theholycow
Quote:
Originally Posted by slurp812 View Post
I see the same thing, maybe it doesn't like Honda's? I have an 2002 si, and its never read over 100, with my foot all the way to the floor.
How high was your RPM when your foot was on the floor?
__________________
This sig may return, some day.
theholycow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2008, 05:51 AM   #27
Registered Member
 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,624
Country: United States
Send a message via ICQ to theholycow Send a message via AIM to theholycow Send a message via MSN to theholycow Send a message via Yahoo to theholycow
Post No-Load fuel usage

Ok, so I spent some gas on research this morning. We wanted to know how much gas is used at various RPM while not loaded -- in this case, using the normal meaning of "load", not the OBDII "load".

I tried various RPM in neutral in my 2002 GMC 5.3l V8, measuring with my fuel injector duty cycle meter. I repeated it multiple times and got some steady values, some that varied from one test to the next.
RPM Duty cycle
525 1.1 (Idle)
600 1.3 (Idle)
1000 1.7
1200 1.6 (WTF?)
1500 2.5 - 3.0
2000 4.0 - 4.4
2500 5.5
3000 6.9
4000 8.2 - 9.2

There's no redline marked but it's never shifted higher than 5500 and I hate all the ruckus involved with high RPM, so even getting up to 4000 rpm was quite distasteful for me...I wasn't going to bring it up any higher.
__________________
This sig may return, some day.
theholycow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2008, 07:33 AM   #28
Registered Member
 
palemelanesian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 364
Country: United States
Looks nearly linear to me, except for that one anomoly at 1200 rpm. I added in a linear best-fit model, with a 99% correlation between the two. (using excel's correl() function). A linear fit matches with the results from MetroMPG's test above. The only difference is, this is duty cycle and not mpg, so the linear fit is inverse of Metro's.
Attachment 1536

I wonder if there's some sort of intake or exhaust resonance at 1200 rpm. That might explain the dip.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	rpm_vs_duty_cycle.jpg
Views:	109
Size:	20.0 KB
ID:	1298  
palemelanesian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2008, 08:01 AM   #29
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,259
Country: United States
Location: wiliamsburg virigina
Thanks a lot HC and Pale, I was very curious as to what the potential for my original engine design would be.

Linear means my old VX would have used 80% of the fuel at 2000 RPM in maintaining engine speed.

I know increasing the load would increase efficiency, but a significant majority of that 80% is just keeping the engine running at that RPM.

This corresponds with some members who manage to achieve 100% over EPA ratings through hypermiling, because they are reducing (to the greatest extent possible) unnecessary engine running.

In the era of the rotary aircraft engine, prior to 1918, a direct comparison of the 1913 Mercedes grand prix engine and the Gnome racing aircraft engine reveals an interesting comparison.

Mercedes
22 liters@ 2300 RPM= 200 HP
Gnome
11 liters@ 1300 RPM= 160HP

Twice the engine displacement at 40% greater RPM only produced 25% more horsepower!!!!!!!!!!

That is the best direct comparison to the two engines I have ever found.

The question is:

With modern improvements in design and technology, could the basic rotary design offer similar improvements in power compared to a conventional reciprocating engine. With such an obvious difference in the direct comparison, it has been my belief (for almost 10 years) that a current roatry design, especially one that could transform itself into a flywheel, would offer a dramatic improvement in efficiency over any reciprocating engine that will ever be made.

Also you must consider that the air cooled rotary would have lost significant power in the aero drag of cooling itself. My best guess would be 20 HP.

Now we are talking about a theoretical situation (emphasis on theoretical) where you could build a modern rotary engine (not a wankel, but similar to the original aircraft rotary) that would approach 60% efficiency, cpmpared to modern passenger car diesels at 41%. This would also utilize Homogenous Charge Compression Ignition, and not need any emissions controls.

If this assumpition is correct and my in wheel drive produces the simple powertrain with efficiencies equivalent to my VX, we would be talking about a real 150-200 MPG 5 passenger car.

I hope I live long enough to see it happen.

regards
gary
__________________
R.I.D.E. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2008, 01:15 PM   #30
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 447
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by theholycow View Post
How high was your RPM when your foot was on the floor?
I did it today, and I was in 5th at 4000 rpms, and it was at 80 something.
I will try on the way home at a higher RPM, like 6500 in 3 or something
__________________

__________________
slurp812 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Incorrect Milage Calcuatlion PatM Fuelly Web Support and Community News 4 07-17-2009 08:21 PM
Missing Fuelup jmonty Fuelly Web Support and Community News 3 05-27-2009 05:10 AM
Why did it take me so long to find this place? Baranfin Introduce Yourself - New member Welcome 6 05-31-2008 05:17 PM
hi new member here and ive got some sick ideas! csrmel Introduce Yourself - New member Welcome 6 10-18-2007 02:23 PM
Pictures of 2007 Honda Accord Hybrid in Showroom before "Tigerhonaker" took it HOME: tigerhonaker Hybrid Vehicles 7 08-26-2007 12:08 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.