Standings and Stats: Beginning May 21 - Page 30 - Fuelly Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 05-17-2007, 09:23 PM   #291
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 303
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by CO ZX2 View Post
CO ZX2: Filled 8.499 gallons, 755.6 miles, 88.9 mpg, SG tank avg 42 mph. !!!
Unbelievable. Not that I don't belive it. I am impressed.

Pardon me for asking but have you tweaked the fuel air ratio on this car too? That is darn fine mileage.
__________________

__________________
usedgeo
usedgeo is offline  
Old 05-18-2007, 08:44 AM   #292
Registered Member
 
CO ZX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 460
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by usedgeo View Post
Unbelievable. Not that I don't belive it. I am impressed.

Pardon me for asking but have you tweaked the fuel air ratio on this car too? That is darn fine mileage.
I do not have the knowledge or equipment to properly attempt to alter the F/A ratio of my car, but I will admit I have spent a lot of time pondering the question. I have read of others' revelations of their experiments and have never been convinced of any real gains. I do not personally know of any meticulously tested gains in FE thru specialty ECUs or wide band o2 sensor arrangements.

Most of what I have read concerns attempts to trick or fool the ECU with resistors and potentiometers. I have never known these methods to produce any honest FE gains, even though they will oftentimes trick ScanGauge and SuperMid. Hard to give up a new-found FE gain? Then it comes down to the car owner admitting the fallacy. I appreciate your straightforwardness in this regard with your own HAI experiment.

I did buy a Ford Workshop Information CD specific to my car. While reading of fuel trim I ran across a reference that the ECU recognizes values within a -20% to +20% range. These values can be changed by command input to the ECU. After many inquiries and discussions I finally found a Ford Tech that seemed to understand the premise and agree to change my values. He found indications that my setting was already 7% on the lean side. He changed this to indicate 20%. Better FE but introduced drivability issues; stumble and cold start dying. We were able to live with 15% after I started using engine pre-heaters. This change definitely increased FE with no ECU grumbles. I have never been off by more than .15 gallon SG vs actual gallons pumped. I do use the same pump for 90% of my fills.

I could go on forever but will not for now.
__________________

CO ZX2 is offline  
Old 05-18-2007, 10:16 AM   #293
Team GasMisers5!
 
landspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 440
Country: United States
CO ZX2 : I know of one well-tested example of the use of a wideband O2 sensor - my car!. Because it allows me to apply the throttle to just before the point where the engine enriches the mixture (thereby wasting fuel). So it is really a source of info to adjust my driving style, rather than a direct modification. It cost US$240, but has paid for itself many times over. Interestingly, the enrichment always happens at the same 'vacuum' level, although when the engine is cold, the engine runs leaner (13:1) at half throttle, and rich at high vacuum, and being able to see this has greatly helped my cold-start economy.

Anyway, I will now add my latest tank to my gaslog (almost made a month without filling), and then have a shower etc.... And then fit my new SuperMID conversion unit and see if I can get realtime MPG feedback at last

Results : 551.4 miles travelled, 12.814 US gallons, for 43.04MPG (US), for 95.6% above EPA.

All 13-mile cold-start journeys too, and bad weather, engine block heater still not fixed. This is about .08 worse than my previous best, but that was with hot weather + perfect block heater
__________________

Team GasMisers5 - #1 for first three rounds of the original GS Fuel Economy Challenge
Miles displaced by e-bike since 1 Jan 2008: 62.6 (0 kWh used)
Hypomiler
landspeed is offline  
Old 05-18-2007, 12:48 PM   #294
Registered Member
 
CO ZX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 460
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by landspeed View Post
CO ZX2 : I know of one well-tested example of the use of a wideband O2 sensor - my car!. Because it allows me to apply the throttle to just before the point where the engine enriches the mixture (thereby wasting fuel). So it is really a source of info to adjust my driving style, rather than a direct modification. It cost US$240, but has paid for itself many times over. Interestingly, the enrichment always happens at the same 'vacuum' level, although when the engine is cold, the engine runs leaner (13:1) at half throttle, and rich at high vacuum, and being able to see this has greatly helped my cold-start economy.

Anyway, I will now add my latest tank to my gaslog (almost made a month without filling), and then have a shower etc.... And then fit my new SuperMID conversion unit and see if I can get realtime MPG feedback at last

Results : 551.4 miles travelled, 12.814 US gallons, for 43.04MPG (US), for 95.6% above EPA.

All 13-mile cold-start journeys too, and bad weather, engine block heater still not fixed. This is about .08 worse than my previous best, but that was with hot weather + perfect block heater
landspeed: Good point on the wideband. Not mechanically contributing but, like ScanGauge, causing driver adjustments that do help. We will never go wrong with as much good info as we can get. What is your opinion of the value of a controller in combination with 5-band to actually change F/A ratios?

Thanks for the GasMisers5 help with your recent excellent tank. Good job.

Are you still considering moving? When will that happen? I thought we were just passing the time of day when you mentioned Colorado a few weeks ago.

I've intended to ask if you are a native of Scotland or a transplant?
CO ZX2 is offline  
Old 05-18-2007, 04:11 PM   #295
Semi-retired OPEC Buster
 
BeeUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 200
Country: United States
top off

361 miles
7.85 gal

approx 46 mpg. whew what a load off. I am going to drive crazy for a couple of days to get it out of the system......
__________________
B W


BeeUU is offline  
Old 05-18-2007, 05:26 PM   #296
Registered Member
 
zpiloto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,225
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeUU View Post
361 miles
7.85 gal

approx 46 mpg. whew what a load off. I am going to drive crazy for a couple of days to get it out of the system......
Wow really good job. 4-5 reporting had record tanks this last week for team OB! whoot.
zpiloto is offline  
Old 05-18-2007, 09:09 PM   #297
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 303
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by CO ZX2 View Post

I did buy a Ford Workshop Information CD specific to my car. While reading of fuel trim I ran across a reference that the ECU recognizes values within a -20% to +20% range. These values can be changed by command input to the ECU. After many inquiries and discussions I finally found a Ford Tech that seemed to understand the premise and agree to change my values. He found indications that my setting was already 7% on the lean side. He changed this to indicate 20%. Better FE but introduced drivability issues; stumble and cold start dying. We were able to live with 15% after I started using engine pre-heaters. This change definitely increased FE with no ECU grumbles. I have never been off by more than .15 gallon SG vs actual gallons pumped. I do use the same pump for 90% of my fills.

I could go on forever but will not for now.
Thanks! This is interesting. When I first read a fuel trim comment by you I was thinking "how will this help?" Won't the computer just relearn and reteach itself a new trim? This sounds more permanent than the usual adaptive trim. This may explain why some of my Fords ran the way they did as the years went by. I usually just gave up and put adjustable fuel pressure regulators on my Fords. They did not seem to have the range to adapt to changes as the engine wore and sensors drifted. Well sometimes I changed things too I just assumed that the look up tables did not have enough range to account for cam wear, cam timing, or simple things like that. Of course I am making a pretty big, poorly substantiated, leap in what I am saying right now.

My GM cars just seemed to always run more consistently as the years went by.
__________________
usedgeo
usedgeo is offline  
Old 05-18-2007, 09:54 PM   #298
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,978
Country: United States
Final Results

OK folks -- Reminder to fill up by Sunday Midnight EST to count for a Cycle 1 tank.

In the interim, new teams for Cycle 2 should post their Team Rosters to get ready.

As a reminder, this is a seamless transition into the next cycle, so Monday the 21st begins Cycle 2.

...so new teams get ready! ...and exisiting teams get back in that groove.

Expect the BIG Winners to be announced early in the week. The Data Center in Kansas City will process the data (or wherever the laptop is in the U.S. -- honestly could be a variety of locales) -- and double checked.

Good luck to all, and Best FE

The Commish
__________________
rh77 is offline  
Old 05-19-2007, 09:50 PM   #299
Registered Member
 
Peakster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 467
Country: United States
Filled up tonight. 100% P&G driving only netted 50.1 MPG(US) this time around. 4.616 gallons used and 231.3 miles travelled.

I have no idea why my P&Ging isn't working well any more other than the fact I had lots of cold starts and short trips to and from work. I think I'll return to my steady 0.4 GPH @ 50km/h driving again instead of P&G as it's less stressful on the car/feet.

I'm also pending a job opportunity to be a hot-air-balloon crew worker over the summer (company vehicle, paid hotel rooms and food allowances!) so if I get that job *crosses fingers* I probably won't need to fill my car until August!
Peakster is offline  
Old 05-20-2007, 11:11 AM   #300
Team GasMisers5!
 
landspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 440
Country: United States
Filled my tank today again. Used extremely accurate method - filled to the top of the filler, from the same pump, parked in the exact same place both times!

This was my first SuperMID tank - used to calibrate it. I was just trying to 'get better numbers' on the (currently) completely uncalibrated scale.

Results : 110.1 miles. 2.082 US gallons, for 52.88MPG (US). I cannot believe this - although the fuel tank gauge correlated with the insane MPG!. This is 140% over EPA!

I'm looking forward to more crazy tanks with the SuperMID
__________________

__________________

Team GasMisers5 - #1 for first three rounds of the original GS Fuel Economy Challenge
Miles displaced by e-bike since 1 Jan 2008: 62.6 (0 kWh used)
Hypomiler
landspeed is offline  
Closed Thread

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


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:28 AM.


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