Throttle Position During Acceleration and its effect on FE - Page 8 - Fuelly Forums

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

Go Back   Fuelly Forums > Fuel Talk > General Fuel Topics
Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 09-06-2006, 12:38 AM   #71
Registered Member
 
omgwtfbyobbq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,516
Country: United States
The relationship depends on how much pumping/friction losses are wrt to your engine. If you know what engine's in your car, find the BSFC map and you'll have all you need to know. Unless you have a drive by wire system... And in that case, you are teh scr3w3d. Anyway BSFC maps show you just how efficiently your engine is operating at a certain load/rpm. For instance, when I'm cruising at 55mph in my (moms) 92 V6/auto Camry (dotted lines I think) , my BSFC is greater than 500g/kwh because I'm using very little hp/torque compared to what the engine is capable of. Larger displacement engines have to pump more air at a given power/torque level, and suffer from a decrease in efficiency as a result.



Specifically, my engine is operating at ~16% efficiency when cruising at ~55mph. So even though at near full throttle, from ~1.7-3k rpm, my engine is running at ~32% efficiency, most of the time it's running at, or around, or less than half of that. Ideally I can probably get around 60mpg since I get ~30+mpg@55mph, but due to CA drivers and auto transmission, I probably won't see that. Anyway, pulsing and gliding, codfishing, whatever you want to call minimizing pumping losses, works. The driver can maximize how much it works, and determine what their optimum FE is for a given P&G cycle/conditions provided they have the BSFC maps for their vehicle, or spend enough time experimenting.
__________________

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormulaTwo
I think if i could get that type of FE i would have no problem driving a dildo shaped car.
omgwtfbyobbq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2006, 05:51 PM   #72
Registered Member
 
Compaq888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,460
Country: United States
so rh77 do you really ring out your motor to 3000rpm????

Because that might be the problem why your fuel economy reached it's limit.
__________________

__________________

Compaq888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2006, 06:29 PM   #73
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,978
Country: United States
Yup

Quote:
Originally Posted by Compaq888
so rh77 do you really ring out your motor to 3000rpm????

Because that might be the problem why your fuel economy reached it's limit.
Yup. I get it up to speed, and practice the usual driving techniques where the real FE lives at cruise. As you know, the automatic makes it tough with the kickdown at optimum throttle input.

(Redline is 6750 or thereabouts). So in first gear sometimes I shift from 1st to 2nd which holds the gear. I can give it 50-60% throttle from there on and shift into 3rd. Then the tricky part: getting it to stay in 3rd and give a dose of throttle; then at 3000 I lift and left the car shift until 4th gear.

If you ask a 100 hypermilers you'll get different answers: accelerate as slow as possible, or get to the point and start to build the FE. I'm not saying to floor-it as that would cause open loop, but try to get up to 3-grand to see if it works out.

Strangely enough, if you take the same car and conditions:

Accelerate slowly: the Scangauge will show an avg of 17 mpg for say 1 minute. Then at minute 2, you're into 40 mpg territory.

Accelerate briskly: the scanguage will show 9 mpg for 0.5 minutes. Then at 30 seconds, you're at 40 mpg at each interval up to 2 minutes. Average FE over 2 minutes in each scenario:

Math:

Slow Accel: ((17+40)/2 = 28.5 mpg avg. at minute 2
Fast Accel: (9+60)/2 = 34.5 mpg avg. at minute 2 (60 is 1.5*40 for the 90 seconds of 40 mpg).

As you can see, it's worth getting up to speed instead of spending a lot of time at ineffecient acceleration. It works for me in the TSX and in the 'Teg. I'd say that I'm doing the best I can now with both cars (TSX still breaking in and we keep getting better mileage at each tank -- the 'Teg is up to Hypermiler due to a recent stent on the long Interstates of Oklahoma and Kansas. The mirrors were folding in for less Cd. and I ended up in the 40's at cruise with constant throttle on hills.

RH77
__________________
rh77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2006, 07:36 PM   #74
Registered Member
 
Compaq888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,460
Country: United States
that's weird. I'll have to test some of those theories when I get a SG2.
__________________

Compaq888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2006, 04:13 PM   #75
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 245
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by rh77
Yup. I get it up to speed, and practice the usual driving techniques where the real FE lives at cruise. As you know, the automatic makes it tough with the kickdown at optimum throttle input.

(Redline is 6750 or thereabouts). So in first gear sometimes I shift from 1st to 2nd which holds the gear. I can give it 50-60% throttle from there on and shift into 3rd. Then the tricky part: getting it to stay in 3rd and give a dose of throttle; then at 3000 I lift and left the car shift until 4th gear.

If you ask a 100 hypermilers you'll get different answers: accelerate as slow as possible, or get to the point and start to build the FE. I'm not saying to floor-it as that would cause open loop, but try to get up to 3-grand to see if it works out.

Strangely enough, if you take the same car and conditions:

Accelerate slowly: the Scangauge will show an avg of 17 mpg for say 1 minute. Then at minute 2, you're into 40 mpg territory.

Accelerate briskly: the scanguage will show 9 mpg for 0.5 minutes. Then at 30 seconds, you're at 40 mpg at each interval up to 2 minutes. Average FE over 2 minutes in each scenario:

Math:

Slow Accel: ((17+40)/2 = 28.5 mpg avg. at minute 2
Fast Accel: (9+60)/2 = 34.5 mpg avg. at minute 2 (60 is 1.5*40 for the 90 seconds of 40 mpg).

As you can see, it's worth getting up to speed instead of spending a lot of time at ineffecient acceleration. It works for me in the TSX and in the 'Teg. I'd say that I'm doing the best I can now with both cars (TSX still breaking in and we keep getting better mileage at each tank -- the 'Teg is up to Hypermiler due to a recent stent on the long Interstates of Oklahoma and Kansas. The mirrors were folding in for less Cd. and I ended up in the 40's at cruise with constant throttle on hills.

RH77

Thats something i've been wondering with having an automatic and having it doing the shifting. i'm real easy on the pedal and s.g shows max rpm's never go more than 2300. i'm wondering about getting up to speed a bit quicker?? my cars auto tranny the t.c will lock up at 42 mph. when it does rpm's drop 300-400 and mileage jumps from low 30's to consistent mid 40's and nearly 50 at times. I think this is my next mileage exp to work on.
__________________
"Sylvie" 2000 Honda Insight 5 Speed


LxMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2006, 05:05 PM   #76
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,978
Country: United States
Get to TC ASAP

Quote:
Originally Posted by LxMike
Thats something i've been wondering with having an automatic and having it doing the shifting. i'm real easy on the pedal and s.g shows max rpm's never go more than 2300. i'm wondering about getting up to speed a bit quicker?? my cars auto tranny the t.c will lock up at 42 mph. when it does rpm's drop 300-400 and mileage jumps from low 30's to consistent mid 40's and nearly 50 at times. I think this is my next mileage exp to work on.
I'm thinking that the quicker you get to TC lockup, the better. Having a small 4-cyl. like myself, 3000 RPM seems to be the ceiling, then I lift the throttle, let it shift, and repeat. More testing would need to be required, but the Math adds up.

RH77
__________________
rh77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2006, 08:42 PM   #77
Team OPEC Busters!
 
GasSavers_Brock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 196
Country: United States
Here is a test I ran a while back

Quote:
Ok, this proves I am crazy.

I found a stretch of highway that has a 2.1 mile run between turn offs. I ran in each direction twice at the same acceleration and got up to and stayed at 65. When I went to turn off (2.0 miles), I took the reading off scangauge right before I released the throttle. So basically these are 4 runs at each acceleration rate. None of the individual runs ever varied in to the range of the faster or slower run, with amazing close numbers for each run not varying by more then 1 mpg. I have to say I was surprised at the results. I thought the slower acceleration might be a bit better, but thought it would be very close, almost not noticeable. I could have accelerated even slower, but I was turning on to a 2 lane divided highway and wanted to do it as slowly as I could while being safe. Take it for what it?s worth.

slow run up to 65mph
37.5 mpg

normal or medium run to 65mph
33.9 mpg

fast, or as fast as I could shift and go
29.1 mpg
And no matter how long you drive at your set speed it will never even out for the trip with a quick acceleration. Yes, if you look at MPG/time your better off getting up to speed quickly, but for MPG/distance overall the slower you accelerate the better your mpg, at least with my car.
GasSavers_Brock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2006, 06:23 AM   #78
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
Crazy, eh? Welcome to the crazy party!

Very interesting results.

I don't suppose you happen to have a Brake Specific Fuel Consumption map for your car, do you? For acceleration, I'd expect the best FE technique may differ between throttled gasoline engines and throttle-less diesels.
MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2006, 06:42 AM   #79
Registered Member
 
JanGeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,442
Country: United States
Send a message via Yahoo to JanGeo
WOT - lets not forget that low intake vacuum is what is desired to reduce pumping losses and that can occur at low RPM with very little throttle opening so there is no need to floor the gas pedal and make the throttle sensor go crazy . . . just lugging the engine will result in low intake vacuum.

Also everyone should do an RPM to GPH use plot on their engines with NO LOAD to get an idea of how much fuel is used just to spin the engine. You should see substantial fuel use above 2-3k RPM depending upon how tight your engine is. My xB starts at .1gph at idle and jumps to 1.0gph at 4000RPM and above - I think it is still a little tight at 8500 miles.
JanGeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2006, 08:49 AM   #80
Team OPEC Busters!
 
GasSavers_Brock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 196
Country: United States
I am not sure what the "Brake Specific Fuel Consumption map" is but I think I have seen something with that name over on the TDI forums, if Lug Nut see this he will know.
__________________

GasSavers_Brock 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


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:42 PM.


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