Acceleration mini-experiment - Page 2 - Fuelly Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 03-26-2007, 02:21 PM   #11
ELF
Registered Member
 
ELF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 245
Country: United States
Most of these tests are with MT? I think auto would fare a little different........ might have to do some testing with the sable when I have time.
__________________

__________________
ELF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2007, 04:15 PM   #12
Registered Member
 
VetteOwner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,546
Country: United States
ye aive noticed this too. at least with my truck. if i shift at 2000-2500rpm i get around 25mpg. i tried shifting less than 2K which didnt last long cuz truck bogged down easily. but i saw a big loss in my mpg (22mpg) im gonna try 3K and see what happens.
__________________

VetteOwner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2007, 05:47 PM   #13
Team OPEC Busters!
 
GasSavers_Brock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 196
Country: United States
That’s weird, when I tested the slow acceleration proved better every time. I can't remember, I posted them here somewhere, but if the rapid acceleration it was like 15 mpg up to 65mph then cruising at 65 it was55 mpg. On the slowest acceleration it was like 30 mpg up to 65. The faster acceleration just could never catch up to the slow one in overall mpg’s for the run.
GasSavers_Brock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2007, 06:11 PM   #14
Registered Member
 
VetteOwner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,546
Country: United States
keep in mind mine is a truck...with a underpowered 4banger. higher rpm's might be easier on the engine or the PCM might sense that the truck is under a heavy load and try to dump more fuel in to compensate...
VetteOwner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2007, 06:46 PM   #15
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
Brock, could that be a gas/diesel difference?

With a diesel's much flatter torque curve (and presumably far "broader" BSFC map), and lack of throttling losses (one of the things the relatively inefficient gassers overcome with this driving style that get them into a friendlier BSFC zone), I'd expect to see little or no gain driving an oil burner like this.

Can you comment on the benefit (or lack thereof) of doing P&G in a diesel? I suspect if there is any, it's much less pronounced than in a gasoline car.
MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2007, 02:10 AM   #16
Registered Member
 
caprice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 114
Country: United States
I read somewhere that if you go WOT in low RPM, it is more efficient. Not too low. 1500 rpm i think. It would be less drag on the intake stroke. This would be dependant on the ECM programming ("your results may vary"), because if the fuel mixture is enrichened, then the benefit is less.
__________________
David
85 Chevrolet. 30 MPG or bust!
caprice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2007, 02:34 AM   #17
Registered Member
 
caprice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 114
Country: United States
Remember in high school physics class, there is a measurment for the rate of acceleration? Miles per hour squared, i think.

Heck with the physic caluclations I used to do in school, and a scanguage, you could do graphs of MPG vs Trottle position vs RPM. Then M/H^2 vs Fuel.

Also you could do a quarter mile fuel usage testing... instead of measuring speed, you measure fuel consumption. At the "traps" be going 45 MPH every time. Test from (WOT to 45mph then cruise) to (take the whole quarter mile to accelerate to 45 MPH.) Graph it.

Just wanted to throw some idea out there. My manual transsion car is out of commision this week, I'm fixing a power steering leak. And I don't have a scanguage yet.
__________________
David
85 Chevrolet. 30 MPG or bust!
caprice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2007, 06:19 AM   #18
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,138
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by caprice View Post
...because if the fuel mixture is enrichened, then the benefit is less....
Mmm-hmm. I think that this is the key. Accelerating as quickly as you can w/o making the ECU put you in open-loop or in a richened state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caprice View Post
...Also you could do a quarter mile fuel usage testing... instead of measuring speed, you measure fuel consumption. At the "traps" be going 45 MPH every time. Test from (WOT to 45mph then cruise) to (take the whole quarter mile to accelerate to 45 MPH.) Graph it.
Ya, that would be perrrrfect.
__________________
Bill in Houston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2007, 06:46 AM   #19
kps
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 61
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVOboy View Post
http://crxmpg.com/accelmpg.html

Here's mine, *shrug*
Yes, this test, via the Throttle Position During Acceleration and its effect on FE thread, is what made me want to try this myself. In my case, though, I wanted to try it without involving any hypermiling techniques.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill in Houston View Post
Mmm-hmm. I think that this is the key. Accelerating as quickly as you can w/o making the ECU put you in open-loop or in a richened state.
I suspect you are right; the car does go open loop under full throttle, but acceleration (by 'feel', anyway) does not change very much between heavy and full throttle. Given that, and that I expected from others' tests that rapid acceleration to be more efficient, I decided to use WOT to (presumably) put rapid acceleration in a worse light, i.e. to see whether it's more efficient even if the driver is not careful with the throttle.

I think the next test I'd like to do is between WOT and rapid closed-loop acceleration, provided I can manage the latter reasonably reliably, e.g. with a mechanical stop under the accelerator.
kps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2007, 10:09 AM   #20
Team OPEC Busters!
 
GasSavers_Brock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 196
Country: United States
Metro yes this could very well be the difference between diesel and gas. And yes I tried two weeks of trips home running P&G every other time and got within 1% of my non-P&G trips. So I can only assume P&G doesn't add much for diesel's. Of course when warm I idle at about .25L or 8oz per hour.
__________________

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Incorrect mileage calculation? tonedepear Fuelly Web Support and Community News 6 04-04-2011 01:04 AM
Account Settings widm Fuelly Web Support and Community News 4 01-24-2011 03:07 AM
Fuelly Android App - eehokie Fuelly Web Support and Community News 2 07-14-2010 09:59 PM
No EPA Est for 2007 Chrysler Town & Country jklaiber Fuelly Web Support and Community News 1 08-23-2008 01:15 AM
Chart suggestions jeadly Fuelly Web Support and Community News 0 08-08-2008 03:46 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:07 AM.


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