Acceleration mini-experiment - Fuelly Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 03-25-2007, 08:18 PM   #1
kps
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 61
Country: United States
Acceleration mini-experiment

(Cross-posted from http://www.fitfreak.net/forums/eco-f...ke-granny.html)

A. Slow acceleration. Shifts at 2500rpm.
B. Rapid acceleration. WOT in higher gears. Shifts around 2500 ? 3000 rpm in lower gears, and at 2500rpm in higher gears. Some wheelspin in 1st and/or 2nd gear due to the gravel road surface.
Note that cruising and deceleration were the same in both cases.

The car is a 2007 Fit LX with standard transmission.


The course is a 7.8km (approx. 5 mile) rural block chosen for minimal conflicting traffic. (Nevertheless, one run had to be aborted due to Mennonites.) I stop at 5 points -- each corner and one additional location -- and add one additional deceleration and re-acceleration.
  1. IJKL 1.7km.
    IJ - Accelerate from standstill to 80km/h and hold.
    JK - Decelerate (in gear, no throttle).
    KL - Brake to a stop (clutch / neutral).
  2. LMNP 1.4km.
    LM - Accelerate from standstill to 80km/h and hold.
    MN - Decelerate (in gear, no throttle).
    NP - Brake to a stop (clutch / neutral).
  3. PQRS 0.9km.
    PQ - Accelerate from standstill to 70km/h and hold. (With gentle acceleration, there is not room to reach 80km/h.)
    QR - Decelerate (in gear, no throttle).
    RS - Brake to a stop (clutch / neutral).
  4. STUV 1.6km.
    ST - Accelerate from standstill to 80km/h and hold.
    TU - Decelerate (in gear, no throttle).
    UV - Brake to a stop (clutch / neutral).
  5. VWX 1.5km.
    VW - Accelerate from standstill to 80km/h and hold.
    WX - Decelerate (in gear, no throttle). Final speed is around 50km/h.
  6. XYZI 0.7km.
    XY - Accelerate from 50km/h to 80km/h and hold.
    YZ - Decelerate (in gear, no throttle).
    ZI - Brake to a stop (clutch / neutral).

I made three runs using each method, alternating methods to try to avoid any changes due to other factors. The runs weren't perfect; in the B cases I sometimes overshot the target speed, and was unable to shift from 1st and 2nd quickly enough to shift at the target 2500rpm. On trials 3A and 3B other traffic slowed me briefly (part of segments LM and ST respectively).

In each case I had the car off briefly while recording information prior to the initial run or from the previous run. I turned the engine on, reset the Scangauge trip counter, and drove.


Run    Initial   Max   Avg   Max   Max    Fuel
      Air Water Water Speed Speed Engine  Eff .
      ?C   ?C    ?C   km/h  km/h   RPM   L/100km
1A    10   82    84    51    82    2844   6.6
1B    14   86    84    61    83    3559   6.3
2A    14   84    84    53    81    2710   6.6
2B    13   85    84    64    86    3308   6.5
3A    13   84    83    51    79    2738   6.5
3B    10   82    83    62    85    3513   6.2


Rapid acceleration to cruising speed is more fuel-efficient than slow acceleration. Presumably the greater fraction of the drive spent in high gear at cruising speed more than makes up for the hard acceleration.
__________________

kps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2007, 08:24 PM   #2
Registered Member
 
Peakster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 467
Country: United States
Excellent! I was wanting to do a similar experiment sometime in my car, but it looks like you beat me to it!
__________________

Peakster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2007, 08:34 PM   #3
Registered Member
 
zpiloto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,225
Country: United States
I'm having a hard time following your test here. Was your fuel total for the whole five mile loop? If so that a lot of varibles for 5 accelerations in such a short distance and the total burns are close. Why not just do runs of 1 mile accelerating to 80kph and holding with the different acceleration techniques and recording the results.
zpiloto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2007, 08:59 PM   #4
Supporting Member
 
Hockey4mnhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 760
Country: United States
how much harder did u excellerate tho like 500 rpms or like 1k rpms i didnt get that
__________________
Hockey4mnhs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2007, 08:08 AM   #5
kps
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 61
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peakster View Post
Excellent! I was wanting to do a similar experiment sometime in my car, but it looks like you beat me to it!
You should still do it if you get a chance. Different car, different route, and more runs would all help.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zpiloto View Post
I'm having a hard time following your test here. Was your fuel total for the whole five mile loop? If so that a lot of varibles for 5 accelerations in such a short distance and the total burns are close. Why not just do runs of 1 mile accelerating to 80kph and holding with the different acceleration techniques and recording the results.
Well, a 'circular' route gets me back to the starting point without having to do 3-point turns on a public road. I don't have a dyno or a closed track, so I take what I can get. Also, the 6 segments are all slightly different, so they should help average out any aspect of a single segment that might unfairly favour one method.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey4mnhs View Post
how much harder did u excellerate tho like 500 rpms or like 1k rpms i didnt get that
In the slow method (A) I accelerated as gently as I could manage while still visibly accelerating. I got to the maximum speed not long before the deceleration point. (In fact on the long sides of the rectangle I chose the deceleration points as the next clear landmark after I reached 80km/h.)

In the rapid method (B), in the upper gears (3rd through 5th) I held at wide-open throttle until I reached the target RPM or speed. In the lower gears, I didn't get that far since I had trouble shifting quickly enough to stay near the 2500rpm target shift point (the high maximum rpm figures on the B runs come from throttle overrun while shifting).
kps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2007, 08:44 AM   #6
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
I'd be interested in seeing a comparo of the various accel. experiments people have run. There's one at CMPG in a Civic CVT, I think SVOBoy did one last year as well.

Also, what's more valid: measuring fuel consumption over a fixed distance (including both the acceleration & cruise parts), or accelerating up to speed (at the different rates being compared) and then driving a fixed distance before recording the MPG?

I'd also like to try doing this. The more cars/results, the merrier.
MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2007, 10:45 AM   #7
Registered Member
 
Peakster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 467
Country: United States
I just changed by acceleration style just a few days ago in the Geo. I used to use medium-light throttle and shift from 1st to 2nd @ 7km/h, 3rd @ 30km/h, 4th @ 40km/h, and finally 5th at 50km/h.

Now I use medium-heavy throttle and shift from 1st to 2nd @ 10km/h, 3rd @ 35km/h, skip 4th and go directly into 5th @ 50km/h. The acceleration is a lot quicker and the MPG loss during the new acceleration isn't too detrimental.

Of course, it only works on dry pavement. Winter driving in snow/ice wouldn't work out too well with that technique.
Peakster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2007, 10:46 AM   #8
*shrug*
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,195
Country: United States
http://crxmpg.com/accelmpg.html

Here's mine, *shrug*
SVOboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2007, 12:27 PM   #9
FE nut
 
diamondlarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,020
Country: United States
I think there is something to the medium-heavy acceleration being better. If you take a look at my gaslog you'll notice a pretty steep increase a few tanks back. It corresponds to my change in acceleration technique. I used to accelerate in each gear to 1500 rpm's at a throttle setting of ~15 according to the SG. At the point where my FE took a leap up was when I switched to accelerating to 2000-2500 rpm's at a load of ~70-75% according to the SG. The TPS reads significantly higher with this technique. I should also note that I usually kill the engine and coast as far as possible once I reach my top/target speed.
__________________
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall, torque is how much of the wall you take with you.

2007 Prius,



Team Slow Burn
diamondlarry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2007, 12:34 PM   #10
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
And let's not forget the motherthread on this topic: Throttle Position During Acceleration and its effect on FE
__________________

MetroMPG 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 06:27 PM.


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