"CO ZX2" what have you done to your car ???
 

Snow and cold, bad MPG is holding me back a bit, but could not stay away from this site.

Just read top 10´s and find a big Ford making 70mpg ??? If this is correct this guy has a lot to learn me ! What on earth have you done to your car ?
3.357 L/ 100km. A car like this with 2L engine...
"Maybe I´m out on a very slippry ICE here ?"

What is the actual driving weight and relativ Cw for this machine ?

I want a Ford after this.

https://www.gassavers.org/showthread.php?t=2173

here's his introductory thread and shows the mods he was working on. he's snowed in rioght now ands comes here when he can.

Yes I?ve read that, just did it again. Is this figures absolute correct ???
Nearly 1200kg car, 2L engine, with mostly aero-skirts, making 70-117mpg ? You must be kidding.

Add these things to a small car and we?ll see 130mpg easy ?

I don?t belive it. Maybe we Swed?s are cazy...

it's not just the aero mods that are helping it's also Driving techiques.

I?m really sorry, still belive there is something wrong here.

Myself I allways check my distancemeter to a well known track, an error of max 1%. Every time at the pump it makes me sick about the uncorrect filling metod. Have not long ago once again been driving with 0.5L glas-messure-tube inside the car, terrible smell and not a very nice look from the police (ticket).

All these things to make the messure as correct as I can but here about the Ford there must be wrong.

Extremely skeptical, as well, personally.

I agree elg, it's hard to believe. He's got a kill switch and lives in the mountains though, high psi tires and aero mods. If he can maximize his mpg on the climbs with the scanguage I'm sure he can glide a LOOOONG way without burning ANY fuel on the way back down.

elg -

Look at his total MPG and you will see he is in the 60 MPG range, right? I think the 100+ MPG is a part of a net downhill portion of a 2 leg run. Here is where I hypothesize as much :

https://www.gassavers.org/showpost.ph...postcount=1226

Now, get at the top of a hill on a big stretch of freeway. Reset your ScanGauge. Go down the hill in Neutral if it is safe or you have great brakes for staying within the posted speed limit. You will see *ungodly* MPG, and this is without turning off the engine. I think that this is what CO ZX2 has to work with for his downhill leg.

Remember that CO ZX2 has a kill switch and a race car driving past. If he says he's getting 100+ MPG, I believe him. He's got the skillz.

EDIT : The question to ask is, what is the net elevation change between each destination?

CarloSW2

I don't see any reason for skepticism, I can get near 45mpg out of the Camry coasting in N down about 3000ft over ~110 miles, god knows what 50 miles would be, probably 60-70mpg. Otoh, on the way back up, mileage is proportionately crappy, with the average being about what you would get on flat ground, give or take.

Yeah, well, darin has nailed way over 100 MPG on flat land, in town, so I don't see too much reason for skepticism. 2L isn't too large when the engine is off, :p

Yah, I don't know if being in the mountains helps. You'd have to get 30mpg while climbing, in a 2500lb car...

Best tank yet at 70mpg, with experimenting, 180 miles a day, either something aint right or life just isn't fair ;)

Depends on whether the universe is composed of discrete pieces, so, maybe.

I don't doubt that CO is reporting honest figures, but I think the elevation change is the key question (as has been pointed out).

It's for that reason I generally don't report 1-way results. The best measure of a car/driver is round trip figures.

I've had some ridiculously high 1-way legs of various trips.

Ok, I think I see what didn't sound right to me, really its the 60mpg that I'm trying to make sense out of:

In CO ZX2s posts on his driving technique he mentions going 65, albeit max.

and in the 100mpg post he mentions holding a "reasonable highway speed".

BUT, he's out in the stix, light traffic, probably doesn't have to stop unless he wants to, yet the average speed is 39mph per the scanguage (including rolling down at least one hill at 63mph). I suspect he is going slower than I figured. Which makes it more plausable.

Just speculating for fun here :) Hope you don't mind CO ZX2

What on earth have you done to your car?
 

What on earth have you done to your car ?

elg, I have answered many questions similar to yours in the 3 months I have been a member of GasSavers. I have attempted to be as honest and straightforword as I know how. I have provided ScanGauge documentation in many instances.

I will include a link to another of my threads with a link on Page 1 to every post I have ever made on GasSavers. I am sure questions I have already answered need not be repeated. Please read these posts carefully.
https://www.gassavers.org/showthread.php?t=2208

I have never heard a Ford Escort described as being a 'big' Ford. As to the 90 day Top Ten my current MPG is 60.6. My one and only 70 MPG fill on 11/21/06 averaged 70.65 MPG for 736 miles. This tank was used in a 4 day period including some of my cold weather MPG tests. Two tanks before I had a 51.05 MPG tank. I have averaged 55.68 MPG for over 6000 miles-All driving, low speed, highspeed, downhill(elevation drops), uphill(elevation gains), coasting, city, rural, mountain passes, flats, warmup, moving around the driveway. It would be great that if I accomplished something once that figure would always be there but it doesn't work that way.

I have never had my car on a scale. Factory weight is listed as 2560#. I weigh 160#. Some of my best runs have included my wife as passenger. Nothing is stripped from this car. I saw listed somewhere CD .37 for this car.

One of the main reasons I bought a ScanGauge was to alleviate fill-up inconsistencies experienced with pumps, tank capacity, tilt etc. I found with the ScanGauge I was not the FE driver I could be. I have made drastic FE improvements attributable to driving style changes. I have verified registered miles with speedo, ScanGauge, milepost markers and Google Earth.

I can sympathize with you on snow and cold. I have not moved very much in the last two months. Snowpacked roads, I am 10 miles from a (sometimes) dry highway. We have had 1-4 ft. of snow on the ground since the last part of November. This morning temperature here was minus 10 degrees F.

About the hills:

This is not ment for CO ZX2, it?s my personal thoughts.
Just because of the losses in energy say 65 to 80 % when you go up I don?t see why even rolling on the down hill should compensate and make hilly track more economical.

Back to the Ford:
Anyway, yes I belive your Ford is at least a MIDsize, 1200kg or around.

Like most of the guys here I?ve tried out several things to make the high mpg But for me coming below 3.5L/100km is just a hard time. Even if I turn off the engine in coasting or the weight is close to 800kg, put cardboard in teh grill and pray to ...

Never mind. Just in the thoughts:
What about this driving tec. I can for a test do the same as you with my 800kg and 1.2L engine running on AFR 17, and we go on a neutral track both upp and downs to end up at the same level. I belive your figures are better than I could get and awnser my self why ?

And about the weight, we all know the formula of acceleration and weight. Ok, I also know that over say 55-65km/h the drag is holding you back the most but once you are going uphill there you have it and cause of the losses you don?t being gained enough in the downs. Or we have to stop at red light or reduce for traffic, acceleration again and this with more weight has to be compensated with driving skill...

So, on a flat track how do you do it ?

How correct is the distancemeter in your figures ?

This is not for beeing noughty or so just so, I and all others can get a gain of 50% or more. It?s all about MPG.

// elg

elg -

I don't think the hills have anything to do with it. I think CO ZX2 is getting 60 MPG on average. He is like basjoos because he has optimized his aerodynamics.

I think you are applying European standards. A 2500 lb car in the USA is a small car. My parents have this car. For USA standards, the ZX2 is a small car. See here :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-size_car
A mid-size car, frequently referred to as an intermediate, is the North American term for an automobile with a size between that of a compact and a full-size car. In Europe, cars of a similar size are often referred to as large family cars or executive cars, depending on whether they are luxury cars. As many of them are sedans, they are commonly called saloon cars within the United Kingdom and sedans throughout Europe.

A Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, or Ford Taurus are Mid-Size cars in the USA.


CarloSW2

Hell, I don't mind. I'm getting kinda used to it. If some of you guys would figure as hard for yourselves as you figure for me, hard telling what MPG you would be getting. Is this the only place there are uphills and downhills?

The road for the post to which you are referring is a two-lane with a number of 20-30 MPH corners. I had to fudge those corners quite a bit to average even 39 MPH. When I turned around in my driveway to get going, acceleration from zero to whatever speed at least 3 times. Decel many times for curves. Stop to turn around at end also figured in. Hard to average 65 with these conditions. Overall that day my MPG averaged 70.4. 70 MPG is the original question in this thread. Most, if not all, fantastic MPG runs are done at ridiculously low MPH figures. Most all 100 MPG runs that I have noticed were done at 15-20 MPH. Does that have much practical use for anyone?

Read further into that thread and you will find my story of weaving my way through 150 cattle on the road on the return. Spent about 10 minutes creeping in second gear. Hard to avg. 65 doing that.

Something mentioned earlier regarding hilly terrain - if the hills are the correct grade, you can use 40% throttle up the hills, avoiding engine fuel enrichment, and increasing engine efficiency, and then coast down the hills with engine off. This increases the overall efficiency!

ok so 70mpg is a good relativ figure that is for sure and it?s after about 1000km so far I understand.

To my calcuator: 3.79/(70*0.1609)=0.3365L/10km ! not exactly but close.
So why don?t I load 300kg in the Micra and go for the ride of my life !

Midsize or not, top five gasoline car in gassavers garage all around 800-1000kg exept one with 200kg more.
Still no awnser about the tripmeter, so I guess there we have the problem.
Maybe some 20% error:
0.3365*1.2=0.4038, and now it seems more like it.

About numbers I read alot coming from MetroMPG and this is great, this I belive, very good work, and hard work, but load MetroMPG:s car with extra 300kg and I?m sure the most people think this will totally destroy fine MPGs ! So do I.

Like I said before, this is not for beeing noughty, just fun and to know,
you can read alot on the net and not everything is true, but on this site for some reason I belive it is true so Good Luck !

elg, you don't seem to be reading my reply very closely. The following paragraph is contained in my reply to you.

(One of the main reasons I bought a ScanGauge was to alleviate fill-up inconsistencies experienced with pumps, tank capacity, tilt etc. I found with the ScanGauge I was not the FE driver I could be. I have made drastic FE improvements attributable to driving style changes. I have verified registered miles with speedo, ScanGauge, milepost markers and Google Earth.)


I don't follow or agree with your refiguring of my gas mileage. I am not very concerned with kilometers/liters/imperial gallons etc. I trust that GasSavers is getting my MPG figured properly. It is your job to get your conversion to match my numbers.

I believe
 

elg:

The smallest changes can make a big difference. This past summer my Peugeot 405 (U.S. model) was getting around 22 mpg during my commute. Changing only my shift points and throttle use brought that number to the upper twenties. I have added some tape to cover the grill and started experimenting with engine shutoff and have noticed that it is taking a real long time to get to the half tank.

Next is a warmer thermostat, injector cut off, higher tire pressure, etc etc.

Every little bit adds up, significantly sometimes!!!

Also, what year is your Micra? Small and light yes, but not necessarily the most aerodynamic car on the road. Aerodynamics are vital. Plus manufacturing tolerances can make for large gaps in the nose that adds to big drag. I taped/sealed all the gaps in the nose of my VW Jetta (Vento) and the highway mileage rose from the low thirties to the upper thirties, no other changes. It is MUCH quieter and more stable at high speeds. I have a feeling that my manufactured Jetta was definitely not the 0.34 Cd car that was advertised, not untill the duct tape anyway.

Getting 60-70 mpg out of a ZX2 is possible, it just takes a TON of work!!

I believe, I am trying too.

Get the tape out!!
 

elg-

I just saw your picture in the garage!!! :eek:

Go to the hardware/auto store as fast as you dare and get some tape and door seal foam!!!!

I am guessing that you need only one of the openings in the front bumper to cool your car. That is it. Use the foam tape to seal the hood and tape everything else closed.

Your mileage will go up very soon!!! I promise!!! :D

COZX2

I am curious about your gearing. What is your engine rpm at 60 mph in 5th?

CO ZX2;

Oh, sorry about that, you had made a correction of distance. I just read it, so sorry.
I my self make calibration at a flat 1000m track, 3 times for distance and also 3 times in speed and clock. Avarange of this makes the faktor. Resolution of my meter is just 10m, too bad.

Ok I belive you, 70mpg+ at long test and several 100+ for shorts.

No problem at all. :)

For "Landspeed" maybe I got you wrong but as far as I know Hilly against flat is rather easy choise, just theoretical:
We have no losses and go the track. The hilly one has longer way to travel and there for uses more energy.
And now add the losses.
So sorry if I missunderstod you.

// elg

Aerodynamic is not vital if your commute and speeds are low. There is some improvement up till about 40 MPH after that they become much more of a factor.
The top 2 in MPG or a classic example. Metro who has been on top for awhile recently added aero mods and basjoos is all highway and his car is aero'd out to the max.

Elg : I never really thought about the distance increase the hills would make, but my best MPGs have currently been on hilly terrain. Thinking about it though:

- A 1 in 10 gradient is very steep, and every mile you drive up or down, you will end up driving 1.01 miles - so only a 1% increase in distance!. Therefore, hills make no real difference to distance.

-However, if you can get up to 40% efficiency going up the hill, then coast back down the hill, you will be driving at 40% efficiency, whereas efficiency is more like 20% cruising along. A 1 in 10 gradient is probably too steep for proper hypermiling - there is a particularly long hill like this where I get up to 70+mph coasting (staring at 20mph at the top).

Big cars can be economical. I drove a Toyota Avensis over 100 miles, and got 92mpg (UK) = 77mpg(US) - this was with air-con switched on for half of the journey, and I hadn't yet found this site, so only used 56mph driving, coasting down hills with engine on, but no drafting or anything else. This was a 2.2 Turbodiesel as well, with 150bhp on tap!. This car has an MPG gauge on it.

P.S. The key to going up hills is to use the highest level of throttle before the engine enriches the mixture, with the lowest *efficient* revs. This is easy as I have a wideband lambda sensor - it has dramatically improved my economy (it is easy to see on my gaslog too!). I'm going to start the first aero mods (grille block) this weekend :)

Is this 40% enriched verified? I'm going to try a restrictor plate and was going for the maximum throttle TP that I could get away with. I though the ECU did not add fuel until WFO or about 85%.

:) Ok, two more questions:
1. you've verified the odometer/scanguage/mile markers/google earth. What about fuel consumption? I'm reasonably sure you would cross check what the pump says you used and what the scangauge says you used, and use the "fillup" feature to calibrate your scangauge, per the instructions, but I would like confirmation.

2. in your experience do the mountains help mpg or hurt vs flatlands? (Yes' it's pretty darn flat here)

re: 39mph tight hilly corners, sounds exciting :)

My car is *not* designed for fuel economy at all!. On my car, there is no throttle position sensor, and it uses the airflow meter to see how much load the engine is under.

On my car, when the vacuum is slightly less than halfway between idle and '0' vacuum, the mixture drops from 15.0:1 to 12:1, and on boost, it goes to 10:1.

I guess more modern cars will have the enrichment point set further up than mine, maybe nearer to WOT. I suppose the idea being that, on my car, you can go WOT and run boost, heat up the engine a lot, and then, if you dropped to slight vacuum, the extra heat might cause detonations.

On a metro anything less than 5 inches of vacuum and it goes into power mode and the oxygen sensor goes over .9V so you have to go really slow up a hill in a metro to keep it over 5in. I normally have to go up hills with a 10% or greater grade so I can say for sure it doesn't help mileage. You can't engine off coast unless you are willing to get to 80-85mph on the downhill part and there is no sharp curve at the bottom of the hill that you have to make. A Metro is not that aerodynamic so getting it to 80 coasting means a pretty steep hill. My Camaro will happily go well over 90 going down those hills but I normally brake and keep it slowed down some. The aero losses from the high speeds downhill and not being able to keep it out of power enrichment mode unless you want to go 15mph up the hill in 3rd. Those two things usually make mileage on hills worse for me. I would say power enrichment mode in 4th-5th still gets better mileage than normal mode in 3rd due to the difference in engine speeds.

But I guess a slight incline might be helpful but anything with any kind of angle to it does not seem to help get better mileage.

1. I do cross check. Last tank was right on. I have been filling my tank by letting pump shut itself off, then 1 more shutoff. I have not used any correction for some time because figures are close. I would rather believe the ScanGauge for fuel useage than the pump with other fillup factors. I use actual pump gallons and ScanGauge miles(always slightly lower than speedo miles, also lower than Google Earth plots). when I enter fillups in my gaslog.

2. I have not done very much flatland driving since I got on the gas mileage kick. I have made some serious adjustments to my driving to make mountainous driving work, but I would have to say my overall results speak for themselves.

3. re 39mph tight hilly corners, sounds exciting :)[/quote]
My most recent trip on this stretch was on a snowpacked road. Could not make myself even try to make time. I will not do this again. I will wait for dry roads. Where are you located?

One suggestion. Rather than riding the brakes to slow down, I just put in gear with injectors still shut off and use engine for braking. No fuel used. This will also replenish vacuum for power brakes.

Maybe this doesn't apply - I see "hills", not mountains - but I'd say "depends on their shape". When presented with the option, I'll always choose a route that has a hill with a short, relatively steep "up" and a long, gradual "down" over a flat route.

Thanks, Lx. My bodyguard. I didn't see this thread till late yesterday.

CO ZX2 -

This is exactly what I wanted to know!!!! Is this a general rule for all cars? Would the power steering also be replenished?

CarloSW2

How do you get back home?

Last time I looked close I had 2400 at 55. That would make 60 close to 2600.

Engine driven power steering would operate as normal as long as engine was turning, but no reserve as with brakes.

That's it exactly. :thumbup: