Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Off-Topic > The Lounge
Register Now
 Register Now
 


Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-24-2016, 10:11 AM   #21 (permalink)
MPGuino Supporter
 
t vago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Hungary
Posts: 1,807

iNXS - '10 Opel Zafira 111 Anniversary

Suzi - '02 Suzuki Swift GL
Thanks: 828
Thanked 708 Times in 456 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonesome Trail View Post
You're climbing a hill, it requires 'x' amount of energy to maintain speed.

Car A is a 4 banger with typical 4 banger torque band with a curve and peak around 4k RPM, Car B is an efficient V8 with flat torque curve and peak around say 2500RPM as is very common in today's engines.

For sake of argument both cars are geared the same, same size tires, etc.

Now both cars hit the hill at the same time, and to maintain speed Car A must really open the throttle to achieve enough power production to climb the hill, Car B cracks its throttle.

By your logic Car A is using less fuel because it's a small engine making more power per displacement, hence is more 'efficient' because of that ratio, correct?
Let's revisit Car A and Car B going up the same hill. Let's hold all atmospheric conditions the same. Both Car A and Car B are maintaining the same speed up that hill, they hit the same pavement going up that hill, and the same driver takes each car alternately up that hill.

Let's also assume, for the sake of argument, that everything else about Car A and Car B are identical. They have identical bodies, identical trim levels, identical gearing, identical tire and wheel sizes, identical liquid capacities, have identical weight distribution, consume the same amount of electricity (identical alternator loading), an identical amount of drivetrain wear, and they both weigh the same.

If nothing else, Car B with the V8 will have a larger intake manifold vacuum than Car A with the 4-banger. Remember, Car A has a completely opened throttle, and Car B has it's throttle cracked open.

Generating an intake manifold vacuum requires work, and to generate a larger vacuum, a greater amount of work must be expended. Work requires gasoline in either Car A or Car B, so Car B requires more gasoline simply to push Car B up the same hill as Car A, everything else being identical.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 06-02-2016, 09:41 PM   #22 (permalink)
Intermediate EcoDriver
 
Mustang Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Northern Arizona - It's a DRY cold..
Posts: 671

Trigger - '07 Ford Mustang V6 Premium Coupe
Team Mustang
Sports Cars
90 day: 32.76 mpg (US)

Big Red (retired) - '89 Ford F-250 4wd Custom
90 day: 18.13 mpg (US)

Big Red II - '13 Ford F-150 FX4
Pickups
90 day: 19.61 mpg (US)
Thanks: 163
Thanked 129 Times in 102 Posts
Sorry about my late entry - I just found this thread.

Lonesome Trail, welcome aboard from a fellow Mustang owner and Coyote owner and Arizona resident.

In my experience, the old hot-rodding trick to increase available power to the wheels by under-driving the accessories does result in better fuel economy. It results in more power available to the wheels throughout the entire operating RPM range.

Last May, I installed an ASP under-drive crankshaft pulley on the 4.0 liter Cologne V-6 in my '07 Mustang. It under-drives the accessories (particularly, the water pump and power steering pump) by 25%. It gave me close to 1 MPG, according to my fuel log.

Most people don't believe that I can get over 32 MPG with a 4 liter Mustang.
__________________
Fuel economy is nice, but sometimes I just gotta put the spurs to my pony!



Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguitarguy View Post
Just 'cuz you can't do it, don't mean it can't be done...
Quote:
Originally Posted by elhigh View Post
The presence of traffic is the single most complicating factor of hypermiling. I know what I'm going to do, it's contending with whatever the hell all these other people are going to do that makes things hard.

Last edited by Mustang Dave; 06-02-2016 at 09:47 PM..
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mustang Dave For This Useful Post:
V6MustangFTW (06-02-2016)
Old 06-03-2016, 01:31 AM   #23 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
gumby79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Butte, Montana
Posts: 725

little jona - '91 Dodge D 250 first gen cummins LE
Team Streamliner
90 day: 23.4 mpg (US)

Little Jona airo modded - '91 Dodge RAM 3/4 TON D 250 2×4 AUTO
Pickups
Team Cummins
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

The Salted Hound Jenny. - '87 Dodge Ram 50/D-50 5sp 4X4
90 day: 20.24 mpg (US)

Jona Allison aero - '91 Dodge Ram D-250 Le
90 day: 20.76 mpg (US)
Thanks: 208
Thanked 427 Times in 278 Posts
Re post #22

Quote:
Generating an intake manifold vacuum requires work, and to generate a larger vacuum, a greater amount of work must be expended. Work requires gasoline in either Car A or Car B, so Car B requires more gasoline simply to push Car B up the same hill as Car A, everything else being identical.
DWL (driving with load) is driving with the highest possible Vacuum reading posable aka the best mpg per load.
There are many examples of this. The real world trumps the paper this time.
As to personal experience.
When I installed a MSD 6 Digital ignition system (from a stock HEI) and a RPM Air gap Edelbrock intake (from a stock aluminum) . my vacum went up 2"from 15"mg to 17 at idle (625rpm engine liked 425rpm but the alt. quit below 600rpm and the 800 stall tork converter would not allow a stock750-800rpm idle) and I saw an improvement in mpg of 2.5. (From 7.5 allday every day. to 9.5-14mpgdepending on how I drove.)
This was a 6000lbs tall (24"under the frame) off-road capable 4x4 that was also used to pull a 16,000lbs 5th wheel
More of the right kind of power = more efficiency = better mpg..
Gumby Stay Flexible .
__________________
1st gen cummins 91.5 dodge d250 ,HX35W/12/6 QSV
ehxsost manafulld wrap, Aero Tonto
best tank: distance 649gps mi 24.04 mpg 27.011usg
Best mpg : 31.32mpg 100mi 3.193 USG 5/2/20


Former
'83 GMC S-15 Jimmy 2door 2wd O/D auto 3.73R&P
'79 Chevy K20 4X4 350ci 400hp msd custom th400 /np205. 7.5-new 14mpg modded befor modding was a thing
87' Hyundai Excel
83 ranger w/87 2.9 L FI2wd auto 18mpg on the floor
04 Mitsubishi Gallant 2.4L auto 26mpg
06 Subaru Forrester XT(WRX PACKAGE) MT AWD Turbocharged 18 plying dirty best of 26mpg@70mph
95Chevy Blazer 4x4 auto 14-18mpg
04 Chevy Blazer 4x4 auto 16-22mpg


  Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2016, 02:26 AM   #24 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 410
Thanks: 966
Thanked 74 Times in 63 Posts
I have a question. Take a Ford 4.6 and a 5.4. IIRC the 5.4 is a stroked 4.6. How would they compare, mpg wise with the same set-up? Then, how would they compare if the 5.4 had a taller rear end? Just thinking.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2016, 05:22 AM   #25 (permalink)
Corporate imperialist
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 11,175

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
SUV
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)

Sub2500 - '86 GMC Suburban C2500
90 day: 11.95 mpg (US)

Snow flake - '11 Nissan Leaf SL
SUV
90 day: 141.63 mpg (US)
Thanks: 269
Thanked 3,522 Times in 2,796 Posts
I am going to just about triple the horsepower and double the torque on my suburban. Be interesting to see what it does to the fuel economy.
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to oil pan 4 For This Useful Post:
t vago (06-03-2016)
Old 06-03-2016, 10:28 AM   #26 (permalink)
MPGuino Supporter
 
t vago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Hungary
Posts: 1,807

iNXS - '10 Opel Zafira 111 Anniversary

Suzi - '02 Suzuki Swift GL
Thanks: 828
Thanked 708 Times in 456 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by gumby79 View Post
DWL (driving with load) is driving with the highest possible Vacuum reading posable aka the best mpg per load.
Uhhhh.... No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gumby79 View Post
There are many examples of this. The real world trumps the paper this time.
Oh, okay. I'm sure that must be the case. You sure showed me. And everyone who ever put in a taller final drive. And all the car manufacturers who invested in production variable cylinder technology.

Tell you what. Explain why the MDS 5.7L Chrysler Hemi gets better gas mileage than a non-MDS 5.7L Chrysler Hemi, between a 2005 Dodge Ram 1500 pickup truck with RWD and a 5.7L non-MDS engine and the 545RFE transmission, and the 2006 Dodge Ram 1500 pickup truck with RWD and a 5.7L MDS engine and the 545RFE transmission. The 2006 had an EPA rating that was 1 MPG better than the 2005 (city and highway and combined). No other significant changes were made to this truck from 2005 to 2006, so they both weighed the same, and both had the same aero.

2005 Ram -> https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/21104.shtml

2006 Ram -> https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/22186.shtml

Quote:
Originally Posted by gumby79 View Post
As to personal experience.
When I installed a MSD 6 Digital ignition system (from a stock HEI) and a RPM Air gap Edelbrock intake (from a stock aluminum) . my vacum went up 2"from 15"mg to 17 at idle (625rpm engine liked 425rpm but the alt. quit below 600rpm and the 800 stall tork converter would not allow a stock750-800rpm idle) and I saw an improvement in mpg of 2.5.
So... you were able to idle all over the place while driving? You didn't touch your gas pedal once while driving? I'd hate to have been stuck behind you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gumby79 View Post
(From 7.5 allday every day. to 9.5-14mpgdepending on how I drove.)
This was a 6000lbs tall (24"under the frame) off-road capable 4x4 that was also used to pull a 16,000lbs 5th wheel
More of the right kind of power = more efficiency = better mpg..
Gumby Stay Flexible .
I think the confusion is coming from somebody here equating higher idle vacuum with higher efficiency.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2016, 10:36 AM   #27 (permalink)
MPGuino Supporter
 
t vago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Hungary
Posts: 1,807

iNXS - '10 Opel Zafira 111 Anniversary

Suzi - '02 Suzuki Swift GL
Thanks: 828
Thanked 708 Times in 456 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobilOne View Post
I have a question. Take a Ford 4.6 and a 5.4. IIRC the 5.4 is a stroked 4.6. How would they compare, mpg wise with the same set-up? Then, how would they compare if the 5.4 had a taller rear end? Just thinking.
Fuel economy by swapping in a taller rear end can be roughly guessed at by the rule-of-thumb that a percentage change in gear ratio will give you about half that percentage change in fuel economy. For instance, going from 3.92 to 3.64 (which is a 7% change) should give roughly a 3.5% increase in fuel economy.

Don't know about the change in displacement, though. Couldn't even venture a guess on that one.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2016, 10:43 AM   #28 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Ecky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 5,005

ND Miata - '15 Mazda MX-5 Special Package
90 day: 42.54 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2,866
Thanked 2,501 Times in 1,547 Posts
There seems to be some confusion here. Usable power gains and improved economy can be seen from:

-Reducing parasitic loads
-Increasing compression
-Fundamental combustion chamber redesign, for higher efficiency (e.g. longer stroke*)
-Weight reduction
-Aerodynamic drag reduction
-LRR tires

*Longer stroke may actually reduce peak power if you need to reduce redline RPM

However, many methods of adding usable horsepower have the opposite effect and will reduce economy, all else being equal, such as:

-Running rich
-Adding more displacement
-Higher RPM / shorter gearing
-Forced induction (on non-diesel)
-Cold air intake

Many modifications that improve economy, do so at the expense of power, such as:

-Smaller displacement (cylinder deactivation, smaller block, etc.)
-Cam regrind
-Warm air intake
-Running lean
-Taller gearing


So, it really depends on which approach you're going to take.
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ecky For This Useful Post:
t vago (06-03-2016), Xist (06-04-2016)
Old 06-03-2016, 10:47 AM   #29 (permalink)
MPGuino Supporter
 
t vago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Hungary
Posts: 1,807

iNXS - '10 Opel Zafira 111 Anniversary

Suzi - '02 Suzuki Swift GL
Thanks: 828
Thanked 708 Times in 456 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecky View Post
There seems to be some confusion here. Usable power gains and improved economy can be seen from:

-Reducing parasitic loads
-Increasing compression
-Fundamental combustion chamber redesign, for higher efficiency (e.g. longer stroke*)
-Weight reduction
-Aerodynamic drag reduction
-LRR tires

*Longer stroke may actually reduce peak power if you need to reduce redline RPM

However, many methods of adding usable horsepower have the opposite effect and will reduce economy, all else being equal, such as:

-Running rich
-Adding more displacement
-Higher RPM / shorter gearing
-Forced induction (on non-diesel)
-Cold air intake

Many modifications that improve economy, do so at the expense of power, such as:

-Smaller displacement (cylinder deactivation, smaller block, etc.)
-Cam regrind
-Warm air intake
-Running lean
-Taller gearing


So, it really depends on which approach you're going to take.
This post really ought to be a sticky, all by itself.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2016, 07:31 PM   #30 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
gumby79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Butte, Montana
Posts: 725

little jona - '91 Dodge D 250 first gen cummins LE
Team Streamliner
90 day: 23.4 mpg (US)

Little Jona airo modded - '91 Dodge RAM 3/4 TON D 250 2×4 AUTO
Pickups
Team Cummins
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

The Salted Hound Jenny. - '87 Dodge Ram 50/D-50 5sp 4X4
90 day: 20.24 mpg (US)

Jona Allison aero - '91 Dodge Ram D-250 Le
90 day: 20.76 mpg (US)
Thanks: 208
Thanked 427 Times in 278 Posts
https://youtu.be/MBYVZLRyQjk
On my 79 Chevrolet the vac gage acted like an mpg meter It got so as I could predict the mpg based on what the # of inmg vac had ben doing for the last 2 hrs . Hold it down at 7inmg you got 7mpg (85-90mph) holdit up at 14 inmg and you got 14mph (55-70mph). Get behind a truck and watch it pick up 3-5inmg. Pulling a grade I'd try to maintain 7.5inmg because my Edelbrock carburetor had the 7inmg enrichment springs.
Z---
As a side note when I put the MSD in I was able to switch from premium to bace grade . This improved my bottom dollar by 20-40cents per ga.+ a healthy bump on the amount of fuel consumption .
So bottom line. Proformance parts sold to hard core racers ,installed in place of stock parts, helped my cost of operations aka economy. By improving the efficiency of my approximately 400hp 350ci.
Click image for larger version

Name:	FB_IMG_1464996352094.jpg
Views:	42
Size:	119.5 KB
ID:	20148
Working my truck at Tuttle Creek Off Road Park in Kansas
Gumby Stay Flexible

__________________
1st gen cummins 91.5 dodge d250 ,HX35W/12/6 QSV
ehxsost manafulld wrap, Aero Tonto
best tank: distance 649gps mi 24.04 mpg 27.011usg
Best mpg : 31.32mpg 100mi 3.193 USG 5/2/20


Former
'83 GMC S-15 Jimmy 2door 2wd O/D auto 3.73R&P
'79 Chevy K20 4X4 350ci 400hp msd custom th400 /np205. 7.5-new 14mpg modded befor modding was a thing
87' Hyundai Excel
83 ranger w/87 2.9 L FI2wd auto 18mpg on the floor
04 Mitsubishi Gallant 2.4L auto 26mpg
06 Subaru Forrester XT(WRX PACKAGE) MT AWD Turbocharged 18 plying dirty best of 26mpg@70mph
95Chevy Blazer 4x4 auto 14-18mpg
04 Chevy Blazer 4x4 auto 16-22mpg


  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com