Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
I have to disagree with the logic of your three points. You're not getting ERRORS in measuring fuel consumption, because the car's instruments are pretty darned accurate. Specifically:
1) Any halfway decent driver can get better mpg without using cruise control - in any car, but particularly in the Insight.
|
In general I agree, but when trying to measure small improvements in FE, it is important to stabilize as many variables as possible. A-b-a testing involves the measurements of small changes in FE - a difficult process under the best of conditions. Just read back through the record of some folks here who have tried it. I've done a fair amount in an Echo with aftermarket cruise control so I'm well familiar with the challenge. In the past I've had the best results on level road sections with cruise control.
Quote:
|
2) You can control regen/assist with a MIMA setup.
|
Buying and installing a MIMA seems like expensive overkill just to do some testing.
Quote:
3) Again, those aren't fuel consumption error, they're actual fuel use.
It does seem less than logical to get a car that's optimized for high mpg, then complain because the optimizations make your testing difficult.
However, I'd suggest a different, and possibly more accurate, method of testing. Find a hill on a non-busy stretch of road, start at the top at a known speed, turn the engine off, and measure your coasting distance.
|
Agreed, it is actual fuel used. The error for purposes of a-b-a measurement is the potential error in the measurement of fuel used.
Not complaining about the FE. Who with an Insight could not like the high mpg
You are probably correct about the coast down. I mentioned that myself as potentially a better way to go.
BTW, have you driven an Insight?