As suspected, the margin of error was just too great with such low resolution on both distance and fuel usage. The data that I gathered looked something like this:
| Throttle% | TFC total |
| 10 | .10 |
| 15 | .12 |
| 20 | .12 |
| 25 | .12 |
| 50 | .12 |
| 80 | .11 |
With only .01 difference between tests (except one), this data is pretty much junk. MAP and RPM tests yielded similar results. All I can really say is that I was better able to maintain an average MPG using light throttle. It is possible that there is no significant difference in fuel usage depending on throttle setting. But without being able to increase the resolution of the distance and fuel readings, good solid data is going to be hard to get.
Increasing the fuel to $10/gal is a good idea, but that would mess up any other TFC readings for that tank. I guess it's one or the other.
Results:
INCONCLUSIVE