|
duff: "What I am trying to get you to do is find the transition out of the red region."
I think that's what I'm also trying to get myself to do! Trouble is, I think I don't really know how to get all that nice data with the simple instruments at my disposal. Maybe if I think about it some more it will dawn on me. I guess I don't really have a clear grasp of the methodology used to create those graphs.
----------------------
metro: "at higher speeds, lean burn permits a VX to get better MPG than you could at the same average speed doing P&G. 60 mph, for example."
Good point. I didn't think of that. I suppose P&G starts to fall down when it gets into the aero-penalty zone.
On a recent tank when I did very well with P&G, speeds were very moderate (under 50 mph). And I've just started exploring P&G.
"the beauty of lean burn is really good fuel economy without having to do the work"
Yes, exactly. I like the idea of fully grasping the different capabilities the car has. Then I can use it in various ways, depending on my mood, and the conditions. Sometimes the desirable choice will be to relax and rely on lean burn.
pale: "P&G in the VX means you have a regular, non-lean-burn civic, only lighter weight and with better gear ratios."
Yes, well-said.
"P&G is a lot of work for longer distances"
My recent P&G tank was all short trips, local driving. I imagine P&G could be burdensome on a long highway trip.
I'm finding it interesting to try to assess different factors. For a few weeks, I had zero lean burn, because my car was the CA model. Then I converted it to Federal, and did a few fills that way. Now I'm learning about P&G.
At this point my routine doesn't require a lot of miles, so it's taking a long time to measure results, and compare the different options.
-------------------------
fig: "Accelerate down the hills and glide up"
Doesn't that create a problem with excessive speed, going downhill? I suppose maybe it wouldn't, depending on conditions.
|