Quote:
Originally Posted by jimepting
From the above quote, you gained 5 MPG or 5.6% on a long range test - almost identical to what I got. Did you have the IMA system turned on for those trips?
|
No, IMA has been off since I got the car, except for a few brief test drives.
Also, I wouldn't call my longer trips a "test". It's uncontrolled anecdotal evidence - and I think it's just a coincidence it's close to your results. I didn't even attempt to drive at the same speed on the highway portions of each trip. In fact, I intentionally drove a little
faster on the second trip, because I was able to hold lean burn at higher speeds with the mods in place.
Quote:
|
In any case, I do not have the luxury of a quiet, level test course.
|
Where I test, it's straight, level & nearly devoid of traffic. Yet another reason we shouldn't attempt to directly compare our results.
I think perhaps the big lesson to take from this is that because these cars are so "twitchy" when near the lean burn transition, and because small inputs and other conditions will therefore have big effects on MPG, it's futile to compare different cars and expect to see the same results.
Even tested side by side in identical conditions, I'd expect two Insights to return different results when testing near the lean burn transition, for reasons such as:
- different number of miles on them
- different states of tune
- different levels of tire wear (mine are very close to the wear bars)
- using different types of fuel (no ethanol in mine at the moment)
- different drivers (foot control / lean burn coaxing)
I'm not very surprised that we're seeing different results for the same mods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimepting
He had been a fan of roll-down testing instead,
|
That's definitely the best way to measure whether "A" is any different than "B". I bet if we conducted coast-down testing of these mods, the results would be more consistent, car to car.