View Single Post
Old 06-13-2012, 11:26 AM   #13 (permalink)
Neen
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 80

Doug - '03 Chrysler PT Cruiser Base
90 day: 31.16 mpg (US)

DR 350 - '92 Suzuki DR 350 S
90 day: 61.09 mpg (US)

Sid the Sloth - '82 Honda Civic CVCC Wagon
Last 3: 35.93 mpg (US)

Rocky - '92 Daihatsu Rocky
Last 3: 24.97 mpg (US)

Mick - '97 Jeep Cherokee XJ UpCountry
90 day: 19.4 mpg (US)
Thanks: 9
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
So it's looking like 9:1 is the worst AF mixture you can have without flooding. With that being said does that translate straight into fuel consumption? In other words if ideal (stock) is for the most part 14.7:1 would a 9:1 A/F mixture be using 38% more fuel at any given time? Let's assume normal operation and look strictly at A/F ratios and not driving styles.

If the decrease in A/F ratio is more or less translated into fuel consumption then it looks like the worst fuel consumption in any given scenario is roughly 38%. Anything beyond that and it would have to be a fuel leak at that point. Does this sound correct?
  Reply With Quote