View Single Post
Old 06-14-2012, 01:19 PM   #18 (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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christ View Post
You'd have to figure the A/F ratio across RPM and appoximate VE to have any sort of an accurate figure.

9:1 at idle is a heck of a lot less fuel than 9:1 at 4,500 RPM @ WOT.
Yep I get that...but the difference between 9:1 and 14:1 should be constant at any given RPM or load condition correct? Such as 9:1 at 4500rpm at WOT is ~140% of the fuel consumption of 14:1 at 4500rpm at WOT right?

If someone came to this forum and was like; "I used to get 30 mpg now I'm getting 15 mpg. I'm driving the same and I don't see any leaking fuel, do you think my plug wires need replacing?"
We can say, "Hold up man/woman...chances are you have an external fuel leak that you are not detecting cause your engine wouldn't even run if you doubled the fuel amount into the cylinders. You better start at the tank and move forward looking for a leak."

So I was wondering if A/F ratio on average would translate directly into fuel consumption with all other variables being constant...I'm guessing it does. This will help me troubleshoot my own cars in the future...thanks for the feedback!
  Reply With Quote