Quote:
Originally Posted by slowmover
Maybe "hurse" is a play on the word, hearse?
How about some context in re the numbers? A percentage decrease in fuel burn over the last vehicle? The last similar load? Fuel cpm?
And, IMO, I believe your threads should be consolidated into one. Those of us with an interest in using a vehicle for commercial purposes would find it easier to follow along.
Pics when you have a chance.
Congrats on numbers that make you happy!!
.
|
Hi Slowmover,
Normally, this NV(the only truck I use for freight, and yes Hurse is a play, a nickname that matches the Coroner play which should have been Undertaker, but that's another story), runs between 17-20 mpg, and it's hard to nail down due to the nature of the freight business. One doesn't have the opportunity to test while on a load, it's more a matter of continued gathering of data over time in order to draw a conclusion of avg mpg's. Once a load is delivered, they are reluctant to put it back on for the return trip. I agree that it would be nice to get the next load at the same weight, but my next load is only 300lbs going from Detroit to Janesville, WI. Not a fair comparison.
I placed this under success because of the higher mpg's achieved compared to that normal range and it was achieved without the JDM ProM chip. I have unplugged it as stated in my other post for a return to A testing, and hence, additional excitement on my part about getting this fuel mileage in the mountains in PA. Definitely, an adjustment to the steering wheel nut
I'm fairly new here and have not figured out how to combine the threads, this one seemed to properly belong under the Success category.
Hmmm. I'll try to figure the combination thing out....
As I explained, the tailwinds helped, but I was thrilled with the stark difference that I believe the ecomodding techniques added. The last load I had that went this route or close to it was only 600lbs and went to RI. Here again, not a fair comparison, but the fuel mileage on that load was in the 19's overall. The difference in traffic and such makes it hard to relate one trip to another. Having 2K push you down a hill is not the same as 600Lbs and visa versa on the uphill.
I expected between 16-18 mpg for the run, and if I would have used the cruise (which holds you back on the downhills), I think I would have only gotten that range. That's where using the neutral technique came in and saved the day because I never used to coast down the hills, and in PA, going East on the route I used, it has some great and long downhill stretches. Before, when I would use the cruise, it would keep the engine running around 1800 to 2000 rpm's instead of the 850 rpm at idle. I also coasted to the stop signs off the ramps, coasted into the gas stations where possible and so on. So this run by itself might be a one off, so to speak, but as I continue to use the techniques and eventually add the skirting mods and others, I expect the mpg's to stay above 20. If that can be proven over time, then I can state with certainty the better mileage and blame it on the techniques and mods. It will take time due to the industry demands. But I will keep posting.
I have attached some pics of the front bumper area that needs to be modified as well as the side where the skirting will be mounted. The uniqueness of the front bumper pic also shows another thought in modifying the underneath of the truck just before the rear axle with a downward curving foil, but the muffler, driveshaft and other parts that may get in the way could hinder that mod. That mod (underneath) might also be moot if the side skirting is bent inward at the front and moves the air to the outside like the semi-trailers skirting does. But that mod and the others are going to be posted in my other thread.
Have a great holiday
