Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlvs2run
My aim when accelerating is to stay as close to 90 % engine load as possible, without exceeding it, as above 93% is open loop which uses more fuel.
My plan for MAP is much the same. I'm using the metric MAP gauge which goes up to 100. See here for The donkey CRX's comments about using a (non metric) vacuum gauge. You can choose either one. MAP is a digital vacuum gauge.
I have on occasion used the lower end of % engine load for extending coast distances, and plan to experiment more with this using MAP. However this might not be a viable technique with my engine, because of the higher rpm's. |
I have tried accelerating around 80% load in my car but it seems it wants to extend the shift at certain RPM ranges until I lift up slightly on the pedal to cause a downshift.
From a physics standpoint, wouldn't accelerating at target load % for a designated time, which prolongs the downshift, consume more fuel versus accelerating enough to shift through each gear to get into overdrive??
-Extended acceleration with drawn out downshifts @ X-RPMs until target speed.
OR...
-Shortened acceleration with quicker downshifts @ X-RPMs until target speed.
Example: I have accelerated from a stop up to 2,000-2,400 RPMs and held it in that RPM range using a certain throttle pressure until I get into overdrive............is this the wrong way to accelerate?
I may be wrong in that theory, correct me if I am. I know that my car being an automatic is a strike against me in terms of fuel economy but I love challenges and I'm treating like this like a game to get the highest "score" I can to save myself some money.
