Quote:
Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr
Did you ever notice any influence of weather to the fuel-efficiency?
|
Definitely, although as I mentioned, I mostly do short trips, so a big factor is the starting temperature and how long the engine takes to heat (although the engine in my car is designed for quick heating, but still, since trips are short, it will spend a non-negligible amount of time in a cold condition).
Quote:
Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr
You might remember when direct injection was quite a rocket-science feature. Then, either resorting to a large-capacity intercooler (or water injection) or to enrich the air/fuel ratio was a requirement to prevent knock. Remember when Hyundai introduced the 1.0 turbo to the previous-generation HB20 retaining the port-injection and was plagued with excessive fuel consumption? No wonder it has turned to direct injection for the current generation, the same way it had been with any other overseas Kia or Hyundai with the 1.0 turbo engine before its introduction to Brazil.
|
I'm not sure I get the point you're trying to make here. Could you be more explicit?
Maybe you're saying turbo was an issue in the past? Like I said, however, instrumentation indicates that my car runs stoichiometric regardless of what I do, so unless the OBD-II data is not accurate, then enrichment is not an issue -- indeed, I've thought of trying to read the voltage of the oxygen sensor directly somehow, but haven't gone to the trouble of doing that yet.
Do note that I see changes in lambda sometimes: for instance, after a pulse, when I shift the car into neutral, the mixture is enriched for a few seconds, then overshoots a little into lean territory for a couple of seconds, and then settles into stoichiometric again. So it's note a case of a "broken" ECU reporting a constant lambda=1 all the time.
But perhaps there are reasons to avoid boost other than fuel enrichment? That's what I'm looking to be enlightened with.