AutoSpeed: "FuelSmart" device: sort of a live BSFC indicator

[dcb]

LOL, share the code and schematic online somewhere and I'll tell you if you are right

[Julian Edgar]

LOL, share the code and schematic online somewhere and I'll tell you if you are right

You sem to be making something of nothing. There is no secret about how how FuelSmart works. It monitors TPS and MAP. When TPS shows that the throttle is open, and vacuum is above a certain value, the output LED lights. Both TPS and MAP thresholds are user-settable; the MAP setting is a major factor in the quality of the outcome. There are a few filters and delays inthe software, and some input protection in the hardware, but that's basically it.

For something so simple, in testing I was amazed at how well it works.

[Julian Edgar]

Part 2 is now out - Browser Warning

[SVOboy]

Thanks for the update!

There must be an issue with autospeed's title system since it shows up as a browser warning

[gone-ot]

...because I haven't actually *tested* the device myself, I really shouldn't be making comments, but I DO want to feedback these thoughts:

1) the article needs to show some test data that supports the product claims.

2) the pictures should be "referenced" (ie: Fig. 1, etc.) to the text body.

3) the article needs to summarize the product components (ie: a Parts Listing legend, etc.)

...meant as "constructive" criticism only (and hopefully taken only as such).

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by Julian Edgar

Fair enough. But I am reluctant to recommend driving in a way that is illegal for most of my readers.

That's completely understandable.

But re-defining an established driving term to avoid advocating something that happens to be illegal where you live will only cause confusion to your readers who Google the term and/or encounter it elsewhere. I maintain it's not gliding! It's "pulse and fuel cut". (/end of rant against revisionism.)

(FYI, where I live there is no law prohibiting gliding/neutral coasting... but that's beside my point.)

One other thing I'd liked to have seen - as Old Tele Man menioned - was comprehensive details of the test where the 15% improvement in fuel economy was found.

Darin

[Julian Edgar]

1) the article needs to show some test data that supports the product claims.

2) the pictures should be "referenced" (ie: Fig. 1, etc.) to the text body.

3) the article needs to summarize the product components (ie: a Parts Listing legend, etc.)

1. The article does show test data - it says, over a car driven as most people would, I gained a fuel economy improvement of 15 per cent on a particular urban route. I deliberately left it as open as that; there are too many variables in cars, drivers and routes to be more specific. In fact, I did the test really to demonstrate to myself that I wasn't just imagining things, that in fact it was repeatable and the gain was major.

2. We don't run photo captions or specific photo references - most people seem to be able to follow our aticles OK.

3. I don't understand why a parts listing is necessary - it's not a kit.

[Julian Edgar]

I am a bit puzzled why people here are negative.

1) The science behind the project is quite sound

2) I have never seen anyone before using an approach just like it

3) I have given enough information that suitably electronic proficient people can make their own if they don't want to buy the eLabtronics one. (And you can always use a MAP sensor from a wrecker, so it can be used in all EFI cars, not just those that already have a MAP sensor.)

4) It can improve the fuel economy of most drivers

Aren't all those things good?

[SVOboy]

Originally Posted by Julian Edgar

I am a bit puzzled why people here are negative.

1) The science behind the project is quite sound

2) I have never seen anyone before using an approach just like it

3) I have given enough information that suitably electronic proficient people can make their own if they don't want to buy the eLabtronics one. (And you can always use a MAP sensor from a wrecker, so it can be used in all EFI cars, not just those that already have a MAP sensor.)

4) It can improve the fuel economy of most drivers

Aren't all those things good?

People can be skeptical because we get a lot of BS on here (you can see the recent 8 valve engine thread for an example of this) so pretty much everything gets taken with a grain of salt.

Personally, I love autospeed and the fact that you actually take on issues involving fuel economy, so I say keep up the good work. Even if we're skeptical at times we're all here to improve and work to better our knowledge of the issues and techniques, so keep that in mind.

[gone-ot]

...since we're much closer to MISSOURI here in USA than you are there in AUSTRALIA, you'll have to endulge us and SHOW us (well, me for one) where and how you "...gained a fuel economy improvement of 15 per cent on a particular urban route."

...for instance, I have no idea whatsoever of what you specifically mean by "urban route." I'm sure what I perceive to be "urban" here in Arizona maybe be similar, but not the same, as what you mean. And, what were the speeds and times-to-speed and coastings that comprised your particular urban route (what made it particular?).

...and "negative" shouldn't be confused with "skeptical." Hence, the Americanism: "...I'm from Missouri, so you'll have to SHOW me."