Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-11-2015, 11:26 AM   #11 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,018 Times in 1,302 Posts
The islands are not really islands, they are highlights to show the differences in fuel consumed versus power produced and at what speed-load you can achieve that range of consumption versus power. Between the "island points" the range changes gradually from the outer to the inner island.

regards
mech

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 01-11-2015, 03:29 PM   #12 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
JRMichler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Phillips, WI
Posts: 952

Nameless - '06 GMC Canyon
90 day: 34.44 mpg (US)
Thanks: 184
Thanked 377 Times in 244 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff88 View Post
I'm confused about the bsfc map.

Why doesn't highest load and lowest RPM produce the best BSFC (and thus MPG)?
It takes a while to understand these maps because there is so much happening.

BMEP is torque. More BMEP is more torque. Zero BMEP is zero torque. The maximum BMEP at any one RPM is the maximum torque at that RPM. There is a calculation involved if you want to get torque in foot pounds or other units.

Look at Vekke's BSFC plot with the power curves drawn on it. Follow the power curve labeled 11.2 kW. That's 15 hp. You can get 15 hp at 5000 RPM with only a little throttle, or at 1400 RPM at wide open throttle, or at any RPM in between at an in between throttle opening. I took some values from that BSFC plot for different ways to get 15 hp:

RPM BMEP BSFC
1400 10.5 260
1800 7.5 220
2500 5.5 230
4000 3.0 320

Since low BSFC is good (less fuel consumed for the power), the ideal RPM for this amount of power is 1800. 2500 RPM is almost as good, as is any RPM in between. Running WOT at 1400 RPM is much worse than part throttle at 1800 to 2500 RPM. And running around in low gear at 4000 RPM is the worst.

This shows why the gear ratios need to be matched to the vehicle. Too tall a final drive ratio (low RPM on highway) gives worse mileage than the right ratio.
__________________
The vacuum gauge plus wheel covers helped increase summer 2015 mileage to 38.5 MPG, while summer 2016 mileage was 38.6 MPG without the wheel covers. Drove 10,708.4 miles in 2017 at 35.5 MPG.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JRMichler For This Useful Post:
jeff88 (01-11-2015)
Old 01-11-2015, 04:10 PM   #13 (permalink)
Lots of Questions
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Jose
Posts: 636

Motor-Rolla - '01 Toyota Corolla LE
Team Toyota
90 day: 28.3 mpg (US)

Gaia - '99 Toyota 4Runner SR5 Highlander
90 day: 19.78 mpg (US)
Thanks: 330
Thanked 82 Times in 62 Posts
Thanks for your help!

I think I'm starting to get it. So the "islands" represent the best BSFC in relation to the list you just gave (e.g. 1400 RPM = 260 BSFC). The red island represents the lowest fuel consumption for greatest power produced (as a ratio?). So in your list 1800 rpm would be the red island, 2500 RPM would be the yellow area, 1400 RPM would be the green area, and 4000 RPM would be way out in the blue or violet (if you were to compare those numbers to the AutoSpeed graph).

This kind of makes me want to incorporate a BSFC computer into the car which tracks RPM and torque and a little light(s) can change colors based on how close you are to optimal BSFC [say green for best BSFC (or in the "island"), yellow for second best, orange for OK, red for worst].
__________________
Don't forget to like our Facebook page!




Best EM Quotes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead View Post
It has been said, that if you peel the duct tape back on Earth's equator, you'll find that the two hemispheres are held together with J B Weld.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan9 View Post
subscribed with a soda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead View Post
If you're burning,and someone throws gasoline on you,there will be a localized cooling effect, but you're still on fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2015, 04:31 PM   #14 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Vekke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kitee (Finland)
Posts: 962

Siitin - '98 Seat Cordoba Vario
90 day: 58.56 mpg (US)

VW Lupo 3L --> 2L - '00 VolksWagen Lupo 3L
Diesel
90 day: 104.94 mpg (US)

A8 luxury fuel sipper - '97 Audi A8 1.2 TDI 6 speed manual
90 day: 64.64 mpg (US)

Audi A4B6 Avant Niistäjä - '02 Audi A4b6 1.9tdi 96kW 3L
90 day: 54.57 mpg (US)

Tourekki - '04 VW Touareg 2.5TDI R5 6 speed manual
Last 3: 24.55 mpg (US)

A2 1.4TDI - '03 Audi A2 1.4 TDI
90 day: 45.68 mpg (US)
Thanks: 165
Thanked 481 Times in 205 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Mechanic View Post
The islands are not really islands, they are highlights to show the differences in fuel consumed versus power produced and at what speed-load you can achieve that range of consumption versus power. Between the "island points" the range changes gradually from the outer to the inner island.

regards
mech
This is a good point because this means you can calculate a rough BSFC estimation anywhere on the map. So between 210 and 220 there are numbers 211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219. Just use "measuring tape" to get correct answer and diveide the gap to 10 sections... thats how I got those numbers that werent on the lines routes.
__________________


www.tuneko.com
Less drag = Less fuel
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2015, 09:16 PM   #15 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Silly-Con Valley
Posts: 1,417
Thanks: 173
Thanked 226 Times in 174 Posts
You can also think of this as a 3D graph. The X and Y axes are, as stated, RPM and (effectively) torque. The Z axis, coming out of the screen, is fuel used per HP generated. The red is the lowest fuel per HP, yellow is next lowest, then green, and so on, up to the light-green which is the most fuel used per HP. The 3D shape is a bowl, with the highest edge of it at low load, and the bottom of the bowl being where the red zone is shown.



We'd love to stay in the high-load low-RPM regime, but that makes enough power to accelerate us. So we either have to stay in low-load low-RPM, or we get into the high-load low-RPM to accelerate, then coast. (That's "pulse and glide" or "pulse and coast", and can give very good results when done well.)

-soD
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to some_other_dave For This Useful Post:
jeff88 (01-13-2015), pgfpro (01-11-2015)
Old 01-11-2015, 09:33 PM   #16 (permalink)
In Lean Burn Mode
 
pgfpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 1,418

MisFit Talon - '91 Eagle Talon TSi
Team Turbocharged!
90 day: 41.03 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,010
Thanked 476 Times in 311 Posts
some_other_dave

That's pretty much what I was going post. Very well done!!!

I'm a visual person, not to smart with out my vision so I need to see everything in 3D to understand anything? lol
__________________
Pressure Gradient Force
The Positive Side of the Number Line

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 06:10 AM   #17 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: World
Posts: 383
Thanks: 82
Thanked 79 Times in 66 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hersbird View Post
What I don't understand is why cars with cylinder deactivation end that deactivation almost as soon as you give it some throttle. I would like to be able to lock in the deactivation and increase throttle and load for a better BSFC. I wonder if it is just to hard on the working cylinders.
It may be an NVH thing. The two engine modes mean that the engine mounts etc. have to be designed to deal with two different "engines" in terms of vibration isolation and damping.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff88 View Post
Also, what makes the red island the best? Why doesn't highest load and lowest RPM produce the best BSFC (and thus MPG)?
The BSFC has a peak wrt to engine speed because the engine is most efficient - due to valve timing and inertial effects in the intake and exhaust tracts - at trapping charge at a particular speed. Either side of that speed there is more wasted work done relative to the charge trapped.

Higher engine speeds always result in lower BSFC due to the effects of friction i.e. engine oil pumping, viscous effects in both bearing oil and the various air flows inside the engine.

An engine designer could optimise the engine for low speed operation, at the expense of maximum power output, or maybe spread out wrt rpm the way the engine pumps air/exhaust and flatten the BSFC plot.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 06:18 AM   #18 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: World
Posts: 383
Thanks: 82
Thanked 79 Times in 66 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff88 View Post
This kind of makes me want to incorporate a BSFC computer into the car which tracks RPM and torque and a little light(s) can change colors based on how close you are to optimal BSFC [say green for best BSFC (or in the "island"), yellow for second best, orange for OK, red for worst].
Like an LCD screen with the BSFC map on it with a real time marker or dot that shows you where you are on it and lines of constant power so you can see where you could be.

I suggested to you in the Guino thread that the most useful thing to do with the data you needed for that would not be to determine the ground slope. Know the acceleration of the car with its weight and you can calculate the power being used. Know also the fuel consumption, as per MPGuino, and you can calculate the BSFC.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 06:00 PM   #19 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Vekke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kitee (Finland)
Posts: 962

Siitin - '98 Seat Cordoba Vario
90 day: 58.56 mpg (US)

VW Lupo 3L --> 2L - '00 VolksWagen Lupo 3L
Diesel
90 day: 104.94 mpg (US)

A8 luxury fuel sipper - '97 Audi A8 1.2 TDI 6 speed manual
90 day: 64.64 mpg (US)

Audi A4B6 Avant Niistäjä - '02 Audi A4b6 1.9tdi 96kW 3L
90 day: 54.57 mpg (US)

Tourekki - '04 VW Touareg 2.5TDI R5 6 speed manual
Last 3: 24.55 mpg (US)

A2 1.4TDI - '03 Audi A2 1.4 TDI
90 day: 45.68 mpg (US)
Thanks: 165
Thanked 481 Times in 205 Posts
Yes you can also make calculatios after which speed the driving with load is more fuel efficient vs push and glide. That is related to push time vs coast time and then use the BSFC to calculate which is more fuel efficient. Usually after 100 km/h or 62 mph speed almost on any car its more fuel efficient to use driving with load.
__________________


www.tuneko.com
Less drag = Less fuel
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 08:46 PM   #20 (permalink)
Lots of Questions
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Jose
Posts: 636

Motor-Rolla - '01 Toyota Corolla LE
Team Toyota
90 day: 28.3 mpg (US)

Gaia - '99 Toyota 4Runner SR5 Highlander
90 day: 19.78 mpg (US)
Thanks: 330
Thanked 82 Times in 62 Posts
An LCD screen with a little BSFC graph and a pinpoint of where you are on it would be cool too. I was thinking simple, like a little LED that changes colors based on what island you happen to be running in.

I haven't forgotten about that thread! I think about it multiple times a week. Just working my way towards that project.

__________________
Don't forget to like our Facebook page!




Best EM Quotes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead View Post
It has been said, that if you peel the duct tape back on Earth's equator, you'll find that the two hemispheres are held together with J B Weld.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan9 View Post
subscribed with a soda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead View Post
If you're burning,and someone throws gasoline on you,there will be a localized cooling effect, but you're still on fire.
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com