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

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-12-2011, 08:39 AM   #171 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 2,442

2004 CTD - '04 DODGE RAM 2500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 19.36 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,422
Thanked 735 Times in 555 Posts

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 01-12-2011, 08:36 PM   #172 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Silly-Con Valley
Posts: 1,471
Thanks: 191
Thanked 257 Times in 194 Posts
I'm guessing that those numbers are all obtained with WOT (Wide-Open Throttle). It would be lovely to see a full map made using different throttle settings... Which I'm guessing may not be available.

-soD
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 11:31 PM   #173 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 2,442

2004 CTD - '04 DODGE RAM 2500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 19.36 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,422
Thanked 735 Times in 555 Posts
It's hard to find much info. This is the first time I've seen any BSFC numbers (outside of a few comments posted elsewhere).

But the '03 chart on the CTD



pretty closely follows my experience for under 60 mph (24-26 mpg, empty or loaded). I don't think 24 at 70 is do-able due to aero resistance.

Original article is a decent read, but without links to other articles cited, not worth much in and of itself.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2011, 12:48 AM   #174 (permalink)
UFO
Master EcoModder
 
UFO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,300

Colorado - '17 Chevrolet Colorado 4x4 LT
90 day: 23.07 mpg (US)
Thanks: 315
Thanked 178 Times in 138 Posts
That map was not done figuring in wind resistance?
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2011, 01:33 AM   #175 (permalink)
Depends on the Day
 
RH77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kansas City Area
Posts: 1,761

Teggy - '98 Acura Integra LS
Sports Cars
90 day: 32.74 mpg (US)

IMA - '10 Honda Insight EX
Team Honda
90 day: 34.76 mpg (US)

Tessie - '06 Acura TSX Base
90 day: 28.2 mpg (US)
Thanks: 31
Thanked 41 Times in 35 Posts
It's odd to see what you can stuff a Cummins Diesel into. So far this month, I came across a Jeep Wrangler and Ford Ranger, both of which looked otherwise stock (with the exception of the "C" badge on the fender and the exhaust note).

With the Jeep appearing to have the advantage for off-roading, the Ranger looked to be a working farm truck -- I wonder if the combo offers better FE in addition to the obvious torque -- and what exactly was in it? I'm sure there are a variety of compact, 4-cylinder Diesels to choose from, outside of the average consumer market...

RH77
__________________
“If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research” ― Albert Einstein

_
_
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2011, 12:20 PM   #176 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 2,442

2004 CTD - '04 DODGE RAM 2500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 19.36 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,422
Thanked 735 Times in 555 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by UFO View Post
That map was not done figuring in wind resistance?
So far as I can tell.

OTOH I average 24 mpg, empty or loaded (up to 2k payload) across Gulf Coast Texas with some fairly stiff winds depending on the time of year. My motor has a slightly higher rating than that one, but is an otherwise similar truck. The times I have chosen to run 68 mph show about 22 mpg with no adverse winds. I have not come across anyone getting 24 at 70 in a CTD. At 60, yes, numerous instances.

The purpose of this graph was in discussion of timing advance changes to improve FE. (Mine is stock).Maybe my truck would do better with a timing change, but I'm loathe to add a tuner at this point.

Last edited by slowmover; 01-16-2011 at 12:26 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2011, 04:01 PM   #177 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 38

Grand Prix - '02 Pontiac Grand Prix GP
90 day: 24.01 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
If that line does show torque at WOT, that may make it incredibly useful: could you not essentially use it to extrapolate what throttle/pedal position to use to get the engine closest to the sweet spot at a given RPM?

EG. in the Saturn chart, 7/9 throttle @ 2000 RPM looks like it would put you squarely in the 250 g/kWh island.

Of course it doesn't work quite that simply, because the engine doesn't "idle" at 2000 RPM ("0/9ths"), so you'd likely have to factor in the amount of pedal required to get there with no load on the engine.


I think our group is close to nailing this down, but since I just got an Ultra-Gauge I thought I'd ask for some clarification. (I get to apply the science, yay!)

1. Have we concluded that torque on the chart correlates to load and/or throttle position on the SGII or the UG?
2. If we have, which is the preferred gauge to monitor (load or TP)?

It would seem to me that load correlates to torque, and the %load we should target during the Pulse part of P&G is defined as that which puts us in the middle of the most efficient island. Others have mentioned TP though; is there a reason it would correlate better?

It's difficult for my brain to believe that accelerating at 80% load/throttle is the most efficient use of the fuel - I've always been told that slow/steady acceleration is better. I have faith in science though (oxymoron alert!), and will certainly give the high load rapid acceleration approach a shot.

If we do reach this conclusion, perhaps it should be added to the BSFC wiki page.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2011, 10:58 PM   #178 (permalink)
Master of 140 hamsters
 
superchow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Lacey, WA
Posts: 183

Hamster - '07 Honda Civic EX
90 day: 29.41 mpg (US)

Whooshy Wagon - '04 Volvo V40
90 day: 23.33 mpg (US)

Minotaur - '09 Ford Taurus X SEL
90 day: 19.05 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by abell75 View Post
It's difficult for my brain to believe that accelerating at 80% load/throttle is the most efficient use of the fuel - I've always been told that slow/steady acceleration is better.
The way I understand this is when you optimize the following:

1. High load to reduce pumping losses through restriction in the intake manifold.
2. Tall gearing to maximize the speed gained per engine speed increase.

The combination should be reduced pumping losses in the engine and slow and steady acceleration due to "long gears".
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2011, 01:35 AM   #179 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Silly-Con Valley
Posts: 1,471
Thanks: 191
Thanked 257 Times in 194 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by abell75 View Post
It would seem to me that load correlates to torque, and the %load we should target during the Pulse part of P&G is defined as that which puts us in the middle of the most efficient island. Others have mentioned TP though; is there a reason it would correlate better?
Load would take into account how much air is actually going into the engine, or the air pressure in the manifold which more or less correlates with how much air is going in.

Throttle position is related to load (and manifold pressure), as the air has to go through the throttle body. But engine RPM, air temperature, and other factors affect the actual amount of air going in as well.

The throttle position is very useful for telling when the driver goes to Wide-Open Throttle (WOT) or when the throttle is closed, and also when the throttle is being opened which indicates the driver wants to accelerate. But it is less useful than load for showing what is going on in the engine IMHO.

-soD
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to some_other_dave For This Useful Post:
abell75 (02-19-2011)
Old 02-20-2011, 01:22 AM   #180 (permalink)
Bookworm
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Olympia
Posts: 127

Sylvio - '02 Audi allroad quattro Biturbo 6-spd
90 day: 21.08 mpg (US)

Focus - '17 Ford Focus SE
90 day: 45.64 mpg (US)
Thanks: 7
Thanked 29 Times in 21 Posts
Interesting post

forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?547541-bsfc
Sorry about the partial link, I don't have enough posts to put up a link yet.
(poster put up a BSFC graph at WOT, calculated from OBDII data)

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com