Friendly Wager: 60 mpg 95 Mercury Tracer

[93Cobra#2771]

Originally Posted by Xist

That is not lean burn at all.

Correct - I don’t know why lean burn is even in this thread. It was mentioned several times, and this particular car doesn’t have the ability for lean burn.

[M_a_t_t]

Originally Posted by 93Cobra#2771

“Lean burn” as you call it, is engaged a couple of ways. But let’s call it what it is - fuel cutoff during deceleration.
aka DFCO (deceleration fuel cutoff)

There are a couple ways this happens:

1. Time based, let off gas pedal for x amount of time, fuel is decreased/cut off to injectors. It’s somewhere in the 15-30 seconds range according to temp of car, speed, etc.

2. Charcoal canister purge operation, after roughly 1 minute of steady throttle. Valve opens and vents fuel fumes to intake and burns then off.

Your car doesn’t haven’t a lean burn mode like the old Honda lean burn cars of twenty years ago. A lean burn setup requires a wideband O2 and specific tuning to do it.

Having an automatic trans makes your job even harder. Ideally you need to be at 35mph or below, but trans won’t be in top gear. But 45mph can work.

Good luck with your quest - I think you will fall short and manage around 50mpg on your round trip assuming boat tail, weight removal, super aired up tires, etc. That’s my official guess.

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/...s=1&ZyEntry=2#
Here is the epa report about the escort. Dated 95 so 96 not included in the report. Check page 35 (40 if you go by pdf numbers) it calls out running at 17:1. Page 81 (87) also refers to LOC increases exhaust temperature.

Another source (the one that ennored posted) states that 91-95 models had lean on cruise.
http://leiss.ca/wp-content/uploads/2...masquerade.pdf

And a link to a thread where they talk about it and someone with a wideband sensor and gauge confirms:

https://www.feoa.net/threads/goes-op...-cruise.26228/

If you are basing your last statement on your car it might be because it is a 96.

[93Cobra#2771]

Very interesting - my car is indeed a 96 model. Curious that they stopped it in 96. Sounds like there were likely issues.

I am almost positive that the lean burn is the purge that I mentioned earlier. The car drops from closed loop to open loop and runs off tables since there isn’t a wideband to allow them to measure a/f besides 14.7:1.

The time in the mode seems to mirror what I recall from my ford fuel injection book from that time period.

I’ll have to pull that Manila out and study up on it to see what it says.

I do know that many people (including myself) disabled the purge condition. Due to issues with minor detonation and bucking when it happened. Perhaps that’s why ford stopped doing it in 96?

[M_a_t_t]

I did some testing to try and get some data for Cd and Crr. Using the instructables excel document and testing procedure I recorded a gps speedometer and used that to enter the data. Weather was 40F and wind was 3-5 mph. Road was freshly paved.

The only place I found the frontal area was here:
https://www.automobile-catalog.com/auta_details1.php

Which lists it as 1.88 m^2 (and a stock Cd of .34). Using that data and the data from the recording I get a Cd of .3024 (11.1% reduction ) and a Crr of .01285

If I put these #'s into the fuel consumption calculator under tools it says I should get 42 mpg @ 55 which is really close to what the Mpguino was displaying (~43)

Also my tank is leaking again. I am going to wait until the semester is over (2 weeks) and then change the tank out with a new one. Until then I will have to just use the mpguino as a reference instead of actual data.

I am currently in the testing phase of deleting the side view mirrors, will post pictures when I am satisfied with the results.

[2016 Versa]

I've noticed with an automatic in the Escort/Tracer it's hard to keep the torque converter locked up on small grades at speeds under 50MPH.

[93tracerwagon]

I closed off the upper grill completely, closed off most of the lower grill, closed off any air leaks around the radiator ( headlight openings etc) so all air coming through the grill went into the radiator, except for one opening to cool the alternator. I installed an air dam down to the level of the lowest hanging components and then ran a belly pan from the air dam back to about the middle of the front wheels. I had a partial belly pan in the back too, but the front belly pan made a huge difference in mileage and vehicle stability. With these upgrades, with an auto trans, my mileage jumped from 32 on the highway to about 47 highway. In both cases I was traveling behind a semi at about 62 mph. During my 700 mile trip with the new bellypan, a semi trailer tire blew out and the debris damaged the front right corner. I could immediately feel a considerable increase in drag. From the EPA info, and how the car can see big increases in mileage from aero improvements, the engine has to run lean burn. If the 96 isn't lean burn, you may be able to switch in the earlier ECU and maybe MAF to allow lean burn.

[Xist]

Has anyone discussed wheel spats?! I thought of them the other day and forgot to mention it. I am amazed that I remembered them just now, except that I am supposed to be doing something.

The mud flaps are supposed to hurt aerodynamics, but if you put them in front of the wheel, or something like them, you should improve aero.

Every bit helps!