problem with p&g
 

recently on a long highway trip i did some p&g test and i found that it was worse than maintain a constant speed

while maintain a constant speed of 80 kph i was having between 3.7 and
4 l/100km

my p&g cycle was from 70 to 95 kph at 80%LOD and while accelerating i was geting an average of 11l/km

i calculate the times of all my pulse ang glide and my glides were 2.5 times longer than my pulse so i divide 11 by 2.5 i get 4.4 and its worse then 3.7 and 4

p&g cycles were on the 5th speed between about 1800 and 2500 rpm

maybe i do someting wrong but i cant find out my self

I don't know how accurate you numbers will be doing it that way. But it seems to me you forgot the distance you cover while accelerating. Shouldn't it be 11 divide by 1 + 2.5 result 3.14.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...oad-19594.html

Read that thread, if your not going engine off 80% load might not be enought to beat steady speed. Via his numbers higher load the better.

Why aren't you letting the ScanGauge calculate fuel consumption? Do you have the "fuel type" setting on "hybrid"? That will keep the ScanGauge alive while coasting.

If the ScanGauge is shutting off because of using the key to stop the engine, a kill switch will fix that.

It's important when accelerating back up to speed, to keep rpm's "low", but the throttle plate relatively "open".

Might be helpful to determine where on the rpm band, that the engine is more responsive, without getting the rev's too high.

Taking off slow like a "grandpa" is too slow, and your results will be about the same as constant speed driving.

Take off briskly and then shutoff the engine and coast, is the best way to get high mileage.

Jim.

Hum... you are trying to do an average by using time of acceleration with "average instant" fuel consumption giving by the ODB without any distance informations and faulse speed average... it's (just a bit) an average result ;-)

Does the scangauge as a "total fuel burn" fonction? Cause it could be one way to do right calculation.