EcoModder Forum problem with p&g

Register Now
 Remember

 08-21-2012, 08:51 PM #1 (permalink) 40-60-40 MPH P&G     Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: laval, QC Posts: 276 Echo-P&G - '05 Toyota Echo base Team Toyota 90 day: 82.76 mpg (US) Thanks: 45 Thanked 111 Times in 57 Posts 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 __________________ Best Tank (1557.2 Km): 2.57 LHK (91.63 MPG (US) ) Best Highway Trip (~36.8 Km): 2.16 LHK (109 MPG (US) ) Best Commute Trip avg (73.8 Km ): 2.33 LHK (101 MPG (US) ) Echo-Troll Modding Thread I know i dont have a very good write-up no lean-burn? no good gear ratio? p&g is the answer MPG=1 TIME=0
 Today Popular topics Other popular topics in this forum... View the most popular topics in this subforum by views or by posts
 08-21-2012, 09:21 PM #2 (permalink) Master EcoModder     Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: US Posts: 975 Chief - '06 Pontiac Grand Prix 90 day: 25.8 mpg (US) SF1 - '12 Ford Fiesta S 90 day: 22.87 mpg (US) Thanks: 189 Thanked 226 Times in 176 Posts 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. __________________
 08-21-2012, 09:35 PM #3 (permalink) Master EcoModder   Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: na Posts: 1,025 Thanks: 277 Thanked 217 Times in 184 Posts 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.
 08-22-2012, 11:41 AM #4 (permalink) Batman Junior     Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada Posts: 21,835 Blackfly - '98 Geo Metro Team Metro Last 3: 70.09 mpg (US) MPGiata - '90 Mazda Miata 90 day: 53.56 mpg (US) Winter beater Metro - '00 Chevrolet Metro 90 day: 61.98 mpg (US) Fancy Metro - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage top spec 90 day: 58.72 mpg (US) Even Fancier Metro - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage top spec 90 day: 61.46 mpg (US) Thanks: 3,537 Thanked 6,327 Times in 3,272 Posts 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. __________________ Latest mods: 3-cylinder Mitsubishi Mirage. EcoMods now in progress... Ecodriving test: Manual vs. automatic transmission MPG showdown EcoModder has launched a forum for the efficient new Mitsubishi Mirage www.MetroMPG.com - fuel efficiency info for Geo Metro owners www.ForkenSwift.com - electric car conversion on a beer budget
Master EcoModder

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Southern WI
Posts: 824

AlienMobile - '00 Honda Insight
Team Honda
90 day: 80.05 mpg (US)
Thanks: 94
Thanked 550 Times in 189 Posts
Quote:
 Originally Posted by echo-francis ....p&g cycles were on the 5th speed between about 1800 and 2500 rpm ....
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.

 08-22-2012, 03:59 PM #6 (permalink) EcoModding Lurker   Join Date: May 2012 Location: France Posts: 17 Finalkev1 - '03 VW Lupo 3L TEAM VW AUDI Group 90 day: 80.69 mpg (US) Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post 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.