05-21-2012, 01:19 PM
|
#21 (permalink)
|
Cyborg ECU
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Coastal Southern California
Posts: 6,299
Thanks: 2,373
Thanked 2,174 Times in 1,470 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Tele man
...the MPH equation for tires:
MPH = [ 60 / (G × A) ]×[ RPM / rpm ]
...where:
MPH = vehicle speed, miles-per-hour
RPM = engine speed, revolutions-per-minute
rpm = tire speed, revolutions-per-mile
60 = conversion constant, minutes-per-hour
G = gear ratio (typically highest gear)
A = axle ratio
|
So the VSS is the source of the data for both and the ECU is doing the calculation you describe. What is "axle ratio"? Same as final driven gear?
__________________
See my car's mod & maintenance thread and my electric bicycle's thread for ongoing projects. I will rebuild Black and Green over decades as parts die, until it becomes a different car of roughly the same shape and color. My minimum fuel economy goal is 55 mpg while averaging posted speed limits. I generally top 60 mpg. See also my Honda manual transmission specs thread.
|
|
|
Today
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
05-21-2012, 01:23 PM
|
#22 (permalink)
|
...beats walking...
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,190
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,525 Times in 1,126 Posts
|
...yes, axle ratio is same as final driven gear.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to gone-ot For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-21-2012, 01:30 PM
|
#23 (permalink)
|
Cyborg ECU
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Coastal Southern California
Posts: 6,299
Thanks: 2,373
Thanked 2,174 Times in 1,470 Posts
|
So then if I am at 2000 RPM and tire rack says my 13" Michelin Harmonys have 923 revolutions per mile and my fifth gear ratio is .702 and my final drive is 4.058, I should see the speedo at about 45.7 MPH (rounded). But the tire size calculator Ford Man posted says my tires should only turn 891 times per mile (not the 923 tirerack claims). And I have over inflated the tires anyway and therefore have probably reduced revs per mile somewhat. So I still am curious enough to measure as convenient. This formula will be really useful though, thanks!
__________________
See my car's mod & maintenance thread and my electric bicycle's thread for ongoing projects. I will rebuild Black and Green over decades as parts die, until it becomes a different car of roughly the same shape and color. My minimum fuel economy goal is 55 mpg while averaging posted speed limits. I generally top 60 mpg. See also my Honda manual transmission specs thread.
|
|
|
05-21-2012, 01:38 PM
|
#24 (permalink)
|
...beats walking...
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,190
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,525 Times in 1,126 Posts
|
FWIW - tire companies "measure" their published tire revolutions-per-mile (rpm) at 45 mph speed, with the tires specified "load" rating applied.
EPA does their N/V measurements at 50 mph.
|
|
|
05-23-2012, 02:27 AM
|
#25 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russellville, KY
Posts: 540
Thanks: 8
Thanked 33 Times in 27 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by California98Civic
Thanks Ford Man, but the calculator is not quite precise enough, since inflation pressure can change the diameter a little and I run my tires pumped-up high. And anyway, the real question I am asking is about the disparity between the 8% or 9% speed increase and the 1.9% distance increase that my measurements so far suggest. Does the ECU is process data from the VSS in two different ways? Or does the VSS not supply the data for distance? I didn't find the answer in the service manual. Thanks in advance... james
|
From cars I now own or that I've owned in the past it seems that maybe the manufacturer factors in a small buffer on the speedometer, maybe this is done intentionally to keep from being tied up in law suits because of speedometers that are reading too low, therefore causing people to get ticketed for speeding. As far as I know all modern cars speedometer/odometer's are calibrated through the VSS.
|
|
|
03-31-2013, 01:37 PM
|
#26 (permalink)
|
Cyborg ECU
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Coastal Southern California
Posts: 6,299
Thanks: 2,373
Thanked 2,174 Times in 1,470 Posts
|
Reviving a somewhat old thread: my speedometer is now almost exactly accurate, according to roadside radar readouts, but my odo is about 5% pessimistic, according to comparisons along specific routes plotted using GPS. The reason? Not totally sure, since the fifth generation CX transmission I just installed should have the same speedo gear as my sixth generation DX and since the VSS sensors are supposedly the same for both trannys. I am running 14" wheels with a no-name generic tires. Perhaps the speedo gear and VSS were designed with the fifth gen tranny in mind, with 13" wheels. And therefore, perhaps, all sixth gen, non-Si Civics actually under count distance quite significantly. Or perhaps Honda made a tire selection that closed the gap somewhat between the 175/70-R13s and the 185/65-R14s.
__________________
See my car's mod & maintenance thread and my electric bicycle's thread for ongoing projects. I will rebuild Black and Green over decades as parts die, until it becomes a different car of roughly the same shape and color. My minimum fuel economy goal is 55 mpg while averaging posted speed limits. I generally top 60 mpg. See also my Honda manual transmission specs thread.
|
|
|
04-07-2013, 01:33 PM
|
#27 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Former Lurker
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 24
Thanks: 5
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
|
I think our Hondas' gauges generally over-report speed (not undercount distance).
My 1998 Civic LX speedometer reads about 5% too fast while the odometer is correct. My ScanGaugeII reads the correct speed, so I think that means the VSS is correct. Radar confirms what ScanGaugeII says, and I've analyzed many miles on the turnpike. It really is the Honda speedometer that's off (in my case, anyway).
Perhaps your 14" wheels (instead of the expected 13" wheels) have made up for the error in the speedometer at the expense of the odometer's accuracy? Of course, if your gauges were accurate before the transmission swap, something else is happening.
-Whitey
|
|
|
04-07-2013, 07:01 PM
|
#28 (permalink)
|
Cyborg ECU
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Coastal Southern California
Posts: 6,299
Thanks: 2,373
Thanked 2,174 Times in 1,470 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitey
I think our Hondas' gauges generally over-report speed (not undercount distance).
My 1998 Civic LX speedometer reads about 5% too fast while the odometer is correct. My ScanGaugeII reads the correct speed, so I think that means the VSS is correct. Radar confirms what ScanGaugeII says, and I've analyzed many miles on the turnpike. It really is the Honda speedometer that's off (in my case, anyway).
Perhaps your 14" wheels (instead of the expected 13" wheels) have made up for the error in the speedometer at the expense of the odometer's accuracy? Of course, if your gauges were accurate before the transmission swap, something else is happening.
-Whitey
|
I read and tested further (and better) and created a new thread on this: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ion-25435.html
Take a look. A question would be what tires you are using.
__________________
See my car's mod & maintenance thread and my electric bicycle's thread for ongoing projects. I will rebuild Black and Green over decades as parts die, until it becomes a different car of roughly the same shape and color. My minimum fuel economy goal is 55 mpg while averaging posted speed limits. I generally top 60 mpg. See also my Honda manual transmission specs thread.
|
|
|
|