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

Reply  Post New Thread
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-11-2013, 12:18 AM   #21 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 21

Smokingwheels - '84 Nissan Bluebird wagon LX
90 day: 35.99 mpg (US)

Red Z - '79 Nissan 280 ZX

Blue Ford - '95 Ford Falcon GLI
90 day: 18.18 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Send a message via MSN to Smokingwheels Send a message via Yahoo to Smokingwheels
Had a look at the figures, you tests is roughly 10% increase in speed is a increase in fuel by 10% based on what I ive been told so good news on my info.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

Old 03-11-2013, 02:34 AM   #22 (permalink)
live, breath, Isuzu-Ds
trooper Tdiesel's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: oregon
Posts: 228

puddle jumper - '93 Suzuki sidekick base model

energizer bunny - '86 isuzu trooper base model

Clifford the big red dog - '84 GM S-10 durango
Thanks: 1
Thanked 19 Times in 16 Posts
are you using the 128 oz or 160oz gal
1 86 T\D trooper with rare GEN 3 rods TRANS FIXED NOW DD
1 86 4WD 5sp pup is 2.3L gas, but plan on 2.2L diesel repower
1 91 trop, long term plan is a group buy of imported Isuzu 4JB1-T 2.8L I-4 engines, hoping to get price down to 2K not 3K plus
1993 sidekick my MPG toy, epa rating 26.
i get 29/31 with stock drive train.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 09:13 AM   #23 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
Blue Angel's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Posts: 182

Cruze Eco MT - '12 Chevrolet Cruze Eco MT
Team Chevy
90 day: 44.29 mpg (US)
Thanks: 17
Thanked 58 Times in 37 Posts
Originally Posted by trooper Tdiesel View Post
are you using the 128 oz or 160oz gal
If you look at the legend on the graph you will see he is reporting in both US and Imperial Gallons, as well as L/100km.

BTW, ~153.7 oz = 1 Imperial Gallon
2012 Cruze Eco 6MT
If it's slow, it might as well be efficient!

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Blue Angel For This Useful Post:
MetroMPG (03-11-2013)
Old 03-11-2013, 07:18 PM   #24 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
IamIan's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: RI
Posts: 690
Thanks: 371
Thanked 226 Times in 139 Posts
Just for fun ... interesting to see the difference between the real world data you collected and the all theoretical graph I came up with attached bellow

Assumptions I had used:
Gen-1 Insight CdA and Weight
Assumed Tire Crr of 0.01
Including 200 Lbs of fuel and driver
On Flat Level Ground
No Head or Tail Wind
Cool / comfortable day ( low 60's )
Average Humidity & pressure
Assuming average E10 mix of ~35 kwh / gallon energy content
Used Stock tire rolling circumference and gear ratios to get MPH to RPMs
Used BSFC to estimate ICE peak Possible Lean Burn Efficiency at calculated ICE RPMs.

The known other variables that I didn't think of a good way to account for are:
Vehicle electrical loads
Transmission efficiency losses
Real world Operating efficiency vs the ideal peak BSFC point at that RPM

I'm sure I missed a few as well.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	TheoreticalMaxMPG5thLean.JPG
Views:	227
Size:	38.4 KB
ID:	12672  

Last edited by MetroMPG; 03-11-2013 at 10:23 PM.. Reason: (added image inline)
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2013, 09:59 AM   #25 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
IamIan's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: RI
Posts: 690
Thanks: 371
Thanked 226 Times in 139 Posts

In an effort to try and refine my crude theoretical model to make better sense / match the real world data collected.

In watching the 12V system load I regularly see it around ~300W. It goes up and down of course. It depends on what the instantaneous 12V load is. But ~300W from IMA to DCDC would still be about ~326W of ICE parasitic load, if it had to cycle through the IMA battery maybe as much as ~362W of ICE load.

I also tried to narrow down the ICE air pumping losses a bit. The best tool I have is to watch the IMA Volts and Amps while using MIMA to force the ICE to hold certain RPMs ( all while in fuel cut / FAS stationary in neutral ). From the IMA battery side it seems like about ~1 kw of electrical power per 1,000 ICE RPMs. The Actual Air Pumping losses would be less than this as the IMA system is not 100% efficient from battery to shaft. But I've seen studies showing the IMA system ( Motor + Inverter ) combined up to 92% efficient from DC battery load to shaft output. So the actual Air Pumping losses might be around ~0.92 kw per 1,000 ICE RPMs. At 31MPH in 5th gear that's about ~1,058 RPMs and about ~973W of parasitic air pumping losses.

The other interesting thing that came out of that was a better quantification of the air pumping losses ( and IMA Battery electrical consumption ) for running in MIMA-EV-Mode at low speeds. ie. MIMA up to ~10kw IMA assist to move combined with FAS to not use any fuel while doing so. Normally not much use outside of the worst stop and go traffic.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2014, 06:49 PM   #26 (permalink)
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The Berkshires, Massachussetts
Posts: 885

Ruby Sparks - '01 Honda Insight
Team Honda
90 day: 64.27 mpg (US)
Thanks: 111
Thanked 362 Times in 202 Posts
As a purely academic exercise, i decided to see if i could determine the engine efficiency of Lean Burn in a Honda Insight engine from MetroMPG's real world testing. Well, the Former UFO is not stock, so the one constant i had to approximate was the CD. Stock cd is .25, UFO is under .25cd. So take this approximation with a grain of salt. Also the MPG calculator neglects certain km/h values, since the primary values are in mpg. For example, you can not find mpg at 70km/h!

MetroMPG's real world numbers were compared to a theoretical Honda Insight using the Aero/RR/MPG calculator, which was really informative, since any unknown variables are accurately expressed in the real world mpg he got.

Raw numbers: (All values are for Lean burn in 5th gear)
Speed ........... AVG ..........

km/h . mph . MPG (US) ENG EFF% .....%MPG Gain vs non LB

50 ... 31.1 ..... 130.9 ...... 18.7% ................00%
60 ... 37.3 ..... 121.5....... 22.4% ................12%
70 ... 43.5 ..... 113.9 ...... 24.7% ................24%
80 ... 49.7 ..... 98.0 ........ 25.2% ................27%
90 ... 55.9 ..... 88.5 ........ 26.5% ................34%
100 .. 62.1 .... 81.3 ........ 28.1% ................42%
110 .. 68.4 .... 67.1 ........ 25.9% ................39%

You can see engine efficiency goes up with speed, as the engine experiences higher loads and rpm drops. Those are pretty good numbers for an engine experiencing low load on a steady flat road. Lean Burn nearly approaches the engine efficiency of high load in a pulse and glide regimen. Which would be the condition where an engine experiences peak efficiency. And corroborates the story that Lean Burn gives more or less the same mpg as Pulse and Glide at certain speeds.

I try to be helpful. I'm not an expert.

Last edited by sheepdog 44; 01-06-2014 at 09:57 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread

Thread Tools

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com