The White Gnat (1999 Suzuki Swift 1.3L manual)

[wmjinman]

18.94% above EPA now. Once those first couple tanks with horrible mileage drop off, there should be quite a jump in the 90 day average. But moved up a couple positions to 69th with 41.63 mpg average. I'm actually not embarrassed by my mileage anymore.

Still haven't hit 50 yet, but getting close - really close this last tank - 49+

[MetroMPG]

Congrats! You've got to like the arc of your fuel log graph.

FYI: get that shifter-mounted kill switch a.s.a.p. It'll represent another nice bump in your numbers.

[wmjinman]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Congrats! You've got to like the arc of your fuel log graph.

Yeah, I do like that!!

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

FYI: get that shifter-mounted kill switch a.s.a.p. It'll represent another nice bump in your numbers.

Hey, speaking of the kill switch, it appears that wheneven I immediately turn off the engine with the key, even if I turn it back to the "run" position, the ScanGaug stops updating. For example, if I have a nice, long coast up to a stop, popping it into neutral and coasting with the engine running will show the average mileage (current, day, tank, etc) climbing. But if I turn the key off & back on (after the engine dies), the ScanGauge display doesn't change.

So with the injector kill switch, will the ScanGauge keep running like it should?

[MetroMPG]

It will.

You can demonstrate this by intentionally stalling the engine (pop the clutch). The SG will stay on (assuming you also have it set to fuel type = hybrid).

EG: drive up a hill. Intentionally stall it at the top. Now coast down the hill and watch the impressive effect of infinity on your current trip avg mpg.

[wmjinman]

OK, you've got me sold. Between the wear on the key switch, the turning off the lights & turn signals, making everyone around wonder what's going on, and now the effect on the ScanGauge readings, I think I'm aggravated enough to do something about it.

[2000swift]

looks like your starting to make some nice gains. keep up the good work.

[wmjinman]

Originally Posted by 2000swift

looks like your starting to make some nice gains. keep up the good work.

Thanks Shawn, that's the plan!! I bought some Redline thin synthetic synchromesh oil for my car, but haven't put it in, yet. Also plan to try rear fender skirts - cardboard first, to see if there are any gains. Then if there are, I'll try to do something a little more "elegant", maybe out of coroplast, or???

4 cylinder Swifts, FORWARD!!!!
Bill

EDIT: Wow, just looked, and the "force" of 4-cyl Swifts are all on the 2nd page of best gasoline cars. The Tiny Sponge from Sweden, The Swift from Belleville, and the White Gnat from Nevada. ... Go, 1.3 liter Swift!!!!

[wmjinman]

My first 50+ mpg tank in recent years, and only the second 51 mpg tank ever! Woo-Hoo!!! Moving closer to the top of the 2nd page. Can I make it to the 1st page, I wonder?

[wmjinman]

It also moves me up to the lead of the three 4-cylinder Swifts on here. 58th place overall with 43.93 MPG average - INCLUDING that first 24 MPG tank that still hasn't dropped off yet. But I'm rapidly closing-in on 90 days from that tank.

What's the best is it wasn't some dedicated, single trip, all highway, all downhill, short tank of 60 miles running with the wind or anything like that. It was several days (which means several cold starts), at least 100 miles around town, including a climb from Carson City (4700 ft. elevation) to Lake Tahoe (6100 ft. elevation) via Spooner Summit (7100 ft. elevation), then on to Sacramento over Echo Summit (7200 elevation), then back towards Carson, climbing back into the Sierras before getting gas and completing the tank with 322 miles total. So this is "real world" driving. I am SO happy!!

[wmjinman]

Today I tested wiper blade deletion. I didn't want to go slow enough to reduce the aerodynamic effect, but I didn't want to go fast enough to blow my tank's average either, so I compromised with 50 mph. First, 3 "A" sets of "normal":

mph - - N.B. - - - S.B. - - - Avg.
50 . . . 53.9 . . . 60.0 . . . 56.95
50 . . . 55.1 . . . 60.0 . . . 57.55
50 . . . 54.8 . . . 62.0 . . . 58.4 . . . overall avg; 57.63

wiper blades removed:

50 . . . 52.8 . . . 60.8 . . . 56.8
50 . . . 52.3 . . . 60.3 . . . 56.3
50 . . . 53.9 . . . 59.2 . . . 56.55 . . . overall avg; 56.55

I was amazed the mileage was actually worse, but the sun had set and it was getting colder, so let's see if the last "A" side might show something...

wiper blades back on:

50 . . . 54.9 . . . 57.2 . . . 56.05

hmmm... down even more. Let's do another one:

50 . . . 55.1 . . . 57.5 . . . 56.3 . . . overall avg; 56.175

So what did I learn? Was my test crap? Was the dropping temperature dropping all the results with time? So I went home & plotted it on a graph to see if I could "draw a line". Would the "B" set fall above, below, or on the line? When I try to draw a line, they seem to all line up - sort of. Blast - now I wish I'd done three final "A" tests instead of 2, but it took 2 hours as it was. Not to mention getting dark enough I'd have to turn my lights on and add draw on the alternator. But I think it's within the "noise" - There was quite a bit of variation.

So can I draw a conclusion from these 2 hours and almost 100 miles? If it was a "final exam" and I had to answer, I guess I'd have to say "inconclusive" . . . . or - removing the wiper blades doesn't seem to help. - At least at 50 mph.


There is some good news though; In 8 separate sets, I learned I can get 56 mpg or better at a steady 50 mph.