White Gnat exceeds 600 miles on a tank
 

Wow, a new all-time distance record for a tank. Not just in this car, but any car I've ever driven!

At 58.49, it wasn't even my best MPG, but at least it's up again from the dismal 53.x I'd gotten with the last two tanks, and even better than the 57.x from the tank before that. Guess my tires are holding air again! (I'd had some flats and leaks on those last three tanks, resulting in new front tires)

I'm happy again!!! :D

+1

YKYAEMI you think 53 mpg is "dismal". :D

LOL! Yeah, my friends usually say stuff like, "Oh, you poor thing" when I complain about getting "only" something still over 50 mpg!!!!
:rolleyes:

I'd kill for 50+mpg on a consistent basis. But my friends too give me crap when I'm complaining about 40mpg!

Congrats on your record!!

Moved up another notch - 642 miles
 

And the mpg is up, too! -60.5 mpg. In fact, it took less gallons to do this tank (10.609 gal. for 642 mi.) than the last one (10.79 gal. for 631 mi.) I was so scared I was gonna run out of gas, I was really sweating it heading to the gas station. If I'd known it was taking less gas than last tank, I coulda gone another 10 miles & made 650.

I changed the oil from 0w30 to 0w20 Mobil-1 about 150 miles before the end of the tank. I'm sure it's my imagination, but it seems to "feel" freer now & even seems to have more power going up hills. And, something I should have written down before, but I *think* it uses less fuel per hour when idling now - 0.13 - 0.15 gph idling when warm now - - - I think it was like - well - higher, before. Maybe 0.17 - 0.21 or something. ??? Damn, I wish I'd written it down...

Nice work ! :thumbup:

Third tank over 600 miles
 

But the mileage is back down - 57.7 mpg last tank.

What happened is at the end of the previous tank, literally on the way to the gas station, I was coasting down a slight grade and tried to take a stupid "roundabout" too fast. I skidded into the curb, hitting it hard with my right front tire, badly bending the wheel, then bounced & hit the left front on the other curb.

Consequently, most of last tank was with the space-saver spare on the right front and my front end out of alignment. I finally found a replacement wheel and have it back on now, but only within 100 miles of this last fill.

While at the junkyard looking for wheels, I found a passengers side rearview mirror & bought it, so now I have both mirrors again. Of course, I can't help but wondering if it's going to show in reduced FE from added frontal area. But right now, I'm guessing the alignment (or lack thereof) is my biggest FE killer at the moment.

Just saw the mechanic today and it looks like I bent my lower control arm in my little "incident" last week. It now has too much positive camber and toe-in. And the ScanGauge is showing 54.x mpg for the tank so far. That's probably why.

Anyway, appointment to install new lower control arm Monday afternoon.

... Then a new front-end alignment. ... sigh ...:rolleyes:

Make that 650 miles on a tank now!
 

I was not expecting to set any distance records this tank because of my alignment problems, but after hitting 70.2 mpg in testing after the new alignment, and running up towards 600 miles in the process - and seeing my "trip - tank average" climbing on the ScanGauge, I guess I got bold. So I very carefully hypermiled some more to see if I could hit 650, getting pretty tense as the "gallons to empty" display dropped from 0.1 to 0.0!!

But I made it - and discovered 11.2+ gallons will apparently fit in my tank. I think I heard somewhere that this is supposed to be a 10.5 gallon tank, so I'm assuming I was "running on fumes" towards the end. I carry a one gallon gas can behind the seat in case I ever run out while doing this, but so far, it hasn't happened yet. :rolleyes:

Anyway, hoping to get the mpg back up now. It will probably be rough with winter setting in and not having had a chance to fininsh my fiberglass kamm-back I was trying to make - (nights are far too cold now to allow the resin to set up & cure for 24 hours). Gotta be doing well over 60 mpg for any hope of seeing 700 miles on a tank, though. This tank turned out to be 57.75.

Man, you are getting some silly numbers out of that little Suzuki!

Sadly my sponge is acting weird, think I might need to replace the coils and wires. Getting a huge hesitation during higher load while accelerating, quite often when it's cold. It doesn't throw any codes or anything, but hoping my new ultragauge will shed some light on the matter.

Maybe a 4 wheel alignment wouldn't be so bad either, but its expensive! The cars worth about $900, and I'm pretty sure an alignment would set me back $200-300 easily.

Keep up the good work!

Thanks, Pierrel,

I suppose I shouldn't be complaining about the cold to someone in Sweden, but I think the weather/temperature will keep me from setting any more records soon. I have started working on a warm air intake and hope to have it in service before too long. So far, I've removed the stock fender intake and replaced it with an aftermarket "cone filter". I still need to fashion a housing and tube leading over to the exhaust manifold, but just with the different filter, the intake air is slightly warmer.

(can we say "ricer look"? HAH!)

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1390289013

The alignment I got wasn't that much - $54 here at a tire store chain. So I don't know if all mechanical work is more expensive there, but maybe it's not as bad as you think. ?

Your hesitation on acceleration doesn't sound good. It's strange you aren't getting any codes showing up. Hope you get it straightened out soon.

Make that "700 miles on a tank", now!!!
 

Just did it!! An all-time high for mpg (62.68) AND an all-time high for distance traveled on a tank (701.7). It started out with a 65 mile drive on pretty flat highway to another town & then back on the warmest day we've seen so far this year. The ScanGauge kept creeping up until it was showing 64+ mpg. This gave me incentive to "pull out all the stops" and go nuts in my hypermiling.

The next few trips weren't quite as good, but the ScanGuage kept giving me readings of 63+ and then 62+. At one recent fill-up, I put 11.8 gallons in it, so I knew I could use that much before running dry. Kept checking the "gallons used" on the ScanGauge vs. miles on the actual odometer. When I hit 10 gallons used at 630 miles on the trip odometer, I knew something special might happen this tank.

So I kept at it, trying to maximize everything I could, and fortunately, not too many short trips on this tank either, and then, after driving about 7 extra miles (3.5 out - 3.5 back) "just to do it", I had rolled-over the 700 mile mark as I was returning to the gas station. Standing on "pins & needles" during the 20+ minute ordeal that's filling up my car (I take it to where it will not physically take any more and the fuel is visibly standing in the fill neck & won't go down any more), I was working up to the 11.2 gallons the ScanGuage said I used. And pretty darn close - 11.195!!!

So there we have it = the White Gnat is officially in the "700 club". LOL!

Great milestone. :thumbup: Whats next?

Wow! I gave up seeking new highs at 600 because 700 seemed to hard with my setup. I instead began focusing on being able to stay above 600 while returning to more normal speeds and different driving possibilities. Congrats... 700 is really hard to get to in these old gassers.

Most impressive!

I had started working on a fiberglass "bobbed boat tail/kamm back" for it last fall before the weather got too cold for fiberglass resin to cure. The time is fast approaching that I think I can continue and complete that project, and I have high hopes for the results.

I also started a warm intake air system after it got cold that I still haven't quite completed yet, but am not far away. So those are my next two projects - - - and the yet un-installed fuel injector cut-off MetroMPG keeps telling me I should install. I've got all the parts and a plan, just have to DO IT! (maybe I'm a procrasinator, eh?)

Interestingly, last fall I did two things that probably HURT my mileage - - I found a replacement passeger's side mirror and installed it - - - "undeleting" the previous (accidental) mirror delete, AND I removed my coroplast rear fender skirts so an alignment could be done - and never put them back on. So this last mpg number is with both mirrors in the wind AND missing the fenderskirts!!

Last year I never would have thought I could make it either, but then, didn't know how much my tank held etc. Another thing I do that makes me a little braver is I carry around a gallon of gas behind the seat - just in case I run out. Of course, having the ScanGauge telling me how much I've used of each tank helps too. ...it's been pretty accurate lately.

But once I hit 600, I never did less than 600 again (although it took 11.8 gallons to get there one time). Then once I hit 650, I started getting braver about it. However, this 700 business is, I think, at the extreme end of what I can do. But we'll see...

Goals
 

I should have mentioned earlier - one of my original goals I still have is my "55/55" goal - - - to get 55 miles per gallon while going 55 miles per hour. As far as I can tell, I still can't do that, but it's a little difficult to test, long-term. I can be going down the road at 55, reset the ScanGauge for "trip-current", and watch the average develop, but that usually ends up being around 51 or 52 mpg.

Of course, unless I filled up alongside a highway somewhere, immediately accelerated to 55, and then held it there for hundreds of miles until pulling off at another gas station alongside the highway to re-fill, I won't ever be able to say, "this tank was at 55 mph". But once I get the boattail/kamm back installed, I may try a somewhat extended run (a few dozen miles, maybe) using the ScanGauge "trip-current" feature to test it.

Otherwise, I'd be thrilled to see a 70 mpg tank average someday, but again, I expect it would take some "maximum effort" dedicated trip for that, too. That is, fill up, drive continuously somewhere with almost no stops, do "potential parking" at the midpoint for lunch (or to spend the night), then take off & head straight back, minimum stops, so the engine and system is at full operating temperature 99.9% of the tank, and no energy is being wasted braking, backing up, and accelerating.

For more "real world" goals, I notice it's been almost a year now since I've got LESS than 50 mpg. Maybe - just maybe - I can get my "official" 90 day average on this website to 60+. I would be very happy to accomplish that in the next few months. - and I've got my first 60+ tank of the year to start working with!!! :thumbup:

Second tank of 700+ miles
 

Just finished my second consecutive tank that took me over 700 miles - 707.5 to be exact with this one - the farthest ever. Also the most gas needed to fill it - 11.87 gallons. That works out to 59.68 mpg. Not the 60+ I like to see, but I'll still take it!!! :D

Seriously challenging the rationale behind purchasing new hybrid cars. Better mileage, less poisonous battery chemistry, simpler overall, fully paid for. That's tough to beat no matter how you slice it.

Wow!

I think similar thoughts. Whenever a Prius passes me, especially one driving NOT like a hypermiler, I think, "SUCKER!!!!" heh, heh, heh.... :D :D :D

Some day, if I can ever start hitting 70 mpg on a regular basis, I've thought of getting a bumper sticker made that says something like, "70 MPG - Priuses are gas hogs". That thought originally came about when I started hearing about the Aptera, an extreme aero hybrid that was supposed to get something insane like 125 mpg. I thought that bumper sticker would be great on one of those. :thumbup:

Not that poisonous (it depends on type of course), and it should be recycled anyway.
Having the battery allows the engine to be smaller and still get acceptable performance. I've driven my car with the battery switched off; it makes a big difference.

Todays hybrids are way heavier than the Swift. The only hybrid that was as light gets even better economy.
But even my 'heavy' second gen can easily get 55 mpg at 55 mph; I do that all the time as 75% of my commute is highway. It is the cold starts and city traffic that kill my economy.

Don't defame hybrid technology just because you can get really good economy without it. It really works, but Wmjinman is doing an exceptionally good job...!

Congrats. I never made it past 689.1 mi in my festiva, mostly due to the 10gallon tank. Nice work :)

[QUOTE=RedDevil;418222]Not that poisonous (it depends on type of course), and it should be recycled anyway.
Having the battery allows the engine to be smaller and still get acceptable performance. I've driven my car with the battery switched off; it makes a big difference.QUOTE]

I don't mean less toxic, I just mean less of it. It isn't like a lead-acid battery is that great for the environment either. But my L-A under the hood weighs less than half what the IMA battery does.

I'm not knocking hybrids at all - I have one, after all - I just think it would have been great if the auto industry could have leaned heavily in the direction of the Swift/Metro, Festiva and Golf paradigm and less toward, f'rinstance, Foresters and Suburbans.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda.

True.
About small cars...
Actually the auto industry has put a lot of energy in producing light, small and very cheap cars. 30% of all new car sales in Holland is in the smallest category: Peugeot 107/Toyota Aygo/Citroen C1, VW Up!/etc, Hyundai I10, Chevy Spark.
Apparently we want cars like that, and the USA does not?

But the small cars do rather poorly on economy.
They are used to bring the kids to school and for shopping in town. Short trips, lots of stop and go traffic.
I know I can take It to work and get at least twice as many miles per tank, about the same as the Red Devil does. But the latter is much more convenient on the highway while It is easier to park in the undersized parking slots over here, so my wife prefers that.

Once again the way you drive it has an enormous impact on economy. I could beat It's FE in almost anything.
Then again, if you have to do the school run, it is better to do it in a light car. But the savings are not that spectacular.

Oh, I'm not really "anti hybrid" at all. In fact, I'd love to have a first generation Insight and would constantly be trying to get over 100 mpg with it. ;) But my gripe - if you wanna call it that - is these people who think they're so smart, and just because they drive a Prius, they are special, and superior, and saving the world and all - - - - but still drive like the typical jerk on the road, swerving into the next lane to pass me, then slam on the brakes to stop at the red light that was already yellow back when they were doing the aggressive pass, etc. I just look at those guys and think, "I'll bet I'm getting better mpg than you right now - with your fancy new hybrid and all..."

In the hands of a hypermiler (or even a moderately conscientious driver), a hybrid is a beautiful thing. - and I'm extremely envious of their regenerative braking, which to me, is the most brilliant part of the whole concept. I keep trying to think of some way to hang a belt & pulley with a generator to a wheel on my gnat to rig up a "redneck regen braking system", but don't seem to have the brainpower to come up with what seems like a good plan, even to me!!! :confused:

Totally with you there. Those are the kinds of folks for whom hybrids were invented in the first place, the ones who don't think about how they drive. A hybrid can go a long way toward mediating their bad habits. The fact that a hybrid can reward careful, insightful drivers is like an Easter egg with a $100 bill inside, a greater return on the effort than was anticipated.

That's a good point. For those who accelerate more than they might need to, the hybrid electric boost helps, then when they don't start slowing as soon a they can, the regenerative braking can recover some of the energy that would otherwise be thrown away. And of course, shutting off the gas engine when idling, etc. So yeah - for a person who does not drive like a hypermiler, probably the hybrid helps "correct" their inefficient driving style.:thumbup:

One thing I've often wondered about, because I've never even driven a hybrid, is how much (intentional) drag the regenerative braking creates. Is is substantial? Is it comparable to downshifting? Maybe I should go to a Honda dealership or used car lot some day and test drive a hybrid, huh?

Like I say, I would LOVE to have a first gen Insight. I'm totally jealous of what MetroMPG got with his boattail mod - 119 mpg or something? Yeah - insane!!! :eek:

A Gen I Insight would be the bee's knees for me. Except my wife and I commute with our son to college, all going to destinations in a radius of a mile and a half after a 20 mile Interstate haul. The Insight would be great, but two seats is too few.

The regen is pretty significant in my experience. It's most useful in our hilly little town where speed limits are 25. Third gear and regen are sufficient to hold me just under that at full recharge, watts going into the battery instead of out the brake rotors as heat. Niiiiice. Decelerating for exit ramps or really any significant direction change, I start further out and usually dump any kinetic energy as regen. The brakes don't get a lot of work on my car!

One peeve I have, and other HCH owners might want to weigh in on this, is how regen comes on fully with the cruise control on. I have a long downhill where the car could easily crack 70 if I just put it in neutral and let it coast. If I put the cruise control on to make coping with tailgaters easier, as the car overspeeds the setpoint the regen comes on all the way, the car drops below the setpoint and regen drops out entirely. Ebb and flow, like the surf. It makes my wife motion sick. It'd be nice if it could detect a rate of change and back off the regen based on that.

Interesting. Thanks!!

So on cruise control, it applies the regenerative braking to keep from coasting too fast downhill, but is not smooth about it, eh? Seems like something they could "refine" in future models. They've got cars that can park themselves now - they should be able to put logic into the cruise control that lets the actual speed "float" a little rather than the strictly "on & off" type setup you describe.

In my 2nd gen Insight I found it kept speeding beyond the set limit on downhills - in Eco mode and D, where the CVT maxes out the gear ratio.
The cruise control is very lax in Eco mode, much more aggressive when not.

I experimented with eco on and of, D with or without shifting paddles, S mode and even L mode downhills, but it was distracting. Flappy paddles are hopeless in hairpin corners.
Finally I stopped using CC in the mountains altogether and just keep it in D and brake or gas as needed. It will max out regeneration when breaking in any mode anyway.

About added drag by the hybrid system:
The hybrid systen in both Insight gens is nothing more than an electric motor doubling as a flywheel and an extra camshaft to lift the valves in DFCO/EV mode. The motor might cause some extra drag, but it doubles as an alternator (it has no separate 12V alternator) so that cancels out.
It cannot unhook the ICE completely like Toyota does with the HSD drive system, so it is less efficient in EV mode. No big deal as it is in ICE mode most of the time.

Sorry for the diversion... Back to the mighty Gnat?

Thanks for that information. I've always been fascinated & curious about how, exactly, hybrids work, so that information is appreciated.

I expect I'll get a hybrid someday. Maybe when the gnat dies, I'll look for a 1st gen Insight. It took me quite a few years between when I was first blown away by the reports of the Geo Metro mileage abilities and when I finally got one. So it will probably be similar with the Insight.