Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > Hypermiling / EcoDriver's Ed
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-16-2015, 07:04 AM   #21 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Ecky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 4,042

Gaptooth (retired) - '00 Honda Insight
Team Honda
Gen-1 Insights
90 day: 54.26 mpg (US)

Such Fit - '07 Honda Fit Sport
90 day: 41.27 mpg (US)

Connect - '15 Ford Transit Connect XL
90 day: 23.4 mpg (US)

K-sight - '00 Honda K-sight
Team Honda
90 day: 45.37 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,839
Thanked 1,707 Times in 1,093 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick666 View Post
In physics, faster acceleration=higher energy requirement .
Right, per unit time, but you spend less time accelerating to a given velocity if you do it more quickly.

  Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ecky For This Useful Post:
Fat Charlie (10-16-2015), jamesqf (11-05-2015), TimV (10-16-2015)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 10-16-2015, 09:06 AM   #22 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Rural Baldwin County, AL
Posts: 21

'13 Veloster Turbo (Retired) - '13 Hyundai Veloster Turbo

'14 Interceptor (Retired) - '14 Honda Interceptor Base

'14 Insight - '14 Honda Insight EX
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Nick666 brings up a good point that I'd like to riff on:

Ib like to think of everything in terms of energy, and use comparisons that easily demonstrate that idea.

Acceleration: faster acceleration takes more energy, and therefore more gas (engineering of your car notwithstanding). Think of riding a bicycle and accelerating to 20 mph from a dead stop.

It can be done easily if done slowly, but your legs would be on fire if you went flat-out to get to 20 mph. Same goes for the car.

This also applies for coasting, braking, conserving momentum, etc.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2015, 12:11 PM   #23 (permalink)
UFO
Master EcoModder
 
UFO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,300

Colorado - '17 Chevrolet Colorado 4x4 LT
90 day: 23.07 mpg (US)
Thanks: 315
Thanked 178 Times in 138 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninj4geek View Post
Nick666 brings up a good point that I'd like to riff on:

Ib like to think of everything in terms of energy, and use comparisons that easily demonstrate that idea.

Acceleration: faster acceleration takes more energy, and therefore more gas (engineering of your car notwithstanding). Think of riding a bicycle and accelerating to 20 mph from a dead stop.

It can be done easily if done slowly, but your legs would be on fire if you went flat-out to get to 20 mph. Same goes for the car.

This also applies for coasting, braking, conserving momentum, etc.
Of course faster acceleration takes more energy, but less time to reach the target velocity. So the most efficient way to get to the target velocity is to operate the engine in the part of the BSFC where its more efficient, and that is generally at higher loads and torque near the torque peak. So "brisk" acceleration with short shifting at the torque peak is usually more efficient, avoiding fuel enrichment and higher rpm.
__________________
I'm not coasting, I'm shifting slowly.
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to UFO For This Useful Post:
Ecky (10-16-2015), JohnAh (11-06-2015)
Old 10-16-2015, 01:05 PM   #24 (permalink)
Rat Racer
 
Fat Charlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Route 16
Posts: 4,067

Al the Third, year four - '13 Honda Fit Base
Team Honda
90 day: 42.9 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,724
Thanked 1,861 Times in 1,208 Posts
Moving with a sense of purpose isn't drag racing.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepdog44 View Post
Transmission type Efficiency
Manual neutral engine off.100% @MPG <----- Fun Fact.
Manual 1:1 gear ratio .......98%
CVT belt ............................88%
Automatic .........................86%

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Fat Charlie For This Useful Post:
TimV (10-16-2015)
Old 10-16-2015, 10:33 PM   #25 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
IamIan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: RI
Posts: 667
Thanks: 367
Thanked 214 Times in 131 Posts
Faster Acceleration ... reaches higher amounts of wind resistance sooner.

If traveling the same distance .. and the same cruising speed .. The faster acceleration will have a higher average speed .. will require more energy.

If traveling the same distance .. and the same average speed .. the faster acceleration would than have to travel at a slower cruising speed in order to average the same speed .. a slower cruising speed would reduce the energy needed.

I suspect there is also a psychological aspect to the average type of person who accelerates quickly ... vs the type that does so slowly .. and I suspect that the net overall beneficial psychological type for energy or fuel efficiency .. is the slower accelerating psychology... Even if the specific causes of that net benefit may not necessarily be in the acceleration rate itself .. But in the overall method that type of psychology approaches numerous types of driving conditions/options.

- - - -
I would Ditto the BSFC points made previously .. but with the caveat .. there can be variation from that +/- caused by the differences between energy efficiency vs fuel efficiency .. for different contexts.
__________________
Life Long Energy Efficiency Enthusiast
2000 Honda Insight - PHEV - Solar
Electric Unicycle - Solo Wheel Glide3
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2015, 05:57 PM   #26 (permalink)
Rat Racer
 
Fat Charlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Route 16
Posts: 4,067

Al the Third, year four - '13 Honda Fit Base
Team Honda
90 day: 42.9 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,724
Thanked 1,861 Times in 1,208 Posts
Faster Acceleration... reaches gliding speed sooner.

You're exactly right about the difference between energy efficiency and fuel efficiency. All of this is vehicle specific and situation specific, and pointless once the driver has a gauge and can learn the car and how best to apply it.

Overall, I'm with the "accelerate harder" crowd in most situations because pulsing longer than is called for is burning gas longer than is called for. Even "harder" is realtive- this isn't exactly a crowd that bounces off the rev limiter.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepdog44 View Post
Transmission type Efficiency
Manual neutral engine off.100% @MPG <----- Fun Fact.
Manual 1:1 gear ratio .......98%
CVT belt ............................88%
Automatic .........................86%

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Fat Charlie For This Useful Post:
PaleMelanesian (10-19-2015)
Old 10-17-2015, 08:59 PM   #27 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
JRMichler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Phillips, WI
Posts: 976

Nameless - '06 GMC Canyon
90 day: 35.1 mpg (US)
Thanks: 186
Thanked 404 Times in 259 Posts
I ran some tests with my truck. Starting from work, pulling out onto the road, and accelerating to 35 MPH (the speed limit) at various rates and shifting at different RPM's. The Scangauge trip MPG started at zero, and I read it at the same point down the road. Accelerating like the proverbial grandma got me to 35 MPH just before the reference point, while accelerating harder got me to 35 MPH sooner. If I got to 35 MPH before the reference point, I would maintain 35 MPH to the reference point. One test per day.

Results: My truck does best if I tromp the gas pedal about 3/4 the way down, and shift at 2500 RPM. Coincidentally, that has me accelerating at about the same rate as most people.
__________________
The vacuum gauge plus wheel covers helped increase summer 2015 mileage to 38.5 MPG, while summer 2016 mileage was 38.6 MPG without the wheel covers. Drove 33,021 miles 2016-2018 at 35.00 MPG.
  Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to JRMichler For This Useful Post:
mcrews (01-20-2016), PaleMelanesian (10-19-2015), TEiN (11-05-2015)
Old 10-18-2015, 04:43 PM   #28 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Missoula, MT
Posts: 2,152

Dark Egg - '12 VW Touareg TDI Sport AWD
90 day: 25.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 194
Thanked 905 Times in 622 Posts
With my manual Forester I like to accelerate at about 3/4 throttle and shift at 2500 rpm until I get in 5th and then just finish accelerating at 3/4 throttle until at desired speed. With my Town and Country and automatic, I use the "economy" button on and hold about 3/4 throttle which seems to let it naturally shift at 2500-3000 rpm. Without that "economy" button which most drivers seem to hate, it lets the van rev higher and use it's almost 300 hp which is great for drag racing but bad for economy. On my Hemi Aspen, any throttle and the thing accelerates fast. My key there is to get to the speed and back off the throttle so it will go into 4 cylinder deactivation mode faster. Then it's key to hold acceleration slow enough not to kick it into 8 cylinder mode which I wish it were possible to lock in 4 cylinder mode. In all cases I seem to accelerate with most traffic, faster then some, slower then others.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2015, 03:02 AM   #29 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 1,485

spyder2 - '00 Toyota MR2 Spyder
Thanks: 91
Thanked 284 Times in 221 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleMelanesian View Post
High-throttle enrichment varies widely from car to car. Some you have to actually have the pedal to the floor and high rpm, like 4000+. Some cars, anything above 80% throttle will enrich the mix. So to be safe, I'd say keep the gas pedal at or below 3/4 if you don't know otherwise.
On newer cars the enrichment kicks in frighteningly early. My FR-S' stock fuel mapping enriches at 60% load for most rpms. I changed the map, but it's very easy to accidentally kick it into enrichment.

On cars with no wideband sensor you need a bit more load to get enrichment, and old school cable throttle engines would just not enrich the mix until higher rpm (you also get very crap to nonexistent power output below 2000rpm as a result).
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2015, 09:37 PM   #30 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
oldtamiyaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,484

UFI - '12 Fiat 500 Twinair
Team Turbocharged!
90 day: 40.3 mpg (US)

Jeep - '05 Jeep Wrangler Renegade
90 day: 18.09 mpg (US)

R32 - '89 Nissan Skyline

STiG - '16 Renault Trafic 140dCi Energy
90 day: 31.12 mpg (US)

Prius - '05 Toyota Prius
Team Toyota
90 day: 50.25 mpg (US)

Premodded - '49 Ford Freighter
90 day: 13.48 mpg (US)

F-117 - '10 Proton Arena GLSi
Pickups
Mitsubishi
90 day: 37.82 mpg (US)

Ralica - '85 Toyota Celica ST
90 day: 25.23 mpg (US)

Sx4 - '07 Suzuki Sx4
90 day: 31.72 mpg (US)
Thanks: 320
Thanked 438 Times in 311 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by serialk11r View Post
On newer cars the enrichment kicks in frighteningly early.
You mean on sports and or turbo cars.

My (turbo) Fiat will do enrichment pretty early. My 2014 Renault is very reluctant to go into enrichment and my old school cable throttled Jeep has heaps of power below 2000 and won't do enrichment at all unless road speed is over 50mph.

__________________






  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to oldtamiyaphile For This Useful Post:
mcrews (01-20-2016)
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com