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

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-20-2015, 09:20 PM   #31 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
BenArcher006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Quebec Canada
Posts: 47

Slowpoke - '06 Saturn Vue Base
90 day: 22.88 mpg (US)
Thanks: 4
Thanked 12 Times in 7 Posts
Since I red that thread I tried with my Vue short brisk accel (1-3 Vac = 60-65% throttle) vs steady accel (5-10 vac= 40-45% throttle) vs slow accel (12-15 vac=35-40% throttle) always shifting at 1800-2000 RPM and I got the best results with steady acceleration.

With short brisk accel my fuel economy went south about 1mpg, so I started with Lighter loads and my it went back up. With slow accel, the problem is that every acceleration takes forever to get to speed with barely any mpg improvement.

Mpgs now hoovering near 27mpg. Outside cool températures and high winds are killing my Mpgs on the highway.

Im doing every thing I can to get better Mpgs but cant seem to get anything better than 27mpg.

Oh well...

__________________

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 10-21-2015, 03:19 AM   #32 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 1,254

spyder2 - '00 Toyota MR2 Spyder
Thanks: 77
Thanked 206 Times in 154 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile View Post
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.
That's a Jeep though, I was thinking more like Corolla. My MR2 had a 1ZZ-FE and even pulling a 2200lb car, it groans loudly but doesn't really go below 2000rpm. Newer economy cars can go open loop at lower rpms these days too. The manufacturer is incentivized to make the engine run rich if they don't need the excess power while running government tests since the consumer is the one paying for the extra fuel, and it helps keep the replacement rates on the cats under warranty down.

I also suspect that a Renault (who doesn't sell cars in the US) sold in Australia would have a different fueling map than a US market car for regulation or cost reasons.

Now that you bring a counterexample up though, I feel like I need to go put the OBDII scanner on the other cars in the family and see...heh.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2015, 09:15 AM   #33 (permalink)
Hypermiler
 
PaleMelanesian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,299

PaleCivic (retired) - '96 Honda Civic DX Sedan
90 day: 69.2 mpg (US)

PaleFit - '09 Honda Fit Sport
Team Honda
Wagons
90 day: 50.59 mpg (US)
Thanks: 569
Thanked 409 Times in 269 Posts
My Fit has electronic throttle and it doesn't go into Open Loop enrichment until the pedal is basically on the floor. I had to be more careful to avoid it with my old cable-throttle Civic. It really depends on the specific design.
__________________



11-mile commute: 100 mpg - - - Tank: 90.2 mpg / 1191 miles
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2015, 04:58 PM   #34 (permalink)
CFECO
 
CFECO's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vail, AZ.
Posts: 552

X-Car - '11 Homemade 2+2

Velbly1 - '17 Toyota Camery XSE
90 day: 29 mpg (US)

Velbly2 - '13 Toyota Tundra
90 day: 18.03 mpg (US)
Thanks: 174
Thanked 60 Times in 56 Posts
In the past, small gasoline engines, carbureted, the best fuel economy was always full throttle and coast. "pulse and glide" as told here I guess.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2015, 08:08 PM   #35 (permalink)
The brake pedal is evil
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California__ Awsome: Yes
Posts: 374

Trolla - '94 Geo Prizm base
90 day: 35.82 mpg (US)

Ecomodded prizm - '94 geo Prizm Base
90 day: 37.88 mpg (US)

Dad's Corolla - '89 Toyota Corolla Base.
90 day: 29.51 mpg (US)

Denny's Detector - '08 Mercury Grand Marquis

Project E - '94 Geo Prizm Base
Team Toyota
90 day: 39.69 mpg (US)
Thanks: 4
Thanked 47 Times in 44 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CFECO View Post
In the past, small gasoline engines, carbureted, the best fuel economy was always full throttle and coast. "pulse and glide" as told here I guess.
Depends on the car. My maths that that my dad's corolla could get 55-65 MPG while drafting a truck at 60 MPH and it was a 1.6L carbed engine with a 4 speed lockup TC only in 4th. ~2300 RPM at 60 MPH in 4th with locked TC. Math was needed due to stop and go traffic at the end of trip, I assumed pre-2007 city fuel economy since the traffic was bad enough to resemble it
__________________
Getting sensor data off of a pre OBDII Toyota ECU via TDCL.
All of this is on E10: Project E is my current focus.

  Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2015, 08:09 PM   #36 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
skyking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tacoma WA
Posts: 1,256

Woody - '96 Dodge Ram 2500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 23.82 mpg (US)

Avion and Woody - '96 Dodge/Avion Ram 2500/5th wheel combo
90 day: 15.1 mpg (US)

TD eye eye eye - '03 Volkswagen Beetle GLS
90 day: 49.05 mpg (US)

Mule - '07 Dodge Ram 3500 ST
Thanks: 526
Thanked 450 Times in 289 Posts
If the target speed is going to be optimal, say 45~50 MPH, the sooner you can start reaping the benefit of that speed the better, IMO. Diesel favor a more brisk acceleration for this reason. Poking along with the beetle in slow acceleration just prolongs the agony of the scangauge being down in the ~30 MPG range. I can go briskly at ~20 MPG instant, for a few seconds. Then I'm cruising at ~60 MPG at those optimal speeds.
__________________




2007 Dodge Ram 3500 SRW 4x4 with 6MT
2003 TDI Beetle
2002 TDI Beetle

currently parked - 1996 Dodge 2500 Cummins Turbodiesel
Custom cab, auto, 3.55 gears
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to skyking For This Useful Post:
TEiN (11-05-2015)
Old 11-04-2015, 09:28 PM   #37 (permalink)
BV1
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Similar thread: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ate-28617.html

I'll share my thoughts from it with a few updates:

As an a instructor and a tuner this is something I get asked alot.

The short an simple answer is that disregarding air resistance or losses due to great average speed, the ideal eco-acceleration should be the maximum acceleration available prior to entering open loop, or pulling ignition timing due to knock, or increasing AFR, in the highest gear possible (or lowest RPM). And... that acceleration is only useful if upon reaching the intended speed one immediately starts to Pulse and Glide, at least in a 5spd. This is because the gear ratios are locked for a particular gear, so in order to take advantage of the higher efficiency near WOT one must provide a lower RPM return, via the P&G technique.

I tend to accelerate under heavy load in 5th gear (as soon as its reasonable to take), but reduce the acceleration enough to stay in closed loop.

This minimizes frictional losses in the engine by using the piston stroke, valve duration and pumping losses to their maximum ability and since rotational losses are not load dependent the greater power output increases the efficiency of each engine power stroke by reducing the loss %.

Its the same idea as having to withdraw $400 from a ATM, would you do it all in one hit or in 10 little hits? Your gonna get dinged $1.00 for each transaction so might as well minimize the number of transactions by maximizing the available amount in each one.

Its the same reason why the same engine in a turbo diesel variation can get better mileage then in that engine in non turbo diesel variation. The extra RPM needed in the non turbo causes unnecessary frictional losses.

If you want to give your brain a stretch on this material, take a look on these 1960 tests on tractors, in particular, HP-Hr/Gallon, and note the better efficiency at higher load, of course these did not have a WOT enrichment device on them, so the most efficient engine is the one that took the biggest advantage of the combustion stroke. Think of the HP-Hr/Gallon as comparable to KiloWatt Hours/Gallon on an electric generator, if you can get more power (KwH) out for the same gallon, your doing better.

TractorData.com Oliver 88 tractor tests information

Hope that helps,

Steve
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2015, 10:07 PM   #38 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
oldtamiyaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,385

UFI - '12 Fiat 500 Twinair
Team Turbocharged!
90 day: 44.93 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: 33 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: 37.87 mpg (US)

Ralica - '85 Toyota Celica ST
90 day: 20.55 mpg (US)
Thanks: 286
Thanked 370 Times in 265 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CFECO View Post
In the past, small gasoline engines, carbureted, the best fuel economy was always full throttle and coast. "pulse and glide" as told here I guess.
Not if they had an accelerator pump...
__________________






  Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2015, 10:55 PM   #39 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
mr bad example's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Woodridge, IL
Posts: 1

ronin - '08 smart fortwo pure
Last 3: 51.55 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking View Post
If the target speed is going to be optimal, say 45~50 MPH, the sooner you can start reaping the benefit of that speed the better, IMO. Diesel favor a more brisk acceleration for this reason. Poking along with the beetle in slow acceleration just prolongs the agony of the scangauge being down in the ~30 MPG range. I can go briskly at ~20 MPG instant, for a few seconds. Then I'm cruising at ~60 MPG at those optimal speeds.
i find this true in my smart, we call it "drive it like you stole it". accelerating for 8-10 seconds at 1.8-2 GPH uses less fuel than accelerating 1.3-1.5 GPH for 15-20 seconds. (i use an ultra gauge) of course these figures are for smart fortwo's, your consumption may vary by make and model
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mr bad example For This Useful Post:
TEiN (11-05-2015)
Old 11-04-2015, 11:32 PM   #40 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: oregon
Posts: 11
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
well we know that fast starts and fast stops does consume more fuel, so it would make sense to accelerate at the most fuel efficient speed.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com