Experiment for VXers

[1993CivicVX]

Maybe some of us VX owners should perform a little experiment. That is, to avoid full enrichment mode for an entire tank. So, if we need more power, down shift rather than go into full enrichment mode. If you think this is a worthwhile experiment, let me know. I think it might be more valuable if more than one of us does.

[Danronian]

This is something I always try to do (not go into vtec), but I'm always forced to mainly to merge into traffic.

[TomO]

It's pretty hard for me to avoid it as well since I have to merge onto highways a couple times a day :(

I do have another experiment going that I will post results for us VX (and other Honda Owners) In fact I might get that thread going today.

[R.I.D.E.]

That is exactly what I have been trying to do since I read it was possible to climb a slight grade and stay in lean burn.

Does anyone know the approximate maximum throttle position where lean burn can be maintained?

If so I may rig up a throttle position sensor to make sure I am keeping it in lean burn.

regards
gary

[TomO]

It's not so much throttle position that determines Lean Burn but engine load. You can tap into the Throttle Position Sensor (TPS) with a Digital Multimeter (DMM) and watch the voltage. < .45VDC is 0% throttle >4.5VDC is 100% throttle on Hondas.

[mkiVX]

well i climb the cajon pass all the time.
it goes from 700ft to 4200 ft in 12 miles so its a high speed climb
i have to get in the truck lane to climb that pass if i want to stay in lean burn
it is tough to keep the car in lean burn.
its pretty much engine load like tom said.
you can get in to lean burn in second 3 4 5 gears.
to be honest with you it seems to coincide with the shift light.
if you are climbing a grade and you keep the shift light on it stays in lean burn.
when it shuts the shift light off it feels stronger and lean burn is not on.
i don't shift when the shift light advises me to any more.
i sometimes have to go 35 mph to stay in lean burn
and it still gets over 47 mpg. before i used to climb as far as i could in high gear and then when i needed o downshifted. ever since i keep lean burn on it really shines in the FE section

[monroe74]

avoid full enrichment mode for an entire tank

I didn't see this thread until a few minutes ago. I didn't even realize there was an Experiments section! But I guess great minds think alike, because yesterday I did the experiment you thought of (not for an entire tank, but at least for an entire fill). I was prompted by discussion here: http://www.gassavers.org/showthread.php?t=7400. In particular I was thinking about the relative merits of maximizing lean burn vs. minimizing pumping losses. (My car is a '95 VX; eventually I'll get it into the garage.)

Yesterday I needed to visit a town about 100 miles away. Mostly highway. I haven't been doing much highway lately, so I thought this would be a good chance for an experiment. I had two passengers along with me (both ways).

I filled before leaving very early in the morning (call that the start of Leg A). In the afternoon I filled again, after I started back home (call this fill the start of Leg B). Then I filled again at home.

For Leg A, I used my normal P&G technique. This means alternating WOT with coasting in neutral. (Normally I use some EOC, but in this experiment I excluded that. I also excluded drafting.) When I'm doing this P&G routine, I try very hard to avoid any throttle setting other than WOT (and zero, of course). I used a speed range of 50-65 mph.

I'm using a DMM to monitor AFR. During WOT, there's obviously full enrichment. On my car, that means a reading of about -0.8v. So that's the reading I saw for pretty much the full trip (except when I was coasting, of course).

The duration of lean burn during Leg A was probably close to 0%. Aside from idling while coasting, of course. That produces a reading of about +0.2v.

For Leg B, I drove very, very differently. I tried to always use the smallest possible throttle opening. I never got anywhere near WOT. I had my eyes glued to the DMM, trying to maximize lean burn. I did this by using the smallest possible throttle opening that would maintain 57 mph. I would let my speed drop to 50 mph (which would happen going uphill, obviously), but not below (to create a fair comparison to Leg A).

Going downhill, I did some coasting in neutral, when the grade was steep enough to make it worthwhile. But mostly I tried to maintain a steady speed, with the smallest possible throttle opening.

Maximum lean on my car produces a reading of about +0.8v. For about 80% of Leg B I was looking at a reading of roughly +0.6v. Obviously there were a few moments of richness, but they were very brief, and I think never beyond -0.3v.

Leg A yielded 55.8 mpg. Leg B yielded 51.2 mpg.

I obviously would have done better (on both legs) without the two passengers, and if I had been willing to go slower. Maybe a maximum of 60 mph instead of 65.

I find the results interesting, even though it's only one trial, and even though 200 miles (round-trip) isn't a huge distance, and even though I used two different pumps. It was the same car, same driver, same passengers, same route, same day. And basically the same speed.

By the way, the ambient temp was about 20 degrees higher for Leg B.

[monroe74]

avoid full enrichment mode for an entire tank. So, if we need more power, down shift rather than go into full enrichment mode.

This is something I always try to do (not go into vtec), but I'm always forced to mainly to merge into traffic.

There might be some confusion here. VTEC-E and lean burn are not the same thing. The VTEC-E transition happens at 2500 rpm. By downshifting, you might be crossing that threshold.

Anyway, I think my experiment tends to show that you're probably better off with the higher gear and the higher throttle opening, even though this means no lean burn. It also means you haven't crossed the VTEC-E threshold, most likely. In a VX, 2500 rpm in top gear is about 70 mph.

[monroe74]

Does anyone know the approximate maximum throttle position where lean burn can be maintained?

My experience is that it tends to be quite low. Probably 10-20%.

If so I may rig up a throttle position sensor to make sure I am keeping it in lean burn.

Your car already has a Throttle Angle Sensor, which you can read with a DMM (as Tom mentioned). But it would probably make more sense to simply read the O2 sensor directly.

Also, I think I have discovered that going out of your way to keep the car in lean burn has a negative payoff.

[monroe74]

It's not so much throttle position that determines Lean Burn but engine load.

I'm wondering what you mean by that, since throttle position and engine load are so directly related that they're virtually synonymous.

[monroe74]

i don't shift when the shift light advises me to any more.

I think Honda already knows what I discovered in my test, and I think it's costing you money to ignore their advice.

ever since i keep lean burn on it really shines in the FE section

I wonder if you could be more specific, as far as the exact comparison you did. I find it hard to believe that you've generally enhanced your FE by learning to ignore your SIL.

[TomO]

I'm wondering what you mean by that, since throttle position and engine load are so directly related that they're virtually synonymous.

MAP sensor readings combined with TPS gives you your overall engine load reading. :thumbup:

[monroe74]

MAP sensor readings combined with TPS gives you your overall engine load reading. :thumbup:

Good point, now I understand what you mean. Throttle position correlates nicely with load, but the ECU has an even more precise indication of load if it also takes manifold pressure into account. Thanks for explaining.

[1993CivicVX]

Great test, Monroe. I'd definitely encourage you to do it again and compare second round results with first, because unless you have a very good ear for how full the tank is when you're filling up (you can hear the sound rise as it approaches full) your two fill ups were not the same (they never are when I fill up anyway). But I think I tend to be in agreement with you that maintaining lean burn while employing P&G is less effective/efficient than WOT or near WOT settings. I think a good way to do P&G is not by how much throttle, but by a rate of acceleration. If you are going up a slight grade, you're gonna probably want WOT if you want to have a pulse that doesn't last forever. Going down a hill, you may want to do a more moderate pulse. In the Prius, WOT is not a good method for pulsing--but rather a light throttle that keeps the e-motor charging the battery during the pulse. Not sure how manual transmission and CVT compare for methods of P&G.

BTW, my car is going 75mph at 2500rpm, not 70mph. It's about 61mph at 2000rpm and about 45mph at 1500rpm. 3000rpm at around 90mph. For a short time my car was 75mph at about 2300rpm and about 2800rpm at 90mph, but that didn't last very long, but it was very puzzling to me.

[R.I.D.E.]

Is lean burn an abrupt transition, like an on-off switch, or a more gradual transition? Somewhat gradual would seem to make more sense. I feel the torque at about 1500 rpm with commensurate reduction in vibration, as well as the beginning of effective induction harmonics where individual power pulses merge into a much smoother acceleration. in gears other than 5th the rpm threshold is somewhat lower, more so the lower the gear.

My last tank using my procedure (which is still evolving) was 57.58 mpg. My normal route is 40 miles round trip at an average speed of about 40 mph with 56 traffic lights to deal with.

Under normal conditions I never exceed 2500 rpm. Throttle position would vary between 20-50 % depending on rpm and gear choice, trying to keep vacuum as low as possible relative to throttle application.

I try to maintain a consistent load, but never use WOT, unless safety requires WOT. Some of this driving is on 45 mph congested roads that require light timing to avoid idling.

In those cases I use mini P&G with speed ranges of only a few mph. I am at the rear end of the group of vehicles drafting and P&Ging. Wot would not work very well, and other drivers would think I was some kind of nut case with all the distinct changes in speed.

regards
gary

[suspendedhatch]

I'm wondering what you mean by that, since throttle position and engine load are so directly related that they're virtually synonymous.

Not by a long shot. TPS and load are two different things. Having tuned cars on throttle based maps, aka alpha-n, and tuned cars on load based maps, in our case speed-density, I can tell you that they are two independent things as much as RPM and vehicle speed are independent though at a glance it may seem otherwise.

If you don't believe me, put your car in neutral, rev it up and watch the MAP voltage. Then do it in gear and watch the MAP voltage. Just like speed and RPM. In the first test, RPM / TPS will climb, while MAP / Speed remain constant. In the second test MAP and Speed will climb but not at the same rate as the first variable.

Not only that but load varies with barometric pressure, altitude, and boost, while TPS in all these cases is unaffected.

Honda like most manufacturers doesn't use TPS to calculate load, but rather they use it to make corrections. Rapid changes in throttle % require anticipated (preprogrammed) changes to fuel. Waiting for MAP to catch up causes a big hesitation.

TPS based maps are not very drive-able. They're used for race cars only.

[monroe74]

unless you have a very good ear for how full the tank is when you're filling up (you can hear the sound rise as it approaches full) your two fill ups were not the same (they never are when I fill up anyway)

Good point. I definitely agree that we can't assume that these nozzles respond consistently. Especially because I was using two different pumps. On the other hand, I do pay attention to the sound, and I think I have a pretty good ear for it.

I tend to be in agreement with you that maintaining lean burn while employing P&G is less effective/efficient than WOT or near WOT settings.

Yes, that's what I think. I think lean burn is great for situations where, for whatever reason, you simply can't do P&G.

I also can't say for sure that WOT is better than 70%, or 90%, but increasingly my hunch is that it is (assuming we're talking about a wideband-sensor system like the VX, where it seems that WOT doesn't trigger open loop, as far as I can tell).

BTW, my car is going 75mph at 2500rpm, not 70mph. It's about 61mph at 2000rpm and about 45mph at 1500rpm. 3000rpm at around 90mph.

Oops, my mistake. Thanks for the correction. I looked up some numbers, and I think the exact figure is 29.7 mph at 1000 rpm.

For a short time my car was 75mph at about 2300rpm and about 2800rpm at 90mph, but that didn't last very long, but it was very puzzling to me.

That is a puzzle. I don't know what to make of that.

[monroe74]

load varies with barometric pressure, altitude, and boost

I realize all those things are going to influence load, and would be relevant in making a precise calculation of load. But it seems to me that the throttle is still the main influence.

TPS and load are two different things.

I keep running into various sources who treat the terms as interchangeable. (I cited a few examples here: http://www.gassavers.org/showpost.php?p=100506&postcount=47.) Do you have any observations about why the terms seem to be used that way? If you do, I would probably learn something by hearing them.

put your car in neutral, rev it up and watch the MAP voltage. ... MAP / Speed remain constant.

Are you saying that revving an engine in neutral will have no effect on manifold pressure? I'm surprised to hear that.

[monroe74]

Is lean burn an abrupt transition, like an on-off switch, or a more gradual transition?

It depends a little bit on how you define lean burn. You could mean anything leaner than stoich, or you could mean only extremely lean. In other words, there's lean, and there's leaner.

When I use a DMM to monitor AFR, I see readings from roughly -0.8v to +0.8v. Anything positive is lean, technically, but I think when folks say lean burn they're making reference to very lean conditions, which I suppose would correspond to a reading of, say, +0.4v or greater.

Readings like that go along with low throttle settings, and they go away with heavier throttle settings. The transition is gradual, in the sense that there's an infinite range of possibilities. And you can see the intermediate settings, if you move the throttle very, very slowly. But the transition is abrupt, in the sense that a small amount of throttle motion is enough to swing the reading quickly, from the lean zone into the rich zone. This is what you see when moving the throttle in a more normal, rather than ultra-slow, manner.

It's a little bit like letting the air out of a balloon. If you work at it, you can deflate the balloon very gradually, and stop anywhere along the way. But it's also very easy to go from fully inflated to fully deflated, very quickly, in response to a small motion.

I feel the torque at about 1500 rpm with commensurate reduction in vibration, as well as the beginning of effective induction harmonics where individual power pulses merge into a much smoother acceleration. in gears other than 5th the rpm threshold is somewhat lower, more so the lower the gear.

Whatever it is you're feeling most likely has nothing to do with lean burn, because lean burn seems to be mostly a function of throttle position, rather than engine speed.

Under normal conditions I never exceed 2500 rpm. Throttle position would vary between 20-50 % depending on rpm and gear choice

It's hard to precisely judge throttle angle without using some kind of measuring instrument (like a DMM reading the throttle angle sensor), but my experience using a DMM to monitor lean burn tells me that it generally doesn't exist if the throttle angle exceeds 10-20%.

As I have said elsewhere, I think the amount of time you think you're in lean burn probably exceeds the amount of time you're actually in lean burn. A DMM is a good way to get a handle on this.

Wot would not work very well, and other drivers would think I was some kind of nut case with all the distinct changes in speed.

When used properly, which means low RPM, WOT generally produces acceleration that is exceedingly moderate. And it often produces no acceleration at all. I spend a fair amount of time cruising with WOT.

As I said somewhere else: near my house is a hill, fairly long and steep. I usually climb it WOT, in top gear. Engine is at 1200 rpm, and vehicle speed is about 35. All those parameters are constant: the slope of the grade, the throttle opening, engine speed, and vehicle speed. All those parameters stay constant, for about half a mile, until I reach the crest of the hill.

Nearby drivers don't think I'm a nut case, because they have no idea what my throttle setting is. What they see is someone traveling at a constant, moderate speed, just like them.

We normally associate heavy throttle with rapid acceleration. And we tend not to associate heavy throttle with FE. So what I'm doing (along with lots of other hypermilers who use P&G effectively) is perversely counterintuitive. But it works. And it works even though it essentially rules out lean burn. Lean burn is great for situations when, for whatever reason, P&G is not an option.

I think lean burn is perhaps the reason that there is not a large gap between VX drivers who use P&G and VX drivers who don't. This is reflected in the fact that the cars in the garage scoring much higher than EPA are typically not a VX. P&G pays off in a VX, but it pays off even more in cars that lack lean burn.

[R.I.D.E.]

Good info Monroe and much appreciated.

The grades around here are very mild, no hills that would keep me at WOT for any significant amount of time.

I thought the transition would be gradual relatively speaking as you stated as long as throttle increments are very gradual for me. If the transition was abrupt it would feel like a surge so my feeling jives with you observations.

It's not soo much that I think I am or am not in lean burn, it's more an opportunity that I like to exploit to the greatest extent.

Have you tried reversing your intake snorkel for warm air intake, picking up the warm air from the top radiator tank area?

It might be worth trying when you get some consistent mileage figures. To me it seemed to make a difference, and less air density makes it possible to increase your throttle position for the same power output with less pumping losses. It could allow slightly higher throttle positions to stay in lean burn. Not a great amount, but WAI sure helps in winter.

regards
gary

[monroe74]

The grades around here are very mild, no hills that would keep me at WOT for any significant amount of time.

I used the example of the hill just to point out that WOT doesn't always mean acceleration. It certainly doesn't always mean "nut case" acceleration.

But you don't need hills to use WOT. You can live on a perfectly flat planet, and still use WOT exclusively (which is exactly what I try to do). It just needs to be done alternately with periods of coasting (and that's what's known as P&G, obviously). And so long as you do it at low rpm (high gear), you will manage to completely avoid "nut case" acceleration. Hopefully that alleviates your concerns about being perceived as a "nut case!"

Have you tried reversing your intake snorkel for warm air intake, picking up the
warm air from the top radiator tank area?

No. But it would interest me to hear you explain why you think it never occurred to Honda to do something so simple.

less air density makes it possible to increase your throttle position for the same power output with less pumping losses

Since I'm already using WOT, pumping losses are as low as they are going to get.

It could allow slightly higher throttle positions to stay in lean burn.

Since I'm using WOT, lean burn is something that essentially never happens.

[R.I.D.E.]

Yep and thats why my mileage is 15% higher than yours.

regards
gary

[R.I.D.E.]

Original snorkel position more power. WAI position better mileage, and easily reversible. Hope you can understand the answer. They chose power. My average mileage now is 3 MPG better than the original EPA highway rating, with tires at 34 PSI since they are almost 15 years old.

Current average just over 57 MPG, last tank 57.58.

regards
gary

[monroe74]

Yep and thats why my mileage is 15% higher than yours.

I hope you'll tell us about the advanced technology you're using to monitor my average mpg. Since I haven't posted it.

Anyway, I think I recall you mentioning that your regular driving conditions are ideal for high mpg. So I guess the special technology you're using to monitor my mpg has also informed you that my driving conditions are just like yours?

Original snorkel position more power. ... They chose power.

They made lots of other decisions that involved the FE/power tradeoff, and chose FE. Why did they go the other way on this one?

[R.I.D.E.]

LMAO try going down that hill in 5th EOC and WOT, then let off the throttle and watch it speed up. You know the one you go up at 1200 and WOT.

Your position on WOT is shared by no one who is getting best mpg, and if you could test and prove me wrong I am sure you wouldn't hesitate a second to post it here. A test I suggested earlier and one that proves beyond a doubt you are misinformed.

Do some research. It's a well known fact that without lean burn, like my Del Sol, 70-75% is better.

On a 6 lane divided highway in fairly heavy traffic, average speed 47 MPH, I won't use WOT for exactly the reason I already posted. Instead I use 4-5 second pulses and 14-20 or more second glides without dropping more than 6 MPH. I may or may not be in lean burn but at a rate of acceleration of about 1 mph per second its close. I am usually the last one through the intersection before the light changes, drafting and P&Ging at 60 MPG.

Oh yes and never EOC except the last 3 tenths of a mile home. With EOC I could probably get close to 70, but at my age I prefer Situational Awareness and less wear and tear.

You see lean burn is another advantage of a VX, you choose to eliminate any possibility of using it which was what was requested by the original poster of this thread.

I guess you aren't going to join the experiment LOL ;).

Beating the old epa highway average in all my driving is close to my 60 MPG goal for average mileage. Think I'll go put 4 more pounds of air in those 15 year old tires. It will be very close to 60 next tank.

regards
gary

[monroe74]

I guess you aren't going to join the experiment

That's very humorous, since there's only one person in this thread who actually posted a comparison of running the same route with and without lean burn. Let's see if you can guess who it is.

if you could test and prove me wrong I am sure you wouldn't hesitate a second to post it here

I guess you didn't notice the results of the test I ran.

Anyway, I'm still hoping you'll explain how you know your overall mileage is 15% higher than mine, since I haven't posted my overall mileage.

You're aware of information that hasn't been presented, and you're unaware of information that has been presented. That's quite an accomplishment.

[R.I.D.E.]

You have information that has not been presented?

Why?

Because it doesn't support your position.

You refuse to do a simple test based on your assumption that it would damage your engine.

Because it refutes your position.

You used accusations of lying, Freudian analysis, and other attempts at character assasination because I dont agree with your assumptions.

Its called propaganda, specificially Character assasination.

Because you think it supports your position.

You claim to have evidence that supports your position but refuse to divulge the information.

Because the information does not support your position.

My mileage per fillup for the last 5 tanks is 55, 55, 57, 62, 65.

Your's is?

I learned to use the advantages of the differences in my VX versus my previous car a Del Sol, to achieve the same results, combined mileages of 3-5 mpg over the old EPA highway rating. You choose to guarantee they will never be utilized.

My mileage figures are for every mile I have travelled not just a specific scenario.

Where are yours?

Do you honestly believe witholding information makes you position stronger?

I have consistently beat old epa HIGHWAY mileage figures through the last several vehicles I have owned.

94 Del Sol
06 Toyota Corolla
05 Scion XB
03 Tundra
97 Altima
99 Ford pickup

Thats going back to 1999 and over 150,000 miles.

I guess your response is you don't believe me (more character assasination).

I can only assume from your responses that you believe I would come to this forum and spend time misinforming people of what I have learned over the last 40 years.

For what reason?

You on the other hand insist WOT is the way, even though it has been proven to be wrong.

Don't believe me. check Pale Melanasian's information, better than 62 MPG using a non lean burn DX model. He has made it clear that he accelerates to 2200 RPM which works out to about 52 MPH.

His car can be scanguaged and he has done thorough testing and concluded that 70% give or take) of WOT is ideal.

I guess he is also a perpetrator of falsehoods, even though his mileage is the highest of any Honda in the top ten!

Your position is unsupportable, so you revert to personal attacks, which to any rational person makes your position less supportable.

In other words put up or (you can guess the rest)

regards
gary

[monroe74]

You claim to have evidence that supports your position but refuse to divulge the information.

I guess you still haven't noticed this: http://www.gassavers.org/showpost.php?p=100693&postcount=7

My mileage per fillup for the last 5 tanks is 55, 55, 57, 62, 65.

The average of those numbers is 58.8 mpg. Out of 400 gasoline cars in the garage, 395 are doing worse than that, and only 5 are doing better. And aside from one car with extensive aero mods, no VX has an average higher than 61.

So if those numbers you just mentioned are representative of your overall results, I hope you post a gaslog. That would be helpful to others, and hopefully you would get the recognition you deserve.

Your's is?

My worst fill ever was 34.2 mpg, and my best fill was 70.0 mpg. I drive a relatively small number of miles, and in radically different conditions. For example, I don't normally average 85-90 mph for an entire fill, but that's how I achieved 34.2 mpg. Since I started doing P&G (with nearly 100% WOT), I usually beat 50 mpg, even though I do a lot of driving under severe conditions: very short trips, and lots of cold starts. I'm usually dealing with moderate traffic, but sometimes I'm dealing with very heavy traffic and construction delays. I'm often carrying 2-3 passengers.

My results are inherently hard to interpret, because multiple factors have been causing them to vary widely, and because the total number of miles is not very high. I intend to post a log once I accumulate enough miles to represent more solid information.

You, on the other hand, are driving in very consistent conditions, and putting on a lot of miles. And you said your driving environment is ideal for FE. Very much unlike my driving environment, in other words. Therefore, your results are especially relevant and helpful, and I look forward to seeing your gaslog, once you decide to post it.

My mileage figures are for every mile I have travelled not just a specific scenario.

I'm not sure what you're saying. If I understand correctly, you're saying that the average you implied above (58.8 mpg) is representative of all the miles you've traveled, since owning the vehicle. Maybe you'll let me know if I'm understanding you correctly. Then again, maybe you're talking about some other mileage figures, but I don't know where to find them. You've posted mileage figures for every mile you've travelled? I didn't notice.

His car can be scanguaged and he has done thorough testing and concluded that 70% give or take) of WOT is ideal.

He has concluded that 75% is ideal for his car, but he acknowledges that he doesn't know whether or not it would be ideal for mine. The key distinction is that his car doesn't have a wideband sensor. That means his car is prone to entering open-loop mode, given a throttle setting past a certain threshold. That's why it's wise for him to avoid WOT. As far as I can tell, that problem does not apply to the VX.

Anyway, still waiting for you to explain how it is you know that your mileage is 15% better than mine.

[R.I.D.E.]

Well lets see;

1st quote and your response

Since you prefer to not believe something I say, my response is to assign no relevance to anything you say-it levels the playing field.

2nd quote and your comment

I can only assume you have some intent with your apparent attitude about my figures.

I have the reciepts with the mileage written on them and keep a mental tally on the total. What you could not know in your assumed higher mileage is the factoring of the distance per tank at the reported mileage (varies from 250-414 miles).

I appreciate the compliment on my performance relative to others. Frankly I didn't realize it was that good, or have any special desire to achieve any recgnition.

If you think it's such a big deal, maybe I will get around to it. Presently I have more significant priorities.

My efforts at recognition are related to my engine and powertrain patents and the rewards, whether you believe it or not, which will be amost incalculable.
I see this planet as being twice as efficient as we are now, in the span of one generation.

If my contributions are a part of that solution and that results in acclaim, personally I would prefer to remain as anonymous as the Johnson family managed to do for a long time.

If those efforts prove to provide financial reward, that would be nice, certainly a lot better than what a lot of my friends think could happen when large corporate entities may not appreciate my efforts.

The rest of your post is a little more civilized.

Today I increased the pressure in my tires to 38 psi, I filled them about a month ago at 36, they had dropped 2 psi each.

I can feel the difference. I dont need more information than the coasting improvement could get me to 60 MPG.

I really didn't want to start a gas log before a few things have happened.

Hasn't been aligned and rear upper right control arm was pulled in by the bent frame. Its probably a couple degrees negative camber, but there are no other symptoms, tracks perfect.

I would like to get it painted, might happen this week, then I can polish and wax it until the spoap and water run off.

Can still hear some brake drag from sitting for over a decade, a little slower starting, havent even looked at the plugs, think they are due.

Blah Blah Blah.

The wife told me she threw away some of the first gas reciepts, so I can only go back about a month, but the ones before that were all over 50 including the first two tanks when there was 3 gallons of god only knows how old gas in the tank.
I drove it a few hundred miles before I straightened the big dent out in the bottom of the tank using compressed air.

Also, the last three weeks I have been suffering through bone graft surgery with a surgeon who prescribed a pain medication Vicodin, which is totally ineffective for me and I was told not to take my Arthritis strength BC to boot. Two weeks later I went back to my dentist and he gave me percocet which takes a single pill a day for relief though the doasge could be as high as 2 tablets every 6 hours.

Frankly Monroe the same comment Rhett made to Scarlet applies her just the same, especially considering your unwarranted assumptions concerning my credibility.

I don't give a damn.


regards
gary

[monroe74]

Blah Blah Blah.

Exactly.

Still waiting for you to explain why you said this:

my mileage is 15% higher than yours.

That's a peculiar claim, since you don't know what my overall mileage is. So I'm wondering if you'll ever get around to explaining why you said that.

And speaking of peculiar claims:

The wife told me she threw away some of the first gas reciepts, so I can only go back about a month

That's interesting to hear, since earlier you said this:

My mileage figures are for every mile I have travelled

I guess what you mean is that you have figures for every mile you've traveled, except for the miles you don't have figures for.

[monroe74]

My efforts at recognition are related to my engine and powertrain patents

Very impressive. I didn't realize patents had been issued. What are the patent numbers?

By the way, good luck with the medical issues.

[PaleMelanesian]

I admit, my statements on what throttle position to use for the pulse are not scientifically derived. I've looked at every BSFC chart I can find and averaged the points. That's how I get my 1500-2200 rpm range. The charts vary, but the load ranges seem to be 50-90% with many in the tighter 65-80% range. I use that for a baseline.

From there it's seat-of-pants driving with constant adjustments for conditions. I know what works in my car.
I should preface my comments with that, because it may or may not apply to another car.

By the way, I've used up to 2700 rpm (60mph) on the highway and that was my best highway trip. It was with a nice tailwind, though.

[monroe74]

I admit, my statements on what throttle position to use for the pulse are not scientifically derived.

Likewise. Statements on a forum like this that are scientifically derived are inevitably outnumbered by the other kind.

From there it's seat-of-pants driving with constant adjustments for conditions. I know what works in my car.
I should preface my comments with that, because it may or may not apply to another car.

In other words, YMMV. But hopefully that's obvious.

I think the subject is interesting because the VX/HX are a slightly different animal, compared with other cars and even other Civics. So the normal rules might not fit exactly.

It was with a nice tailwind, though.

I don't know why I can't buy a sail I can mount on my roof. I'm almost serious. After all, it could be retractable, and under computer control. A little bit like those silly spoilers on the back of the Chrysler Crossfire, and certain Porsches.

[R.I.D.E.]

Appreciate the imput Pale. I understand your driving tactic and try to emulate it within the constraints of the differences in our cars. I would also be willing to bet that WOT would reduce your mileage.

My best mileage was 304 using 4.627 gallons of gas, at about 67 MPH drafting trucks as much as possible, probably about 80 % on the time. Most of the rest was in heavy traffic on Prince Willaim Parkway going to the Dulles Expo Center and back. Started at 1100 AM and rerturned at 1030 PM, with some bumper to bumper, on I 95 south, from exit 152B south to Richmond, especially before Fredericksburg.

Monroe since 1999 I haven't kept every reciept. When I used to play golf and played a very good round. I could go back and remember all the shots, all the yardage, and the score per hole for a full round of 18 holes. I just remembered the average mileages over the last 150 K miles, all that I considered necessary.

I make a note of the mileage and remember it. From here on out I will save the reciepts which is all I need to start a gaslog. That doesn't change the results or the credibility of the claims. I didn't know the wife was throwing them away until yesterday, she usually never throws anything away. She had a maternity dress for 28 years LOL.

Whe I was driving the Del Sol I used exactly the same tactic as Pale but on Interstates I found P&G to be too much work for me, or should I say too much of a distraction to my situational awareness. My driving puts most people to sleep. In the Del Sol S (not SI) I averaged 43-44 mpg, so consider than in comparing my VX mileage to Pales considerable accomplishnment using a very similar vehicle.

The VX is 14 mpg average better than that (the Del Sol).

The patents are still in process, a long drawn out battle that has cost 20 grand to date.

The first one was for an engine design, second is for an in wheel infinitely variable and reversible transmission that weighs the same as the brake parts you no longer need. Selective 4 wheel drive, 4 wheel regeneration, with acceleration potential of 0-60 in 5 seconds or less. An accumulator can store many hundreds of horsepower seconds of energy, enough to reach the limit of the 4 tires ability to maintain traction. It takes about 20 revolutions of your wheel to do a 60-0 panic stop. With this system your acceleration rate would be exactly the opposite. In other words you car could accelerate as fast as it stopped, with 90% of the energy recovered by the previous stop. Add the power of the engine to make up the small loss in the drive system, the essence of a hybrid.

No electric hybrid comes close to the potential for the hydraulic hybrid. Regardless of whether your primary source of sustained power, electric, diesel, gasoline, regardless of the original source of your energy. The accumulator IVT design will be the powertrain. Future developments may prove a flywheel system to be more practical than an accumulator, but with accumulators at 97% they will be hard to beat, especially considering the fact accumulators offer almost indefinite storage times.

After the powertrain is developed iand commercialized, I will build the engine.
It has no reciprocating parts, variable compression, potential multifuel capability, no valve train, no cooling system, no induction system (always WOT Monroe). it will operate in a rpm range from 300 to 2500 rpm with exactly the same amount of fuel and air for each combustion cycle. Each combustion cycle will always be a complete cylinder filling event. Engine on off cycles will be controlled by sensors that determine the minimum and maximum pressure reserves in the accumulator. The engine uses a single intake and exhaust port, a single injector, for the equivalent of 6 cylinder operation, and can destroke itself and transform itself into a flywheel storing its energy reserves in its own spinning mass, with all parasitic losses reduced to the point where it could maintain at least 80% of its stored energy for a few minutes. The lubrication system would serve as cooling system when sustained loads created suffecient heat losses for cooling to be necessary.

NASA has developed Flywheel storage systems that are amazing, but extroadinarily expensive and not really practical for auto applications.
Mangnetic levitation bearings, 150K rpm composite rotors, six months at 95% efficiency with 10 kilowatt hours storage in a very small component.

This bodes well for dedicated electric hybrids with Lithium batteries and flyywheel or hydraulic accumulators for high load blistering acceleration comparable to any modern supercar.

The IVT in wheel transmissions will be capable of mciro adjustments in stroke so they can manitain speed regardless of the accumulators current pressure. In other words as the pressure drops the stroke in the motors (in wheel) increases using more volume to maintain the same wheel torque.
Virginia Tech has committed (read their document) to build, test, and CAD a prototype to prove the efficiency of the design. they have indicated that co-ownership is possible based on the results, the efficiency threshold is 82%. I am hoping for 90%. The best to date is about 78% (check UPS Hydraulic Hybrid).

I spoke to a journalist with the ASME yesterday who is investigating my design. This is after 3 years of doors slammed in my face, including 6 trips to my Senator, the DOE, John Kargull ofthe EPA, Charles Gray of the EPA., Batelle Labs, Blah, Blah, hundreds of hours of wasted effort.

The EPA has built a 3800 lb mule vehicle that gets 80 MPG combined using a hydraulic hybrid powertrain. The EPA also claims a potential 80% improvement for powertrain development, without any engine improvement.

Like your own skepticism Monroe I could have accomplished my goals and the whole planet could have been reaping the rewards right now if I had succeeded earlier (like 3 years ago). Over 1 trillion dollars has been wasted on imported oil during my constantly frustrating efforts to get people the message.

Compared to the EPA built vehicles mine is simple with 15-25% fewer parts per vehicle, and total reliability. The design (according to the professor of engineering at VaTech, has 3 distinct advantages over the surrent state of the art in bent axis pumps.

By this Christmas the questions will have been answered. the most basic design is a launch assist axle that collects deceleration energy and reapplies it for the next acceleration cycle. It could be incorporated into existing designs and used to immediately make city mileage figures better than highway. That change alone combined with current technology could get fleet averages to 35 MPG. One secret that is not well known is the launch assist axle also has the capability to be recharged by the cars engine with engine pulsing and gliding creating pressure in the accumulator to maintain vehicle speeds even while the engine is not running. Engine restart would be using the same hydraulic system.

Imagine pulse and glide, but your vehicle maintains a constant speed. That is the heart of my concept, as well as the end of hypermiling, because now your car will hypermile while you drive in a normal fashion.

We hypermile because our vehicles are not properly designed. When that has been corrected we will no longer need to hypermile. After all its more efficient to not have to pay the penalty of higher speeds necessary to hypermile. The average speed is more efficient that the sum of the extreemes.

regards
gary

[monroe74]

since 1999 I haven't kept every reciept

I'm not talking about 1999. I'm talking about your VX, which I understand you got recently. You said you have mileage figures for every mile you've traveled. But I guess actually you don't.

The patents are still in process

Oh. Earlier you said this: "My efforts at recognition are related to my engine and powertrain patents." That sounds like a reference to patents that exist. But I guess these don't exist yet.

Virginia Tech has committed (read their document)

What document?

Like your own skepticism

I'm skeptical of anyone who makes misstatements and then refuses to take responsibility for doing so.

I read all 1300 words in your latest post, but I can't find the ones that explain why you said this:

my mileage is 15% higher than yours.

[R.I.D.E.]

Yes but you provided the evidence you previously witheld, which proves my mileage is much better than 15% greater.

regards
gary

[PaleMelanesian]

Since I'm using WOT, lean burn is something that essentially never happens.

Yep and thats why my mileage is 15% higher than yours.

My mileage per fillup for the last 5 tanks is 55, 55, 57, 62, 65.

I learned to use the advantages of the differences in my VX versus my previous car a Del Sol, to achieve the same results, combined mileages of 3-5 mpg over the old EPA highway rating. You choose to guarantee they will never be utilized.


I'm getting the mileage I do by using Pulse & Glide extensively. I don't think my results would be much different between my current 75-80% throttle and WOT. The driving style stands, with that minor modification.

That best highway trip I mentioned earlier was 75mpg. That trip is included in my latest fillup at 66.6 mpg. My old epa highway estimate is 38. That's just a bit more than 3-5 mpg over. If I had a lighter car (vx), better gear ratios (vx), smaller engine (vx), I think I could get even better numbers, even ignoring the lean-burn option.

[monroe74]

If I had a lighter car (vx), better gear ratios (vx), smaller engine (vx), I think I could get even better numbers, even ignoring the lean-burn option.

Yes, I think you would probably get even better numbers in a VX. And I think lean burn wouldn't be a factor, since it tends to not happen with the large throttle openings you use.

[monroe74]

you provided the evidence you previously witheld, which proves my mileage is much better than 15% greater.

I haven't posted my average mileage. You're pretending I have. We're still waiting for you to tell us what my average mileage is, and how you know. Because you wouldn't simply be making things up, right?

[R.I.D.E.]

With 31,400 actual miles I have to consider what the long term consequences of some hypermiling techniques.

No EOC, no 60 + psi tires. Tranny problems ,and a rattletrap from zero flex tires. Long distance EOC has other consequences such as loosing your closed loop as the O2 sensor cools off, as well as the coolant in the radiator cooling off to the point where you get enrichment on a restart.

I lost a fan belt on my 280Z 10 years ago and pulsed and glided back to my shop, about 10 miles. When I got there the coolant temp had dropped 40 degrees. The fan was turning the water pump due to air pressure in spite of the fan clutch. On the Z car that made the ECU increase the injector duration which actually was detrimental to FE.

It's a balance and I read a post by Wayne Gerdes that basically stated the VX is not an easy car to get the results hypermiling compared to other cars.

As I stated in my earlier post when cars are designed properly they will hypermile themselves without the need for the driver functioning as the brains of the system.

My system of driving will never produce the best results possible, thats not my objective. My objective is 8 years of transportation, another 200 K miles. The best possible mileage without increasing wear and tear significantly is my objective.

My mods are higher tire pressure and WAI intake snorkel reversal.

I could drive on Route 17 in the deserted stretch between Gloucester and Tappahanock, pulse to 45 and glide with EOC down to 20, and get 100 MPG.
Thats not my objective. This car is my daily transportation and when my wife and I go anywhere her Murano stays in the garage.

I also do not generally go 60 MPH, don"t feel like being pushed down the Interstate by a moron, and with thraffic densities of a hundred cars with barely 4 car lengths between them in some cases I don't try to hypermile, just drafting when that is the situation.

I am not here to compete with anyone, my objective to to give OPEC the least amount of funding to spend on making my life miserable.

All things considered the best average speeds for best mileage are lower than my averages. If I lower my average I loose the light timing on my daily trip (also previously mentioned) and that means 56 traffic lights to destroy my mileage, in 40 miles.

No two situations are the same, mine works best for me, yours works best for you. It's not a matter of right or wrong, more a matter of maximizing the opportunities within the limitations of the situation.

regards
gary

[R.I.D.E.]

Monroe wehn your comments become antagonistic they don't deserve any answer.

regards
gary

[monroe74]

the limitations of the situation

I guess one of the limitations of the situation is that you're going to continue to duck a simple question. Maybe this is your way of letting us know that you don't expect to be taken seriously.

[monroe74]

And when you get caught inventing your own facts, that has nothing to do with antagonism. It's simply reality catching up with you.

[R.I.D.E.]

You are whining again son, I get that for free from my wife certain days of the month.

And when you get caught with your false conclusions you duck the test that proves you are wrong, using the whimpy, whining excuse. "I might hurt my engine". In reality you should be saying " My ego can't handle real data that shows I don't understand what I am talking about".

later
g

[monroe74]

Nice job trying to change the subject. You have quite a few at your disposal.

You specifically claimed your mileage is 15% better than mine. Even though you don't know my mileage. Maybe you'll eventually decide to explain why you did this, but the absence of an explanation is also a kind of explanation.

[R.I.D.E.]

Based on your two mileage reports in this thread, the only information you divulged until you decided to reveal some more.

Of course the some more made my average much better than 15%.

Im playing you like a fiddle son.

reciepts from 4-26-08 to 5-19-08

4-26 396 miles 6.396 gallons@$3.399=61.9 MPG
4-28 260 miles 5.173 " @$3.299=50.3 MPG
5-03 414 miles 7.412 " @$3.379=55.9 MPG
5-09 365 miles 6.023 " @$3.369=60.6 MPG
5-13 265 miles 4.823 " @$3.509=54.9 MPG
5-19 348 miles 6.094 " @$3.599=57.1 MPG
-----------------------------------------------------
2048miles 35.951=56.966426

Close enough to 57

Easily transferrable to a gas log sometime soon.

Doesn't include my best 304 on 4.627.

Then it would be;

2352 on 40.177 = 58.54 closer to your calculation.

I'll take the 57 and its still improving on a daily basis.

$138.68 for 2,352 miles 5.896 cents a mile

And yours?

Not just two 100 mile trips filling up at two different stations.

regards
gary

[monroe74]

Based on your two mileage reports in this thread

Now that I've asked the question half-a-dozen times, you've decided to finally provide an answer. But your answer only deepens the mystery.

Let's see if I'm understanding you correctly. Early in this thread (http://www.gassavers.org/showpost.php?p=100693&postcount=7), I mentioned two fills: 55.8 mpg and 51.2 mpg. You decided that was enough information for you to make this claim:

my mileage is 15% higher than yours.

Let's put aside the fact that I was only mentioning two fills, not any kind of an overall average. You've claimed that your overall mileage is 58.5. If your mileage is 15% higher than mine, than my mileage must be 50.9, because 58.5 is 15% higher than 50.9.

In other words, you have concluded that my average mileage is 50.9. And you claim that you did this "based on [my] two mileage reports in this thread." Those two reports were 55.8 mpg and 51.2 mpg.

I'm interested in understanding the math you used to derive an average of 50.9 from the numbers 55.8 and 51.2.

[R.I.D.E.]

You chose two mileages. I chose two mileages. Pick the ones that match 15%, since you have no credibility (remember equal playing field).

After the post is made only then do you start to post other mileages you withheld until it suited your purpose in trying to attack my credibility.

Your average is (spare me the excuses)?

My car was sitting in a junk yard two months ago.

Post some useful information if you have any.

regards
gary

[monroe74]

You chose two mileages. I chose two mileages. Pick the ones that match 15%

OK, that's still fairly opaque, but I think I'm finally starting to catch on. When you said "my mileage is 15% higher than yours," what you actually meant was 'I can cherry-pick from my list of fills and find two values that are each, respectively, 15% higher than the two fills you mentioned.'

Thanks for explaining your creative approach to data analysis. Your answer is so impressive that it's hard to understand why you ignored the question the first six times I asked it.

trying to attack my credibility

Any damage to your credibility is wholly self-inflicted.

[R.I.D.E.]

OK, that's still fairly opaque, but I think I'm finally starting to catch on. When you said "my mileage is 15% higher than yours," what you actually meant was 'I can cherry-pick from my list of fills and find two values that are each, respectively, 15% higher than the two fills you mentioned.'

Thanks for explaining your creative approach to data analysis. Your answer is so impressive that it's hard to understand why you ignored the question the first six times I asked it.



Any damage to your credibility is wholly self-inflicted.

Cherry picking from your list of fillups is exactly what you did, and you did it first.

You seem to have trouble when people use the same methods you used first.

Then you resort to personal attacks and attempts at character assasination.

You continuously whine when your irrelevant demands are not met.

You refuse to conduct a simple experiment that verifies my statement about throttle position, because you know its true.

You seem to think smoke and mirrors and pitiful propaganda tactics justify your position.

I post here for a lot of people to read son, your demands and insults are just a pitiful part of the process of communication, like shouting down a speaker becasue you don't like the message.

I have proof you have excuses.

I refuse to operate my car in such a way that is guaranteed to eliminate any chance of lean burn being utilized, while you think WOT is the best way.

You yak on about load and throttle position basically being the same. On a dyno load is applied by the dyno. Throttle position is applied by the operator mechanically using the vehicles throttling system. Try learning th difference.

Even in the BSFC map you can see the fallacy of your logic. The top of the chart is not the area of best efficiency, its the max load sustainable with max throttle.

If you tried the two tests you would see what I was trying to describe in real data that you couldn't come back with a credibility attack to (in your mind only) justify your flawed position.

As far as answering your questions.

I'll be glad to do so after you have performed the two recommended tests and explained your position with the test data as a known fact, since if I offered the data you would simply call me a liar, to rationalize your ignoring facts. Keep the questions to one per thread, I wouldn't want to overload your capabilities. Also start your own threat instead of hijacking mine.

Whether you do that or not, I could care less. Many other people have read this thread and I can only hope thay have waded through all your rubbish and actually learned something.

You also demand I create a gas log while you don't.

Follow your own demands with no excuses, then come back and speak in a civilized manner, and I will do the same. Be a jerk and you will be shown to be the fool you are.

regards
gary

[monroe74]

Cherry picking from your list of fillups is exactly what you did, and you did it first.

Uh, no. I was simply reporting a comparison test, which is precisely what was requested by the opening post. That's fundamentally different than claiming an overall average. The latter is what you were doing when you flatly said "my mileage is 15% higher than yours." Let us know if this elementary distinction is really over your head.

You seem to have trouble when people use the same methods you used first.

If I had made a comparison between my overall mileage, and your overall mileage, without actually knowing your overall mileage, then you would have a point. Because that's precisely what you did. What you did and what I did are fundamentally different. I reported a comparison test. You made a deceptive boast based on information you didn't actually have.

a simple experiment that verifies my statement about throttle position

There you go again, trying to change the subject. And I'm not interested in turning my engine off with the car in motion and in gear. If some else around here is eager to run your experiment for you, I'll be paying close attention to the results they report. And then you can try to explain why it's relevant.

I refuse to operate my car in such a way that is guaranteed to eliminate any chance of lean burn being utilized

That's very amusing, since you are indeed operating your car in a way that is guaranteed to eliminate any chance of lean burn being utilized. This is, if you're driving the way you've encouraged others to drive. You've said, more than once (like here: http://www.gassavers.org/showpost.php?p=98571&postcount=27), that the best throttle setting is 70-75%. The chance of lean burn occurring at that throttle setting is this much: zero.

But you wouldn't know that, because you can't be bothered to hook up a cheap DMM to see for yourself how lean burn actually operates on your car. You'd prefer to stick with your unwarranted assumptions and preconceived notions.

you think WOT is the best way

Unlike you, I've actually attempted to test the hypothesis. You've said you won't do this, because you don't want other drivers to think you're a "nut case." That's also very humorous, for multiple reasons.

On a dyno load is applied by the dyno.

When we discussed this in the other thread (http://www.gassavers.org/showpost.php?p=100787&postcount=60), you couldn't manage to define the word "load" without using the word "load." Let us know if you ever figured out how to do that. It would be a good start.

Even in the BSFC map you can see the fallacy of your logic.

When you can show us a BSFC map for a wideband-sensor engine, then you might be in a position to make the point you're trying to make. In the other thread you claimed to have found such a thing, even though you hadn't (http://www.gassavers.org/showpost.php?p=100507&postcount=48). And the fact that you never acknowledged this fundamental misstatement, and are essentially repeating the same misstatement, tells us everything we need to know about your intellectual integrity.

Keep the questions to one per thread

Nice try. Fool me once, etc. Recently when I followed your suggestion to ask you a simple, direct question, you ducked and ran (http://www.gassavers.org/showpost.php?p=100861&postcount=75). Much like your gratuitous evasions in this thread.

You also demand I create a gas log

One of the many simple distinctions beyond your grasp is the difference between a suggestion and a demand.

come back and speak in a civilized manner

You've repeatedly addressed me as "son," even though you know essentially nothing about my age and gender. (Aside from various other forms of name-calling in which you've indulged.) This puts you in a weak position to lecture others about civility. It's also a helpful insight into your regular practice of making unwarranted assumptions.