"CO ZX2" what have you done to your car ???

[CO ZX2]

Originally Posted by elg

ok so 70mpg is a good relativ figure that is for sure and it?s after about 1000km so far I understand.

To my calcuator: 3.79/(70*0.1609)=0.3365L/10km ! not exactly but close.
So why don?t I load 300kg in the Micra and go for the ride of my life !

Midsize or not, top five gasoline car in gassavers garage all around 800-1000kg exept one with 200kg more.
Still no awnser about the tripmeter, so I guess there we have the problem.
Maybe some 20% error:
0.3365*1.2=0.4038, and now it seems more like it.

About numbers I read alot coming from MetroMPG and this is great, this I belive, very good work, and hard work, but load MetroMPG:s car with extra 300kg and I?m sure the most people think this will totally destroy fine MPGs ! So do I.

Like I said before, this is not for beeing noughty, just fun and to know,
you can read alot on the net and not everything is true, but on this site for some reason I belive it is true so Good Luck !

elg, you don't seem to be reading my reply very closely. The following paragraph is contained in my reply to you.

(One of the main reasons I bought a ScanGauge was to alleviate fill-up inconsistencies experienced with pumps, tank capacity, tilt etc. I found with the ScanGauge I was not the FE driver I could be. I have made drastic FE improvements attributable to driving style changes. I have verified registered miles with speedo, ScanGauge, milepost markers and Google Earth.)


I don't follow or agree with your refiguring of my gas mileage. I am not very concerned with kilometers/liters/imperial gallons etc. I trust that GasSavers is getting my MPG figured properly. It is your job to get your conversion to match my numbers.

[BeeUU]

elg:

The smallest changes can make a big difference. This past summer my Peugeot 405 (U.S. model) was getting around 22 mpg during my commute. Changing only my shift points and throttle use brought that number to the upper twenties. I have added some tape to cover the grill and started experimenting with engine shutoff and have noticed that it is taking a real long time to get to the half tank.

Next is a warmer thermostat, injector cut off, higher tire pressure, etc etc.

Every little bit adds up, significantly sometimes!!!

Also, what year is your Micra? Small and light yes, but not necessarily the most aerodynamic car on the road. Aerodynamics are vital. Plus manufacturing tolerances can make for large gaps in the nose that adds to big drag. I taped/sealed all the gaps in the nose of my VW Jetta (Vento) and the highway mileage rose from the low thirties to the upper thirties, no other changes. It is MUCH quieter and more stable at high speeds. I have a feeling that my manufactured Jetta was definitely not the 0.34 Cd car that was advertised, not untill the duct tape anyway.

Getting 60-70 mpg out of a ZX2 is possible, it just takes a TON of work!!

I believe, I am trying too.

[BeeUU]

elg-

I just saw your picture in the garage!!!

Go to the hardware/auto store as fast as you dare and get some tape and door seal foam!!!!

I am guessing that you need only one of the openings in the front bumper to cool your car. That is it. Use the foam tape to seal the hood and tape everything else closed.

Your mileage will go up very soon!!! I promise!!!

[GasSavers_Erik]

COZX2

I am curious about your gearing. What is your engine rpm at 60 mph in 5th?

[GasSavers_elg]

CO ZX2;

Oh, sorry about that, you had made a correction of distance. I just read it, so sorry.
I my self make calibration at a flat 1000m track, 3 times for distance and also 3 times in speed and clock. Avarange of this makes the faktor. Resolution of my meter is just 10m, too bad.

Ok I belive you, 70mpg+ at long test and several 100+ for shorts.

No problem at all.

For "Landspeed" maybe I got you wrong but as far as I know Hilly against flat is rather easy choise, just theoretical:
We have no losses and go the track. The hilly one has longer way to travel and there for uses more energy.
And now add the losses.
So sorry if I missunderstod you.

// elg

[zpiloto]

Originally Posted by BeeUU

elg:

Aerodynamics are vital. Plus manufacturing tolerances can make for large gaps in the nose that adds to big drag. I taped/sealed all the gaps in the nose of my VW Jetta (Vento) and the highway mileage rose from the low thirties to the upper thirties, no other changes. It is MUCH quieter and more stable at high speeds. I have a feeling that my manufactured Jetta was definitely not the 0.34 Cd car that was advertised, not untill the duct tape anyway.

Getting 60-70 mpg out of a ZX2 is possible, it just takes a TON of work!!

I believe, I am trying too.

Aerodynamic is not vital if your commute and speeds are low. There is some improvement up till about 40 MPH after that they become much more of a factor.
The top 2 in MPG or a classic example. Metro who has been on top for awhile recently added aero mods and basjoos is all highway and his car is aero'd out to the max.

[landspeed]

Elg : I never really thought about the distance increase the hills would make, but my best MPGs have currently been on hilly terrain. Thinking about it though:

- A 1 in 10 gradient is very steep, and every mile you drive up or down, you will end up driving 1.01 miles - so only a 1% increase in distance!. Therefore, hills make no real difference to distance.

-However, if you can get up to 40% efficiency going up the hill, then coast back down the hill, you will be driving at 40% efficiency, whereas efficiency is more like 20% cruising along. A 1 in 10 gradient is probably too steep for proper hypermiling - there is a particularly long hill like this where I get up to 70+mph coasting (staring at 20mph at the top).

Big cars can be economical. I drove a Toyota Avensis over 100 miles, and got 92mpg (UK) = 77mpg(US) - this was with air-con switched on for half of the journey, and I hadn't yet found this site, so only used 56mph driving, coasting down hills with engine on, but no drafting or anything else. This was a 2.2 Turbodiesel as well, with 150bhp on tap!. This car has an MPG gauge on it.

P.S. The key to going up hills is to use the highest level of throttle before the engine enriches the mixture, with the lowest *efficient* revs. This is easy as I have a wideband lambda sensor - it has dramatically improved my economy (it is easy to see on my gaslog too!). I'm going to start the first aero mods (grille block) this weekend

[zpiloto]

Originally Posted by landspeed

Something mentioned earlier regarding hilly terrain - if the hills are the correct grade, you can use 40% throttle up the hills, avoiding engine fuel enrichment, and increasing engine efficiency, and then coast down the hills with engine off. This increases the overall efficiency!

Is this 40% enriched verified? I'm going to try a restrictor plate and was going for the maximum throttle TP that I could get away with. I though the ECU did not add fuel until WFO or about 85%.

[skewbe]

Originally Posted by CO ZX2

(One of the main reasons I bought a ScanGauge was to alleviate fill-up inconsistencies experienced with pumps, tank capacity, tilt etc. I found with the ScanGauge I was not the FE driver I could be. I have made drastic FE improvements attributable to driving style changes. [/COLOR]I have verified registered miles with speedo, ScanGauge, milepost markers and Google Earth.)


I don't follow or agree with your refiguring of my gas mileage. I am not very concerned with kilometers/liters/imperial gallons etc. I trust that GasSavers is getting my MPG figured properly. It is your job to get your conversion to match my numbers.

Ok, two more questions:
1. you've verified the odometer/scanguage/mile markers/google earth. What about fuel consumption? I'm reasonably sure you would cross check what the pump says you used and what the scangauge says you used, and use the "fillup" feature to calibrate your scangauge, per the instructions, but I would like confirmation.

2. in your experience do the mountains help mpg or hurt vs flatlands? (Yes' it's pretty darn flat here)

re: 39mph tight hilly corners, sounds exciting

[landspeed]

My car is *not* designed for fuel economy at all!. On my car, there is no throttle position sensor, and it uses the airflow meter to see how much load the engine is under.

On my car, when the vacuum is slightly less than halfway between idle and '0' vacuum, the mixture drops from 15.0:1 to 12:1, and on boost, it goes to 10:1.

I guess more modern cars will have the enrichment point set further up than mine, maybe nearer to WOT. I suppose the idea being that, on my car, you can go WOT and run boost, heat up the engine a lot, and then, if you dropped to slight vacuum, the extra heat might cause detonations.