Oops, I guess I should have said 4-speed manual, which is what I thought he meant.
My '06 Monte Carlo has a 4-speed automatic and an instant MPG readout, too.
My '06 Monte Carlo has a 4-speed automatic and an instant MPG readout, too.
Better gas mileage after a few WOT's?!?
- Thread starter jigen
- Start date
- Status
You cleaned something out.
Valve deposits, CC deposits, rings, or the cat.
Valve deposits, CC deposits, rings, or the cat.
Originally Posted By: xBa380
Anybody know if accelerating at say 2K rpm versus 4K rpm for half the time would result is more/less fuel usage? I mean that is a very "basic" example, but you get the point.
In our van, I've found that briskly (not WOT) accelerating up to highway cruising speed gives better overall MPG than very slowly accelerating up to speed. This gives more overall run time spent in the tallest gear I guess.
Anybody know if accelerating at say 2K rpm versus 4K rpm for half the time would result is more/less fuel usage? I mean that is a very "basic" example, but you get the point.
In our van, I've found that briskly (not WOT) accelerating up to highway cruising speed gives better overall MPG than very slowly accelerating up to speed. This gives more overall run time spent in the tallest gear I guess.
Originally Posted By: Samilcar
Originally Posted By: xBa380
Anybody know if accelerating at say 2K rpm versus 4K rpm for half the time would result is more/less fuel usage? I mean that is a very "basic" example, but you get the point.
In our van, I've found that briskly (not WOT) accelerating up to highway cruising speed gives better overall MPG than very slowly accelerating up to speed. This gives more overall run time spent in the tallest gear I guess.
Staying below WOT, at least by a little, is important because most of the PCU setups I'm familiar with will go rich on purpose when they see WOT.
Originally Posted By: xBa380
Anybody know if accelerating at say 2K rpm versus 4K rpm for half the time would result is more/less fuel usage? I mean that is a very "basic" example, but you get the point.
In our van, I've found that briskly (not WOT) accelerating up to highway cruising speed gives better overall MPG than very slowly accelerating up to speed. This gives more overall run time spent in the tallest gear I guess.
Staying below WOT, at least by a little, is important because most of the PCU setups I'm familiar with will go rich on purpose when they see WOT.
Originally Posted By: calvin1
Staying below WOT, at least by a little, is important because most of the PCU setups I'm familiar with will go rich on purpose when they see WOT.
And most ECU calibrate the optimal load / fuel ratio to about 40% of WOT.
Staying below WOT, at least by a little, is important because most of the PCU setups I'm familiar with will go rich on purpose when they see WOT.
And most ECU calibrate the optimal load / fuel ratio to about 40% of WOT.
Originally Posted By: sciphi
And I have a ScanGauge, which does have a very accurate (once calibrated) iMPG function.
I bought one simply for the mpg function and had to send it back because my car came from a batch with funky speed sensors that are 3mph low at 70 so the scangauge was off to begin with.
And I have a ScanGauge, which does have a very accurate (once calibrated) iMPG function.
I bought one simply for the mpg function and had to send it back because my car came from a batch with funky speed sensors that are 3mph low at 70 so the scangauge was off to begin with.
- Status
