2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992) 1986-1992 Discussion including performance modifications and technical support sections.

My quest for better fuel milage

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-15-11 | 03:21 PM
  #101  
sharingan 19's Avatar
Rotary Revolutionary
iTrader: (16)
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 3,881
Likes: 2
From: Jacksonville, Tampa & Tallahassee
Karack:
that sounds about like what I used to get before all the fuel system upgrades... Hopefully I'm on the way back. Guess I'll be looking into timing after I see what kind of effect these fuel reductions make.

Wms10th:
That is awful! You can do way better. What turbo u running?

Pvillknight7:
I have never tuned w/a haltech so I have no way to know. Is there no compensation for load at all? Doesn't seem like a very safe/efficient system if that is the case.

Last edited by sharingan 19; 09-15-11 at 03:27 PM. Reason: Responses
Old 09-15-11 | 06:35 PM
  #102  
beefhole's Avatar
Boosted. I got BLOWN!!!
iTrader: (29)
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,742
Likes: 1
From: Queens, NY
Originally Posted by PvillKnight7
Haltech E6k. When I adjust fuel during highway cruising for lean but still smooth operation the engine lean surges in parking lots because the same rpm and pressure are required but the load is different. I think that's what happens...so I compromise and run a little richer during highway cruising conditions.

Is there a way to compensate for this?
trying not to sidetrack too much...
Do you use the closed loop on the E6k? Even though the computer is "primitive", I've read it works well. I don't, but I run mine (map) rich at lower RPM <2500 and lean it out 3000-3500. Maybe a functioning closed loop will let you putt around in a parking lot easy, but lean you out nicely on a steady highway drive.
Old 09-15-11 | 06:56 PM
  #103  
PvillKnight7's Avatar
Rotary Freak
iTrader: (16)
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,597
Likes: 3
From: Maryland
Thanks for the tips. I want to try a few other things before I try closed loop. Wasn't trying to derail the fuel saving topic. Engine tuning theory is the same regardless of what ECU or ECU signal modifier thingy like the SAFC.

Apparently closed loop makes a big fuel saving difference. Is there an easier way to test for closed loop operation besides hooking up this closed-loop indicator light?
Old 09-15-11 | 07:03 PM
  #104  
j9fd3s's Avatar
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,197
Likes: 2,825
From: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Originally Posted by PvillKnight7
Any info to back this up?

i.e.
Less fuel is used with an A/F ratio of 13.5:1 at 800rpms than one of 15:1 at 3500rpms?

Did you neglect the mass of fuel and air being used?
Does the stock ECU cut fuel on decel?
i've done a few haltech cars, and the pulsewidths at idle are usually a little HIGHER at idle than cruise. i do usually end up with a richer idle 12.2-12.5 and cruise is in the mid 14's. i doubt it would make any difference in MPG
Old 09-15-11 | 07:27 PM
  #105  
Wms10th's Avatar
10th Mazda - 10th A.E.
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles
Originally Posted by sharingan 19
Karack:
Wms10th:
That is awful! You can do way better. What turbo u running?
I'll get back to you, I have to go home and look. I have a rebuilt one ready to go on in the garage.
Old 09-15-11 | 11:05 PM
  #106  
gxl90rx7's Avatar
destroy, rebuild, repeat
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,991
Likes: 17
From: Charleston, SC
Originally Posted by j9fd3s
i've done a few haltech cars, and the pulsewidths at idle are usually a little HIGHER at idle than cruise. i do usually end up with a richer idle 12.2-12.5 and cruise is in the mid 14's. i doubt it would make any difference in MPG
i idle at ~2.3 ms at 1000 rpm (1.9% duty cycle), cruise at ~4.0ms at 3000 rpm (10% duty cycle). idle is 13's AFR, cruise in closed loop. if you do the math, that comes out to about 0.36 gal/hr at idle and 2.1 gal/hr cruising, so quite a difference. If your decel fuel cut does not work, its better to throw it in neutral
Old 09-16-11 | 12:09 AM
  #107  
GregW's Avatar
~!@#$%^&*()_+
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
From: Mpls, MN
Do you have Zero Throttle enabled along with your narrow band? Tune for lean 11's then enable zero throttle, get that sorted, then enable your fuel correction and get that sorted. Then check when going from cruise to WOT to make sure you dong go lean when you get into it.

Originally Posted by PvillKnight7
Haltech E6k. When I adjust fuel during highway cruising for lean but still smooth operation the engine lean surges in parking lots because the same rpm and pressure are required but the load is different. I think that's what happens...so I compromise and run a little richer during highway cruising conditions.

Is there a way to compensate for this?
Old 09-17-11 | 06:46 AM
  #108  
Landon303's Avatar
Thread Starter
Rotary Enthusiast
iTrader: (25)
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 3
From: clearwater, florida
Well I definitely think the best way to go is to ditch the stock ECU, and as of now, I plan to starting in December. I'll probably be going MS2, but I've still got much research to do, etc, before I get there. Thanks for all the input guys, this thread really has been a giant help!! Hope some other people benefit off this as well
Old 09-17-11 | 11:36 AM
  #109  
j9fd3s's Avatar
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,197
Likes: 2,825
From: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Originally Posted by gxl90rx7
i idle at ~2.3 ms at 1000 rpm (1.9% duty cycle), cruise at ~4.0ms at 3000 rpm (10% duty cycle). idle is 13's AFR, cruise in closed loop. if you do the math, that comes out to about 0.36 gal/hr at idle and 2.1 gal/hr cruising, so quite a difference. If your decel fuel cut does not work, its better to throw it in neutral
i just looked at my 3 rotor map, from 2004, idle is 2.5ms, cruise @3000rpm is 2.5ms.... idle was IIRC about 12.2:1, and cruise was 14.4.

granted my stock turbo 3 rotor might be different enough from your 13B-T to cause that difference....
Old 09-20-11 | 09:45 AM
  #110  
Aaron Cake's Avatar
Engine, Not Motor
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 29,793
Likes: 119
From: London, Ontario, Canada
I was driving to work today thinking about this thread. As I happened to be driving the most fuel efficient gasoline production car ever created, my 2000 Honda Insight, I was thinking; why not apply some Insight engineering here? Here are a few quick examples.

First, rear fender skirts. The 1st generation Insight has a COD of 0.25 and part of the reason are the wheel wells.



It would be fairly easy to make up a set of rear fender skirts for the FC, which would eliminate the massive air scoop effect of the rear wheel wells. In fact, an FC with rear skirts was one of the design studies for the 2nd gen RX-7. Glad that it didn't go through because the car would look kind of funny, but in the case of fuel economy, they would make a considerable difference. Use rivnuts or other similar fastener to secure the panels to the wheel well lip for easy removal. Make a cardboard template and then recreate in fibreglass.

I see you have some of the factory aero pieces installed. You can go a step further and make the front lip around the front wheels much lower. Also widen it so that it is about as wide as the tire itself. This will funnel some of the air that would have slammed against the front facing tire around it and into the wheel well.



Looking at the Insight's wheel well, you can see that the wheel is set quite far inside. The front of the wheel is about 2" out from the wheel so that air can pass over the wheel instead of into the well. Notice the rear, where there is a significant scallop and lip to funnel air out of the well and along the body. Some fibreglass could bring the front of the well out a little, and then you could apply the same technique to smooth the rear.



Also, S4 phone dial wheels are probably the most aerodynamic. See how the Insight wheel is almost a total flat saucer? Sealing up the surface of the wheel provides far less drag and works with the fenders to channel air.

Another example of this are the windshield wipers:



Not a great picture but you can kind of see how the wipers are far below the "air line" of the hood. The hood also has a kickup at the rear to send air up and over the wipers and windshield. Another easy area to experiment with by using come cardboard and duct tape.

Finally, an idling engine is achieving 0 MPG. It's just sitting there, burning up fuel. Why not look to eliminate idle?

A very crude auto-stop setup could be made. Use a microcontroller such as Arduino or BASICStamp to read a few parameters and kill the engine when it's not needed. Measure TPS position, clutch switch, 1st gear switch (you'd need to add that), RPM and neutral switch (I think the FC has this?). It's all pretty simple to measure this stuff with very little in terms of support electronics. Most microcontrollers have several analog to digital channels which would do the job of reading the TPS (a simple 0-5V signal). Tach input is easy via an optocoupler (copy the Megasquirt tach input). Then the switches are just digital inputs.

The idea being that when you hit a red light, you push in the clutch, shift into neutral and then the microcontroller kills power to the injectors but switching on a NC relay. Engine shuts off. When you want to move again, you push the clutch and the micro switches the relay and cranks the engine via the stater.

Here's what the program would do....

Vehicle comes to a stop

If RPM < 1000 and TPS = IDLE and CLUTCH = pressed and GEAR = neutral Then Enable Injector Cut Pin
Loop and wait while checking inputs
If CLUTCH = pressed and RPM = 0 then
Disable Injector Cut Relay Pin
Enable Crank Relay Output Pin
Loop while cranking
If RPM > 500 then Disable Crank Relay and Exit Loop
If RPM < 500 then keep cranking
End Loop
End If
End loop

You kind of get the idea. You'd want a master enable/disable switch and it goes without saying that the car must be in good tune to start easily, and the starter must be in good shape. Probably not a useful system for ever little stop sign, but for sitting a few minutes at a red light, fuel savings could add up.
Attached Thumbnails My quest for better fuel milage-img00052-20110920-0915-medium-.jpg   My quest for better fuel milage-img00053-20110920-0916-medium-.jpg   My quest for better fuel milage-img00054-20110920-0916-medium-.jpg  

Last edited by Aaron Cake; 09-20-11 at 09:47 AM.
Old 09-20-11 | 10:45 AM
  #111  
clokker's Avatar
Cake or Death?

iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,249
Likes: 63
From: Mile High
Originally Posted by Aaron Cake
I was driving to work today thinking about this thread. As I happened to be driving the most fuel efficient gasoline production car ever created, my 2000 Honda Insight, I was thinking; why not apply some Insight engineering here? Here are a few quick examples.

First, rear fender skirts...
What serendipity-I had just read this before you posted...
http://www.autonews.com/article/2011...110919843/1172
Old 09-20-11 | 12:11 PM
  #112  
j9fd3s's Avatar
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,197
Likes: 2,825
From: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Originally Posted by Aaron Cake
The idea being that when you hit a red light, you push in the clutch, shift into neutral and then the microcontroller kills power to the injectors but switching on a NC relay. Engine shuts off. When you want to move again, you push the clutch and the micro switches the relay and cranks the engine via the stater.
you'd have to really look at this, but usually idling takes less fuel than the cranking/start does. the only reason its becoming viable is because we have things like the hybrids that don't have to add fuel while cranking, or mazda's stop start thing which also doesn't add fuel in cranking.

the cranking MS on the stock ecu is something like 13ms, which is a lot more than the 3 or so it uses to idle....

it would probably be better to just take right turns...
Old 09-20-11 | 02:28 PM
  #113  
Aaron Cake's Avatar
Engine, Not Motor
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 29,793
Likes: 119
From: London, Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by clokker
What serendipity-I had just read this before you posted...
http://www.autonews.com/article/2011...110919843/1172
Somewhere in Japan there is a room full of Honda engineers once again laughing at GM. While it's probably true that just sticking a set of wheel skirts on a Malibu won't gain much, it's pretty clear that as a complete aerodynamic system, they are very important.

Originally Posted by j9fd3s
you'd have to really look at this, but usually idling takes less fuel than the cranking/start does. the only reason its becoming viable is because we have things like the hybrids that don't have to add fuel while cranking, or mazda's stop start thing which also doesn't add fuel in cranking.
the cranking MS on the stock ecu is something like 13ms, which is a lot more than the 3 or so it uses to idle....
it would probably be better to just take right turns...
It would only be useful when the idle period exceeds the amount of fuel needed to restart the engine. I guess one could calculate 2 seconds at 13ms vs. 3 minutes at 3ms. Actually, just typing that makes it fairly clear. The microcontroller could also play a trick by cutting the fuel pump out during this cranking to keep fuel pressure low. A hot engine starts on much less fuel than the stock ECU is dumping in.
Old 09-20-11 | 02:49 PM
  #114  
Wms10th's Avatar
10th Mazda - 10th A.E.
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles
Originally Posted by sharingan 19
Karack:
Wms10th:
That is awful! You can do way better. What turbo u running?
Turns out I got 170 miles from my 1st full tank, and I'm not trying to get mileage.

The turbo I'm runnin' is a T04e.
Old 09-20-11 | 03:02 PM
  #115  
clokker's Avatar
Cake or Death?

iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,249
Likes: 63
From: Mile High
Originally Posted by Aaron Cake
Somewhere in Japan there is a room full of Honda engineers once again laughing at GM. While it's probably true that just sticking a set of wheel skirts on a Malibu won't gain much, it's pretty clear that as a complete aerodynamic system, they are very important.
No doubt true, but then again, I don't see sticking skirts on a 7 is much different than the Malibu in the sense that the RX wasn't designed for them either.

I'd bet all the aero tweaks the OP has tried/considered don't together equal the gains from going to skinny wheels with low rolling resistance tires....
Old 09-20-11 | 06:09 PM
  #116  
papiogxl's Avatar
What's the point??
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
From: Omaha, NE
Aaron, BMW uses a similar autostop feature on the M3.
Old 09-20-11 | 06:14 PM
  #117  
j9fd3s's Avatar
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,197
Likes: 2,825
From: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Originally Posted by Aaron Cake
It would only be useful when the idle period exceeds the amount of fuel needed to restart the engine. I guess one could calculate 2 seconds at 13ms vs. 3 minutes at 3ms. Actually, just typing that makes it fairly clear. The microcontroller could also play a trick by cutting the fuel pump out during this cranking to keep fuel pressure low. A hot engine starts on much less fuel than the stock ECU is dumping in.
try it then, the math isn't as simple as 13x2 vs 180x3... if it worked like that it would be really common to do
Old 09-20-11 | 06:20 PM
  #118  
papiogxl's Avatar
What's the point??
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
From: Omaha, NE
http://www.hybridcars.com/news/feds-...ems-29826.html

http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicle...tart_stop.html
Old 09-20-11 | 09:28 PM
  #119  
sharingan 19's Avatar
Rotary Revolutionary
iTrader: (16)
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 3,881
Likes: 2
From: Jacksonville, Tampa & Tallahassee
I figured the insight was slicker than .25 cod, wasn't the s4 sport like .27 ?

Originally Posted by Wms10th
Turns out I got 170 miles from my 1st full tank, and I'm not trying to get mileage.

The turbo I'm runnin' is a T04e.
Could be worse I suppose... I'm at 110 miles and still over a half tank since I filled up and tweaked the cruise map. All city driving and I've been drifting 3 times, lol.

Originally Posted by clokker
No doubt true, but then again, I don't see sticking skirts on a 7 is much different than the Malibu in the sense that the RX wasn't designed for them either.

I'd bet all the aero tweaks the OP has tried/considered don't together equal the gains from going to skinny wheels with low rolling resistance tires....
Actually, I do see a very slight difference in that an owner with limited resources retrofitting modern design elements onto a 20+ year old car in an attempt to improve efficiency is admirable. Whereas a manufacturer with substantial resources attempting to (what's the opposite of retrofit? Lol) decade old designs in lieu of designing efficient vehicles is rather lame.

The wheels/tires are pretty narrow. When u say "low rolling resistance tire" are you referring to a specific compound or just over inflation?
Old 09-20-11 | 09:36 PM
  #120  
clokker's Avatar
Cake or Death?

iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,249
Likes: 63
From: Mile High
Originally Posted by sharingan 19
When u say "low rolling resistance tire" are you referring to a specific compound or just over inflation?
Compound + tread design.
Old 09-20-11 | 10:58 PM
  #121  
Derekcat's Avatar
Rotary Zealot!
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,735
Likes: 2
From: Milwaukie, Or
The S4 Aero Package drops the car from .31 to .29 [as an amusing side note, .29 is also the coefficient for the FD, Mazda3, Subaru SVX, 1st gen Prius, Versa, 90's Eclipse, 2011+ Audi A4/S4, 2008 Infiniti G35, etc.. ]
Old 09-21-11 | 12:14 AM
  #122  
j9fd3s's Avatar
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,197
Likes: 2,825
From: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
like the windblocker, the start stop is a mazda invention http://www.mazda.com/mazdaspirit/env/engine/siss.html

try it, you don't need a fancy controller, just turn the key with your hand.
Old 09-21-11 | 01:21 AM
  #123  
MrGoodnight's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 620
Likes: 3
From: Tacoma Washington
hmm, my s4 na is bone stock, i daily drive it 90 percent city and i cosistantly get 18-19 mpg.
The most mpg's i have ever seen was 21 after doing 130 miles on i5 at 80mph.
Old 09-21-11 | 04:09 AM
  #124  
theflatlander's Avatar
Dual Wielding DieGrinders
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 720
Likes: 2
From: Elko, NV
Get a bike and stop with this trying to make the 7 a fuel efficient vehicle nonsense.
Old 09-21-11 | 09:49 AM
  #125  
Aaron Cake's Avatar
Engine, Not Motor
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 29,793
Likes: 119
From: London, Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by clokker
No doubt true, but then again, I don't see sticking skirts on a 7 is much different than the Malibu in the sense that the RX wasn't designed for them either.
I'd bet all the aero tweaks the OP has tried/considered don't together equal the gains from going to skinny wheels with low rolling resistance tires....
One would need to use the wheel skirts as one component to a complete package. Just like there is no one part of the Insight responsible for its high fuel economy.

And yes, low rolling resistance tires! That would make a huge difference, especially when over inflated. By upping the pressure on my Insight from the stock ~32 PSI to 50 PSI, I picked up an average of 8 MPG in the city and made it far easier to cruise along at 90 - 100 MPG on the highway. The downside? The handling of all LRR tires sucks donkey *****.

Originally Posted by j9fd3s
try it then, the math isn't as simple as 13x2 vs 180x3... if it worked like that it would be really common to do
It is becoming more and more common. Manufacturers like GM who didn't bother with proper hybrids have been using BAS (Belt-Alternator-Starter) systems to achieve idle stop for several years. Of course it was a pretty big failure, but they did see fuel economy improvements in situations of long idle periods.

I know the math isn't that simple, but 13ms for about 1.5 - 2 seconds at a cranking speed of 250 RPM is a lot less fuel injected than say, 3 minutes at 3ms at 750 RPM.

But more to the point, does the stock ECU really use a fixed duty cycle to crank the engine regardless of temperature? I tune most standalones to crank at about 5 - 6 ms once the engine is at operating temperature and they start with the flick of the key.

Originally Posted by j9fd3s
try it, you don't need a fancy controller, just turn the key with your hand.
Yep, or you could do that. But it's not as cool.


Quick Reply: My quest for better fuel milage



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:22 AM.