Why does hooning improve fuel economy

>>14823056
sick car what mods do you have
the first mod i did on mine was a short throw dipstick

>>14823079
Enjoy your premature engine oil failure.

>>14823079
All stock son. Tune (Cobb AP) will probably be my first upgrade.

I experience this in my ultra pig fat 4500 barge, fuel economy is good at cruising speed so pulling quickly from a stop is better mileage.

>>14823170
>>14823056
The most efficient way to drive is WOT until shifting at around 2-3k revs depending on your gearing all the way up to cruise speed of around 55-60mph where most cars are maximally efficient.

>>14823228
Most factory fuel maps are tuned for lean cruise at low throttle and 1.5-3.5k rpm.

>>14823056
>Various publications have stated "stick to the speed limits to improve fuel economy"
What? WOT until you reach desired speed has been known to be the most efficient way to travel.

That said, I don't know if driving significantly over the speed limit is beneficial for your car once you're in motion and in top gear. Once in motion, whether you need to go speed limit or faster for best results is dependent on your torque curve.

>>14823264
I asked a hypermiler that just set the record, I think they got 120 odd MPG or something along that level.

He seemed to believe that the most efficient way to drive a car was to get to cruising speed as fast as possible whilst staying in the efficient rev range.

His advice was 100% throttle through the gears, changing up at around 2.5k revs for a petrol until you got to 55 odd mph.

>>14823277
For instance:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.jsp

>Aggressive driving (speeding, rapid acceleration and braking) wastes gas.
>Observe the Speed Limit: While each vehicle reaches its optimal fuel economy at a different speed (or range of speeds), gas mileage usually decreases rapidly at speeds above 50 mph.

I was doing the literal opposite of both of these, and my fuel economy improved drastically.

>>14823311
>.gov

The government's driving recommendations must be suited for the worst possible drivers, because they exist, and are dumb enough to follow them to the letter. You don't want those people having a "government approved!" stamp on shit they don't actually know how to do.

>PEDAL TO THE METAL UNCLE SAM SAID SO
>car in "L/1", automagic, hands off the wheel
>torque steering into the closest car
>OOOH SHIIT
>swerve away, hit the car on the other side
>30 car pile up

>>14823326
>>PEDAL TO THE METAL UNCLE SAM SAID SO
>>car in "L/1", automagic, hands off the wheel
>>torque steering into the closest car
>>OOOH SHIIT
>>swerve away, hit the car on the other side
>>30 car pile up
How real this is pisses me off.

>>14823056
Sounds like your ECU isn't retarded.

Meanwhile, in my soarer
>Fuel cut of 14.5psi
>Air/Fuel ratio at 17psi with a fuel cut defencer
>12.3ish to 1

>Runs so rich it's still rich while running 2.5psi more than it thinks it is

In my situation, cranking the boost is literally giving me fuel economy.

>>14823304
The hyper miler you asked has no idea what he's talking about.

>>14823367
Well he's mostly right about the throttle I'd imagine. The throttle mostly controls how much air is mixed into the fuel, right, and how much fuel is dispensed is controlled by the O2 richness of the air? So pedal to the metal = max air, maximizing the portion of fuel being used for locomotion.

Or I'm wrong, but that's what I got from wikipedia:

>the throttle is a valve that directly regulates the amount of air entering the engine, indirectly controlling the charge (fuel + air)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throttle

>>14823367
>>14823429
I'd assume the guy who literally set the hypermileage world record knows more about mileage efficiency than 'some guy on /o/'

That's what he said, maybe his car was specifically tuned to work with maximal throttle but his tips were that

Drive with a WOT until switching up at 2.5k revs

Try to get up to the most efficient speed for your car which is typically somewhere in the range of 50-60mph, I generally see it cited at 55.

>>14823469
I agreed with your buddy, if you even read my post. Did you ask him how he accounted for incline when hypermiling? I always wonder if I should slow down a bit when going uphill, since the output power at an angle is sec(angle) times the required power for the same speed on level terrain.

If you gun it up to speed you'll generally use a burst of fuel and hardly any from there on in.

I found if I drive my car so its sitting right on the powerband and I can give it any throttle and it will launch thats perfect for economy. And fun.

Engines have to do work to move the car, if the engine is having to fight its own lack of low down power all the time then it isn't running efficiently. If you're up in the high revrange with minimal throttle the car will use hardly any fuel, the ECU is also aware of this and will just keep it idling along.

>>14823498
I was just replying to your post to give a possible reason for 100% throttle being more efficient

Didn't ask about inclines but I've always assumed you just slow down until you'd be going equivalently as hard as you would on flat ground.

The efficiency is just a degree of how hard the engine is having to work. Around 55mph is just about where engine efficiency being higher with speed and drag force being higher with speed combine to give a maximum in fuel efficiency.

>>14823554
>tfw I was always told to not go faster than 75

I guess I'll try to just stick to 55 in the slow lane. So you just go balls deep with WOT from every dead stop?

>>14823565
Until 2500 revs in a petrol, which looks ridiculous.

The most efficient speed depends on the car but for regular road cars its somewhere between 50-65mph.

It must have some relation to the type of engine, although it must boil down to a thermodynamic equation at some degree. I literally know zero about the physics of combustion engines.

>>14823585
>WOT to 2500 rpms
y'all must drive some slow fucking cars for this to be feasible

>>14823585
I'm pretty sure it just depends on top gear + final drive ratios. Probably 2k rpm in top gear.

>>14823593
This, I'm pretty sure I'm at 2.5k by the time the gas pedal reaches the floor.

File: most american ship iowa kancolle.jpg (557KB, 2149x3035px) Image search: [Google]

557KB, 2149x3035px

>>14823326
>>PEDAL TO THE METAL UNCLE SAM SAID SO
I get the feeling this should be the slogan of an outrageously American character in a show or the one-liner that underscores a mad-ass hooning sequence in a movie.

>>14823593
They're generally driving slow cars

All I do to my shitbox is pump the tires up to super high PSI, stopped using thick oil and went down to low viscosity fully synth stuff at the price of a louder engine and find a nice van to sit behind on long journeys.

>>14823336
Nigger you're the retarded one. Turbocharged cars are supposed to run rich under boost. The extra fuel is injected so it will evaporate and cool the intake charge, reducing the chance of detonation. 12.3 AFR is lean as fuck for boosting 17PSI and you're risking blowing your engine.

>>14823056
redline all day erry day

Your engine is most efficent at peak torque/hp. You are best off staying there until you reach your desired speed then dropping to the highest gear.

>>14823611
>Make kancolle great again
>again
Trash will stay trash

>>14823056
Some cars are very efficient at certain RPM.

Take an RX-8 or FD for example. You get like 10-13MPG on the track, which is only half what you get in city/highway driving.
Meanwhile most people in their other cars get like 5-8MPG on the track, while they get 4-5 times the mileage in city/highway driving.

In a turbo, the boost is like more compression as long as it's under like 7-9psi which increases efficiency. Surely not so much so if you're WOT, but there might be some point in the powerband where you're driving it just hard enough to get some boost but not hard enough that it's injecting terribly much more fuel.

>>14823628
Are you fucking high?
12-12.5 is exactly where you want the AFRs under boost, that's still noticeably rich and has a cooling effect.
Lean is 13+ and you only need to worry about melting the pistons on a 1J at 13.5

>>14823114
Just take it in and have a real tuner do it.

>>14824441
You need to buy an AP first anyway. Then you can use Cobb pre-made maps, or you can go to a tuner who'll make you custom maps for the AP.

>>14823056
>car reports economy of 9.5 l/100km

And the majority of us dont know what this is at a glance.

When using measurements you should yield right of way to country which has the most posters(US).

Imperial units next time please.

File: 1456689143578.jpg (29KB, 566x566px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 566x566px

>>14824449
No thanks. Backwards burgers can do their own conversion. There's a reason literally the entire world uses SI units.

>>14824457
>There's a reason literally the entire world uses SI units.
Hairy women and lack of freedom?

Oops, that's more than one reason.

"Hooning" absolutely does not increase fuel efficiency for me.

Now you have a turbo 4 banger and that may make a difference.

But my N/A 5.0 will rape my gas tank if I do what you did, pull like a madman from stops and all that.

Now my 1.8t wont rape me and will likely give at least 25-30 MPG if driven like that on a mix of roads.

File: obama-shepard-fairey-nsa-prism-2.jpg (232KB, 600x811px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 600x811px

>>14824465
>he thinks burger central is free

>>14824457
>There's a reason literally the entire world uses SI units.

Yes, but when the majority of posters use the imperial system it makes sense to use imperial units.

If I posted on german refugee camp forum I would use KM/H and all that....

>>14824472
Why is this? I'm assuming it's because best economy happens under boost, and flooring it around runs boost faster and harder?

File: 1386313235812.jpg (59KB, 331x319px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 331x319px

>>14824484
>KM/H
This is bait, right?

>>14824485
Im sure it has something to do with forced induction being more efficient. But with my little turbo I have noticed the same the as OP. If its like 50 degrees out and the engine is up to operating temp it really pulls hard and gives excellent economy.

>>14824496
"The unit symbol is km/h (officially used abbreviation in the European Union and most other countries)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilometres_per_hour

>>14824510
There's a difference when you capitalize letters. Capital letters can mean different units. Don't do that.

>>14824510
Capitalisation is important.

Please re-read the SI brochure.

>>14824523
This is why we dont use the metric system.

I dont care either way and we probably should have changed over in the 70's to lessen confusion. But now it would cost way too much to change for a country already in too much debt.

>>14824448
>The only way to get a tune is to have an AP.

Who told you this?

>>14824523
there are no other K-lettered prefixes in Metric. Your point would have been valid if we were speaking of decameters per hour or bytes vs. bits, but there is no difference between KM/H and km/h.

>>14824552
Kelvin. Also H is Henry.

>>14824578
Kelvin is K, Kilometer is KM.
"Kelvin-meters per Henry" isn't even a valid measurement, so you'd have to be pretty dense, yet educated enough to mistake KM/H for it.

>>14824629
>>14824578
>>14824523
get BTFO faggots

>>14824629
Kelvin-meters per Henry is a perfectly valid derived unit. It's just not the one you're trying to use.

Meters is a lower-case 'm' too.

File: speed-limits-sign.jpg (27KB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 300x169px

>>14824629
M means mega- too. Every official anything with SI units uses proper capitalization, see pic related.

>>14824547
Well you can also go the open-source route. But that has disadvantages. You can't hotswap tunes, and every time uses a limited write (your ecu can only do like 1000 writes in its lifetime). AP, you write once, then the hotswaps don't count as writes. And you don't get the gauges on the AP, which is nice. And the cord is like 1/3 the AP price anyway.

>>14823336
Even a prius hits 12.3 AFR under (flooring it) load

Most cars only maintain stoichiometric or similar during sustained cruise

Flooring it for short periods will get you better mpg, but only toa certain point. Piston engines are actually very efficient right up to about 2000 rpm. Beyond this point, the pistons (in most car engines) are travelling too fast for the fuel to burn completely before its shoved our the exhaust. If you apply WOT AFTER this point, your simply shooting still burning gasses into the exhaust manifold. WOT BEFORE this point allows your engine to extract as much energy as it can out of the gas before it goes out the tailpipe. This is true for both NA and boosted engines

>>14824629
It sure is, for example for thermal expansion across the length of a long section of wire or other electrical piece that has coil-like properties. This is to be taken seriously.

>>14825252
you're ridiculous

>>14825215
ICE operate their most efficient at 70% load, not before, not after, it doesn't matter much the exact RPM range

>>14823056
Any ICE is most efficient at WOT.

Effeciency is not the same as economy.

>>14825269
Oh yeah, any type of engine will operate best under full designed load. Maybe not exact rpm range, but higher engine speed will always lead to more fuel consumption, as the engine isn't getting the same torque and power per stroke like it would be with the same amount of throttle at a lower engine speed.

>>14825400
it actually has to do with parasitic vacuum losses and torque peak with respect to piston stroke and piston speed in feet per minute

most cars will find their best acceleration efficiency by keeping a 70-75% load and shifting somewhere between 2000-2500RPM depending on piston stroke.

WOT is silly, you people are just trolling.

I'll try this in my sti, currently I'm at around 15 L/100km, i think it's because I've been using a car starter though

>flooring it from every light
>better fuel economy

>faster wear on engine

Conundrum.

File: image.jpg (160KB, 960x532px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 960x532px

Hello there OP

File: image.gif (717KB, 499x300px) Image search: [Google]

717KB, 499x300px

>>14827618
>more fuel injected
>increases wear
These meme needs to die.