Insanely Good Gas Mileage Out Of N/A Modded tC
10-24-2006, 12:46 AM
#146
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Tiverton, RI
Posts: 1,971
Oh yeah down south and out west you all have them nice high speed limits. Newport RI was the first city in the country to have speed limits and they have been the same 25mph since then. Highways around here are 55 with only two that I know of that are 65 but not for long. You run out of state at that speed pretty quick and end up in Mass or Connecticut.
10-24-2006, 01:29 AM
#147
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,320
We have 70 mph roadways here. Of course, with all the people swerving between lanes, not using signals, and otherwise generally being their big, SUV-driving selves, it doesn't take long for you to feel very unsafe traveling at 70 mph.
11-16-2006, 06:00 PM
#148
Originally Posted by flintgauge86
I know Dr Isotope is a well repescted guy on SL, yet all the "noob experts" berated him with such lame unbased idiotic facts that he left the thread, and hasn't posted in here in weeks. I guess he got tired of trying to tell the blind people there's a hole in front of them. You guys that think engine braking uses no fuel, Do it as much as you can, that way, you can get infinite MPG, so you won't have to fill up again, as long as you're going downhill or stopping. Plus less gas burned means lower demand, and lower prices! Just think, if everyone engine braked, we would save so much gas, we could stop relying on foreign oil! 
I said I would try it, and I did. Five tanks worth. Based on Toyco's white paper showing the application of the Deceleration Fuel Cutoff, I left the car in gear at all times above 2k RPM, then shifted into neutral when coming to a full stop.Tire pressures were cheacked at the beginning, middle, and end of the test period. An oil change was performed about 1 month before the start of testing.
Over the first ~17k miles of driving the tC, my fuel consumption has averaged out to 25.5mpg. while I don't think 5 tanks is really enough to show an irrefutable difference in economy using the DFCI, I think it's an acceptable indicator. On to the numbers.
Tank One: 12.0gal, 300 miles. 25.0 mpg.
This is slightly below my established average, but it included about 85% city driving.
Tank Two: 12.7gal, 322 miles. 25.4 mpg.
Right at my established average. No surprises.
Tank Three: 13.1gal, 361 miles. 27.6 mpg.
Decent mix of highway and city miles (trip to Disneyland).
Tank Four: 12.9gal, 309 miles. 24.0 mpg.
All city, drop in ambient temps could explain slight dip in overall mpg.
Tank Five: 12.2 gal, 314 miles. 25.7 mpg.
Again, right around my established average.
Total: 62.9gal, 1606 miles. 25.5mpg.
And though I know it won't, I hope this dispells some of the claims of DFCI wizardry. Seeing as my 1600 mile test, starting from a baseline of 25.5mpg ended with an average of... 25.5mpg.
I honestly... honestly wanted it to work. Even 1 more MPG would have been a positive result. But the actual result is that there is pretty much no impact. This included a trip to Disneyland and 2 trips to Knotts (about 125 miles roundtrip each), as well as a 40 mile there-and-back trip up the twisty CA Hwy 38. Sure, the ScanGauge said the down trip was sipping along at 37.1mpg... too bad the trip up was 16.5mpg.
Now let's see it, kids. Argue the numbers. Say, "But... But... But..." I don't care.
11-16-2006, 06:52 PM
#149
Interesting! I won't argue with you, since you're the only one to back up what you say with fact. I highly respect that. Thanks for sticking to your word.
Well I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. It's still, somehow, working for me. because the last time I hit mileage over 24-25 was when i got the car, as I didn't know how to drive manual yet, I went very slow.
now I average 27 on every tank since I posted, and definitely not driving slow. So I don't know. To each his own I guess.
Well I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. It's still, somehow, working for me. because the last time I hit mileage over 24-25 was when i got the car, as I didn't know how to drive manual yet, I went very slow.
now I average 27 on every tank since I posted, and definitely not driving slow. So I don't know. To each his own I guess.
11-16-2006, 10:59 PM
#151
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4
Dr isotope, you're experiement was not very scientific/accurate/good. You're averaging 17,000 mixed miles driving with no aproximate percentage of hwy/city and then 1600 miles with no approximate percentage of hwy/city.
No offense, but I wouldnt base any conclusions off of your experiement.
No offense, but I wouldnt base any conclusions off of your experiement.
11-16-2006, 11:05 PM
#152
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Tiverton, RI
Posts: 1,971
Ok here is a test that makes sense. The SG shows fuel being used on engine braking and if it is not using fuel then the SG should end up showing more gas used that actual by the time you get done with a tank of gas. Coasting with no engine braking should result in a more accurate fuel use total at the end of a tank of gas.
11-16-2006, 11:13 PM
#153
Originally Posted by p00tan6
Dr isotope, you're experiement was not very scientific/accurate/good. You're averaging 17,000 mixed miles driving with no aproximate percentage of hwy/city and then 1600 miles with no approximate percentage of hwy/city.
No offense, but I wouldnt base any conclusions off of your experiement.
No offense, but I wouldnt base any conclusions off of your experiement.
Dude. Driving is driving. Sometimes I'm on the freeway, sometimes I'm going up the street to the supermarket. I employed the "technique" for 1600 miles-- better than 10% of my total miles driven.
Your choice to make no conclusions from it is well... like wearing blinders. You want to beleive what you want to beleive, actual numbers be damned. But hey, my "experiment" only provides empirical evidence. Who beleives that?
Jan06xB[/b], I've relied on the Scangauge since day one. Coasting down a grade in gear will never read more than ~75mpg, while coasting on that same grade in neutral will often show 180-200mpg. At fill up, the Gauge was usually in the +/-0.4 area. Seeing as the ScanGauge has shown itself to be accurate to within 1%, I'll go by that... not what some other folks here choose to beleive.
11-16-2006, 11:34 PM
#154
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Tiverton, RI
Posts: 1,971
Dr Isotope - yeah I get about 150mpg downhill in gear because it usually is burning 0.2-0.3gph up to about 40mph. If I coast and get the burn rate to 0.1gph it goes way up but if I let the clutch out it goes back up again to 0.2-0.3 or more gph at higher speeds. Only thing a little confusing is when going down hill in gear to limit my speed I see the temp of the engine not increasing when cold . . . not that a burn rate of 0.2gph would make much heating but it makes me wonder a little. Will have to check my fillup more closely to see how much off the measured and actual is. I am also checking the slow pumping theory. I have seen the SG measure 0.4 gallons higher and lower from what it takes to fill the tank.
11-17-2006, 12:11 AM
#155
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4
Originally Posted by Dr_Isotope
Originally Posted by p00tan6
Dr isotope, you're experiement was not very scientific/accurate/good. You're averaging 17,000 mixed miles driving with no aproximate percentage of hwy/city and then 1600 miles with no approximate percentage of hwy/city.
No offense, but I wouldnt base any conclusions off of your experiement.
No offense, but I wouldnt base any conclusions off of your experiement.
Dude. Driving is driving. Sometimes I'm on the freeway, sometimes I'm going up the street to the supermarket. I employed the "technique" for 1600 miles-- better than 10% of my total miles driven.
Your choice to make no conclusions from it is well... like wearing blinders. You want to beleive what you want to beleive, actual numbers be damned. But hey, my "experiment" only provides empirical evidence. Who beleives that?
Jan06xB[/b], I've relied on the Scangauge since day one. Coasting down a grade in gear will never read more than ~75mpg, while coasting on that same grade in neutral will often show 180-200mpg. At fill up, the Gauge was usually in the +/-0.4 area. Seeing as the ScanGauge has shown itself to be accurate to within 1%, I'll go by that... not what some other folks here choose to beleive.
11-17-2006, 12:39 AM
#156
You weren't paying as much attention in science class as you should have been. I'm not trying to generate a laboratory result-- this wasn't done on a car-sized treadmill that could simulate the same grades and distances over and over for bother coasting methods.
I drove the car. I left it in gear about 2k RPM-- for 1600 miles. Result? No change. Is this more indicative of real-world performance than a laboratory test? Absofvckinglutely.
Nearly 17,000 miles of mixed driving and an established 25.5mpg average. If the experiment was above or below that figure by even 5%, the notion of DFCO for improving economy is worthwhile.
You want a control? Just how do you suggest doing that? You can't introduce another vehicle, that's a whole slew of new variables. No 2nd driver either. Can't alternate methods on the same car, the ECU re-learning would skew the results.
But the bottom line is, the main purpose of the DFCO is to reduce decel emissions, and help maintain the ULEV status of the car. If it improved economy to any degree at all, it would have shown up. hell, if it improved economy by even .5mpg, Toyota would be touting it from here 'til next Tuesday.
I drove the car. I left it in gear about 2k RPM-- for 1600 miles. Result? No change. Is this more indicative of real-world performance than a laboratory test? Absofvckinglutely.
Nearly 17,000 miles of mixed driving and an established 25.5mpg average. If the experiment was above or below that figure by even 5%, the notion of DFCO for improving economy is worthwhile.
You want a control? Just how do you suggest doing that? You can't introduce another vehicle, that's a whole slew of new variables. No 2nd driver either. Can't alternate methods on the same car, the ECU re-learning would skew the results.
But the bottom line is, the main purpose of the DFCO is to reduce decel emissions, and help maintain the ULEV status of the car. If it improved economy to any degree at all, it would have shown up. hell, if it improved economy by even .5mpg, Toyota would be touting it from here 'til next Tuesday.
11-17-2006, 01:51 AM
#157
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 548
Hey p00nanny, until you throw something up there that shows you can get off your ___ and do a 4th grade science experiment then shut the f*ck up and quit criticizing. Driving IS driving my friend, random.
For your information this is how most drivers figure out their average mpg over a period of time. Its basic division. Then averaging it out. Its not science, its math. No one's trying to prove the atomic theory here.
Yo Iso, my mpg's hover around the mid 20's as well. I think that's the middle of the road for most tC's.
For your information this is how most drivers figure out their average mpg over a period of time. Its basic division. Then averaging it out. Its not science, its math. No one's trying to prove the atomic theory here.
Yo Iso, my mpg's hover around the mid 20's as well. I think that's the middle of the road for most tC's.
11-17-2006, 04:10 AM
#159
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4
Originally Posted by PRODIGY3000
Hey p00nanny, until you throw something up there that shows you can get off your butt and do a 4th grade science experiment then shut the f*ck up and quit criticizing. Driving IS driving my friend, random.
For your information this is how most drivers figure out their average mpg over a period of time. Its basic division. Then averaging it out. Its not science, its math. No one's trying to prove the atomic theory here.
Yo Iso, my mpg's hover around the mid 20's as well. I think that's the middle of the road for most tC's.
For your information this is how most drivers figure out their average mpg over a period of time. Its basic division. Then averaging it out. Its not science, its math. No one's trying to prove the atomic theory here.
Yo Iso, my mpg's hover around the mid 20's as well. I think that's the middle of the road for most tC's.
Typical of 4th graders who like to kiss ___ just to have a friend on a forum. Grow up. His stupid experiement isnt even on 4th grade level. We're not talking about basic MPG here buddy, we are talking about gas consumption so why dont you stfu and read the whole forum before you start running yo mouf kid!