Dave

In article <uc46i1dani1j10hvtrqumkhuooolutm3bl@4ax.com>, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:

>Dunno if this last paragraph was directed at me or not. Engine is most
>efficient at arond its peak torque area. (at least for non vtec
>engines)

I think that is close, but at peak torque, most if not all engines
go into fuel enrichment. So, they won't be terribly efficient
there. Highest efficiency is typically about 20% or so below the
peak torque for that rpm judging from the fair number of brake
specific fuel consumption maps I've seen. That's still a very high
throttle setting which you won't see in typical cruise.

flobert

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 21:49:11 GMT, dm@nospam.com (Dave) wrote:

>In article <uc46i1dani1j10hvtrqumkhuooolutm3bl@4ax.com>, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>
>>Dunno if this last paragraph was directed at me or not. Engine is most
>>efficient at arond its peak torque area. (at least for non vtec
>>engines)
>
>I think that is close, but at peak torque, most if not all engines
>go into fuel enrichment. So, they won't be terribly efficient
>there. Highest efficiency is typically about 20% or so below the
>peak torque for that rpm judging from the fair number of brake
>specific fuel consumption maps I've seen. That's still a very high
>throttle setting which you won't see in typical cruise.

Possibly a difference between US and EU tunes

slim

> <Rob> wrote in message news:4dvqh1pinsv24o2bu5vb004dpq8gsd9034@4ax.com...
> > Just thought this gas mileage story might be worth noting for some
> > Honda Accord buyers.
> >
> > I just took my first long ride with this car this past weekend from
> > Houston, Texas to Austin, Texas and back. I used cruise control 99
> > percent of the time and had 2 adults, 2 teenagers and baggage and air
> > conditioning 100 percent of the time. I locked in the cruise control
> > at about 66 or 67 mph (speed limit said 70) and just stayed mostly in
> > the right lane to allow cars/trucks to pass me.

Why not keep up with the pace of traffic rather then being an hazard?

--


Donald Rumsfeld: "If you're asking if there's a direct
link between 9/11 and Iraq, the answer is no."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4865948/

On May 01, 2003, President Bush declared that,
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain --
I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the
interesting thing about being the president.
Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they
say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody
an explanation. "
- George "Dubya" Bush

John Horner

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <4nh3v2-pso.ln1@new.helps.com>, jdhoward@helps.com wrote:
>
>
>>To get that economy, I use no air
>>conditioning, no cruise control
>
>
> ahem. Your BEST mileage will be when using cruise control.
>

Not neccessarily. Cruise control increases the throttle opening for any
slight incline. Practiced fuel economy drivers will let a little speed
bleed of on modest uphill inclines and then let it build back up going
down the other side.

For *most* drivers, cruise control can improve fuel economy. However,
for those rare drivers who have studied the art of fuel economy
maximization ... ya can do better.

John

John Horner

Ralph wrote:
> The dealership says my sister's rotors must be replaced 'because they're
> rusting'.
>
> The CR-V has 60,000 km on it. Is this normal wear?
>
> Your expert opinion is invited... thanks, Jack.
>
>

BZZZZT! Yellow flag scam possibilities. Rust is not a reason to
replace rotors. Insufficient thickness, deep groves and warping are all
possible reasons for replacement.

Old story, old scam.

John

Sparky Spartacus

flobert wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:25:55 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <efn3i15adugoiooa593scpffimo9mth3m7@4ax.com>,
>>flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>So you're keeping your throttle at exactly the same position, manually,
>>>>and if you go up or down a hill and your speed changes dramatically, so
>>>>be it?
>>>
>>>I say up front i ahven't used cruise control in years, except for once
>>>last week. My vehicles don't have it, i don't use it. I used it on my
>>>wifes work van, a 96 T+C. Before this, my last experiance was with a
>>>03 buick century back in 03 (a rental car).
>>
>>So you're saying you have very little experience with cruise control.
>
> I'm saying i have limited experiance, but with that, i pay a lot more
> attention to what its doing - its not something i take for grated, and
> ignore as a backgroud part of driving'
>
>>I also noticed that you avoided answering my question, so I'll ask it
>>again:
>>
>>So you're keeping your throttle at exactly the same position, manually,
>>and if you go up or down a hill and your speed changes dramatically, so
>>be it?
>
> no, i'm not. If you read what I said, I vary the cars speed, work with
> the grade (and with the road thats comming up - something NO cruise
> control can do) anticipate, etc.

Exactly what does this entail? And doesn't traffic interfere with your
careful anticipation? People doing a constant 50 around here are in
danger of being crushed by Yugos running on one cylinder.

Pars

> >>
> >>>To get that economy, I use no air
> >>>conditioning, no cruise control
> >>
> >>ahem. Your BEST mileage will be when using cruise control.
> >
> >
> > You'd think so, but experimentally, in a lot of different cars doing
> > economy runs, its not. Cruise control is just to keep the car at a
> > constant speed, no to do it efficiently.
>
>
> i was kinda disappointed in the mileage my 98 civic CX got going from LA
> to laughlin nevada and back.
>
> if i would have taken it easy and cruised with traffic at 70-75mph, i
> might have gotten more than my usual 32mpg.
>
> but no- i had a lead foot. some of it wasnt my fault.. some grades are
> so steep i had to drop it into fourth and floor it just to keep at
> 80mph. 5th gear was useless, the car couldnt keep up. speedo kept
> dropping, even with it floored.
>
> and of course, i had the A/C blasting in that 114 degree desert heat,
> too. the mojave desert gets damned hot during the day.
>
> so to reiterate: thats uphill, several thousand foot climbs (2000-5000
> feet at a time), A/C blasting, pedal to the metal in 4th gear, doing
> 80mph uphill. and the temp gauge stayed below halfway! thank gawd for
> mobil1 5w30.

It was probably the A/C and the desert heat that sapped a lot of the power.
In 4th gear, while climbing mountain (in Hamshire & Vermont) I'm able to
maintain 105 mph, but that's on a nice cool (65 degree) day with no AC
equipped. If you're racing up a hill and your speed is under 100mph, 3rd
would be the preferred gear, instead of 4th. While climbing a particularly
steep hill in 3rd gear at high speed, frequently I'd have to pass on the
right (those pick-up drivers have a lot of attitude, especially when there's
a small car bugging their *** on the left lane).

30 mpg is about right for aggressive driving situation and slowing the speed
down to 50 mph would return a huge improvement on fuel consumption (like 40
mpg or 50mpg on a cool day with fairly level grade).

Also, after 250,00km of driving, I've yet to see my temperature gage go
beyond the 2/5 mark. The big engine compartment with lots of free space
helps.

Pars
98 Civic Hatch

>
> downside? 25mpg.

JXStern

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:03:21 GMT, JXStern <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net>
wrote:
>Been driving a mixed route with a 500 foot rise through the Sepulveda
>pass recently, ought to measure my mileage again, doesn't seem all
>that different.

Seems a mile or two better!

J.

m

JXStern <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in
news:ifici1p4eqs0att87ptl00eh97td4ncgr2@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:03:21 GMT, JXStern <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net>
> wrote:
>>Been driving a mixed route with a 500 foot rise through the Sepulveda
>>pass recently, ought to measure my mileage again, doesn't seem all
>>that different.
>
> Seems a mile or two better!
>
> J.
>
>

i got 16km per litre last week on the highway in my 99 accord