California - Bay Area S2000 Owners California Bay Area S2000 Owners Group

Engine Computer Remap for better MPG

Thread Tools
 
Old Mar 5, 2012 | 12:28 PM
  #21  
verik07's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
Default

Thanks everyone for replying to the post. All the info you all gave is helpful to me to get an understanding on how to get better mileage.

Originally Posted by rydelow
All this talk to get just a little bit more out of the tank is useless. You bought a sports car not a hybrid. Man up and pay the price. Get a beater so you stop complaining.
I'm sorry if I offended you in any way but I just really needed to know if there are any other possible way to help with the gas going up.
Reply
Old Mar 5, 2012 | 12:56 PM
  #22  
LeonV's Avatar
10 Year Member
Photogenic
Liked
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 690
Likes: 12
From: SF Bay Area
Default

Originally Posted by g0g3tt4
Take your car out of gear while braking. Cars use more gas during deceleration than W.O.T. (High Vacuum, low amount of work being done).
Have the laws of physics been flipped around recently?

Modern, computer-controlled cars utilize injector shut-off under coasting conditions. This means that your car is using essentially zero fuel when in gear and off the throttle. If you take the car out of gear when decelerating, the engine drops to idle and must use fuel to maintain it.

Using more fuel on decel than WOT? Now that is really a new one.
Reply
Old Mar 5, 2012 | 01:06 PM
  #23  
vividracing.com's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Default

It's totally possible. Like speedjunky said, you can run the AFR a little bit lean in the cruising RPMs with timing adjusted a bit and this will help greatly. If you REALLY wanted to save money at the pump, you could have the car tuned for 87 octane gas. Not that I'd recommend that, because your power is going to drop drastically, but it's possible.
Reply
Old Mar 5, 2012 | 01:07 PM
  #24  
danvuquoc's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,282
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area, CA
Default

Originally Posted by Voodoo_S2K
Originally Posted by g0g3tt4' timestamp='1330975065' post='21478673
Cars use more gas during deceleration than W.O.T. (High Vacuum, low amount of work being done).
That's an interesting statement.
s/interesting/wrong/msi
Reply
Old Mar 5, 2012 | 03:12 PM
  #25  
g0g3tt4's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,760
Likes: 2
From: Nor Cal (Humboldt, Ca)
Default

I guess I should have gone further in the explanation.

Depends on application. Many of todays cars don't suffer from deceleration fuel consumption. Older non-fuel injected engines did and still do suffer from it.
Cars that were vacuum controlled versus CPU controlled today.
Although we are still trying to control deceleration use of gasoline without encountering the on/off hesitation that accompanies that control, and further the peak efficiency of the engine.
Reply
Old Mar 5, 2012 | 03:17 PM
  #26  
Voodoo_S2K's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 17,792
Likes: 4
From: Bay Area, California
Default

Originally Posted by g0g3tt4
I guess I should have gone further in the explanation.

Depends on application. Many of todays cars don't suffer from deceleration fuel consumption. Older non-fuel injected engines did and still do suffer from it.
Cars that were vacuum controlled versus CPU controlled today.
Although we are still trying to control deceleration use of gasoline without encountering the on/off hesitation that accompanies that control, and further the peak efficiency of the engine.
Your statement that more gas is consumed then compared to WOT still doesn't make any sense.
Reply
Old Mar 5, 2012 | 04:15 PM
  #27  
rob-2's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 8,655
Likes: 171
Default

The savings is all in your head. Actually run the numbers and the time/energy spent on this thread, the map and the work will all be for not. Slower speed and lighter throttle will make a big real-world improvement

Run the numbers $5/gallon, 15K/year, 25 vs 30 mpg

25mpg = $3k gas spend yearly
30mpg = $2.5k gas spend yearly

Hardly worth a second review of this idea. To save money on gas you have to do things that cost you zero. IE driving at 70mph instead of 80.
Reply
Old Mar 5, 2012 | 04:19 PM
  #28  
rob-2's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 8,655
Likes: 171
Default

Originally Posted by rrounds
I went with taller tires(235/45-17 front 245/45-17 rear) on my stock '06 and the gas mileage went from 27.7 to 29.4 mpg. I check the mileage of every tank of gas that I run in my car, the above numbers were taken over about 12k miles before and 12k miles after the taller tires were put on.

ROD
Now this makes complete sense, because you increased your final drive gearing to lower RPMs. I gather Rod you fixed your speedo to read the correct speed.
Reply
Old Mar 5, 2012 | 07:08 PM
  #29  
rrounds's Avatar
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,699
Likes: 335
From: Sacramento
Default

No, I'm going by my gps. My speed-o is off by about 2.5 mph@70 mph with new 245/45-17 tires, and yes the difference goes down as the rear tires wear. So by the time their shot the difference in speed between an old 245/45 and a new 245/40 rear tire is now about 1.3 mph@70. I am one who would like to try 3.63 gears in my "S" because I know how to take a corner in a lower gear and still be able to put some miles on the car like when Cindy and I take one of our day drives(500 to 700 miles).
We have a 2300(5 day) mile drive coming up and when you can use the higher gears it would be nice to have them.

ROD
Reply
Old Mar 6, 2012 | 12:21 AM
  #30  
stacey's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Default

I'm getting around 27-29 with Direzza Z1-SS tires. I rarely get less than 300 miles a tank though.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:18 AM.