Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 126

Thread: EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

  1. #81
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,400

    Re: EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    There are a ton of factors, in the "sweet spot" when the air is just cold enough to be heavy you get better combustion so there is a slight pickup in power and the engine works less contributing to a positive MPG, but like you said when it's so cold the engine struggles you get into the negative. Then there are the lead foots like me or the people who drive extremely slow which skews the MPG between the "exact" same two vehicles. Even something as small as having a dirty car will affect drag as you've stated. Even something like having a sensor go out or a plug wire that is just degraded enough to fire "properly" but not as hotly as the perfectly functional wires can hurt your mileage.
    One of the biggest differences can be what kind of tires you are running. This is particularly true on a truck where there is a lot of difference in rolling resistance between highway tread and all terrains. Seasonal gasoline blends make a difference too. I do better on the summer blend up here in the midwest than on the winter blend. Two vehicles will get different mpg in different areas as well. The truck I used to drive drank the gas at altitude when I would drive it out to Colorado. However, my Kia Soul gets 3 to 4 mpg better at altitude than it does around here. Even road surface makes a difference. You get better mpg on asphalt than you do on chip and seal.

    You notice all this stuff acutely if you ride road bike much. My heart rate on chip and seal averages close to 10% higher maintaing a given speed than it does on level terrain on asphalt. I can't imagine how a vehicle would be any different.

    That all said, the whole "I put a chip in it" is a load of crap. If all it took was a different chip to significantly increase the mpg in a vehicle, then you can bet automakers would be using them in the first place.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  2. #82
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    One of the biggest differences can be what kind of tires you are running. This is particularly true on a truck where there is a lot of difference in rolling resistance between highway tread and all terrains. Seasonal gasoline blends make a difference too. I do better on the summer blend up here in the midwest than on the winter blend. Two vehicles will get different mpg in different areas as well. The truck I used to drive drank the gas at altitude when I would drive it out to Colorado. However, my Kia Soul gets 3 to 4 mpg better at altitude than it does around here. Even road surface makes a difference. You get better mpg on asphalt than you do on chip and seal.

    You notice all this stuff acutely if you ride road bike much. My heart rate on chip and seal averages close to 10% higher maintaing a given speed than it does on level terrain on asphalt. I can't imagine how a vehicle would be any different.

    That all said, the whole "I put a chip in it" is a load of crap. If all it took was a different chip to significantly increase the mpg in a vehicle, then you can bet automakers would be using them in the first place.
    If someone wants to "chip" a vehicle they need to do their research, some kits are really good and others aren't but a lot of modification depends on what you want to trade off. Engineers actually tune down engines for multiple reasons(insurance costs, safety, MPG) and sometimes in their theoretical work they may miss something that a tuner might catch, but really it's such a miniscule difference in an unmodified car that chipping won't do much for MPG unless a person knows how to do the formulations like weight to power ratios. Most laymen could not get that right to save big on mileage.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  3. #83
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,346

    Re: EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Tell you what, answer a simple question for me, and I'll believe what you say. How can the EPA accurately measure the g/mi of emissions without knowing the fuel mileage of the vehicle?

    As to other things, funny you should bring up smoking, since second hand smoke is blamed for the same diseases the EPA is blaming on sulfur emissions. So who is right, the EPA or the FDA?
    Have you ever heard of fleet averages? That is what they use for MPG. Both the EPA AND the FDA are correct, and you are wrong.

  4. #84
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Well per his location he lives in Texas. Thus he is running his A/C, most likely lives in an area with fairly high average wind speeds, and is not living at elevation so air densities would be higher (my car gets much better mpg in Colorado or Wyoming than it does in KC for example). Moreover, if he lives around Houston, then all that smog and filth in the air there has got to add additional drag to his vehicles.

    That all said, warmer climates typically give you better mpg in winter than colder climates since when its really cold out your vehicle idles at a high rpm for a long time until it warms.
    The fuel mileage difference you see is because the fuel/air ratio is set to around 14-14.5/1, optimum is between 12-12.5/1. When you go up in altitude, the air is thiner, so the computer tries to adjust, but in doing so, you actually get a more optimum ratio. The manufactures set them rich like that so that there is a better ratio at the exhaust under the old standards. Further, timing is not set to optimal either. You see, if you set timing and richness to optimal, you get better fuel mileage but you also get a higher CO2 reading, since the better the burn, the greater amount of CO2 and water will be produced during the emissions tests. Higher CO2 is actually an indication of a more efficient burn. High octane fuels, which allowed compression ratios of 11-13/1 produced more CO2 because it was a more efficient burn. A low compression burn, such as in the catalytic converter produces much less CO2.

    And no, I don't live in a different universe where physics is different. However, when able, I do adjust fuel/air ratio and timing. Also, I add multi-spark ignition for a more complete burn below 3,000 rpm as well as a higher voltage coil system and lower resistance/larger spark plug wires which gives a much hotter spark.

    You apparently think that the EPA allows auto makers to produce the highest efficiency engines. However, short of direct injection, Pre-1996 automobiles with a few adjustments can get significantly better fuel mileage than todays cars.

    Other things can affect fuel mileage also. Open up your exhaust system more, headers, high-flow catalytic converter and high-flow muffler with large pipes will give you better fuel mileage because it allows the engine to build better torque on the low end, where your car most often runs.

    Colder air is denser air, same as lower altitudes. Your Mass Air Flow sensor, and on GMs at least, coupled with the Manifold Absolute Pressure sensor determine the air volume/mass and the computer adjust your fuel injectors for it.

    By adding a gear splitter or under/overdrive system (not available on front wheel drives) you can also change the gear ratio to lower the rpm range for on the highway. Of course, your engine actually has to produce enough torque to run it.

    And yes, I run my a/c. Contrary to popular myth, you actually get better fuel mileage with the a/c on during the summer because opening the windows causes a disturbance in the air flow causing more wind resistance and drag.

    No, I don't have to deal with the smog of a city. I live in the country. Lots of trees around to soak up all that bad **** your car puts out. Want cleaner air, plant more plants.

    If the EPA thinks my car is getting 24 mpg and it's getting 30, that is a huge difference in grams/mile calculations. Luckily, we don't have to do EPA checks other than visual inspections in my county.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  5. #85
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    Have you ever heard of fleet averages? That is what they use for MPG. Both the EPA AND the FDA are correct, and you are wrong.
    Hardly, the are liberals and thus proven to be retarded.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  6. #86
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,346

    Re: EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Hardly, the are liberals and thus proven to be retarded.
    I bet you heard that on FOX

  7. #87
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Well per his location he lives in Texas. Thus he is running his A/C, most likely lives in an area with fairly high average wind speeds, and is not living at elevation so air densities would be higher (my car gets much better mpg in Colorado or Wyoming than it does in KC for example). Moreover, if he lives around Houston, then all that smog and filth in the air there has got to add additional drag to his vehicles.

    That all said, warmer climates typically give you better mpg in winter than colder climates since when its really cold out your vehicle idles at a high rpm for a long time until it warms.
    BTW, your car only idles at higher rpm, same rpms per mph as any other time. Try a route the minimizes idle time.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  8. #88
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    I bet you heard that on FOX
    Have you ever heard of providing an argument that is meaningful and accurate instead of just saying "your wrong"? Oh, nm, your a liberal.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  9. #89
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,346

    Re: EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Have you ever heard of providing an argument that is meaningful and accurate instead of just saying "your wrong"? Oh, nm, your a liberal.
    Like I need to prove that inhaling poisons into your lungs is harmful? NM you are a Conservative. Breath deep.

  10. #90
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    If someone wants to "chip" a vehicle they need to do their research, some kits are really good and others aren't but a lot of modification depends on what you want to trade off. Engineers actually tune down engines for multiple reasons(insurance costs, safety, MPG) and sometimes in their theoretical work they may miss something that a tuner might catch, but really it's such a miniscule difference in an unmodified car that chipping won't do much for MPG unless a person knows how to do the formulations like weight to power ratios. Most laymen could not get that right to save big on mileage.
    The only reason to "detune" an engine is EPA requirements. You never get better MPG by "detuning" an engine.

    OBD II made "chipping" a car more problematic. Best bet is to eliminate the entire factory computer controls and put in an after-market engine management system. There is hidden code in the OBD II factory systems. If they notice a vehicle is out of "range" of "normal", the system tries to bring it back into "normal" range. The other problem with programmers is that they attempt to get CARB approval, thus killing anything useful in them.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •