heavy foot = more mileage clocked on full tank???

[fabian0]

hey guys, i know this sounds weird, though good in a way, but i have a situation with my dc2.

i've tried driving differently on 2 full tanks:
Full Tank 1: Really easy driving. Never went past 3500 RPM
Full Tank 2: VTEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEC very frequently yo

Results:
Full Tank 1: ~420kms - 450kms
Full Tank 2: Easily more than 500kms

Anyone with similar experience?

My analogy here is that high revving gives better combustion thus higher fuel efficiency. So who says driving hard consumes more fuel? Even if it does, i get to go even further!

Please comment

[T-onedc2]

It's doesn't appear to be logical, however when I drove mine back from Melbourne sitting on approx 4000rpm most of the way + overtaking + A/C I managed over 600km before the fuel light.

[Mr_will]

stupid people (not necessarily saying you are one) assume that fuel consumption is related to revs. their argument goes something like "ill shift at 2000rpm instead of 3000rpm because ill use less fuel". this is completely incorrect

fuel consumption is related to THROTTLE POSITION. if, for example, the ideal shift point in terms of torque and speed is at 3000rpm, and you shift at 2000rpm, you will be 'lugging' your engine, forcing you to depress the throttle further in order to accelerate.

whereas the smart person who revs a little higher will find they do not need to depress the throttle (which controls the butterfly valve allowing air into the engine, from which point the ecu decides how much fuel to add) and will not only get better acceleration, but use less fuel.

[rbk_212]

stupid people (not necessarily saying you are one) assume that fuel consumption is related to revs. their argument goes something like "ill shift at 2000rpm instead of 3000rpm because ill use less fuel". this is completely incorrect

fuel consumption is related to THROTTLE POSITION. if, for example, the ideal shift point in terms of torque and speed is at 3000rpm, and you shift at 2000rpm, you will be 'lugging' your engine, forcing you to depress the throttle further in order to accelerate.

whereas the smart person who revs a little higher will find they do not need to depress the throttle (which controls the butterfly valve allowing air into the engine, from which point the ecu decides how much fuel to add) and will not only get better acceleration, but use less fuel.

exactly right

+1

[A-man]

yeh good one i like it when people use there head to explain things like that rep+

u also have to consider what type of driving city or country

its the same when people are always fluctuating there rpm thats y u would get more kms out of cruise control or ive seen on a project a tps that was wired to a dimmer (like on ur lights) and this gave it 0 fluctuations was quite impressive

[rbk_212]

would you mind explaining that dimmer thing? sounds very interesting

[A-man]

u know the dimmer switchs on ur lights on ya house or even for ur instrument cluster its just one of them connected electronicly to the throttle and ur throttle then is turned into a dial instead of a pedal which eliminates driver control and therefore saving fuel because its on 1 tps at all time

[rbk_212]

u know the dimmer switchs on ur lights on ya house or even for ur instrument cluster its just one of them connected electronicly to the throttle and ur throttle then is turned into a dial instead of a pedal which eliminates driver control and therefore saving fuel because its on 1 tps at all time

thats really clever! awesome

[GSi_PSi]

maybe your getting stuck at lights driving slow, causing longer delays, using more petrol. Whereas when your vtecing your making the green lights lol.. just a suggestion

[A-man]

LMAO thats classic