How to get more MPG out of a Ford Fiesta Ecoboost

Scrapit

danny91 wrote: »

If you say so. At the end of the day the manufacturers wouldn't fit the system to their cars if it made them less efficient. :rotfl:

I do say. The manufacturer also gives a mpg for a vehicle produced under set conditions with scientific data collection . Then you go on honest John and find that's not quite the case. Take my word for it or don't but either way I'll not revise my technique until I get me new motor. Then it'll be a case of testing again.

AdrianC

Scrapit wrote: »

The manufacturer also gives a mpg for a vehicle produced under set conditions with scientific data collection . Then you go on honest John and find that's not quite the case.

It would be illegal for manufacturers to give any figures EXCEPT the official ones.

Those official ones are defined under strictly controlled conditions. Until last year, the NEDC test cycle, now WLTP.

Whether they're representative of any given driver's real-world conditions is another question entirely. But they are eminently comparable between cars, precisely because of that strict definition. If the stop-start didn't improve the results on those tests, it would not be fitted. If it made them worse, it would DEFINITELY not be fitted. The stops as part of both WLTP and NEDC are short.


(And, yes, that's before we get onto the alleged "defeat devices" which may or may not detect those strict test conditions)

Scrapit

AdrianC wrote: »

It would be illegal for manufacturers to give any figures EXCEPT the official ones.

Those official ones are defined under strictly controlled conditions. Until last year, the NEDC test cycle, now WLTP.

Whether they're representative of any given driver's real-world conditions is another question entirely. But they are eminently comparable between cars, precisely because of that strict definition. If the stop-start didn't improve the results on those tests, it would not be fitted. If it made them worse, it would DEFINITELY not be fitted. The stops as part of both WLTP and NEDC are short.


(And, yes, that's before we get onto the alleged "defeat devices" which may or may not detect those strict test conditions)

So you are dismissing out of hand repeatable tried and tested real world data found under repeated conditions over an extended test period? Ok. Maybe I needed a graph. Or an acronym....:money:

AdrianC

Scrapit wrote: »

So you are dismissing out of hand repeatable tried and tested real world data found under repeated conditions over an extended test period? Ok. Maybe I needed a graph. Or an acronym...

No, I'm explaining to you how reality has worked for the 26 years since the NEDC cycle was introduced.


Before then, the official consumption figures were still the only ones that could legally be given - and they were as simple as "urban", constant 56mph and constant 70mph. They were even less representative of reality...

System

Scrapit wrote: »

Not watching anything on YouTube.

Shame, in this case you may have learned something. Engineering Explained on Youtube is a channel done by a guy who has a degree in mechanical engineering and actually explains things fully.

Only downside is it will most likely prove everything you believe you know about cars is rubbish.

Scrapit

AdrianC wrote: »

No, I'm explaining to you how reality has worked for the 26 years since the NEDC cycle was introduced.


Before then, the official consumption figures were still the only ones that could legally be given - and they were as simple as "urban", constant 56mph and constant 70mph. They were even less representative of reality...

So you are saying the manufacturers data collected for many years, 26 no less, is, even with its stringent rules and checks, is widely accepted to be incorrect or at least unreplicateable in the real world environment. Yet my findings of minor efficiency gains are hokum due to the fact that manfactures fit them? I've not seen (not saying it doesn't exist) a manufacturer advertise stop start as improving mileage. It does improve emissions and VED tax bands reflect this on certain models seeing as no emissions are produced while an engine is off and this I'm not disputing, but essentially you are saying I'm wrong in my calculations (which are pretty simple and backed up by the trip computer) which I've carried out over repeated conditions, ie the daily comute, over several years, 4, and 65000 miles. Based on what?

Scrapit

Tarambor wrote: »

Shame, in this case you may have learned something. Engineering Explained on Youtube is a channel done by a guy who has a degree in mechanical engineering and actually explains things fully.

Only downside is it will most likely prove everything you believe you know about cars is rubbish.

Everything? Sweeping statements like that show you to be foolish. :T

Herzlos

Scrapit wrote: »

So you are saying the manufacturers data collected for many years, 26 no less, is, even with its stringent rules and checks, is widely accepted to be incorrect or at least unreplicateable in the real world environment. Yet my findings of minor efficiency gains are hokum due to the fact that manfactures fit them? I've not seen (not saying it doesn't exist) a manufacturer advertise stop start as improving mileage. It does improve emissions and VED tax bands reflect this on certain models seeing as no emissions are produced while an engine is off and this I'm not disputing, but essentially you are saying I'm wrong in my calculations (which are pretty simple and backed up by the trip computer) which I've carried out over repeated conditions, ie the daily comute, over several years, 4, and 65000 miles. Based on what?

Correct. It's fitted because it reduces emissions in the test. The test isn't likely to be representative of the real world but it's done under very controlled conditions. There's no reason it wouldn't save fuel in the real world too, assuming you stop long enough for it to be worthwhile.

I believe that you think it makes economy worse but I wonder if you're driving in a way that doesn't help it, like keeping the clutch in until you're just about to move of re-engaging the engine straight away. I've never measured mine bit I can't fathom it making it worse.

This article seems to think there's improvements but mentions a 'change of mind' problem:
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/green-motoring/2010-09/cpc-stop-start/

Scrapit

Herzlos wrote: »

Correct. It's fitted because it reduces emissions in the test. The test isn't likely to be representative of the real world but it's done under very controlled conditions. There's no reason it wouldn't save fuel in the real world too, assuming you stop long enough for it to be worthwhile.

I believe that you think it makes economy worse but I wonder if you're driving in a way that doesn't help it, like keeping the clutch in until you're just about to move of re-engaging the engine straight away. I've never measured mine bit I can't fathom it making it worse.

This article seems to think there's improvements but mentions a 'change of mind' problem:
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/green-motoring/2010-09/cpc-stop-start/

Whilst the problem is the type of driving I do is most likely the cause I would say it's not an operator error. The description above would knacker the clutch anyway. Or the thrust bearings or something. Also similar findings are reported by my colleagues which would be driving in similar conditions but slightly different cars-the company car list isn't that extensive.

danny91

Scrapit wrote: »

So you are saying the manufacturers data collected for many years, 26 no less, is, even with its stringent rules and checks, is widely accepted to be incorrect or at least unreplicateable in the real world environment. Yet my findings of minor efficiency gains are hokum due to the fact that manfactures fit them? I've not seen (not saying it doesn't exist) a manufacturer advertise stop start as improving mileage. It does improve emissions and VED tax bands reflect this on certain models seeing as no emissions are produced while an engine is off and this I'm not disputing, but essentially you are saying I'm wrong in my calculations (which are pretty simple and backed up by the trip computer) which I've carried out over repeated conditions, ie the daily comute, over several years, 4, and 65000 miles. Based on what?

You’ve just said it yourself. “It does improve emissions and VED tax bands reflect this on certain models seeing as no emissions are produced while an engine is off”.
Emphasis on the “engine is off” part.
If it improves emissions, then quite clearly it improves efficiency.