How to get more MPG out of a Ford Fiesta Ecoboost

Scrapit

danny91 wrote: »

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.

The clues in the name. Stop start. The efficiency comes from having a stopped engine. Zero emissions, zero fuel use and of course zero miles driven. Then at the end of that you have the inefficient aspect of starting the engine. A friend of mine on another firum has calculated it's only worth him using stop start if he is stopped for 3 minutes or more. Seems a bit long to me but I take his word for it as it's his vehicle and he's done the real world testing. Something not granted here but I know what's what and everyone else is guessing.

AdrianC

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

No...

or at least unreplicateable in the real world environment.

Whose "real world environment"? That's the whole point. There is no one "real world environment". The ONLY way that you can ever perform any kind of test that gives any kind of repeatable and directly comparable result between cars is to have a tightly-defined cycle.

Yet my findings of minor efficiency gains are hokum

The plural of anecdote is not data.

I've not seen (not saying it doesn't exist) a manufacturer advertise stop start as improving mileage. It does improve emissions

How do emissions improve?
There are only two ways... Improved combustion efficiency, and using less fuel.
Which of those is affected by turning the engine off when it'd otherwise be idling?

danny91

Scrapit wrote: »

The clues in the name. Stop start. The efficiency comes from having a stopped engine. Zero emissions, zero fuel use and of course zero miles driven. Then at the end of that you have the inefficient aspect of starting the engine. A friend of mine on another firum has calculated it's only worth him using stop start if he is stopped for 3 minutes or more. Seems a bit long to me but I take his word for it as it's his vehicle and he's done the real world testing. Something not granted here but I know what's what and everyone else is guessing.

3 minutes! :rotfl: so you’re seriously suggesting that starting a modern, fuel injected car engine uses the same amount of fuel as if it was sat idling for 3 whole minutes? :rotfl: Whatever ounce of credibility you had, and believe me, it wasn’t much, has just been lost with that statement.

AdrianC

danny91 wrote: »

3 minutes! :rotfl: so you’re seriously suggesting that starting a modern, fuel injected car engine uses the same amount of fuel as if it was sat idling for 3 whole minutes? :rotfl: Whatever ounce of credibility you had, and believe me, it wasn’t much, has just been lost with that statement.

Idle speed of 800rpm in a four cylinder four stroke engine for three minutes =

4,800 individual combustion cycles...


I wonder how much fuel is actually injected for each combustion cycle at idle. Not much, but multiply by nearly 5,000... Shove all that in to one cylinder at once, and I suspect you'd hydraulic lock it, especially with diesel compression ratios.

Scrapit

danny91 wrote: »

3 minutes! :rotfl: so you’re seriously suggesting that starting a modern, fuel injected car engine uses the same amount of fuel as if it was sat idling for 3 whole minutes? :rotfl: Whatever ounce of credibility you had, and believe me, it wasn’t much, has just been lost with that statement.

Oh I see. You didn't read the post. Or failed to understand. Lack of credibility right there. I didn't say my car over 3 minutes, I've not looked into it that much. The guy that did made a good case but I was sceptical. All of which I said in the post that you didn't comprehend. I sugest you watch a YouTube vid, maybe reading isn't for you.

AdrianC

Scrapit wrote: »

Oh I see. You didn't read the post. Or failed to understand. Lack of credibility right there. I didn't say my car over 3 minutes, I've not looked into it that much. The guy that did made a good case but I was sceptical. All of which I said in the post that you didn't comprehend. I sugest you watch a YouTube vid, maybe reading isn't for you.

You might be "sceptical", but you clearly believe it's feasible, and trust him as a source.

Scrapit

AdrianC wrote: »

No...



Whose "real world environment"? That's the whole point. There is no one "real world environment". The ONLY way that you can ever perform any kind of test that gives any kind of repeatable and directly comparable result between cars is to have a tightly-defined cycle.
[COLOR="b[COLOR="Red"]my real world environment. The tests are repeated in so far as ive driven the same route to work for a decade and the conditions are pretty much the same.
As replicated as you'll get in a real world scenario, most pf the variables are constant or as near as can be. "][/COLOR][/COLOR]

The plural of anecdote is not data.

but testing is. Repeated testing is of course better data. 4 years sufficient enough?

How do emissions improve?
There are only two ways... Improved combustion efficiency, and using less fuel.
Which of those is affected by turning the engine off when it'd otherwise be idling?

I'd argue that less, ie none, fuel is burnt the whole time the engine is off-surely you agree? I also believe that when restarting there is more fuel used than a short term idle. I can't tell you the length of that term, id imagine it to be seconds. Haven't looked into it enough to say but can say with no doubt the driving I do more efficient with the stop start off

Scrapit

AdrianC wrote: »

You might be "sceptical", but you clearly believe it's feasible, and trust him as a source.

Yep. He's legit regarding other things and has looked into it. I've no reason to doubt him other than personal experience in my own vehicles.

AdrianC

Scrapit wrote: »

AdrianC wrote:

No...

Whose "real world environment"? That's the whole point. There is no one "real world environment". The ONLY way that you can ever perform any kind of test that gives any kind of repeatable and directly comparable result between cars is to have a tightly-defined cycle.

my real world environment. The tests are repeated in so far as ive driven the same route to work for a decade and the conditions are pretty much the same.
As replicated as you'll get in a real world scenario, most pf the variables are constant or as near as can be.

But your "testing" is not based on any kind of vaguely scientific environment or methodology. It is not even vaguely repeatable. You are taking zero account of traffic changes, ambient temperature changes, driver behavioural changes, or any of a myriad of other variables.

As I said...

The plural of anecdote is not data.

but testing is. Repeated testing is of course better data. 4 years sufficient enough?

You clearly don't understand the basics of "testing".

How do emissions improve?
There are only two ways... Improved combustion efficiency, and using less fuel.
Which of those is affected by turning the engine off when it'd otherwise be idling?

I'd argue that less, ie none, fuel is burnt the whole time the engine is off-surely you agree?

<slow hand-clap>

I also believe that when restarting there is more fuel used than a short term idle. I can't tell you the length of that term, id imagine it to be seconds.

Do you find "three minutes" to be vaguely credible?

Haven't looked into it enough to say but can say with no doubt the driving I do more efficient with the stop start off

A conclusion you've come to from a preconception, via extremely mediocre methodology.

Scrapit wrote: »

Yep. He's legit regarding other things and has looked into it. I've no reason to doubt him other than personal experience in my own vehicles.

Despite basic logic screaming "this is complete codswallop".

danny91

Scrapit wrote: »

Oh I see. You didn't read the post. Or failed to understand. Lack of credibility right there. I didn't say my car over 3 minutes, I've not looked into it that much. The guy that did made a good case but I was sceptical. All of which I said in the post that you didn't comprehend. I sugest you watch a YouTube vid, maybe reading isn't for you.

You were right to be sceptical. Because it’s absolute tosh. And my reading is fine matey. Don’t worry, I’ll continue to watch YouTube videos. Honestly you should try it. You might actually learn something. It’s not all crap content. There’s some really interesting and educational stuff.