How to get more MPG out of a Ford Fiesta Ecoboost

Scrapit

AdrianC wrote: »

But your "testing" is based on a vaguely scientific environment or methodology. It is vaguely repeatable. You are taking some account of traffic changes, ambient temperature changes, driver behavioural changes, or any of a myriad of other variables as far as possible in a non lab situation.

As I said...
You clearly understand the basics of "testing".

Yes I do
Do you find "three minutes" to be vaguely credible?

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

Despite basic logic screaming "this is might not be correct".

Corrected that for you.

re-read what he had written, how's your chemistry? "If you're!going to idle for more than 2.75 minutes, its cleaner for total hydrocarbons (THC) to turn the engine off."
Not quite three minutes, but as near as damn it. He did go on much more extensively and mentioned an Austrian university study. And further to that he refrenced another study which argues for drive through retail over drive up, one thing I took from that was that a stop of over ten seconds is always cleaner than idling that term. I'd be more inclined to believe that. But my driving, as mentioned several times before, is very stop start and probbably results in multiple stops per journey of just less than that.

Scrapit

danny91 wrote: »

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.

You stick to YouTube, it's great for scientific content. And conspiracy theories, sneezing pandas and funny cat vids

AdrianC

Scrapit wrote: »

re-read what he had written, how's your chemistry? "If you're!going to idle for more than 2.75 minutes, its cleaner for total hydrocarbons (THC) to turn the engine off."

By "total hydrocarbons", he means unburnt hydrocarbons from the exhaust?


Bear in mind here that the maximum allowable unburnt hydrocarbons from a Euro6 exhaust are 0.09g/km (well, 0.17g HC + NOx, but 0.08g NOx) from a diesel and 0.068g/km from a petrol.

Not quite three minutes, but as near as damn it. He did go on much more extensively and mentioned an Austrian university study. And further to that he refrenced another study which argues for drive through retail over drive up, one thing I took from that was that a stop of over ten seconds is always cleaner than idling that term. I'd be more inclined to believe that.

Great, so we're all agreed that 3 minutes can only be stark staring nonsense. Even the guy who came up with it.

DoaM

Based on no data whatsoever, other than a vague recollection of reading it somewhere ... I work on the basis that you need to be stopped (engine off) for at least 8 seconds to use less fuel at restart than idling for up to 8 seconds.

Scrapit

AdrianC wrote: »

By "total hydrocarbons", he means unburnt hydrocarbons from the exhaust?


Bear in mind here that the maximum allowable unburnt hydrocarbons from a Euro6 exhaust are 0.09g/km (well, 0.17g HC + NOx, but 0.08g NOx) from a diesel and 0.068g/km from a petrol.



Great, so we're all agreed that 3 minutes can only be stark staring nonsense. Even the guy who came up with it.

Total hydrocarbons means TPH as opposed to the light, heavy etc specifics of various long chain combinations. Not sure of the relevance of the euro vi regs, my vehicle doesn't say (checked on DVLA page, emissions for co2 are 99mgkm) I'd guess as a 64 plate it's pretty clean but not quite euro6 (First released prior to 2014). NOT sure if that would have an effect but have anecdotal reports from colleagues with newer models that say that they find the same.

Scrapit

DoaM wrote: »

Based on no data whatsoever, other than a vague recollection of reading it somewhere ... I work on the basis that you need to be stopped (engine off) for at least 8 seconds to use less fuel at restart than idling for up to 8 seconds.

That loosely ties in with my findings and those of the people I'm referring to.

AdrianC

Scrapit wrote: »

Not sure of the relevance of the euro vi regs, my vehicle doesn't say (checked on DVLA page, emissions for co2 are 99mgkm) I'd guess as a 64 plate it's pretty clean but not quite euro6 (First released prior to 2014).

OK, so Euro 5 (2009-on)
Same limit for petrol, slightly lower (if you subtract NOx from HC+NOx for diesel) - .23g less .18g = 0.05g.

I'd love to hear how he's measuring such microscopic quantities reliably.

NOT sure if that would have an effect but have anecdotal reports from colleagues with newer models that say that they find the same.

What have we said about the plural of anecdote?

Scrapit wrote: »

That loosely ties in with my findings and those of the people I'm referring to.

Yes, because 8 seconds definitely "loosely ties in" with three minutes...

Scrapit

AdrianC wrote: »

OK, so Euro 5 (2009-on)
Same limit for petrol, slightly lower (if you subtract NOx from HC+NOx for diesel) - .23g less .18g = 0.05g.

I'd love to hear how he's measuring such microscopic quantities reliably.

What have we said about the plural of anecdote?


Yes, because 8 seconds definitely "loosely ties in" with three minutes...

You're not scientifically minded, that's clear. Again, what's the euro regs got to do with anything? Quoting them doesn't make a point. Also "he" isn't measuring them. We is you, not a collective. Their data stands, as does mine, there isn't a bias.
And, yes 8 seconds does loosely tie in with 10seconds. No it doesn't tie in with the 3 minutes refrenced above, but neither does any thing I've stated. I've refrenced it, not said it's the case in my example, but the source is a reliable one so I have little (not none) reason to doubt it.

danny91

Scrapit wrote: »

You're not scientifically minded, that's clear. Again, what's the euro regs got to do with anything? Quoting them doesn't make a point. Also "he" isn't measuring them. We is you, not a collective. Their data stands, as does mine, there isn't a bias.
And, yes 8 seconds does loosely tie in with 10seconds. No it doesn't tie in with the 3 minutes refrenced above, but neither does any thing I've stated. I've refrenced it, not said it's the case in my example, but the source is a reliable one so I have little (not none) reason to doubt it.

The very first reply I made to you I stated that it’s around 6 seconds! And let’s face it, most of the time when you come to a stop it’s for more than 6, even 10 seconds. Therefore, making the car more fuel efficient. But yet your first comment on this thread was turn stop/start off completely to make the car more fuel efficient. So which one is it??

Scrapit

danny91 wrote: »

The very first reply I made to you I stated that it’s around 6 seconds! And let’s face it, most of the time when you come to a stop it’s for more than 6, even 10 seconds. Therefore, making the car more fuel efficient. But yet your first comment on this thread was turn stop/start off completely to make the car more fuel efficient. So which one is it??

I turn my stop start off to make my car more fuel effcient