Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:56:13 -0600
Reply-To:     Richard A Jones <Jones@COLORADO.EDU>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Richard A Jones <Jones@COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Fuel consumption in different gears - how does the energy /
              fuel, work?
In-Reply-To:  <201204182319.ARY70560@Colorado.EDU>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Mark wrote:
> Given the anomalies with the reported 65 mph data that part should
> probably be disregarded. The disparity of the reported engine rpm at 65
> in 4th as 3400 in one part of the results versus 3150 in another is a
> big red flag. If that "65" test was really at 3150 then it was closer to
> 60 mph and that explains why there was such a large disparity in the
> data comparing 3rd and 4th gear. It appears possible that the 3rd gear
> 65 mph tests were done at a higher road speed than the 4th gear tests.
> And of course that TPS anomaly "confirms" this.

As I said in my post, I wouldn't start a tuning company based on
these results.  There is a big discrepacy between RPMs in Nevada
and in Colorado.  Something must be wrong, probably me.  Dennis
kindly pointed out exactly what the RPMs should be.  3632, 3356!

Of course, he must have hawk eyes.  At 69 I have bear eyes.
The markings on my tach are 200 RPM, so it is a feat to
guess an RPM down to 50, I think.  Of course, the Scan
Gauge could display RPM--and also speed, but it only displays
4 things.  Besides my tach has the Small Car modification and
so may have some calibration error that I didn't adjust out.

A better test would be a 5 miles section of very flat road--
and no wind.  Some wind came up on my last "back".  Look
at the raw data!  There is a section like that near Rifle,
Colorado, that I'll be traversing in a few weeks.  Maybe, I'll,
nah....

Just consider this a "proof of concept"--what can be done with
OBD II and a Scan Gauge.  Eat your hearts out, you 2.1
waterboxers!!  ;-)

Richard