Introduction
I own a 2006 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited. This vehicle is actually an upgrade from my previous 2004 Jeep Wrangler Sport that did not have any air conditioning or cruise control.1 After spending a year in the desert heat of Iraq, I vowed to myself that if it were in my control, then never again would I go without air conditioning.2 So, I figured if I was going to burn gas up in my 4×4, I may as well burn it up a little more comfortably.
![]() |
Dynamically pulling the most recent PowerBall numbers with each drawing in order to provide an historical pattern analysis on lottery numbers. |
| Sponsored Advertisement | |
However, there is nothing comfortable about rising gas prices. All jokes aside about Jeep Wranglers having the aerodynamics of a rolling post office box or a brick on wheels, I decided to figure out the most fuel efficient way to drive my car to save a little money. Granted, I could have traded in my old Wrangler for a more fuel efficient SUV like the Liberty CRD or the new hybrids, but none of those vehicles compare to the Wrangler when it comes to off-road performance. So, like it or not, I needed to figure out some new driving habits.
For increasing fuel efficiency, there are three basic courses of action. First, driving style affects fuel efficiency. Many people will cite "rules of thumb," but most cannot back these claims up with evidence. To learn the truth about how driving style impacts fuel efficiency, I conducted road tests with a computer hooked into my engine’s OBDII interface. The second way to improve fuel efficiency is to modify the way an engine performs. Modifications can take many forms, so I browsed the Internet to find the most common and analyzed the fact and fiction behind their influence on fuel economy. Lastly, the very fuel that goes into an engine plays a role in fuel efficiency. With all the talk of alternative fuels these days, I wanted to know what they are, whether they work in my engine and how they compare to regular gasoline. Ultimately, I take all the cards relating to fuel efficiency and lay them on the table for scrutiny.
Studying the Jeep’s Performance
I used the following equipment to collect performance data:
- OBDII interface tool – The specific interface tool I used was the ElmScan5 – a multi-protocol OBDII reader offering improved performance over the previous versions.3 It is a hardware device based on the Elm327 chip (an upgrade over the Elm323) which converts the esoteric OBDII electric signal interface from the car’s computer into a human understandable, ASCII format.4,5 It is capable of reading approximately four data samples per second and connects via the computer’s serial port.
- Software from DigiMoto – The software from DigiMoto interfaces with OBDII devices built upon the Elm32x chipset and supports selectively reading engine parameters, data logging and a ‘poor mans’ dynometer.6
- Microsoft Excel – Once collected, I imported my OBDII data into Excel for later analysis.
- Laptop Computer
- My Trusty Jeep Wrangler Unlimited
h3. Understanding OBDII
OBDII stands for On Board Diagnostics generation 2, which is a standard defined on paper describing how a car’s engine computer communicates emissions information.7 The OBDII standard is the product of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO).8,9 The OBDI system originated from a mandate by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) demanding a means of emissions diagnostics be in place by 1988.10 As requirements grew more stringent, OBDI was replaced by the more standardized OBDII. The newer system was therein required by the Clean Air Act of 1990 to be in all American automobiles by 1999.11 OBDII requirements developed somewhat loosely in practice. At first, they were mostly a guideline to what automotive manufacturers should do, rather than how they should do it, which resulted in a variety of OBDII communications protocols and proprietary diagnostic codes.12 Ultimately, while the system is designed to detect emissions problems and illuminate the Malfunction Indicator Lamp (MIL) whenever problems occur, (e.g. an unpressurized fuel system, emissions at 150% federal limits, catalytic converter problems, improper combustion or sensor failures, etc) it can also serve as a handy interface for studying a vehicle’s performance characteristics.13
Determining which OBDII interface is supported by a given vehicle requires looking at the physical connector and studying the available electrical contacts.14 The standard requires the OBDII port to be between 300 and 750 millimeters from the vehicle’s centerline in a location easily accessible to the driver. This typically results in an OBDII port location near the steering column underneath the dashboard. My Jeep Wrangler’s OBDII port is located at the bottom left edge of the dashboard, near the doorstrap. There are currently four basic OBDII interfaces: Pulse Width Modulation (PWM), Variable Pulse Width (VPW), ISO9141/14230 (ISO) and ISO15765 Controller Area Network (CAN).15 Looking at the connector, identify which pins have an electrical contact to determine which protocols are supported.- PWM: Pins 2, 4, 5, 10 & 16
- VPW: Pins 2, 4, 5 & 16 but NOT 10
- ISO: Pins 4, 5, 7 & 16 with OPTIONAL 15
- CAN: Pins 4, 5, 6, 14 & 16
Traditional OBDII interfaces do not allow the user to reprogram the automobile’s engine computer. This requirement comes from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) so that owners may not tamper with the computer in such a way as to inadvertently violate emissions standards.16 Fortunately, the information needed for my experiments does not require altering the computer’s configuration, only reading ECU variables.
The Experiment
To study the effects of driving habits on fuel efficiency, I chose a road that I could use for repeated tests. Fitting the bill nicely is a five mile span of Riverwatch Parkway leading into Augusta, GA, a road that is mostly flat and relatively light on traffic. To maintain consistency, each sample was taken along the same stretch of road while driving in the same direction. During the drive, there was little to no wind and an ambient temperature of 90° Fahrenheit. The Jeep was topped off with Shell 87 Octane fuel for the sampling. I selected engine parameters that would give a good indication of engine performance and proceeded to drive back and forth for two hours collecting information. I was delayed for a while because right before I tested the 75mph characteristics, a highway patrol car decided to take up residence on my test road. The speed limit on Riverwatch Parkway is only 55mph, so I had to wait for him to leave in order to finish collecting data.
Studying Driving Habits
Before differing driving habits can be analyzed, it is important to understand exactly what the engine is doing. Quantitative data may then be compared against this background. Once the engine basics are outlined, I will collect data and analyze the results for:
- impact of driving at various speeds
- effects of unnecessary loads on the engine
- comparing cruise control to manual control
- benefits of drafting
- difference between fast and slow acceleration
h3. Understanding the Engine
Internal combustion engines are often called aspirated engines because they are "air-breathing" machines. These engines burn a combination of air and fuel mixed at the stoichiometric ratio 14.7 to 1.17 In the past, fuel and air were mixed in the carburetor, relying on the venturi effect of the pipework to render the fuel into an aerosol.18 Modern systems rely on fuel injection, a process governed by the Jeep’s engine computer unit (ECU).19 A variety of sensors feed into the ECU providing real-time information so the computer can manipulate engine performance for optimal emissions. The ECU can regulate fuel flow precisely to match air intake or even adjust the spark timing for various RPM and engine loads.
A rough approximation of fuel use can be made through calculations on engine sensor data. Estimates on fuel consumption will be approximately equal to dividing the amount of airflow through the engine by 14.7, the stoichiometric ratio.20 Engine mass airflow may be determined either with an MAF (Mass Air Flow) sensor or through calculations on the MAP (Manifold Absolute Pressure) sensor.
The Effect of Speed on Fuel Efficiency
Using these equations, I can compare the fuel requirements for different driving speeds. To collect the necessary data, I configured the DigiMoto software to log data on the engine’s RPM, intake temperature and manifold pressure. For the tests, I drove the Jeep at 45, 55, 65 and 75mph along the same stretch of Riverwatch Parkway. To ensure consistency, logging only took place after the appropriate speed was reached and locked into with cruise control.21 During the drive, the Jeep’s windows were left up for consistent aerodynamics and the air conditioning was left off to eliminate extra engine variables. The engine intake added approximately 13° of heat to the ambient air temperature resulting in 103° Fahrenheit (312.5° Kelvin).
The graph above depicts an estimated quantity of fuel consumed for the calculated air mass inhaled by the engine at the four speeds. It is evident that increased speeds require more than a linear increase in fuel. There are many factors that play into increased fuel needs at higher speeds, but aerodynamics is the most significant. A basic equation to govern the amount of power a vehicle must exert is represented by:22
- A – a constant resistance composed mostly from rolling resistance, brake drag and similar forces of linear friction.
- B – a constant factor of resistance composed mostly from friction and resistance within the engine components.
- C – a constant resistive element composed of aerodynamic forces, the coefficient of drag and the density of air.
Below, a graph represents the exponential growth in power a vehicle must exert versus increased speed (the coefficients are set to ‘1’ to isolate only the effect of speed.
I can conclude from these two graphs together that aerodynamics are likely the greatest cause for increased gas consumption at higher speeds. Experiments conducted by Edmunds indicate that driving slower can save up to 14% of wasted fuel.23 I hoped to calculate a "sweet spot" for my Jeep where fuel efficiency was at a peak. If you could graph miles per gallon across a complete range of speeds, there should be a curve of diminishing returns. Higher speeds burn gas excessively while lower speeds simply do not traverse great distances, e.g. idling the engine burns gas without traveling anywhere. However, as a Jeep Wrangler with a hard top has a 0.58 coefficient of drag, there was not an efficiency peaking speed of any usefulness (down around ~25mph).24 Typical cars have a coefficient of drag of approximately 0.30, while sports cars tend to be around 0.20; vehicles of this sort will probably have a calculable "sweet spot" in the 55mph range.25,26
OBDII and Oxygen Sensors
Without a doubt, the Jeep Wrangler suffers from its steep, flat windshield, the exposed surfaces of the undercarriage and both the aerodynamic losses of the wheels and rotational friction of large tires. The calculated findings above match records I had been keeping on the fuel efficiency of my various driving habits.
- 55mph = roughly 21 miles per gallon
- 65mph = roughly 19.5 miles per gallon
- 75mph = roughly 18 miles per gallon
- 90mph = roughly 14 miles per gallon
I began to wonder, though, what was my Jeep doing with all the extra fuel? Was it being used to get enough power to go that fast? Or was the engine expelling it, unburned with the exhaust?
Remember, the OBDII protocol evolved as an emissions control standard. As part of the specification, automobiles include an array of sensors to measure unburned oxygen in the exhaust. Called the O2 sensors, they are placed before and after the catalytic converter.27 This allows the ECU to check oxygen levels immediately out of the engine and also to inspect the performance of the catalytic converter. A failure in the system will illuminate the Malfunction Indicator Lamp (MIL) on the dashboard. The sensors provide a voltage to indicate whether the remaining oxygen levels are lean or rich. A value of 0.1V indicates the engine fully consumed the fuel while a value of 0.9V is indicative of a rich, unburned level of fuel in the exhaust.28 The ideal point for engine performance is 0.45V which indicates the ratio of both air and fuel are burning optimally. The ECU will take this exhaust feedback into play when calculating the amount of fuel to inject into the cylinders and how to adjust the spark plug timing. A healthy system will automatically center itself around the stoichiometric value of 0.45V.29
The graph above represents the average O2 sensor readings for each of the various speeds. The Jeep Wrangler has two sensors in two banks. Bank 1 is located ahead of the catalytic converter and Bank 2 is behind it. In the graph, column 1 represents the four sensors at 45mph. Each successive column of sensors represents the advancing speeds from 55mph through 75mph. It is interesting to observe that there is little difference between the speeds in terms of exhaust elements. My Jeep appears to be running a little rich at the moment meaning it is wasting fuel. Since the ECU is an adaptive computer, these values will slowly creep towards the stoichiometric point to improve the burn. There are values in the computer referred to as the Long and Short Term Trim levels so the ECU can "remember" its calculated improvements.
The Impact of Air Conditioning on Fuel Efficiency
A study conducted by the SAE confirms many conclusions about the air conditioning vs. windows down debate.30 The study placed a Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) and a sedan into wind tunnels at varying degrees of yaw to determine the aerodynamic effects of windows at varying speed.31 Ultimately, as many drivers have naturally inferred, driving with the windows down at high speed induces more resistive drag on the car than an air conditioner exerts on the engine. With windows down, sedans incur a 20% aerodynamic drag while SUVs are only affected by about 8%, mostly due to the SUVs naturally poor aerodynamics. Air conditioning on the other hand, imparts a 5-10% load on the vehicle’s engine. The rule of thumb goes that if owners need cooling, they must open their windows during city driving and use air conditioning at highway speeds.
Out of interest, I logged more data on the test strip to determine other factors that contribute to engine strain. For consistency, each sample was taken at 65mph with cruise control and the windows up. The same engine parameters were logged, to collect manifold pressure, intake temperature and RPM. This experiment was conducted to see the effect of air conditioning at highway speed. I also recorded the effects of driving in the wrong gears – 4th and 5th at highway speed. (Please note that starting in 2005, Jeep Wranglers featured the NSG 370 six speed transmission in lieu of the NV3550 five speed transmission. For drivers with a five speed transmission, these performance figures will correlate to driving at highway speed in your 3rd and 4th gear.)
The graph confirms common sense regarding not using the correct gears. Fifth and fourth gears incur an increased demand on fuel to operate the vehicle at the same speed. For vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission, this information corresponds to recommendations for using overdrive, the vehicle’s fourth gear. When the Jeep was driven in the correct gear, the engine’s vacuum (equal to atmospheric pressure minus manifold pressure) was high. In the wrong gear, the vacuum was lower because the engine was forced to ‘breathe’ and burn more air to maintain the test speed. According to the Haynes Techbook, high vacuum conditions result in the ECU leaning the combustion mix and advancing spark timing for extra efficiency while enriching the mix with more fuel under low vacuum conditions to boost power.32 Additionally, driving in the proper gear keeps the RPMs down to reduce excessive engine wear.
Air conditioning’s effect on fuel efficiency was particularly interesting. In sixth gear with the air conditioning operating, the vehicle consumed more fuel than if it were driving at the equivalent speed (without air conditioning) in fourth gear! To understand the results, it helps to know how the air conditioning system works.33 An air conditioner relies on a pump, sometimes referred to as a condenser, compressing a refridgerant liquid which, according to Boyle’s Law, causes it to heat up.34 The heated liquid is transferred to a heat exchanger for cooling. Then the pressure is released, again by Boyle’s Law, making the refridgerant colder than when it entered the compressor. It is the air conditioning’s compressor that affects fuel efficiency. The power needed to repeatedly compress the refridgerant comes from attaching the pump directly to the engine via a clutch and pulley belts.35 When the air conditioning clutch is engaged, the pump action imparts extra resistance on the engine. As the findings demonstrate, the extra resistance from air conditioning is handled by drawing more fuel into the engine, thus decreasing fuel efficiency.
The Impact of Cruise Control on Fuel Efficiency
When a driver controls the throttle, the pedal regulates air flow into the throttle body by varying a throttle valve which is generally controlled by a cable.36 A cruise control works by enabling a vacuum pump to control the throttle valve’s cable in place of the driver’s foot.37 The system maintains speed in one of two ways. The older method adjusted vacuum pressure based on the input from a solenoid, linked to a magnetic sensor that detects variances in axle revolutions. Modern controllers use an electronic throttle control that relies on direct input from the ECU’s analysis of various sensors.38 These new solid state electronics make more informed choices at a rapid rate to avoid disruptive speed adjustments.
To analyze the effects of cruise control on fuel efficiency, I conducted a series of drives at 65mph on my test strip. To ensure consistency, data was only logged between two speed limit signs so comparisons could be made on the same terrain. Furthermore, to preserve vehicle parameter consistency, the windows were kept up for aerodynamics and the air conditioning left off. I made the assumption that between a driver and a cruise control, the only variables of interest would be those related to variances in throttle so I selected Intake Manifold PSI and engine RPM. If a cruise control provides a fuel efficiency bonus, than I should find that over the same stretch of road, the resulting data will be smoother.
Looking at the graphs, I can see that both the cruise control and manual control resulted in similar trends over time regarding general rises and falls. This behavior is undoubtedly indicative of matching requirements for changing PSI and RPM to maintain speed over the two small humps in Riverwatch Parkway at the beginning of the test strip. Overall, the cruise control’s graph is smoother than when I controlled the Jeep manually. The PSI graph provides a reasonable picture of varying input by the throttle valve. The cruise control made only minor adjustments for ‘like’ terrain segments unlike the manual control which bounced above and below the computer’s line. Of interest are the three areas where the cruise control raised the engine’s RPM at time intervals 30, 60 and 100. Each time I controlled the Jeep, there was a sharp drop in RPM with a subsequent RPM spike that likely correlates to the human inconsistency of working the pedals while shifting.
The PSI graph provides evidence of the minute variations introduced by human control. Human input varies over approximately a 2psi range while those from the cruise control varied by less than 1psi. While the PSI input difference is small, it can have detrimental effects on ignition advance timing and the fuel ratios, which over the course of a fuel tank results in lost fuel efficiency. I can conclude from the RPM graph that a cruise control unit saves fuel by adapting quickly to engine needs and providing incremental steps for speed maintenance. Human senses, on the other hand, do not realize minute changes are needed until after the fact and must compensate with more drastic changes which consume more fuel. Edmunds performed experiments showing cruise control saving fuel up to 14%, while typically averaging 7% fuel savings.39
To caveat the findings, cruise controls are best suited for flat terrain. Hills, especially rolling hills, introduce varying needs from the engine. Because the ECU has no means of detecting an upcoming incline or decline, it may make adjustments that are not suitable for a sudden shift in grade. This is why many vehicles struggle on hills with their engine RPMs rising and falling dramatically.
The Impact of Drafting Vehicles on Fuel Efficiency
Another technique for improving fuel efficiency involves reducing the air density through which the vehicle moves. It is a practice called drafting, one found in both nature (bird migration), athletics (road cycling) and sports (NASCAR).40 The following equation describes the drag force a body in motion experiences in a fluid state:41
- ρ42 – fluid density (for atmospheric air, this value corresponds to 1.29 kg/m3)
- Cd – coefficient of drag
- A – surface area of the drag inducing plane
- v – velocity of motion is squared
The graphs below illustrate the effects of reduced air density that would be experienced while drafting. Without an instrument to measure air density, I made the assumption that in the proper slipstream, the air density would be one half that normally encountered. I decreased the C value in the power equation by one half and decreased rho to 0.65 kg/m3. Mathematically, the force equation shows that the decreased air density from drafting results in an immediate decrease in resistance by a factor equivalent to the coefficient. Still, velocity is the primary factor of resistance resulting in increases governed by the law of squares. The power, and thus fuel, required to muscle through that air density is also exponential.
From experience, I have noticed the effects of drafting to be an enormous boon to fuel efficiency – especially in an aerodynamically challenged vehicle like a Wrangler. Once, when carefully following a truck at 65mph from Augusta to Florence, I was able to exceed 30 miles per gallon. The benefits of drafting trucks were even noticeable in a Toyota Camry driving from the Atlanta airport to Augusta, although not as pronounced since the coefficient of drag is not nearly as high. Ultimately, however, the practice of drafting vehicles on the highway can be dangerous. Vehicles are required to maintain a close following distance which does not provide a driver much reaction time in the event of emergency. Furthermore, as vehicles draft behind tractor trailers, the close proximity limits the visibility for the trail driver and the truck drivers themselves may not be comfortable with close followers due to safety and insurance liabilities.
The Impact of Acceleration on Fuel Efficiency
Multiple studies show that accelerating slower will dramatically improve fuel efficiency. On a closed fifty-five mile track circuit, Edmund’s test drivers accelerated cars at various throttle positions to study the effect of ‘jack rabbit’ starts.43 They found fuel savings up to 37% with an average of 31% simply by accelerating a car slowly. Similar findings by the Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC) show slower acceleration saving between 14% and 21% of fuel use over aggresive acceleration.44
Curious to find similar tendencies with my own Jeep, I devised another driving experiment to record data directly from the car computer. Basically, I would need to record engine parameters while performing different, controlled accelerations so that I could compare the spent fuel. Since testing these varieties of driving styles would be dangerous to other drivers, I found a remote location in the training area on Fort Gordon. This ensured no vehicle accidents would take place. Again, I configured my software to record OBDII parameters that would allow me to analyze fuel efficiency. I conducted the following tests:
- 1st gear: 0 to redline RPM
- 2nd gear: 0 to redline RPM
- 1st gear: 0 to 15mph @ 2000 RPM
- 2nd gear: 0 to 25mph @ 2000 RPM
- 0-60 mph: 1st-3rd gear @ Full Throttle
- 0-60 mph: 2nd-3rd gear @ Full Throttle
- 0-60 mph: 1st-6th gear @ 2000 RPM
- 0-60 mph: 2nd-6th gear @ 2000 RPM
The fuel mass consumption graphs were plotted using the same equation based on intake temperature, manifold pressure and RPM. Each dip in the curve represent a point at which I changed gears, a drop in fuel consumption as the engine was not under load with the transmission disengaged. With the throttle ‘floored,’ an average fuel mass of 132 was consumed to accelerate to 60 mph. While redlining the engine, it was only necessary to shift into third gear to achieve this speed in approximately 13 seconds. On the other end of the spectrum, to keep the engine below 2000 RPM, it was necessary to utilize all six gears. 60 mph was achieved in a much slower 40 seconds, but the fuel mass consumption equation yielded an average value of 5.
The ECU calculates its ‘engine load’ based on the ratio of intake manifold pressure to atmospheric pressure.45 A 100% load, therefore, means the manifold pressure is equal to the atmospheric pressure. Short of a turbocharger, supercharger or carefully tuned ram intake, it is impossible to have a higher manifold pressure than atmospheric pressure. During the acceleration tests, the engine load held consistently between 85% and 95% for both low and high RPM. The difference between the two scenarios for fuel consumption lies in the RPMs. Looking back at the equation for engine mass airflow, both situations have roughly the same intake pressure and intake temperature. Therefore, only RPM can discrimate the fuel consumption between different styles of acceleration. Higher RPM will consume more air in the same amount of time. Without a doubt, stressing the engine results in a higher volume of fuel to perform the same task.
The Impact of Performance Modifications on Fuel Efficiency
Throttle Body Spacers
One of the most commonly advertised devices for improved horsepower and fuel efficiency is a throttle body spacer.46 They are relatively inexpensive devices and simple to install.47 In theory, the devices work by creating turbulence in the air intake stream. Fuel becomes more volatile when rendered aerosol and turbulent air flow allegedly makes this transition easier, but the claims are met with a great deal of skepticism.48
The rationale behind this skepticism is the engine computer itself. An ECU is designed to continually monitor engine performance and emissions output. While the device may initially increase engine performance, the O2 sensors will detect the increased emissions from an improved burn and adjust accordingly to reduce emissions. This is afterall, the primary purpose of the ECU, to reduce emissions for environmental protection. Therefore, after the ECU adapts to the presence of the throttle body spacer, a vehicle’s performance will normalize. Older engines using a carburetor in lieu of an ECU may actually benefit from a throttle body spacer, but not a comptuer controlled engine.
Fuel Magnets
Another technique for improving fuel efficiency is the use of fuel magnets or fuel line cleaners.49 The concept behind the technology is that magnets on the fuel lines will trap impurities or alter the nature of the fuel as it passes through the magnetic fields. With cleaner fuel comes a cleaner and more efficient burn. However, an EPA analysis of fuel magnet devices determined they have no effect on the fuel efficiency of automobiles.50
ECU Override
Thus far, the ECU itself is often the culprit behind why engine modifications do not have a lasting effect on fuel efficiency. Like the analysis of the O2 sensors demonstrated, the engine will ‘recenter’ itself to maintain a level of emissions in accordance with EPA guidelines. To circumvent this behavior, the ECU can be modified, overridden or completely replaced. Hypertech features a product that rewrites the mappings of the ECU through the vehicle’s OBDII port, altering the manner in which it treats sensor input.51 Remapping the ECU is a common technique used by performance tuners to make competitive racers from inexpensive cars or to give older cars a refresh to handle modern fuels.52 Another means of overriding the ECU’s default behavior is plug-in modules.53 It is less invasive to the ECU as it utilizes external modules. Lastly, the ECU can be replaced completely.54,55 When enough changes to an engine have been made, complete ECU replacement is often necessary for the emissions management to make proper use of upgraded components. Direct manipulation of the ECU will likely void any warranty by the manufacturer.
O2 Sensor Falsification
One trick to evading the tendency for the ECU to self-calibrate is to provide false sensor data. If the ECU is tricked into believing a different condition exists, it will make fuel and timing assumptions from that data. The easiest sensors to manipulate are the oxygen sensors.
Oxygen sensors operate after being heated to 600° Fahrenheit.56 During the warm-up phase, the ECU operates in what is called Open Loop conditions. The ECU does not interpret any emissions data from the sensors until they have sufficiently warmed up. Once heated, the ECU switches to Closed Loop conditions, where O2 inputs affect the fuel injection and spark timing.
Two techniques are available to bypass the Closed Loop emissions management system. The first, and most simple, involves disconnecting the sensors altogether. Essentially, the ECU will operate in Open Loop mode continuously. This will allow the engine to operate without the emissions data to full potential. Another technique is to create a bypass circuit on the O2 wiring. By directly manipulating the O2 value with a potentiometer, the ECU can be fooled into believing the emissions are 0.1V or 0.9V. In turn, the ECU will enrich or lean the air fuel mixture which will have an impact on fuel efficiency. Ultimately, the practice of tampering with the O2 sensors will void the warranty on the engine because of abnormal wear in operating in a potentially extreme rich or lean state. Furthermore, the vehicle will likely fail state emissions inspections.
Cold Air Intake
Another common technique for improving engine performance is the introduction of colder air. Looking at the engine mass airflow equation, it can be concluded that colder air will increase the amount of air available to the engine at the manifold. Although each vehicle is different, generic dynometer results from a 2003 Chevy Tahoe match the conclusion that power is increased from the colder air.57 Cold air can be achieved by using heat shield barriers, ram air, turbochargers or snorkels.58,59,60
My Jeep Wrangler is equipped with an ARB Safari Snorkel. To test the theories of cold air intake and ram air, I configured the OBDII software to measure intake temperature and manifold absolute pressure. For the experiment, I measured information at 65mph and at idle. The ambient temperature during the test was 92° Fahrenheit. To simulate a ‘stock’ airbox, I wedged open the Jeep’s air filter compartment and sealed the snorkel to ensure air came only from inside the engine compartment. I discovered the snorkel does in fact serve as a cold air intake, averaging only about 12° Fahrenheit warmer than ambient temperature while driving. While both stock and snorkel were significantly hotter while the vehicle was not moving, the snorkel was significantly cooler than the stock airbox. Ultimately, however, recorded data reveals the snorkel does not serve as a ram air intake for a Jeep. At both idle and forward speed, the manifold air pressure was virtually identical. On the other hand, snorkels provide that handy, emergency ability to drive a Jeep through deep water while other cars remain trapped or hydrolocked.
The Impact of Alternative Fuel on Fuel Efficiency
While understanding how driving style and performance modifications play a significant role in squeezing extra miles from fuel, ultimately, the fuel itself needs to be understood as well. A British Thermal Unit (BTU) is a unit of measurement defining the amount of heat necessary to raise one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit.61 Alternatively, BTUs are used to define the amount of energy potential stored in a chemical compound. With automotive fuel, the contained BTUs offer a means by which to compare the output potential of alternative fuels.62,63
Petroleum
Gasoline is an aliphatic hydrocarbon, which is a chain of hydrogen and carbon molecules between 7 and 11 links in length.64 Oil refineries heat crude oil in a distillation process to separate the varying hydrocarbon chains. The mixtures of hydrocarbon chains result in fuel combinations that differ in combustive properties. These properties represent the various octanes found at pump stations, lower octanes are fuels that do not handle compression well and are prone to early combustion (engine knock).65
Petroleum fuels face two major problems today, the prospect of achieving a declining availability known as Peak Oil and the environmental problems associated with hydrocarbon emissions.66 Aside from continued oil field exploration, improved engine efficiency and alternative fuels, there is not much that can be done about diminishing oil supplies. Emissions on the other hand have been the subject of automotive and oil engineering for several decades to comply with the Federal Clean Air Act imposed on the nation’s most polluted cities.
Part of the solution is a process called Reformulation to oxygenate the gasoline. With the addition of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) and ethanol, gasolines will burn cleaner to reduce smog and ozone emissions.67 MTBE is added into the fuel mixture as both an oxygenate octane booster, to allow the use of lower octane fuels. Ethanol is typically mixed in a 10% ratio with standard gasoline producing, resulting in what is sometimes called "gasohol." This process is done for two reasons. First, to comply with a requirement for winterized, oxygenated gasolines. The second, to extend the fuel supply by diluting fuel with a combustible for distribution to remote locations.68 Each oil company manipulates the reformulation process in different ways, resulting in differing performance aspects by both brand and location. Reformulated fuels do not significantly impact a vehicle’s typical fuel efficiency, usually by only a 2% drop in performance..69
Ethanol
Ethanol is produced through a fermentation process of plant sugars. For usefulness as a fuel source, it must be further distilled to remove water and achieve a purity of at least 99.5%.70 The fuel itself has an octane value of 105, meaning that it is very stable for high compression demands. As a product of fermentation, it is clean burning, biodegradeable and a non-contaminant in water.71
Several manufacturers have already began making automobiles that will run on both regular gasoline and E85 blends, gasoline with a mixture of 85% ethanol.72 These "Flexible Fuel" vehicles differ from normal vehicles in only a few components. Ethanol fuels in heavy concentration are severely corrosive and require the replacement of fuel related rubber and plastic components – tank, seals, pump and lines.73 With the higher octane of ethanol, the ECU must be able to detect the presence of E85 fuel and adjust the spark timing advance accordingly. This is not to say that a regular automobile will not function on E85. Continued use on a non-prepared vehicle, however, may damage components through corrosion and premature engine detonation from improper spark timing. Ethanol fuels provide nearly 30% less BTUs than standard gasoline. Regardless of whether the vehicle was designed for E85 or using it accidently, it will not obtain the fuel efficiency of standard gasoline.74
It is not unheard of to perform a conversion to utilize E85 in standard vehicles.75 However, home grown kits will likely require maintenance from the same, home mechanic. With the proper component replacements, in theory, any vehicle can operate on E85.76 The problem with home grown conversions and even kits comes from an EPA finding that converted vehicles emitted grossly worse pollutants afterwards.77 Manufacturers are reluctant to re-engineer existing products because they have already tweaked performance for the intended application and for profitability. Even kit producers face consequences for products to convert automobiles. EPA and CARB regulations require modifications to vehicles not render them worse for emissions.78,79 Basically, an improperly converted vehicle will fail state emissions inspections.
Liquefied Petroleum
Liquefied Petroleum (LP) is a fossil fuel and is processed in refineries from crude oil or more typically from natural gas.80 Natural gas, ususally methane, is often found in conjunction with petroleum, but does exist in gas fields without crude oil. LP can therefore be derived from synthetically produced, biologic methane or that extracted from the Earth. When burned as an automotive fuel, LP is clean – 90% reduced carbon monoxide, 33% reduced nitrous oxides and 50% reduced hydrocarbons.81
One of its advantages is easy portability. Under pressure, LP will remain liquefied in a stable form. With a regulated release, the fuel will be rendered aerosol easily for use in combustive applications. Regular cars can be converted to operate on LP. Essentially, an LP car requires a compression tank, fuel lines, LP regulators and a modification to the ECU for proper spark timing. What is especially interesting is the conversion design is for dual-fuel use so that standard gasoline can be used when an LP filling station is not available.82
Diesel
Diesel engines are fundamentally different than their gasoline counterparts.83 Whereas the internal combustion engine compresses both fuel and air simultaneously, the diesel compresses only the air. A direct fuel injector renders diesel fuel aerosol into the compressed cylinder where it burns. By not compressing the fuel simultaneously, a diesel engine is able to obtain a higher compression ratio than gasoline engines, sometimes a twofold increase.84 Diesel engine designs emerged about fifteen years after gasoline engines because consumers sought a means of obtaining improved fuel efficiency. Not only did the higher compression ratio offer improved power, but diesel fuel itself contains more energy per unit resulting in even more efficiency.
The fuel is derived from a similar refining process to gasoline by high temperature distillation. Of interest, is that diesel fuel can be obtained from a variety of sources beyond crude oil; diesel can be synthesized from bio-mass, natural gas, sewage and even coal.85,86 These new diesel derivatives and associated improvements to diesel engines are being considered as a possible saving throw against the oil crisis.87 Common Rail Diesel (CRD) systems are an improvement to the traditional diesel. The CRD make better use of fuel by increasing the delivery pressure and reducing even further the number of necessary engine components.88 Combined with innovative emissions filters like advanced ceramics, urea screens and particulate traps, diesel engines are making a cleaner burn of their fuel.
Bio-Diesel
Bio-diesel fuel is the result of a chemical reaction, called transesterification, between vegetable oil, a catalyst and either a methyl alcohol or ethyl alcohol (typically methyl alcohol) which produced fuel and glycerine. It can also be directly blended with standard diesel fuel as needed without penalty. Blends and additives are often necessary to overcome bio-diesel’s few limitations. The fuel congeals in low temperatures, requiring additives to maintain a useable viscosity. Interestingly, each gallon of vegetable oil will convert directly into one gallon of bio-diesel. Overall, for each BTU of energy used to grow the crop and perform the conversions, an energy surplus of 3.3 BTUs of energy is available from the resultant bio-diesel.89
There are many property improvements over conventional diesel fuel. One of the most advantageous properties of bio-diesel is that it can be used in contemporary diesel engines without modification. Occasionally, older diesel engines will require a retrofitting of rubber gaskets and hoses to prevent degradation. On the other hand, bio-diesel exhibits a peculiar property over conventional diesel in that it actually provides more engine lubrication.90 Bio-diesel also burns cleaner than standard diesel; emission decreases have been recorded in carbon monoxide (30% lower), polyaromatic hydrocarbons (74% lower) and nitrous oxides (3% lower).91 Despite these improvements over conventional diesel, the vegetable oil derivative suffers a slight decrease in BTUs, requiring approximately 1.1 gallons of bio-diesel for a comparative burn to 1 gallon of diesel.92
Bio-diesel appears to be the alternative fuel of the future. With more BTUs than even gasoline, bio-diesel provides a clean burning source of energy that can alleviate a nation’s oil independence. Switching to bio-diesel also requires zero changes to infrastructure as it can be put into existing diesel pump stations and run on existing engines. It is unlikely, however, to take a lead in the United States because of historical beliefs about the noise, dirtiness and potential cancerous nature of nitrous oxide emission in regular diesel.93 Only about 2% of American vehicles are diesel powered, unlike nearly 30% of those in Europe and abroad.
Summary
Fuel efficiency can be achieved in a number of ways. The purchase of a fuel efficient automobile, of course, leads the way in effectiveness. But for those owners already hampered by a gas guzzler or those with a functional need for the vehicle, simply buying a new car is not a viable option. Instead, owners can achieve greater fuel efficinecy by adjusting driving habits, installing appropriate performance upgrades or selecting improved fuels.
Changing driving habits introduces the most profound effect on fuel efficiency for any vehicle. In brief, the following tips collectively save gas in the long run.
- slower acceleration
- reduced top speed
- proper tire inflation
- using cruise control
- proper vehicle lubrication
- correct transmission gears
- using air conditioning only when necessary
- reducing aerodynamic drag
- removing excess weight94
Some aftermarket accessories will also allow owners to improve the fuel efficiency of their existing vehicles while others prove to be nothing more than snake-oil. For non-carbureted engines, only the products that target the ECU itself will assist with fuel efficiency. Otherwise the closed loop feedback from the O2 sensors will negate any performance improvements over time. Owners with a carburetor may find benefit from a greater pool of engine modifications because there is not an ECU constantly working to stabilize emissions.
In the near future, fuel efficiency will become increasingly dependent on which alternative fuels are chosen. Bio-diesel provides the most promise for continuing the status quo of contemporary vehicle performance, although it requires an engine swap or the purchase of a diesel engine. Ethanol seems to provide the cleanest emissions at the cost of energy output. Although ethanol also requires conversion kits for existing cars, such a process will not likely be as costly as converting to diesel. The choice of fuel is one that consumers will not always have control over, but simply must understand.
For off-road enthusiasts, these tips demonstrate with evidence how to get more fuel efficiency from your vehicle when it is being used as a daily driver. Plus, by improving on-road fuel efficiency, there will be more gas in the tank once your 4×4 gets to its off road destination.
1 My Silver Jeep, OmniNerd, accessed May 2006 from http://www.omninerd.com/articles/attachments/VnutZ79/a49/DIY10.jpg.
2 Vea, Matthew. Photographs of OIF III_, OmniNerd, accessed May 2006 from http://www.omninerd.com/articles/Photographs_of_OIF_IIIIII.
3 ElmScan5, ScanTool, accessed May 2006 from http://www.scantool.net/index.php.
4 Oliver, John. Implementing the J1850 Protocol_, Intel Corporation, accessed May 2006 from http://developer.intel.com/design/intarch/papers/j1850_wp.pdfwp.pdf.
5 Getting Started With ElmScan and OBDII_, Scantool Knowledge Base, accessed May 2006 from http://www.scantool.net/support/index.php?m=knowledgebase&a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=32&nav=0,4;a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=32&nav=0,4.
6 DigiMoto 4.03, DigiMoto, accessed May 2006 from http://www.digimoto.com.
7 What is OBD-II?, Scantool Knowledge Base, accessed May 2006 from http://www.scantool.net/support/index.php?m=knowledgebase&a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=1&nav=0,1?m=knowledgebase&a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=1&nav=0,1.
8 Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE, accessed July 2006 from http://www.sae.org/servlets/index.
9 International Organization for Standardization, ISO, accessed July 2006 from http://www.iso.org.
10 California Air Resources Board, CARB, accessed July 2006 from http://www.arb.ca.gov/homepage.htm.
11 Clear Air Act, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, accessed July 2006 from http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/.
12 Kreft, Keith. Technicians Play Key Role In OBD II Acceptance, Success, Automotive Service Association, accessed May 2006 from http://www.asashop.org/autoinc/june97/tech.htm.
13 Carley, Larry. Understanding Onboard Diagnostics OBDII: Past, Present & Future, AA1Car Automotive Diagnostic Repair Help, accessed May 2006 from http://www.aa1car.com/library/us796obd.htm.
14 Which OBD-II protocol is supported by my vehicle?, Scantool Knowledge Base, accessed May 2006 from http://www.scantool.net/support/index.php?m=knowledgebase&a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=3&nav=0,1?m=knowledgebase&a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=3&nav=0,1.
15 Carley, Larry. Controller Area Network (CAN) Diagnostics_, AA1Car Automotive Diagnostic Repair Help, accessed May 2006 from http://www.aa1car.com/library/can_systems.htmsystems.htm.
16 Can I use your scan tool to program the ECU?, Scantool Knowledge Base, accessed May 2006 from http://www.scantool.net/support/index.php?m=knowledgebase&a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=15&nav=0,3?m=knowledgebase&a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=15&nav=0,3.
17 Air Fuel Ratio_, Wikipedia, accessed May 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_fuel_ratioratio.
18 Carburetor, Wikipedia, accessed May 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carburetor.
19 Nice, Karim. How Car Computers Work, HowStuffWorks, accessed May 2006 from http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-computer.htm.
20 MAP Sensor_, Wikipedia, accessed May 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold_absolute_pressurepressure
21 There is a high probability of error for ensuring these speeds are accurate as they were measured using the speedometer on the dashboard and not the speed read directly from the ECU. Knowing speed was ‘locked’ with cruise control, I did not monitor speed from the ECU because additional variables reduce the refresh time for the experiment’s sensors.
22 What Speed Should I Drive To Get Maximum Fuel Efficiency?’’, HowStuffWorks, accessed May 2006 from http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm
23 Reed, Philip. We Test The Tips: What Really Saves Gas? And How Much?, Edmunds.com, November 2005, accessed May 2006 from http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/driving/articles/106842/article.html.
24 2005 Jeep Wrangler Specifications_, JeepHorizons.com, accessed May 2006 from http://www.jeephorizons.com/tech/2005_tj_specs.htmlspecs.html.
25 Aerodynamics_, AutoZine, accessed May 2006 from http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/aero/tech_aero.htmaero.htm.
26 Driving More Efficiently, FuelEconomy.gov, accessed May 2006 from http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml.
27 Oxygen Sensor_, Wikipedia, accessed May 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGO_sensorsensor
28 Maddox, Robert. ’Automotive Computer Codes & Electronic Engine Management Systems_, Haynes Techbook, ISBN 1563922320, page 8-14
29 Carley, Larry. _OXYGEN (O2)SENSORS: Diagnose and Replace’’, AA1Car Automotive Diagnostic Repair Help, accessed May 2006 from http://www.aa1car.com/library/o2sensor.htm
30 Arthur, Dani. Will Rolling Down Windows Save Fuel or Not?, Bankrate, accessed May 2006 from http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/auto/20050804a1.asp
31 Affect of Windows Down on Vehicle Fuel Efficiency as Compared to AC Load, SAE, accessed May 2006 from http://www.sae.org/events/aars/presentations/2004-hill.pdf
32 Maddox, Robert. Automotive Computer Codes & Electronic Engine Management Systems, Haynes Techbook, ISBN 1563922320, page 8-26
33 Brain, Marshall. How Air Conditioners Work, HowStuffWorks, accessed December 2006 from http://home.howstuffworks.com/ac.htm
34 Animated Boyle’s Law, NASA Glenn Research Center, accessed December 2006 from http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/aboyle.html
35 How To Fix Cars Air Conditioning, wikiHow, accessed December 2006 from http://www.wikihow.com/Fix-Cars-Air-Conditioning
36 Nice, Karim. How Fuel Injection Systems Work, HowStuffWorks, accessed May 2006 from http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-injection2.htm
37 Cruise Control_, Wikipedia, accessed May 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_controlcontrol
38 Electronic Throttle Control_, Wikipedia, accessed May 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_throttle_controlcontrol
39 Reed, Philip. We Test The Tips: What Really Saves Gas? And How Much?, Edmunds.com, November 2005, accessed May 2006 from http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/driving/articles/106842/article.html
40 Drafting (Racing), Wikipedia, accessed May 2006 from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drafting%28racing%29":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drafting%28racing%29.
41 Drag (Physics), Wikipedia, accessed May 2006 from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag%28physics%29":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag%28physics%29.
42 Rho_, Wikipedia, accessed December 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rho_(letter).
43 Reed, Philip. We Test The Tips: What Really Saves Gas? And How Much?, Edmunds.com, accessed May 2006 from http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/driving/articles/106842/article.html.
44 _Parker, Danny. _Energy Efficient Transportation for Florida’’, FSEC, November 2005, accessed May 2006 from http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/Pubs/energynotes/en-19.htm#2.
45 Interpreting OBDII Data, obd2crazy.com, accessed May 2006 from http://www.obd2crazy.com/techdata.html.
46 Throttle Body Spacers, AIRAID, accessed May 2006 from http://www.airaid.com/spacers.asp.
47 Product Review: Poweraid Throttle Body Spacer, Jeepin.com, accessed May 2006 http://jeepin.com/features/tbspacer/index.asp.
48 Air Raid Throttle Body Spacer, JeepForum, accessed May 2006 from http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=262947&highlight=snake.
49 The Fuel OptiMiser Fuel Saver Improves Gas Mileage and Fuel Economy, Fuel Optimizer, accessed May 2006 from http://www.improvegasmileage.com/.
50 Gas-Saving" Products: Fact or Fuelishness?, Federal Trade Commission, accessed May 2006 from http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/autos/gasave.htm.
51 Power Programmer III, HyperTech, accessed May 2006 from http://www.hypertech.com/programmer.html.
52 ECU Performance Remapping_, Celtic Tuning, accessed May 2006 from http://www.celtictuning.co.uk/technical-info.html.
53 Jet Performance Chips, Jet Performance, accessed May 2006 from http://www.jetchip.com/products.asp.
54 Original verses Aftermarket ECUs – 1999 to 2000 Model Year ECUs, ECUTEK, accessed May 2006 from http://www.ecutek.com/tuning/aftermarket/.
55 _Engine Management’’, Scooby Tuner, accessed May 2006 from http://www.scoobytuner.com/tuning/?tSfID1=4&tuningID=14.
56 Maddox, Robert. Automotive Computer Codes & Electronic Engine Management Systems, Haynes Techbook, ISBN 1563922320, page 4-23.
57 2003 Chevy Tahoe 5.3L, AIRAID, accessed May 2006 from http://www.airaid.com/images/200-112-dyno.jpg.
58 Intake Systems, AIRAID, accessed May 2006 from http://www.airaid.com/intakes.asp.
59 How Turbochargers Work, HowStuffWorks, accessed May 2006 from http://auto.howstuffworks.com/turbo.htm.
60 Safari Snorkels_, ARB, accessed May 2006 from http://www.arbusa.com/Safari_Snorkels.htmSnorkels.htm.
61 British Thermal Unit, Wikipedia, accessed May 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTU.
62 Gasoline, Wikipedia, accessed May 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline.
63 Biodiesel Offers Renewable Alternative to Petroleum, Western Area Power Administration, accessed May 2006 from http://www.wapa.gov/es/pubs/esb/2004/april/apr048a.htm.
64 Brain, Marshall. How Gasoline Works, HowStuffWorks, accessed May 2006 from http://auto.howstuffworks.com/gasoline1.htm
65 What Is Engine Knock? Why Does It Occur?, Standford, accessed May 2006 from http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.stanford.edu/ ~bmoses/knock.html&e=15235&ei=aZ18RIuVJJT4sQH5xYXBDQ.
66 Rapier, Robert. What You Need to Know About Peak Oil, OmniNerd, accessed May 2006 from http://www.omninerd.com/2006/05/17/articles/52.
67 Reforumulated Gasoline, Environmental Protection Agency, accessed May 2006 from http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg.htm#Fact.
68 Control of MTBE in Gasoline, Environmental Protection Agency, accessed May 2006 from http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/mtbe/f00010.htm.
69 Fuel Economy Impact Analysis of RFG, Environmental Protection Agency, accessed May 2006 from http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfgecon.htm.
70 Ethanol Fuel_, Wikipedia, accessed May 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel#Productionfuel#Production.
71 What Is Ethanol, E85, accessed May 2006 from http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/ethanol.php.
72 Flex Fuel Vehicles, fueleconomy.gov, accessed May 2006 from http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/flextech.shtml.
73 What Are The Differences in an FFV Compared to a Regular Gasoline-Only Model?, E85, access May 2006 from http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/diffferences.php.
74 What is the Range of a Flexible Fuel Vehicle, E85, accessed May 2006 from http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/range.php.
75 Converting a 2000 Ford Explorer Sport to Run on E85 Ethanol Fuel, e85vehicles.com, accessed May 2006 from http://e85vehicles.com/converting-e85.htm.
76 Can Ethanol Fuel be Used in any Vehicle?, E85, accessed May 2006 from http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/anycar.php.
77 Can A Vehicle Be Converted to Operate E85?, E85, accessed May 2006 from http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/conversion.php.
78 Conversions 101, US Department of Energy, accessed May 2006 from http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/afv/conversion101.html.
79 Updated Certification Guidance for Alternative Fuel Converters, Environment Protection Agency, accessed May 2006 from http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/dearmfr/cisd0602.pdf.
80 Grabianowski, Ed. How Liquefied Petroleum Gas Works, HowStuffWorks, accessed May 2006 from http://auto.howstuffworks.com/lpg.htm.
81 Harris, Bill. How Natural Gas Vehicles Work, HowStuffWorks, accessed May 2006 from http://auto.howstuffworks.com/ngv.htm.
82 Frequently Asked Questions, Green Fuel, accessed May 2006 from http://www.greenfuel.org.uk/faqs/.
83 Diesel, Wikipedia, accessed May 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel.
84 Brain, Marshall. How Diesel Engines Work, HowStuffWorks, accessed May 2006 from http://auto.howstuffworks.com/diesel.htm.
85 Gas-to-Liquid (GTL) Fuel Fact Sheet_, California Energy Commission, accessed May 2006 from http://www.energy.ca.gov/afvs/synthetic_diesel.htmldiesel.html.
86 Rubinkam, Michael. US: Fill ’er Up With … Coal?, Energy Bulletin, July 2004, accessed May 2006 from http://www.energybulletin.net/1194.html.
87 Wald, Matthew. Diesel a Savior in Squeeze on Energy_, New York Times, May 2006, accessed May 2006 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/29/us/29diesel.html?_r=1&ex= 1149048000&en=f17fcc60ce017c90&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin?r=1&ex=1149048000&en=f17fcc60ce017c90&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin
88 Bosch, Robert. The Common Rail Diesel Injection System Explained_, Swede Speed, June 2004, accessed May 2006 from http://www.swedespeed.com/news/publish/Features/printer_272.html272.html.
89 Hofman, Vern. Biodiesel Fuel, North Dakota State University, February 2003, accessed May 2006 from http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/ageng/machine/ae1240w.htm.
90 What Is Bio-Diesel Fuel?, Wise Geek, accessed May 2006 from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-biodiesel-fuel.htm.
91 Von Wedel, Randall. Technical Handbook for Marine Biodiesel, Cyto Culture Marine Biodiesel, April 1999, accessed May 2006 from http://www.cytoculture.com/Biodiesel%20Handbook.htm.
92 Hess, Scott. How Biodiesel Works, HowStuffWorks, accessed May 2006 from http://auto.howstuffworks.com/biodiesel.htm.
93 Krebs, Michelle. Automotive Technology: Diesel Revisited, Popular Science, January 2002, accessed May 2006 from http://www.popsci.com/popsci/automotivetech/ f26c3bcc2eb84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
94 Driving More Efficiently, fueleconomy.gov, accessed May 2006 from http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml.
Similarly tagged OmniNerd content:
- Electric Jeep Wrangler, by VnutZ over 1 year ago
- Green Cars Are Too Quiet, by VnutZ over 1 year ago
- Synthetic vs Conventional Motor Oil and Change Interval, by VnutZ almost 2 years ago
- Diesel Engines for Jeep Wranglers, by VnutZ almost 2 years ago
This article was edited after publication by the author on 21 Mar 2009.
View changes.



an academic
article
by 
Print Friendly
Write an Article
Question about drafting by bradsmith :: NR5 :: Show
Rather than assume, I’d like to ask a question about drafting. Being a swimmer, I am quite familiar with the concept. One thing that must be said for drafting however, is that the person who is leading must exert more force to maintain his/her speed than if no one were drafting behind them. Can one assume then that any gas mileage saved by one is reduced from the other. Intuition tells me that there would be a reduction, but I am not sure if it is an equal reduction. It would be cool to have stats on that… but that would be quite an undertaking.
I did like how you pointed out that drafting could (and probably would) increase accidents if adopted by the general public. That is why I asked about the ethics of it if gas mileage were reduced on the other end of it. There was nothing I hated more while swimming laps than a lazy swimmer who just drafted off me and never offered to do his/her fair share of the leading. It’s just bad manners to take but not give.
? by EyeOfSage :: NR6 :: Show
I got a better way. Why don’t we build tiny nuclear reactor to power every automotives in the nation. It’s very efficient, it saves natural resources, and it may kill us all, but most importantly it’s cheap.
Looks good by Anonymous :: NR0 :: Show
The analysis looks quite reasonable, though the drafting benenfit results from a decrease in density seems iffy. Air near room temperature below 200 mph is pretty much incompressible — there won’t be a density change. Though, I admit, I don’t know how to model drafting either other than the lower pressure cause by the wake of the lead vehicle means less pressure drag. Check out Anderson’s <i>Aerodynamics</i> if you get the chance.
I just skimmed through the article and it looks good. However, there are some inaccuracies. I believe the Engine Mass Airflow equation is missing both the gas constant and the engine displacement. Also, the power required curve is cubic, not expontential — as the equation above it shows. And the equation for drag force, while correct, looks as if area is squared, rather than velocity.
—Nathan
Very Interesting by Anonymous :: NR0 :: Show
Very interesting article. I’ll start using my cruise more when it is safe.
You did forget about exhaust modifications. I recently had to put a new exhaust on my Cherokee. I decided to put the best on, 2.5 inch Borla performance exhaust. The increase in power was unbelievable. So if you then drive at the same speeds as before, you’ll use less fuel (which I have noticed on the highway). Course I some times push the gas harder to feel the power which negates the fuel savings.
SD
Acceleration Experiment Design by aaron_ :: NR0 :: Show
I believe your acceleration experiment may be poorly designed (though I may be wrong since Jeeps may be more like trucks).
It is my understanding that car engines operate most efficiently usually somewhere between 3000 and 4000 rpms (for trucks, the sweet spot is usually between 1500 and 2500 rpms). Your most efficient speed, with little fuel and time trade off, should be somewhere between 50 and 80 mph. In your case, it looks like somewhere around 50 or 55 (loose guess based on your graphic). See what your RPMs are at that speed. Try keeping your RPMs near there when you accelerate (within reason consindering the conditions).
Also, try that just in first gear and compare it to idling. Measure your volume of fuel used and distance traveled. Measure over the same distance, starting from maximum idle speed in both cases. Do it again starting from a full stop.
Take a look at incremental fuel consumption over incremental speed.
0.062733333 0 to 45mph (this covers multiple gears, so doesn’t compare to other numbers)
0.0966 45 to 55 mph
0.121 55 to 65
0.1653 65 to 75
It looks like you still get a very slight increase in fuel consumption for an increase in speed then you’re down near 45 mph.
It would be cool to see narrower speed increments for the entire speed range of the gear.
I think it would also be good to note that this analysis ignores any time and traffic considerations. It is only relevant in conditions where you are the only vehicle on the road (your might be able so save fuel yourself, but at a cost of more fuel consumption for others).
If you really want to save fuel and still drive, stay in first gear at about 3400 RPMs and avoid stopping.
% Fuel Consumption Increase over % Speed Increase by aaron_ :: NR0 :: Show
Fuel Consumption: Speed: Delta Fuel: Delta Speed: %change fuel: % change speed: %delta fuel/% delta speed:
0 0
2.823 45 2.823 45 100% 100% 1.000
3.789 55 0.966 10 34% 22% 1.540
4.999 65 1.21 10 24% 18% 1.331
6.652 75 1.653 10 25% 15% 1.615
This looks like your sweet spot is closer to 65 mph.
'forwarded commentary' by VnutZ :: NR10 :: Show
I received many comments through e-mail, here’s one outlining the dangers of driving too slow just to save gas.
The first is reduced speed, as many studies have shown that it is the difference in speeds between the fastest and slowest traffic is more dangerous than higher speeds for all. If people decide to driver 20 or even 10 mph below the rest of the traffic to save gas they need to consider how much risk they are adding to their own driving as well as others. Additionally during rush hour if people drive both below the speed limit and below safe speeds for traffic (accounting for road surface, traffic density, etc.) they can cause large traffic tie ups that consume greater fuel for everyone.
The second is slower acceleration, this causes traffic tie ups and increased risk. Many times I have been stuck behind someone who not only was slower to accelerate from one light to another, but also braked slowly at the next light. As they are going straight they realize that it doesn’t affect their drive time, however if they are in the left lane they can block access to dedicated left turn lanes. This can cause people to miss the light and thus spend more time in traffic or try and run the light, or hopefully left turn arrow, and thus create the risk of collision with on-coming traffic.
Both of these methods can also create road-rage (or I guess we should now call it IED, Intermittent Explosive Disorder) in those stuck behind them. The one thing that bothers me is people who are inconsiderate about how their driving affects others, fortunately I have reached that level of maturity (Ok, dammit I am getting old!) that I don’t let this affect my driving.
Well now, that’s why I have a 200watt public address system mounted to my bumper! You’re never too old for a PA system on a Jeep.
SUVs cost less energy per mile by VnutZ :: NR10 :: Show
Here’s an interesting article outlining the cost of an automobile from inception to scrap heap. It includes everything from raw materials to vehicle lifespan and fuel. Interestingly, the simplicity of the SUVs and their longer lifespan rendered them "cheaper" on the environment energy wise than even the most frugal of hybrids.
Reader Submitted Correction by VnutZ :: NR10 :: Show
For the general audience, a reader supplied correction on the source of LP gas.
Your writeup about fuel economy with your TJ was an interesting read. I hope the server survives the slashdotting it got this morning…!
There was one point, mentioned in the "Liquefied Petroleum" paragraph, which I think wasn’t quite right. It appears to imply that LP is derived from methane. That isn’t quite the case — check the howstuffworks reference again. My interpretation of their article is that the various LPs are often encountered together with methane, but not actually derived from it, as the most common LPs are butane and propane. It would be correct to say LP is derived from "natural gas," since the gas is a mixture of methane, butane, propane, and others, but not that LP is derived from methane. Of course, it doesn’t help any that what we usually call "natural gas" is really the methane blend that comes out of the refining process, not the stuff that came out of the ground…
Reader Submitted Question & Correction by VnutZ :: NR10 :: Show
I’m quite a petrolhead as well as being a professional geek. I thought I’d write to ask you to change part of your article (only because it’s wrong)
"However, as a Jeep Wrangler with a hard top has a 0.58 coefficient of drag, there was not an efficiency peaking speed of any usefulness (down around ~25mph). 24 Typical cars have a coefficient of drag of approximately 0.30, while sports cars tend to be around 0.20; vehicles of this sort will probably have a calculable "sweet spot" in the 55mph range."
There isn’t a production sportscar in the world with that (low) level of drag coefficient, in fact it’s typically somewhat easier to give a saloon (sorry, sedan) car a less draggy shape. The best of the current sportscars would be somewhere around 0.29 (example – current porsche 911). The drag coefficient isn’t the whole story though, as you have to take frontal area into account too – and in that respect, sportscars are often a lot smaller (therefore have to punch a smaller hole through the air), so a less efficient shape can still be pushed along quicker.
The porsche number came from www.porsche.co.uk – and just to show you I’m not all complaints I’ll let you in on www.sniffpetrol.com which is quite a fin satire site if you’re into cars.
For the Jeep fans out there, refined numbers on the Wrangler’s and Unlimited’s coefficient of drag is 0.55 with a hardtop and 0.58 with the softtop.
The reader is correct in that most sports cars do in fact have a higher coefficient of drag than 0.20 like I originally quoted. However, a quick look at Wikipedia and AutoZine show there have been plenty of vehicles with significantly lower coefficients of drag. Too bad they were mostly concept & prototype vehicles that nobody wanted! Will anyone take the aerodynamicly designed (coefficient of drag at 0.17) Ford Probe? Anyone?
Reader Submitted - Conservation of Momentum by VnutZ :: NR10 :: Show
I was recently referred to your article, "Driving Tips, We Test the Tips, What Really Saves Gas? And How Much?, By Edmunds.com Editors, Date Posted 11-22-2005." I liked what you had to say, and I have some additional information I’d like you to consider.
I apologize for how long this is, but the way I drive seems just so foreign to anybody I know that I think I need to take some time to explain it to even such experienced drivers as yourselves. And some of what I say should be in footnotes, but as it’s in an email, I signify what would be a footnote by using brackets, thusly […]" Let me begin by saying that it may be that some of what I’ll advocate for might work best with manual-transmission vehicles. I don’t know this to be true, but my experience is with two, manual-transmission, 4-cylinder, 4Runners (an ‘86 and a ’96), and I haven’t driven modern automatics much at all. However, if I can convince you of the worth of what I say in regard to driving the two SUVs I’ve owned, hopefully you will apply a version of my method to the various automatics you test and come to conclusions which will also support what I say as to them. As to why I think you’d be interested in what I have to say — I’ve been able to reach 26 mpg in city driving on both rigs! [I can’t do this well in the winter, when the engine consumes extra fuel before reaching operating temperature, and oils and greases are thickened, making the wheels harder to turn. Also, in my town, I don’t typically drive far enough in the winter to experience the advantage of a fully warmed-up car.] That’s right — I get actual mileage figures in city driving that beat even what the EPA says I should get on the highway! In particular, my ‘86 was EPA city-rated at 20 mpg, and my ’96 was rated at 17. Thus, as to my ’96, I’m beating EPA ratings by about a third, and probably beating what "real world" drivers would get by closer to a half. And it’s not only gas I save driving the way I do. I reached 165,000 miles on my ‘86 4Runner before I replaced the front pads, when they had an estimated 15% remaining. [I bought the rig with 50,000 mostly highway miles on it in ’89, but I saw the maintenance records, and no brakes were replaced before I bought it.] I still didn’t replace the rear shoes at that time, as they had 30% remaining, and I hadn’t replaced them before I sold the ’86 last year at 170,000 miles and bought my used ’96. I completely agree with you wrote that a main issue for fuel economy is "Aggressive Driving vs. Moderate Driving," but I believe that there’s quite a bit more that can be demonstrated about how to do "moderate driving" than you touched on. You stressed starting out more slowly, which is of course important; but what about "conserving momentum" once you’re moving? This is a big part of what I do (although I also have one other thing I do that I’ll mention later). "Conserving momentum" means not using fuel to keep yourself moving when coasting can do it for you. [Yes, I’m aware that coasting is probably illegal in most states. But those laws began before cars had disk brakes (which resist heat-fade) or the redundant brake systems of today. I coast extensively — most every time I can in fact.] A corollary of not using fuel is to treat using your brakes as equal to wasting fuel [unless you’re going downhill, or there’s some other compelling reason to use them, of course. And down-shifting to avoid using the brakes also wastes momentum, so I’m not advocating doing that instead.]. Unfortunately most people never consider their momentum at all. Watch people drive and almost everybody keeps their foot on the gas pedal right up to the moment when they remove it to apply the brakes. This is true whether they are coming to a red light they’ve clearly seen for blocks (and which probably even has a long line of cars waiting), or coming to a turn or a stop sign which they know they are going to have to slow down or stop for. Now, it may seem like it will take seconds off your total driving time to get to a turn or a stop sign quickly, but there’s much less claim to an advantage in getting rapidly to the red light with the long line of cars. Yet people drive like there’s some kind of prize for reaching the end of the line as fast as possible (like the old Army slogan, "Hurry up and wait!"). If I come upon a light that’s already red, or upon a light changing to red, or see a gap of 2-1/2 cars develop in front of me (most of our "demand"-based lights in Missoula will change if that much of a gap develops), I take my foot off the accelerator and shift into neutral, coasting up to the light or line of cars. Before I have to apply the brakes, if I do, I hope I’ve at least slowed down to 20-25 mph, and ideally, the light changes to green and traffic gets moving before I’ve even had to apply the brakes at all (you’d be surprised how often you can achieve this!). I use the same ideas when I approach a turn. If I’m going to have to slow to 20-25 to make the turn, I’ll try to be coasting at that speed by the time I reach the turn. (Now I’m a considerate person, so if someone’s behind me, I don’t coast as much if I’m pretty sure that my gradual slowing is going to irritate or inconvenience them.) The turn onto the street where is live is like this, and the approach is up a slight hill, so two blocks from the turn, when I’m doing the speed limit of 35, I shift into neutral and have coasted to 25 or so by the time I have to turn. I drive similarly in other situations — always trying to take advantage of momentum, and trying not to have to brake. For instance, there’s a small hill coming off one of our bridges, and you have to be doing not much more than 30 mph at the bottom or you can’t make the turn that’s there. It ought to be easy enough to be doing 30, since that’s the speed limit, but everybody’s doing at least 35 and keeping their foot on the accelerator all the way over the hill crest too boot. Everybody then applies their brakes to get their speed down for the corner. Me, I approach the the hill at 35 mph like everybody else, take my foot off the accelerator two expansion joints before the crest of the hill, and have coasted down to 28 mph by the crest. Continuing to coast on the downside of the gentle hill, I don’t exceed 30 by the bottom, and I make the corner without braking. I’ve got another 3/4-mile stretch of slight downhill mixed with level road where the speed limit starts out at 35 and then shifts to 25. I approach the crest of the hill beginning this stretch at 35, be doing about 28 over the crest, be doing about 32 as I’m nearing the 25 mph part, and be doing the 25 shortly into that part, when I can then coast all the way and come out the other end doing about 23. Similarly, I’ve got a wonderful four-mile trip up to my daughter’s house where I can coast the entire distance back out! It’s really fun to coast for four miles while imagining the gas I’m saving! I should also mention a safety "feature" in driving this way. I don’t tailgate, as most drivers do, because if I did, I’d have to slam on my brakes just as they do when the car in front of them abruptly slows. Instead I keep a space which allows me to coast to slow down, as usual. The other thing I do in addition to momentum conservation is to try to keep the transmission in the highest gear I can at all times. On my ‘96, the engine will start to lug under load in 4th gear at 1,600 RPM (about 34 mph). But if I’m on level ground and only trying to preserve a speed I’m already at (say 30 mph), I’ll have it in 4th, just ever so gently applying a little gas, and I can clearly tell by sound and vibration that I am not lugging the engine. This principle also means that when accelerating, I shift as soon as I can so that I will be into the next higher gear at just above the 1,600 RPM lugging range. Note that while there are fewer chances to apply these methods to highway driving (since you’re basically just going all the time), still you can use these methods when you descend long, moderate downgrades, when you approach towns on secondary roads and need to slow to their speed limits, and when you reach exits, intersections, stop signs, and such on highways. Undoubtedly some will complain that they just "can’t afford" to drive in such a way as to allow for coasting or gradually slowing down, as their lives are so busy and harried that they just have to go-go-go! I sure understand what they mean, but still I think there’s no question that my driving method would save them both time and money over the long haul. As to time, all that time spent in extra fill-ups, as well as the time it takes to replace your brakes, including dropping your car off and picking it up, really add up. And that’s not to mention all the extra time you have to spend working to pay for each extra fill-up and especially for those expensive brake repairs. Those seconds you "save" now are very expensive over the long run. (And I want to make clear that all I ever lose in comparison to these people is those seconds they think they "save." Otherwise, I pretty much achieve the same speeds they do.) As to brake usage, you probably haven’t thought about this, so let me say that it’s surprising how quickly "brake savings" can add up. If drive every day, and if you can avoid using your brakes just six times in a day of driving (and most there would usually be way more opportunities in a day’s driving), then over a year you’ve saved over 2,000 brake applications, which is no small number. Admittedly, speed feels good (we’re like dogs — wanting to hang our heads out the window in the wind!), and everybody is in a hurry these days. And so are most people really going to concern themselves with getting better gas mileage? Probably not, but still fuel conservation is something we should consider, in addition to it being fun and involving when you drive as I describe. [The best thing that ever happened to the U.S. automotive-wise could have been the lessons of the ‘70s, with the energy crisis, pollution controls, and Japanese competition. All these lead to refinements in design such that most of the vehicles available to us today offer advances in drivability, reliability and longevity that were unimaginable 30 years ago. But then Reagan became President and convinced us that it really was "unAmerican to turn down your thermostat," and so we ignored renewable energy and ended up domestically producing the bloated, "obese," excessive SUVs and trucks so prevalent today.] Both our severe balance-of-payments deficit as well as the fact that most of our foreign oil payments go to countries which may not care much for us should compel patriotic Americans to embrace conservation. And look at the pristine environmental areas we’re talking about sacrificing because we won’t conserve, whether it’s ANWR, or the off-shore lands, or the Rocky Mountain Front here in Montana. And then there’s whether carbon emissions cause global warming…. It’s vaguely sad that our "energy crisis" of today has elicited none of the efforts that accompanied the ‘70s energy crisis. Bush’s "State of the Union" address in January, wherein he said we are "addicted to oil," was not only a first for his Administration, and he hasn’t provided any leadership on the issue since. And whereas the ’70s produced a national willingness to drive slower for a while, not only is speed reduction not mentioned nowadays, but you even have Texas increasing its speed limits on secondary roads to 80 mph during this time! So what will we do? Will we continue to drive mindlessly and expensively, or will we appreciate just how much fun it can be to try a momentum-based driving method which you can think of as a game called, "Beat the pump!"?Reader Question by VnutZ :: NR10 :: Show
Great set of experiments, data, and conclusions.
I’m curious about another set of variables, and I’m wondering if you might be persuaded to address them at some point in the future. As a fellow Jeep owner (‘00 5spd Sport), I’m wondering about how far the windows-vs-AC line of thought could be taken.
I’ve noticed that my fuel efficiency improves in the summers (from about 19mpg to about 20.5mpg). No doubt some of this can be attributed to warmer temperatures and seasonal fuel mixtures. But I’m also wondering if having the top and doors off can affect fuel economy too.
I assume that the increased drag from having windows down comes from the fact that air brought into the windows will have no escape, making the entire vehicle a parachute. But in a vehicle like the Wrangler, where the top and even doors can be removed, there is significantly greater opportunity for that air to escape, making (in my uneducated mind) the primary aerodynamic obstacles the windshield/grille and undercarriage.
Additionally, I have a duster (deck cover) installed, which I presume reduces air pressure against the inside of the tailgate.
Do you have any thoughts on all of these variables, and do you have any interest in testing them?
There’s a resident discussion member wiser than I in this thread who may be able to provide the real answer, but let me take a stab.
Regarding the increase in fuel efficiency during the summer, I am going to make two conjectures. The first being the gas change. I cannot remember whether they reformulate during the summer or during the winter – but I want to say winter. In the event that its winter, the added ethanol would decrease the fuel efficiency for the Jeep. Another factor is of course the air temperature. The intake temperature without a snorkel is roughly 20~25 degrees warmer than ambient air. Colder air is denser within an engine and therefore more air is moving through your intake manifold in winter than summer – with a corresponding increase in gas (by the stoichiometric ratio).
I’d love to test top theories if I could convince Quadratec to supply me with a plethora of parts! But I do have a conjecture on the windows/door/roof hypthesis. To start with, I cannot remember where, but I read that having the top completely off the Wrangler really doesn’t impact on the gas mileage much – although it is slightly worse. Why? The hard top with the windows up definitely has the lowest coefficient of drag. You’re also right about having the windows down creating a ‘parachute’ effect. The soft top goes a step worse because it flaps – altering the aerodynamic signature constantly and in direct proportion to any increases in speed. Now taking the top off completely, one would think eliminates the parachute effect. But now consider all of the additional elements that create swirling wind vortices. Passengers. The rollbar (more significant than you might think). The tailgate. Even the back seat! Before those items get dismissed as too small to be significant, think how much gas is saved in a pick-up by lowering or hiding the tailgate. Is the back seat much different aerodynamically? I mention the rollbar because it’s definitely ‘out there’ in the wind stream. It’s also much thicker than your standard roof racks made by Thule. My old Toyota Camry (‘98) used to get 44mpg consistently until I put a roof rack up top – now it only gets about 28 to 30 (this drop was immediate after installing the roof rack). I wager the Jeep’s exposed rollbar will suffer similar aerodynamic consequences.
Speaking of the Camry – that is what bothers me about the compact and efficient car hype today. It IS all a function of how you drive. I drove that car just over 800 miles on a single tank of gas (true, the fuel light was on and I was getting nervous) several times. And that was eight years ago. What have the Japanese figured out so well that Americans keep struggling with? Just the other day I was driving a Ford Focus (rented from Avis – I would never have the P.O.S. associated with me otherwise) and was appalled at the horrendously bad efficiency. For such a crappy car, you would think it would do SOMETHING right. Why else would anybody spend money on something so small, ugly and weak?
make your own bio-diesel by VnutZ :: NR10 :: Show
Most of the time, people associate only farmers with refining their own bio-diesel. But it would appear the practice is becoming slightly more mainstream with garage refineries, too. If you’re interested, here is a guide for homemade bio-diesel refinement.
800 miles on one tank by starm_ :: NR5 :: Show
See this video.
Fuel Trim & Air/Fuel Ratios by VnutZ :: NR10 :: Show
This comes from an automechanic newsletter that I receive for using OBDII tools. This tool is from AutoTap which is a very nice product, however, they wouldn’t release application programming interfaces (APIs) so I returned it. Regardless, this information [below] can be seen with any OBDII interface and outlines the process by which the car determins the air fuel ratio inside the ECU. The 14.7 ratio was a value more applicable for carburetors since the ECU will change that value on the fly in response to a variety of driving conditions.
<excerpt below>
Mike Fahrion back in your inbox with today’s topic – how your car’s computer maintains the ideal fuel mixture under all conditions. It’s pretty impressive when you think about it. In today’s cars, regardless of temperature, altitude or mileage we’ve come to expect that we can basically start a car and go without any change in drivability. On top of that, today’s engines are able to do that with considerably higher efficiency and dramatically lower emissions than ever before.
First let’s take a quick look at what happens when you step on the gas. The computer reads the throttle position (TPS), checks the coolant temperature (ECT), checks the intake manifold air flow and pressure (MAF and MAP), intake air temperature (IAT) and engine RPM. With all that info the computer then performs a "look-up" function. Similar to finding a coordinate on a map, except this map has many more dimensions than horizontal and vertical! Once the computer finds the correct coordinate for all of those operating conditions, it finds the result it was looking for – exactly how much fuel to inject for that condition in order to get almost the perfect mixture, giving you the best performance, economy and lowest emissions. All of this is continuously recalculated, dozens of times per second.
Impressive! But why is it almost the perfect mixture? Because dozens of things could influence your engine to the point where that factory-programmed value isn’t quite right. To "close the loop" of information flow, there is a program running on your car’s computer that uses information from our friend the Oxygen Sensor to check if the mixture is right where it needs to be. If it’s a little off, the computer uses that information to come up with a fudge factor. The name of that fudge factor is Long Term Fuel Trim (LTFT). That value is the amount of correction that the computer will automatically apply to the value that it looks-up. Measured in percent, we typically see stay well under + or – 10% when driving. If it gets over + or – 25%, the check engine light will turn on and a code is set telling you that the fudge factor has become excessive and your engine is running either abnormally rich or lean.
I’ve simplified this just a bit. Here are a couple of the complications (and there might be a few more that I haven’t learned yet). There’s another fuel trim called Short Term Fuel Trim. There are also a bunch of those lookup tables for different driving conditions, each one can have a separate fuel trim fudge factor.
So – what does this mean to you? A few things.
First, when you get a code that your car is running too rich or lean, don’t rush out and buy new Oxygen Sensors. That’s just shooting the messenger. Those codes are usually caused by bad information from one of the other sensors that the computer uses to do its lookup.
Using AutoTap to monitor your engine’s Long Term Fuel Trims gives you insight into its health. Nice low numbers mean that your engine is pretty content using factory-programmed values. Big numbers mean that, for some reason, a big fudge factor is being applied.
Finally, you’ll get the best engine power with a nice low fuel trim number. Why? Because your engine quits paying attention to the Oxygen Sensor at full throttle. It still applies the last known fuel trim correction, but since maximum power requires a bit richer mixture than what is ideal for the perfect mix of economy and emissions, you typically get the best performance if a large correction doesn’t need to be applied.
So whether you’re checking the health of your car, investigating a used car before buying, maximizing horsepower or optimizing your gas mileage, a $199 investment in AutoTap gives you the info you need to get the most our of your car.
I hope this week’s email gives you a bit more insight into how things work under the hood. More topics are in the works so watch your inbox.
your conclusion on cold air by VnutZ :: NR10 :: Show
A reader submitted question:
So, your snorkel did or did not effect your gas mileage. I am trying to convince someone that cold air increases the efficiency of an engine because the air molecules are more compact, the density is greater, when mixed with the fuel vapor, and thus exerting more power per cubic inch becuase as the mixture ignites it expands the dense air—you get the picture I’m sure. More air + same amount of fuel = added power from the same amount of fuel. more power = less demand to accomplish the same task as without the cold air intake. I think he’s convinced it actually hurts gas mileage because he’s just stepping on the throttle harder with the extra power. Anyway, I would like to know what you concluded about cold air intakes in general.
From what I’ve learned, the snorkel will do nothing for your fuel efficiency. You are correct that the air will be denser, however, remember the MAP sensor is detecting how much air is moving through the intake. That data is fed into the ECU which, mapping against other data, performs a look-up to mix the air/fuel ratio to it’s approximate value of 14.7. This will happen whether hot air or freezing air is entering the engine. To go 65mph is going to require N fuel units and 14.7 x N air units.
The difference will be you won’t have to push the throttle pedal as far to get the same amount of air. Remember, the throttle pedal controls the throttle body (air flow) not gasoline. The ECU controls the gasoline. So ultimately, the snorkel provides you zero performance gains during normal operation (unless you consider deep water driving normal). However, you will find improvements at high RPM or wide open throttle conditions. Because the snorkel (or equivalent CAI) reduces the air temperature and provides denser air, a higher maximum volume will be obtainable at the extremes. Otherwise, going any given speed will still require the same amount of air as before (cold or not), only the throttle body won’t need to be as open to achieve that same volume per unit time.
Hydrogen Powered SUV by VnutZ :: NR10 :: Show
So I caught this little headline while browsing the ‘net – apparently Steve Wozniak (one of Apple’s founders) intends to drive around Antartica in a hydrogen powered H2 with Buzz Aldrin. For all Jeep owners out there, we’ll have to forgive him a moment for choosing an H2 as the vehicle of choice let alone a geriatric for a traveling companion. (USMA ‘01 – remember how he couldn’t keep his speech together and just wandered on talking and talking and …..)
But, I began to wonder – IS there a hydrogen powered SUV? Apparently, GM built one for Schwarzenn… yeah. There is both an H1 and H2 model in existence at his behest for promoting hydrogen powered vehicles that are ‘mainstream.’ What interested me was the vehicle used a standard ICE running on hydrogen. I didn’t know you could even do that. Previously, I thought all hydrogen cars were fuel cell based and electric. Does anybody know the principles and conversion factors behind using hydrogen in an ICE? They indicate it’s only good for a range about 50 miles (but a lot of that could be attributed to the ridiculous weight of an H2 – 6400 lbs).
Reader Question - Jeep Roof Rack by VnutZ :: NR10 :: Show
I enjoyed your article very much. I also noticed that you have a roof rack on the hardtop of your Jeep, could you please let me know the make and model of rack and how do you attach the rack to the fiberglass hardtop.
These are the two items I used – a regular THULE rack and an "artificial rain gutter" to mount it. It required drilling through the hardtop and using rubber sealant to ensure water tightness. Thus far, it’s been through some serious rain and carried quite a load. The Unlimited’s hardtop has some extra cross members running horizontally that I placed the rack against for added support.
You may also find this article helpful. It was written to describe how to build your own equipment rack to avoid spending hundreds of dollars. I have a GPS, a PA System, a CB and a Satellite Radio mounted on mine.
User Question: Wrangler Fuel Economy by VnutZ :: NR10 :: Show
So, are the figures you mentioned in this article the mileage you are getting? Around twenty MPG at around sixty miles per hour? I am thinking about buying a Wrangler, six cyl. with automatic, late nineties, what mileage do you think I might get?
Yes. These figures are pretty accurate to the fuel efficiency I’ve achieved from two Wranglers, the 2004 Sport and the 2006 Unlimited. The Sport will do slightly better than the Unlimited because it is after all, lighter due to less steel. Do remember, though, the fuel economy was not solely a function of my speed. I also tend to accelerate pretty slow and usually don’t use my air conditioning either.
As far as getting a used Wrangler goes, depending on the wheel size and gear ratios the previous owner has installed, it is generally a fair assumption think 17-18mpg for average driving across almost all TJ models. The entire year I was in Iraq, my parents always came up 50 miles shorter per tank than I would, which leads me to believe even further that the fuel economy is based on the aggregate of many conservative driving habits.
Reader Question: Fuel Economy and Equipment by VnutZ :: NR10 :: Show
Were you successful in improving fuel economy on your Jeep? I am considering keeping the 2005 Jeep Wrangler X-Sport if I can improve gas mileage. What should I modify and install to improve miles per gallon? Any other recommendations to enjoy the convertible Jeep like ways to carry Mt. Bike, stuff with a soft top?
Reader Question: Air Flow by VnutZ :: NR10 :: Show
You wrote an article http://www.omninerd.com/2006/07/16/articles/57 Your graph Cold Air intake at 92 ambient. What units is the flow in? I think Im confused also. Shouldnt the flow rate go up with RPM? Have you ever done a map of RPM versus flow rate or have any idea what the exhaust flow rate is at idle? Thanks. Trying to blow myself up!
Actually, the Jeep Wrangler features a MAP sensor as opposed to a MAF sensor. MAP measures manifold air pressure while MAF measures manifold air flow. Soooo – I cannot measure the air flow directly. However, if you look at the provided equations, you can calculate it.
Engine Mass Airflow = RPM * (Air Pressure / Intake Temperature)
Thus, your assessment is correct. With increased RPMs comes a higher air flow. Using the snorkel graph you can see that 5.96 psi * idle RPM (roughly 600) will get you a flow of 3576 compared to 20643 which was derived from 9.83 psi * moving RPM (roughly 2100 at 65mph).
Hope that helps.
Reader Question: OBDII Protocols by VnutZ :: NR10 :: Show
I really enjoyed you article “Improve MPG: The Factors Affecting Fuel Efficiency”. I have a question for you that you might be able to answer. In your article you mentioned that there are different OBDII protocols (ISO, CAN, VPW…). Do you know which one the 2006 Jeep Wrangler is using?
According to the article:
The 2006 Unlimited has pins 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 15 and 16. So it looks like it is very definitely a VPW / ISO protocol. I would recommend the ScanTool 5 and DigiMoto software that I used for the experiment because it is multi-protocol and will handle all four standards automatically. Plus, there is a variety of free (and commercial) software for it. Another very nice tool is made by AutoTap but it is very proprietary and they have the only software it works with.
Engine Load incurred by Electrical Systems by VnutZ :: NR10 :: Show
For those interested, someone else on the Internet had their car hooked up to an OBD-II interface. They measured the increased engine load incurred on the vehicle by the systematic application of additional electrical loads like A/C, headlights, radio, etc.
http://www.dervman.com/calcloadelectric.htm
Ram Pickup MPG Improvement FAQ by Anonymous :: NR0 :: Show
i would invite you to read the following weblink
which is long, almost a small book:
http://www.dodgeforum.com/m_447500/tm.htm
many of the things you are trying to do are covered there.
You are off to a great start, especially your obvious dedication to measuring things, but there are a few mistakes.
I have (gently I hope) listed a few here:
http://www.dodgeforum.com/m_1050389/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#1050940
Good luck with your project.
Some quick suggestions:
…learn how to coast down hills to determine your aerodynamics
…study up on tire rolling resistance…affect of air psi, tread depth, rib tread vs blocky mudder, etc
….consider an engine block heater and heated dip stick because they lessen the warmup period where rich air to fuel ratio hurts MPG
…learn the two ‘pumping losses’ of a gasoline engine….that high backpressure in the exhaust…and also low Manifold Absolute Pressure in the intake, require wasted power to overcome
….study the driving techniques of the ‘HyperMiler’ fanatics;
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/01/king_of_the_hypermilers.html
Good luck with your Jeep
Thanks for your service in Iraq
Tacoma driver by Anonymous :: NR0 :: Show
I have a ’98 Tacoma 4 cyl that quite easily picked up another 4 mpg (from 22 average) with the simple addition of a K & N air intake and the exhaust system (aft of the catalytic converter) from a V6 of the same year. The total was about $400, and it paid for itself inside of 2 years. It also helps it move right along when I need a little extra "go" (all figures mentioned should take into account that I have a lead foot), and it has run fine that way for 3 years.
Aerodynamic Jeeps by drysdale1369 :: NR0 :: Show
I too have an ought six Unlimited. With the automatic and a hardtop, which provides a nice quiet ride and I will never remove. Have you ever attempted to reconfigure the aerodynamics? I am making some "pants" for the front fenders to prevent air from getting under them and causing both "lift" and "drag" due to the open front distance between the fender and the bumper. This HAS to affect the handling as well, especially on the interstate. Mine tends to "wander" around 80. My cruise is usually set to 74, but once in a while an "18" gets going along pretty well and I have to get by, because staying beside is not healthy.
I get the standard 15 – 16 in town and 19 – 20 on the road with the mighty AMC 6 with a 55 year track record. No mods of any type, but so far, but I think these pants will be good for 3 – 4 mpg. Cheers, D$D
A/C vs windows down by Anonymous :: NR0 :: Show
Any data on using A/C vs. leaving the windows down? I’ve seen studies with cars that say A/C is more fuel efficient than the aerodynamics losses having the windows down. I wander if this trend is still true with Wranglers since aero is so bad already and the huge fuel consumption increase with A/C that you found.
Thanks for the thorough work.
Rich.
Spark Plug Question by Anonymous :: NR0 :: Show
Around 90,000 miles, I installed a set of Bosch 4 spark plugs on my 99 Dodge Ram pickup and the my mileage went up from about 395 miles per tank to 440-450. This extra milage slowly tapered back down (I believe over 2 or more months) to normal levels. I know it must have been the plugs that improved mileage but my question is: Did the mileage drop back down due to the adaptation of the ECU or would it have been from normal degradation or fouling of the spark plugs? The more important question: If I changed the plugs on my newly purchased Wrangler Unlimited could I expect the same brief peak and then a return to normal levels. If so I’ll have to time the change to the next time fuel is at $4.25 a gallon.
Thanks for your research. I have a carchip datalogger on order and will post anything I find at a later time. Great article.
One more test. by Anonymous :: NR0 :: Show
I would like to see one more test at any speed using Fuel Magic. www.fuelmagic.net
Jeep Wrangler Fan by Anonymous :: NR0 :: Show
Nice article. I found a site that has a lot of good information about the Jeep Wranglers. It also has some reviews and pictures and specifications about the new Jeeps. I would recommend checking this site out. http://www.autotropolis.com/2009/Jeep/Wrangler-Unlimited/SUV/research.html