New RIMS = power loss... wtf??!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-18-2004, 02:04 PM
  #41  
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
 
Sly Raskal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Fontana, California
Age: 47
Posts: 30,991
Received 582 Likes on 346 Posts
Originally posted by typeR
240-270 17 gal tank yes but you fill it about 15 gals.
Ok let me update my response because I didn't iterate it correctly,

I average 275-300 per 14 gallons. If i went even further, i'd probably be getting about 350-375 for the entire tanke.

My avg is about 19-20mpg and that's driving it aggressive.

I consider "one tank" to be how much gas is used before the gas light goes on and not what it takes to completely empty my tank. It's not good doing that anyways because of vapor lock.
Old 05-18-2004, 02:09 PM
  #42  
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
 
Sly Raskal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Fontana, California
Age: 47
Posts: 30,991
Received 582 Likes on 346 Posts
Originally posted by pimpscls
hobo i was right the first time just filled the gas tonight, and what did it say 191 miles, does that seem odd? what do you guys think is wrong?
could be:

bad 02 sensor(s)?
very very very dirty air filter?
not keeping up with oil changes regularly?
tires not aligned, balanced, or air pressure checked?

there are a lot of factor's here but to be getting only 200 miles per however many gallons your filling up sounds really bad.

I read in your previous thread you dont drive slow, well i drive the same way, when there isnt' traffic i drive about 80 on the freeways here in so cal and i accelerate pretty fast off lights and on on-ramps but i'm still not getting anywhere near 200 miles per tank in my car. SO there is defeinetly something wrong here.
Old 05-18-2004, 02:12 PM
  #43  
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
 
Sly Raskal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Fontana, California
Age: 47
Posts: 30,991
Received 582 Likes on 346 Posts
Originally posted by Nashua_Night_Hawk
It seems the tires are wheels are not the cause of your MPG problem.

IMRC is broken,

Nashua

I'm not a newb by any means! but i have to ask, what the heck is the IMRC?

is that the intake manifold resonance chamber?

a long time ago when i got my car the motor in the intake manifold that controls air flow broke and they warrantied it.

are you talking about that?
Old 05-18-2004, 03:27 PM
  #44  
Suzuka Master
 
EricL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Ninth Gate & So Cal
Posts: 7,388
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by jtkz13
Well, I only know what I experience. Here's a quick shot of the stuff I've done:

On my Taurus I put on 17x7.5 chrome wheels with 235/45/17 Kuhmo's. The wheel/tire combo was about 12lbs heavier than stock and the stock tires were high treadwear 215/60/16's. It did cost me about 2 tenths & 1-2mph in the 1/4, but no matter what I always got 23-24mpg, no matter what the weather or what wheels I had on.

My Mustang is even more radical. The stock wheels are 16x7.5 & had 245/50/16's. The wheel/tire combo weighs 38.5 lbs, and I replaced them with 17's that weigh 51lbs a piece. The tires are 275/40/17 & 315/35/17. I lost ZERO mpg, the speedo was actually more accurate than the stock wheels (due to rear gears and the tires being slightly taller), but at the track I did lose about 1-1.5mph due to the increased weight & rolling resistance.

So, if neither of my cars lost any mpg with going with a much more radical tire/wheel combo, how could a lighter wheel and slightly more grippy tire cause him to lose 40 miles per tank, or about 2.5mpg. My best guess is that the navi/trip odometer is acting screwy and giving a false mileage reading or there is some engine problem causing the car to run too rich.
As I mentioned the experiences will vary depending on driver, machine, etc, etc.

You could even get a tire with a stickier compound that would give you better gas mileage, if the tire was lighter and the construction allowed less road loss through deformation. Tire rolling resistance is not only based on tread compound -- it also depends on the way the casing is made.

And, finally, most of the tests that ALL of us do are not being done on a test track with research petrol, one non-varying road surface, and with instrumentation to insure that all variables are controlled.

BTW, you must have some pretty "exotic" machinery to allow your vehicles to always produce 23-24 MPG. The statistical variation is better than any result I've ever heard about. You must follow the same route every day and have a lab to check your gas fractions.

BTWII, you must never accelerate -- but then how is that possible? -- and have managed to figure out how to violate one or more of the tenets of thermodynamics. You confirmed a loss in acceleration, but have declared that your mileage is unchanged at 0.0000000 MPG.

I think you should report to the magazines and talk to the EPA about city and highway mileage as you have some rather rare results.

As for what's going on with the car ... well, I think that all of the suggestions posted by various members re: tire pressure, IRMC, gas change, air filter, 02 sensor, etc, etc need to be looked into. And, the car doesn't have to be too rich to just burn too much gas. If the pumping losses go up, volumetric effeciency goes down, and/or frictional losses go up, the car will burn more fuel. Time for some diagnostics...
Old 05-18-2004, 03:28 PM
  #45  
Suzuka Master
 
EricL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Ninth Gate & So Cal
Posts: 7,388
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by slyraskal
I'm not a newb by any means! but i have to ask, what the heck is the IMRC?

is that the intake manifold resonance chamber?

a long time ago when i got my car the motor in the intake manifold that controls air flow broke and they warrantied it.

are you talking about that?
YES, that is it...


You lose about 20HP at max RPM when it isn't functioning...
Old 05-18-2004, 04:22 PM
  #46  
Advanced
Thread Starter
 
revangel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: sf bay area, ca
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Guys, thanks for all the info. I will look into the items you noted and I will indeed keep everyone posted.


Thanks,
--re
Old 05-18-2004, 07:49 PM
  #47  
TQ > MPG
 
Joe5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Metro Detroit
Age: 42
Posts: 3,624
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
EricL I'm not saying I didnt lose even .01mpg with the heavier wheels, but I am saying that the difference was not noticeable. Fr it to fall out of the bounds of normal variation it would have to be at least 2mpg difference that was immediately noticeable when the wheels were installed.

And actually for the past 4 years my drive has been pathetically repeatable. Working 6-7 days a week the same shift will do that.

And like I posted, I dont drive like a grandma. I just use cruise control whenever possible and shift into OD sooner rather than later.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Acura604
2G RDX Audio, Bluetooth, Electronics & Navigation
20
08-05-2017 12:55 AM
kev87a
4G TL Tires, Wheels & Suspension
5
10-18-2015 02:03 AM
dirleton
2G RDX Tires, Wheels & Suspension
20
10-16-2015 01:48 PM
95oRANGEcRUSH
Car Talk
35
09-25-2015 12:50 PM



Quick Reply: New RIMS = power loss... wtf??!



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:29 PM.