1000 miles before Millers and 1000 miles after

[wemorgan]

Update to the list:

Fill-ups without Millers:
5/3/10 - 300 miles – 71.8 mpg (temp. ~5C)
12/3/10 - 295 miles – 72.5 mpg (temp. ~5C)
19/3/10 - 310 miles – 76.2 mpg (temp. ~15C)

Fill-ups with Millers:
26/3/10 - 300 miles – 66.5 mpg (temp. ~10C)
1/4/10 - 300 miles – 68.2 mpg (temp. ~10C)
5/4/10 - 440 miles – 66.7 mpg (temp. ~15C)

Fill-ups without Millers:
9/4/10 - 325 miles - 70.4 mpg (temp. ~15C) mixed driving with traffic
16/4/10 - 405 miles - 70.8 mpg (temp. ~15C) slow puncture
23/4/10 - 370 miles - 70.1 mpg (temp. ~15C)

I'm not too sure why the car is now nosp better than in mid March with the colder weather.

Is there an optimal ambient temperature where the turbo charger is at peak efficiency?

The more I look at the results the less clear I am of understanding them.

With the ECU remap next week I'll hold off using Millers again and run the car another 1000 miles post remap to measure that difference. Then finally return to Millers once more.

Ignorance is bliss surely

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Air is most dense at 4-deg-C IIRC but sadly it's warmed (and cooled) and warmed again on it's way to the cylinder via the turbocharger and intercooler, etc.

Generally cooler ambient temperature is better as it means:
air entering the engine is cooler, and doesn't get quite so hot before ignition
air around the intercooler is cooler, and so cools more effectively

 

[wemorgan]

So long journeys in cold weather are best? Since this will allow the engine to warm up to maximum efficiency, but the air entering it is still cool? This would tie-up with many of my journeys at ~10C.

 

[Rovinghawk]

Air is most dense at 4-deg-C IIRC

No- water is. Air gets denser as it gets colder- something to do with Charles' Law.

RH

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

No- water is. Air gets denser as it gets colder- something to do with Charles' Law.

RH

You're spot on. Must engage brain.

That'll teach me for responding to posts during a meeting.

 

[The Pan Man]

Similar experience with using Forte only a small amount but definatley less MPG. Did put another shot in yesterday morning and will keep an eye on it.

 

[johnsco]

Air is most dense at 4-deg-C IIRC but sadly it's warmed (and cooled) and warmed again on it's way to the cylinder via the turbocharger and intercooler, etc.

Generally cooler ambient temperature is better as it means:
air entering the engine is cooler, and doesn't get quite so hot before ignition
air around the intercooler is cooler, and so cools more effectively
__________________

This is what I suspected in Post #16.
Hence Will's comment below


So long journeys in cold weather are best? Since this will allow the engine to warm up to maximum efficiency, but the air entering it is still cool? This would tie-up with many of my journeys at ~10C.
__________________
Will

The compression-ignition engine likes cold air.
Also, when the ambient conditions are cold, the viscous fan will work less hard and will use less power from the engine - Thus increasing the efficiency further.
Cheers.
Johnsco

 

[johny5_uk]

Thanks for the info on Millers, I am going to buy a bottle of the petrol version for my wifes Peugeot 207 1.4 and see what happens.
Will it be pointless for me to buy the diesel version for my E350 coupe when I fill up with Shell V-Power already?
Or should I start filling up with normal diesel and using this as it apparently works out at 1p per litre to use?

 

[mykulmerc]

The compression-ignition engine likes cold air.
Also, when the ambient conditions are cold, the viscous fan will work less hard and will use less power from the engine - Thus increasing the efficiency further.
Cheers.
Johnsco

There was a thread on this a while ago. Thoughts were:-

cold air is denser so drag is greater (drad increases with square of speed)
spray drag from wet conditions is more common in winter
driving into strong winds - ditto
engines take longer to warm up (as laready mentioned), so any journey of less than 10 miles will suffer a proprtionally higher fuel penalty in winter

Combustion is taken care of by ECU to maintain correct mixture
The point in this thread about additives in fuel also increasing fuel consumption was not metioned (IIRC) but sounds very valid.

On the other side, driving in hotter conditions with either air con running or windows open will also increase fuel consumption.

On balance we do use more fuel in the winter.

Which al makes OP's figures even more baffling

 

[whitenemesis]

My owner's handbook clearly states not to use fuel additives. I assume this means Millers and the like?

 

[Horrgakx]

Well you're getting over 5 times the fuel economy that I get, so I'd be happy with your lowest number

 

[iscaboy]

My owner's handbook clearly states not to use fuel additives. I assume this means Millers and the like?

It does, they are all exactly like everything made by L'oreal, and here's the science bit... basically a tax on stupidity and vanity.

The ONLY thing I will add to diesel, which NO DIESEL ENGINE OR INJECTION PUMP MANUFACTURER ON THE PLANET will object to, is a little 2 stroke oil.

And before that other argument starts up, diesel is diesel is diesel, full up at Morrisons for 117.9 and save 8p a litre over the same stuff at BP, and that's even before you see the same tanker and driver from the same local fuel distro depot filling up the bunkers at both garages.

 

[wemorgan]

Update to the list:

Fill-ups without Millers:
5/3/10 - 300 miles – 71.8 mpg (temp. ~5C)
12/3/10 - 295 miles – 72.5 mpg (temp. ~5C)
19/3/10 - 310 miles – 76.2 mpg (temp. ~15C)

Fill-ups with Millers:
26/3/10 - 300 miles – 66.5 mpg (temp. ~10C)
1/4/10 - 300 miles – 68.2 mpg (temp. ~10C)
5/4/10 - 440 miles – 66.7 mpg (temp. ~15C)

Fill-ups without Millers:
9/4/10 - 325 miles - 70.4 mpg (temp. ~15C) mixed driving with traffic
16/4/10 - 405 miles - 70.8 mpg (temp. ~15C) slow puncture
23/4/10 - 370 miles - 70.1 mpg (temp. ~15C)

Fill-ups without Millers:
30/4/10 - 300 miles - 77.9 mpg (temp ~15C)
7/5/10 - 390 miles - 70.9 mpg (temp ~10C) ECU REMAP!
14/5/10 - 295 miles - 74.5 mpg (temp ~10C)

Fill-up with Millers
6/6/10 - 543 miles - 65 mpg - Lots of short and mixed journeys

The last fill up can not fairly be compared to the previous since my commute to work is now very different than before (was 150 miles, now 10 miles)

I think the plan is now to use Millers for the next year continuously. Then if I remember I'll try a few mort tests without to see how that goes. But I suspect the tests will be inconclusive since my mpg naturally varies quite a bit anyway.

 

[iscaboy]

OK, you cite 13 data points, 9 without and 4 with.

The average of all 9 without is 72.789* mpg

The average of all 4 with is 66.6 mpg

A drop of 6.189 mpg, for an EXTRA expense over above the cost of the fuel.

And you still apparently think this stuff is not a pure waste of money!!! Astonishing.

 

[x332race]

OK, you cite 13 data points, 9 without and 4 with.

The average of all 9 without is 72.789* mpg

The average of all 4 with is 66.6 mpg

A drop of 6.189 mpg, for an EXTRA expense over above the cost of the fuel.

And you still apparently think this stuff is not a pure waste of money!!! Astonishing.

Does seem a bit bizzare, I must admit??
I do use millers but mainly as my engine seems to run a bit quieter and smoother on it....I have not noticed any appreciable increase or decrease in MPG either way.

 

[iscaboy]

Does seem a bit bizzare, I must admit??
I do use millers but mainly as my engine seems to run a bit quieter and smoother on it....I have not noticed any appreciable increase or decrease in MPG either way.

so, try a shot of 2 stroke.

 

[wemorgan]

OK, you cite 13 data points, 9 without and 4 with.

The average of all 9 without is 72.789* mpg

The average of all 4 with is 66.6 mpg

A drop of 6.189 mpg, for an EXTRA expense over above the cost of the fuel.

And you still apparently think this stuff is not a pure waste of money!!! Astonishing.

Temperature is also a factor. Also driving speed and style have affected results too. I think that ultimately a longer test is required to make more definitive conclusions.

 

[iscaboy]

Dude, you're showing an 8.5% DECREASE in mileage...

what's to test?

 

[x332race]

so, try a shot of 2 stroke.

Thanks for suggestion, but I prefer to add soemthing that is supposed to be designed for use in Diesel engines and not 2-stroke petrol. Adding oil to diesel does not seem logical. Millers is supposed to boost Cetane rating and add detergants similar to those added by the big oil companies to their "premium" diesel products so it is logical to add millers. As I have said, my car seems to run smoother on it.

 

[iscaboy]

2-stroke petrol.

2 stroke doesn't mean "petrol", no shortage of 2 stroke diesels, Detroit, Rootes-Lister, and most of the big ship engines.

Cetane doesn't mean ****, provided it is within limits, altering the fuel's cetane rating by 5 points doesn't make a blind bit of difference, unless the fuel was borderline anyway, which if its pump diesel it ain't.

You've been brainwashed, or else you wouldn't just accept that "chic product #7" replete with secret ingredients is somehow better to add to your fuel.