Diesel Economy Experiment

[wemorgan]

Fill the car up.
Drive until the fuel tank is nearly empty.
Refill fuel tank and record the litres of petrol and miles covered.

eg.
450 miles, 45 litres = 10 miles/litre
10 * 4.546 = 45.46 mpg

 

[Mactech]

My experience suggests that the meter will be out by about the same percentage that the add on box will have raised the fuel pressure to get the additional performance. If it was accurate before, then you can make a rough assumption about the fuel pressure increase by the new inacurracy
I look forward to seeing the results of your tests, certainly what you have been told is in line with my own findings, but my OCD makes me have to have the fuel meter as accurate as possible, one of the reasons I lean towards remaps.

 

[flango]

My experience suggests that the meter will be out by about the same percentage that the add on box will have raised the fuel pressure to get the additional performance. If it was accurate before, then you can make a rough assumption about the fuel pressure increase by the new inacurracy
I look forward to seeing the results of your tests, certainly what you have been told is in line with my own findings, but my OCD makes me have to have the fuel meter as accurate as possible, one of the reasons I lean towards remaps.

I must admit I was firmly in the remap camp myself after having a few of my previous cars done and my last remapped Subaru was awesome. However there is a massive difference in cost betwen a tuning box and a remap £200 Vs £600+ (depending on car) so part of this experiement is to see how close a tuning box can get to a full remap in terms of power, torque and economy. Must admit i'm finding it really interesting and entertaining driving

 

[hawk20]

It's just not possible to draw valid conclusions for small changes in fuel economy by driving on UK roads. Conditions vary day to day as do temperatures. Today, here, it was 18 degrees C. A week ago we had a frost.

Plus no driver can be relied upon to drive the same way each day.

You only have to read threads on supermarket fuels and additives to see the number off people who can fool themselves about fuel economy.

One guy claimed his engine was quieter and smoother and economy and performance much improved. Then he discovered he'd still got the unopened tin of additive in the boot.

 

[flango]

It's just not possible to draw valid conclusions for small changes in fuel economy by driving on UK roads. Conditions vary day to day as do temperatures. Today, here, it was 18 degrees C. A week ago we had a frost.

Plus no driver can be relied upon to drive the same way each day.

You only have to read threads on supermarket fuels and additives to see the number off people who can fool themselves about fuel economy.

One guy claimed his engine was quieter and smoother and economy and performance much improved. Then he discovered he'd still got the unopened tin of additive in the boot.

Sorry have to disagree having been involved in motorsport and testing for 30 years.

We are not talking about small changes in economy we are looking at 10% which is significant.

Temperature does play a part but can be compensated for in the overall calculations if you get the control runs correct.

My driving over this period will be very similar although not identical (obviously) but 2 months is a reasonable time to make a judgement on a device or change. I do the same 80 mile commute every day of the week and don't use the car at weekends (thats pretty consistant)

Supermarket fuels do not contain the same additive packages as premium brands such as Shell or BP, I used to worrk for the company that supplied them. Branded fuels will always be kinder to an engine. If you are in doubt of that take a look on Scoobynet. One guy thought he was clever saying there was no difference always ran it on supermarket fuel. Car failed at 23,000 miles theres photos on there with the head off you want to see the carbon and on a car that was driven hard on mainly motorway miles. I don't need no convincing supermarket fuels are designed to comply to the minimum BS rating and thats it, thats why they are cheap.

If you have a diesel try Millers Diesel Power Sport 4 and then come back and tell me it does not make a difference!

We are also using some very sophisticated technology with dyno testing and dynamic road testing to determine Power, Torque and MPG. These machines don't lie.

Sorry you dont think its possible but as an ex works and manufacturers test driver let me tell you it is, how do you think cars get developed and technology advances?

 

[Dieselman]

One guy claimed his engine was quieter and smoother and economy and performance much improved. Then he discovered he'd still got the unopened tin of additive in the boot.

I must have missed that and everytime you say it I think..'I must ask Hawk20 to show us that post.'

So can you please point us in the right direction.?

Thanks

 

[hawk20]

We are not talking about small changes in economy we are looking at 10% which is significant.

.

Well there's certainly money to be made by selling snake oil and other useless gizmos. But think: if it was as easy as a simple remap to get 10% more mpg wouldn't MB and BMW have done it long ago. Their research efforts on economy run into millions and millions.

 

[flango]

Well there's certainly money to be made by selling snake oil and other useless gizmos. But think: if it was as easy as a simple remap to get 10% more mpg wouldn't MB and BMW have done it long ago. Their research efforts on economy run into millions and millions.

No they wouldn't and the reason why is that MB, BMW and et al use generic maps in Europe. Therefore a car sold in Sweden will have exactly the same map on it as a car sold in the UK. Trouble is to take into account the temperature extemes in Europe the map will have a temp range of about -40oC to + 40oC. These are temps we never get close to in the UK so in order to optimise you narrow down the temp ranges and get more control. Same applies to fuel pressures, turbo boost etc. To do this to every car at manufacture would cost a fortune. Thats why you map the car to the conditions and why race and rally teams change the map to suit the country, temps and conditions they race in to always optimise performance.

 

[hawk20]

I must have missed that and everytime you say it I think..'I must ask Hawk20 to show us that post.'

So can you please point us in the right direction.?

Thanks

See posting number 8.

http://forums.mercedesclub.org.uk/showthread.php?t=45814&highlight=fuel+additives

 

[Dieselman]

See posting number 8.

http://forums.mercedesclub.org.uk/showthread.php?t=45814&highlight=fuel+additives

Honestly, you base your 'Knowledge' on that single posting. You have either an incredible insight into things or are rather easily led.

Here's the bit you refer to:
I've been using millers on and off over the last year or so (E270cdi - 4 yrs old) but I can see no reason to avoid it earlier than that. After all, it's primarily a detergent and the earlier you use it, the less build up you'll get in the first place.
That said - all these results can be so anecdotal. I was surprised how quiet mine was this morning in the freezing cold and wondered whether it was the millers I had put in on Sunday - until I remembered I was going to put it in but the boot was full and I couldn't get to the bottle !!


What we don't know from this is:
1/ How quiet his engine actually was.
2/ What if any effect was subsequently found after adding some additive.
3/ Whether he had remaining additive left from the previous fill and at what concentration.
4/ Whether the engine was gaining benefit from running with clean injectors as a result of adding additive previously.

I'm not saying whether they do or don't make a difference here, but to purport to have some superior knowledge from reading that post is foolish.

Conversely another poster says adding 2-stroke definitely did make a difference, so there is one post of each type there.

If you read Post#1 you will see the reason why the O/p wanted to use an additive. It is to avoid costly premature injector failure, as has already happened to his previous Mercedes, having used no additive.

So the risk of using an additive appears that it will do nothing but MAY cost a little, or using no additive may save some money but is likely to lead to premature injector failure.

You forgot to mention post# 15, which you must have read.

hi everyone, my friend coverted 50 trucks to run on vegioil, he had a oil/combustion pal at manchester uni. they told me that adding one litre of vegoil every couple of months would dissolve cabon deposits and change the fuel's valency , this was also reccomended prior to your mot test as improved combustion would occur, based on the vegioil releasing free radicals in the fuel. i have tried it but in all honesty i don't know if it has worked, i want to think it has based on their credability. i also checked what they told me with dr searl, a combustion expert where i used to work. he said it made sense.

You should probably write to Manchester Uni and Dr Searl to let them know they are wrong.

 

[hawk20]

No they wouldn't and the reason why is that MB, BMW and et al use generic maps in Europe. Therefore a car sold in Sweden will have exactly the same map on it as a car sold in the UK. Trouble is to take into account the temperature extemes in Europe the map will have a temp range of about -40oC to + 40oC. These are temps we never get close to in the UK so in order to optimise you narrow down the temp ranges and get more control. Same applies to fuel pressures, turbo boost etc. To do this to every car at manufacture would cost a fortune. Thats why you map the car to the conditions and why race and rally teams change the map to suit the country, temps and conditions they race in to always optimise performance.

Yes we've all heard the theory. And that it cures baldness as well. Great stuff.

 

[hawk20]

Honestly, you base your 'Knowledge' on that single posting. .

What a ludicrous claim.

 

[Dieselman]

What a ludicrous claim.

Can you provide more information as to what your belief is based on.?

It's just that even that quote has been misquoted, you said the guy had the unopened tin in the boot, whereas he said he had been using it on and off for 18 months.

You use strong terms, such as 'Snake oil' when posters refer to additives and you keep quoting that post, which is fair enough, but not a reasonable trial or cross section of information to base any claim on.

I'm not making any claim either way here, just interested as to what information or experiences you have for people to base their belief on, seeing as you have a stong view on this.

I don't mean this to sound harsh, although it probably does. I'm just curious to see some information, to be able to understand peoples reasoning.

 

[Mactech]

I try to stay well clear of spurious arguments as to whether an engineering task is possible or not and spend more of my energy solving the problems.
Using that principle I have been lucky enough to have had 7 class wins at Le Mans (3 of them overall) and engineered the diesel landspeed record.
There are still major gains to be made in diesel engineering and the manufacturers are making them…slowly. Rather akin to the aviation industry, major manufacturers want masses of certification prior to a product being launched into the market place.
In motorsport we are often the ‘test pilots’ for ideas and technology and can have the technical solutions long before the end product is available to the public.
Snake oil is widely available, but in a few years time manufacturers will release cars which are demonstrably more economical.
It’s just that some of us want them now!

 

[ringway]

Correct me if I am wrong.

I spoke to a re-mapper who said that each given manufacturer does indeed configure each car to the exact same spec.

The reason being is that (as well as temperature issuse) the fuel in certain countries is less refined than in others - therefor there is a "safe confiuration" enabling any car they produce, to run safely/efficiently in any country.

Accoring to the re-mapper, this safely enables a remap to be carried out on a vehicle running in an average temperature country and having the benefit of using highly refined fuel, because there is less stress placed upon the car that runs under these conditions, enabling the bar to be raised without any danger.

 

[hawk20]

Can you provide more information as to what your belief is based on.?

It's just that even that quote has been misquoted, you said the guy had the unopened tin in the boot, whereas he said he had been using it on and off for 18 months.

You use strong terms, such as 'Snake oil' when posters refer to additives and you keep quoting that post, which is fair enough, but not a reasonable trial or cross section of information to base any claim on.

I'm not making any claim either way here, just interested as to what information or experiences you have for people to base their belief on, seeing as you have a stong view on this.

I don't mean this to sound harsh, although it probably does. I'm just curious to see some information, to be able to understand peoples reasoning.

First show me , say, three places where I have posted that piece of info?
Or two?

Second, read the quote carefully: - he does say it was unopened in the boot.

Third:- I don't have beliefs in the sense I think you mean. I am consistently saying that anecdotal evidence for chips, for additives in fuel, and for much else besides needs backing up with some scientific evidence.

Go back to the many supermarket fuel threads and loads claim more mpg from Shell. Others from Esso. Some from Tesco. Some claim no difference whatever make is used. Some say they get far less with Sainsbury fuel etc etc. I say we need some scientific testing and you really would think the car mags could do that. Until we get that, I remain to be convinced that there is any worthwhile difference between one brand and another.

As for chips, we know they work to improve performance and MB sell them. But they reduce the guarantee to 60k miles. You don't get owt for nowt.

Other chips infringe the intellectual property rights of the car maker don't they?

 

[Dieselman]

First show me , say, three places where I have posted that piece of info?
Or two?

Well today is one, and here's another found in under a minute, but you have mentioned it previously.
http://www.mbclub.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=715691&postcount=25

Second, read the quote carefully: - he does say it was unopened in the boot.

No. He says, and I'll quote again.
until I remembered I was going to put it in but the boot was full and I couldn't get to the bottle !!

Third:- I don't have beliefs in the sense I think you mean. I am consistently saying that anecdotal evidence for chips, for additives in fuel, and for much else besides needs backing up with some scientific evidence.

Isn't that what flania1 is attempting to do.? He also has the backing of 'Matt' the VW race Engineer.
We've seen results from official testing of additive. Is that to be discounted out of hand.?

As for chips, we know they work to improve performance and MB sell them. But they reduce the guarantee to 60k miles. You don't get owt for nowt.

Other chips infringe the intellectual property rights of the car maker don't they?

Don't know, why.?
Whether performance additions create issues is another, separate, debate.
I think the torque improvement of adding more fuel will improve economy, but has other effects, which manufacturers may not be happy with.

Technically it then follows that IF an additive keeps the injectors flowing more fuel, the engine will produce more torque as a result thus there may be a benefit for economy, but probably more importantly if the additive lubricates the components they will last longer, which is a concern for owners of CDi engined cars.

Though not a fan of chip tuning I'm actually open minded about this and interested to see the results.

 

[GCLTuning]

Im afraid someone has spun you a web of lies ....


This is complete rubbish from start to finish


Sorry if i have offended anyone but i can't believe this ...


Regards Gary @ *** Tuning

 

[Dieselman]

Who is that a reply to.?

 

[GCLTuning]

With regard to MPG this is shocking we will develop you a file @ Cost price for you to try out and will bet the Gallardo on it ... we will ruin any tuning box on economy and performance ...

Regards Gary @ ***