FEH TESTING DATA
#21
01-15-2006, 05:03 PM
Re: FEH TESTING DATA
Like to make a correction in my math on the coasting comparison in "D" vs "N". Xcel was correct that you can coast 36% further in "N". At first , I thought there was no way coasting improved that much and carelessly took the .68 miles to find the increase figure at 26.6. After gliding around some more, I knew it had to be more so I checked my figures and seen I made the mistake. Wow, a 36% increase is big. Sorry xcel!
Also, I think coasting in "N" may be taking some imput from the ECVT away and causing lower readings in mileage and MPG averages. There are three reasons for me thinking this. My gas gauge is falling slower while my mpg average readings is not improving as they should. While coasting in "D", my instant mpg is better (ICE running) than coasting in "N" (ICE running) with the scangauge. The last thing was when I filled up, I calculated 48.9 mpg and my 15 min average showed 42mpg. This has never happen before to me. I forgot another thing, while coasting in "N" my 15min average doesn't increase as fast as I think it should. Anyone else know anything about why?
GaryG
Also, I think coasting in "N" may be taking some imput from the ECVT away and causing lower readings in mileage and MPG averages. There are three reasons for me thinking this. My gas gauge is falling slower while my mpg average readings is not improving as they should. While coasting in "D", my instant mpg is better (ICE running) than coasting in "N" (ICE running) with the scangauge. The last thing was when I filled up, I calculated 48.9 mpg and my 15 min average showed 42mpg. This has never happen before to me. I forgot another thing, while coasting in "N" my 15min average doesn't increase as fast as I think it should. Anyone else know anything about why?
GaryG
#22
01-15-2006, 10:34 PM
Hybrid and Ethanol Expert
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: All over the Central U.S.
Posts: 3,616
Re: FEH TESTING DATA
Hi Gary and Wayne. I've not posted in a while. Sorry. 
To clear up the N thing.
If you shift to N with engine off below 6 MPH or at a dead stop, the ICE won't start.
If you shift to N with engine on below 6 MPH or at a dead stop, the ICE will stay on.
Forever.
I have proven this to be true, and always included the 6 MPH qualifier in all my posts.
I know storries get modified over time.
The ICE will do what it wants in N if the FEH is moving more than 6 MPH.
6MPH is the magic number. The Shop manual describes Neutral under 6 MPH as "passive neutral". Neutral when moving more than 6 MPH is described as "active neutral".
I also have a ScanGauge now, but have had it only 5 days. I've only gone about 40 miles with it, but like it so far.
-John
( GPSMAN )
To clear up the N thing.
If you shift to N with engine off below 6 MPH or at a dead stop, the ICE won't start.
If you shift to N with engine on below 6 MPH or at a dead stop, the ICE will stay on.
Forever.
I have proven this to be true, and always included the 6 MPH qualifier in all my posts.
I know storries get modified over time.
The ICE will do what it wants in N if the FEH is moving more than 6 MPH.
6MPH is the magic number. The Shop manual describes Neutral under 6 MPH as "passive neutral". Neutral when moving more than 6 MPH is described as "active neutral".
I also have a ScanGauge now, but have had it only 5 days. I've only gone about 40 miles with it, but like it so far.
-John
( GPSMAN )
#23
01-15-2006, 10:55 PM
Hybrid and Ethanol Expert
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: All over the Central U.S.
Posts: 3,616
Re: FEH TESTING DATA
To Gary:
With your ScanGauge, do you watch the % Load data at all?
I have been, and notice the ICE % Load is at 99% a whole lot.
If this is true, this really surpises me.
But this 'may' be a good thing.
Everyone know running the ICE at idle is a bad thing.
At idle, I read about 30% load. Does that imply 70% waste?
I think it does.
If I'm running the ICE at 99% load, does that mean it's being most efficient?
( I've never seen a 100%, so the gauge may not be able to display higher that 100%).
If you guys think % load = % effiecient, this may be a good feature to watch.
It is interesting to note, that when at idle ( 30% ) I switched defrost on, and % load jumped to 42%.
It is interesting to note, that when at idle ( 30% ) and the generator engaged to rechange the HV battery, the % load jumped to 66%.
Just curious what you guys's take on the % load feature is.
Running at 99% sounds good to me.
I think that means the engine is delivering everything it is cabable of, which in turn means, getting the maximum horsepower per drop of gas.
If you agree with my take on things, you will be pleased to know, the FEH runs at 99% load a good chunk of the time.
-John
With your ScanGauge, do you watch the % Load data at all?
I have been, and notice the ICE % Load is at 99% a whole lot.
If this is true, this really surpises me.
But this 'may' be a good thing.
Everyone know running the ICE at idle is a bad thing.
At idle, I read about 30% load. Does that imply 70% waste?
I think it does.
If I'm running the ICE at 99% load, does that mean it's being most efficient?
( I've never seen a 100%, so the gauge may not be able to display higher that 100%).
If you guys think % load = % effiecient, this may be a good feature to watch.
It is interesting to note, that when at idle ( 30% ) I switched defrost on, and % load jumped to 42%.
It is interesting to note, that when at idle ( 30% ) and the generator engaged to rechange the HV battery, the % load jumped to 66%.
Just curious what you guys's take on the % load feature is.
Running at 99% sounds good to me.
I think that means the engine is delivering everything it is cabable of, which in turn means, getting the maximum horsepower per drop of gas.
If you agree with my take on things, you will be pleased to know, the FEH runs at 99% load a good chunk of the time.
-John
#24
01-16-2006, 04:00 PM
Re: FEH TESTING DATA
John, are you sure you have your set-up correct on the scangauge? Set to hybrid in the type of fuel?
Load (LOD) is the % thats presently being placed on the ICE. The least amount of LOD you have, the better the FE you get. When you get to 99% load, your getting the least FE and this is when you see the assist needle start to move. In fact, this would be an excellent way to conduct xcel's test instead of trying to watch the needle. I can use the nav 15 min ave reset to watch the mpg for the test.
Having a 99% load on the ICE is not a good thing and you should not be seeing that if your driving for good FE. A reading of 30% at idle does not mean 70% waste. My idle is much less that 30%, maybe 20%. This is why I think your set-up is wrong. The 99% reading is max, no 100% for the FEH. This is a great gauge to watch to keep the lease load for better FE and to know how to climb hills with the best load for FE.
Again, if your jumping to 42% load with the defroster and 66% when charging, something wrong John. You should not be running at 99% most of the time either.
GaryG
Load (LOD) is the % thats presently being placed on the ICE. The least amount of LOD you have, the better the FE you get. When you get to 99% load, your getting the least FE and this is when you see the assist needle start to move. In fact, this would be an excellent way to conduct xcel's test instead of trying to watch the needle. I can use the nav 15 min ave reset to watch the mpg for the test.
Having a 99% load on the ICE is not a good thing and you should not be seeing that if your driving for good FE. A reading of 30% at idle does not mean 70% waste. My idle is much less that 30%, maybe 20%. This is why I think your set-up is wrong. The 99% reading is max, no 100% for the FEH. This is a great gauge to watch to keep the lease load for better FE and to know how to climb hills with the best load for FE.
Again, if your jumping to 42% load with the defroster and 66% when charging, something wrong John. You should not be running at 99% most of the time either.
GaryG
#25
01-16-2006, 09:43 PM
Hybrid and Ethanol Expert
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: All over the Central U.S.
Posts: 3,616
Re: FEH TESTING DATA
I am sure the ScanGauge is set correctly.
Did you set the engine size ( liters ) on your ScanGauge?
I know more load = less instant FE, however, more load for a brief period of time could mean better overall FE which is all that matters.
This is the philosophy behind pulse & glide.
Use a burst of fuel for a brief period of time, then, little or no gas for an extended period of time.
My hunch is, if your goal is to get to 40 MPH, then coast ( glide ) it is better to run the engine at 99% from zero to 40, than to run the engine at 30% for zero to 40.
Time and more testing will tell. Just another idea to think about.
Also, the ScanGauge manual says there are two ways to interpret the Load data.
Possibility One:
This is a % of the maximum power available currently being generated.
Possibility Two:
This is the % of maximum power available at the present RPM.
I tend to think number one is the way it works. How about you?
-John
Did you set the engine size ( liters ) on your ScanGauge?
I know more load = less instant FE, however, more load for a brief period of time could mean better overall FE which is all that matters.
This is the philosophy behind pulse & glide.
Use a burst of fuel for a brief period of time, then, little or no gas for an extended period of time.
My hunch is, if your goal is to get to 40 MPH, then coast ( glide ) it is better to run the engine at 99% from zero to 40, than to run the engine at 30% for zero to 40.
Time and more testing will tell. Just another idea to think about.
Also, the ScanGauge manual says there are two ways to interpret the Load data.
Possibility One:
This is a % of the maximum power available currently being generated.
Possibility Two:
This is the % of maximum power available at the present RPM.
I tend to think number one is the way it works. How about you?
-John
#26
01-17-2006, 01:18 PM
Re: FEH TESTING DATA
John, sorry, I thought you where asking about driving at 99% as much as you can.
My scangauge is set for 2.3L, the CAN setting at "Supported", Fuel at Hybrid and tank size at 15 gal. Seems mine is closer to the Nav system than yours and my % are lower on the LOD.
I read the manual also and read the LOD as it appears to work in #1.
What do you make of the effects of coasting in "N" do to the mileage, trip and 15min ave? Do you see what I mean with better readings (Higher mpg) on the instant mpg reading in "D" than in "N"? They seem to drop off when I make the shift to "N" from "D" sometimes. Anyone?
GaryG
My scangauge is set for 2.3L, the CAN setting at "Supported", Fuel at Hybrid and tank size at 15 gal. Seems mine is closer to the Nav system than yours and my % are lower on the LOD.
I read the manual also and read the LOD as it appears to work in #1.
What do you make of the effects of coasting in "N" do to the mileage, trip and 15min ave? Do you see what I mean with better readings (Higher mpg) on the instant mpg reading in "D" than in "N"? They seem to drop off when I make the shift to "N" from "D" sometimes. Anyone?
GaryG
#27
01-17-2006, 04:15 PM
Hybrid and Ethanol Expert
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: All over the Central U.S.
Posts: 3,616
Re: FEH TESTING DATA
I have not had mine long enough to notice what you have.
I will try that at some point in the furure.
What I did read in the FEH Service manual is, the Traction Motor is DIRECTLY geared to the the wheels. The manual says the traction motor is spinning any time the wheels are spinning. Period. It can provide positive torque, negative torque, or no torque. It did not mention one way or the other if Neutral bypasses this. It was my understanding that "neutral" was just a software simulation, and nothing mechanical changes.
Before you jump to any conclusions, make sure you do a fill-up.
I think the ScanGauge will not be more precise over the average.
I don't think it's mathmatically possible, since it is NOT taking it's own measurements. It is simply displaying what the FEH electronics are giving it.
However, the Scan Gauge "Instant" does give more digits, which is helpful, and it is nice to have individual trip averages, not just the 15-min one, for sure!
-John
I will try that at some point in the furure.
What I did read in the FEH Service manual is, the Traction Motor is DIRECTLY geared to the the wheels. The manual says the traction motor is spinning any time the wheels are spinning. Period. It can provide positive torque, negative torque, or no torque. It did not mention one way or the other if Neutral bypasses this. It was my understanding that "neutral" was just a software simulation, and nothing mechanical changes.
Before you jump to any conclusions, make sure you do a fill-up.
I think the ScanGauge will not be more precise over the average.
I don't think it's mathmatically possible, since it is NOT taking it's own measurements. It is simply displaying what the FEH electronics are giving it.
However, the Scan Gauge "Instant" does give more digits, which is helpful, and it is nice to have individual trip averages, not just the 15-min one, for sure!
-John
#28
01-17-2006, 05:19 PM
Re: FEH TESTING DATA
Thats just it John, I did do a fill-up and the 48.9mpg I got, did not match some of the guages. This is why I'm asking you and anyone else do they see "N" coasting causing lower averages on the 15min nav. and see the instant mpg read lower numbers coasting in "N" than "D" on the scangauge. Coasting in "N" showed an improvement in gas used at fill up, but I think those gauages are effected and show lower averages. Just keep an eye on it for now.
GaryG
GaryG
#30
01-18-2006, 02:09 PM
Re: FEH TESTING DATA
Xcel, took a short round trip of 23.6 miles of EV/ICE recharge repeat today on my beach roads. Started with 3/4 SOC and ended with 1/2 SOC. After I got settled in on the scangauge from a reset, it was clear I was staying in the 61.5mpg drained battery to 57.5mpg full battery range. End of trip was 58.2mpg. On the same roads with a full battery with normal driving (EV regular and no gliding) I get around 45mpg average. The average speed is around 33mph for these roads
Thought I've done better than this in the past and still feel the gas quality I'm getting now is not as good as in the past. Can't say for certain because I was always limited knowing what my mpg was above 60 with the nav. sys.
Still got to go to the country roads and mark off with paint a test area for the other test. This Atkinson 5 cycle relies heavy on these elecric motors for torque.
Hanging In There Still
GaryG
Thought I've done better than this in the past and still feel the gas quality I'm getting now is not as good as in the past. Can't say for certain because I was always limited knowing what my mpg was above 60 with the nav. sys.
Still got to go to the country roads and mark off with paint a test area for the other test. This Atkinson 5 cycle relies heavy on these elecric motors for torque.
Hanging In There Still
GaryG
