![]() |
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Member
|
It's really confusing and hard to scroll around to find everything, but basically: -They used a 2011 CR-Z 6MT and a 2011 CR-Z EX CVT for the tests -Caculated the "test weight" for dyno tests at 3,000 LBS -Target Coefficients (maybe for the dyno to simulate rolling resistance) are listed -The A/F ratios were tuned for LBT (Lean Best Torque) +6% to avoid catalyst damage -The test cars had ~4700 miles on them -They did a 20F temp, 50F temp, City, and Highway test cycle (no SC03 "A/C on" test) The CVT did 44.4443 MPG City Average and 51.4047 MPG Highway Average. As far as I can decifer, the 6MT was used for the exhaust emissions tests, but the data may be in there for the MPG tests too since they have to be tested separately. It really makes me want to get a Flash Pro to lean out the A/F ratios a little now that a read these results taken at LBT+6%. These results are also available for the 2012 model year too, but I didn't read it. Pretty impressive results, but they are corrected by a certain formula before they are posted on the window sticker to better "estimate" the real world results that you get when you don't try to drive efficiently. It does show what the car can accomplish with limited battery charge (I'm sure) and really hard test runs. Some of the tests drive up to 80 MPH and accelerate at a rate similar to a 7-second 0-60 run. [edit] Here's the link! http://www.epa.gov/otaq/datafiles/FO...1.51D3_INI.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
|
Good info, your sig got my attention! I will posting info about our annual Dragon run soon, would love to invite the CR-Z forum out there to join us this year!
__________________
2011 SSM CR-Z EX/6MT Surface protection count...(48) v..JOIN US..v https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K16Y...e_gdata_player |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 (permalink) | ||
|
Senior Member
|
Quote:
Quote:
The dyno is programed with a drag coefficient for wind and grade. As stated, the raw numbers are "adjusted" with some kind of fudge factor before the final numbers are calculated. The results in the PDF are awfully difficult to interpret. Any explanation that someone could offer would be appreciated. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#8 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
|
Yeah I don't know about all that, the best I got on the freeway was last fall going from the northern part of Kentucky (really no hills), going through Indiana and on into Illnois (very flat) and got 44.6 mpg, although the car was probably not quite broken in yet but my mileage went up and up on each leg of the trip going down and then coming back up. I did use ECON while on the freeway and the cruize, ofcoarse. I will say this though, next time I get into the hilly bits, the NORMAL mode is going to be used because you lose so much momentum and it takes a while for the ECON mode to get you back up to your set speed and thus, used more fuel to get going up those mountains.
__________________
2011 SSM CR-Z EX/6MT Surface protection count...(48) v..JOIN US..v https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K16Y...e_gdata_player |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 (permalink) |
|
Member
|
Most of the data there is about exhaust gas emission levels anyway. As for ECON mode lagging on hills, that's actually a really nice feature called "Drive by Load" cruise control. It's better for MPG to slow down while going uphill and regain the speed on the downhill which is easier to accelerate. That's the opposite of what happens when you try to stick it on a certain speed all the way up and let off on the way down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
|
^^^ I plan on using ECON for most of my highway trips but will experiment with NORMAL and SPORT as well ^^^
__________________
2011 SSM CR-Z EX/6MT Surface protection count...(48) v..JOIN US..v https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K16Y...e_gdata_player |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|