anyone figure out how to hack the ECM for better economy?
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
G
Guest
·Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Hi Difore:
___I didn’t own my Insight before all the ECU updates were applied so I cannot tell you a before/after effect but having the 2003 update/recall performed before I picked her up, I am receiving excellent mileage w/ most 90 + mile segments in the high 90’s/low 100’s myself as of late myself.
___Not that I wouldn’t like a bit more lean burn or better fuel economy somehow but I don’t think there was much of a hit w/ the last 2 flashes or I wouldn’t be receiving the mileage I have as of late I don’t think?
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___[email:1pzy0lf9][email protected][/email:1pzy0lf9]
___I didn’t own my Insight before all the ECU updates were applied so I cannot tell you a before/after effect but having the 2003 update/recall performed before I picked her up, I am receiving excellent mileage w/ most 90 + mile segments in the high 90’s/low 100’s myself as of late myself.
___Not that I wouldn’t like a bit more lean burn or better fuel economy somehow but I don’t think there was much of a hit w/ the last 2 flashes or I wouldn’t be receiving the mileage I have as of late I don’t think?
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___[email:1pzy0lf9][email protected][/email:1pzy0lf9]
Joined
·
891 Posts
Original post said "PCM" ... the only PCM change performed was made on CVT Insights according to this list:xcel said:
http://www.insightcentral.net/KB/faq-ma ... eBulletins
I have had all other recalls performed on my 5spd and also seen no effect.
Don't have any ideas for reverse engineering the PCM.
About that lean burn,
I suppose that if we could rig the "map sensor" to make it read more vacum pressure as if the gas pedal was less pressed, the ECM would give the lean burn. It would think that it is not as much under load.
Or is there more to this.
The map sensor is the Manifold Absolute Pressure sensor.
I suppose that if we could rig the "map sensor" to make it read more vacum pressure as if the gas pedal was less pressed, the ECM would give the lean burn. It would think that it is not as much under load.
Or is there more to this.
The map sensor is the Manifold Absolute Pressure sensor.
Joined
·
1,291 Posts
A much better "mod" would reprogram the ECU to default to allowing assist while in lean burn...This is possible now, but only through some very specific throttle pedal techniques...It should come naturally to the car.
Joined
·
82 Posts
What are these techniques?Aaron Cake said:
Joined
·
4,942 Posts
The encephalographic cerebral memory (ECM - (your brain)) must be reprogrammed to obtain maximum MPG. The technique is to use the memory reprogramming device on the dash (the MPG indicator). <VBG>
The chemistry an physics of combustion are the limiting factors in why this window is soooo narrow. Slowing down widens the window. 50-55 mph seems optimal for most conditions. Lighter, smaller, and slower is the only way to significantly improve an internal combustion engine driven passenger car's MPG. Bigger, heavier and reasonably fast multi-passenger vehicles, e.g. trains and buses, have a much higher passenger mile per gallon equivalent.
An internal combustion engine is simply an air pump. Air is expanded by burning a fuel in a closed chamber. There is a mechanical means where-by this expanding air is made to do work. The inefficiencies in the conversion of energy is where the losses are. The "energy" is the temperature difference between the heated air inside the combustion chamber and the cooler air outside. There are no efficient means to convert small temperature energy potentials to mechanical force, hence the MPG we get. More than half of the heat potential of gasoline is being wasted. There are means to collect this energy but none are suitable for a car and none could recover a significant enough amount of energy to even "pay" for their manufacture. In other words you would spend more energy in manufacturing and installing such devices than is recoverable, a net increase in consumption.
Fuel cells are the only system on the horizon that promises a more efficient conversion (read better equivalent MPG).
We are drunk on cheap energy. And rarely realize the huge amount of work that is being done for us to move down the road at 60 MPH.
The chemistry an physics of combustion are the limiting factors in why this window is soooo narrow. Slowing down widens the window. 50-55 mph seems optimal for most conditions. Lighter, smaller, and slower is the only way to significantly improve an internal combustion engine driven passenger car's MPG. Bigger, heavier and reasonably fast multi-passenger vehicles, e.g. trains and buses, have a much higher passenger mile per gallon equivalent.
An internal combustion engine is simply an air pump. Air is expanded by burning a fuel in a closed chamber. There is a mechanical means where-by this expanding air is made to do work. The inefficiencies in the conversion of energy is where the losses are. The "energy" is the temperature difference between the heated air inside the combustion chamber and the cooler air outside. There are no efficient means to convert small temperature energy potentials to mechanical force, hence the MPG we get. More than half of the heat potential of gasoline is being wasted. There are means to collect this energy but none are suitable for a car and none could recover a significant enough amount of energy to even "pay" for their manufacture. In other words you would spend more energy in manufacturing and installing such devices than is recoverable, a net increase in consumption.
Fuel cells are the only system on the horizon that promises a more efficient conversion (read better equivalent MPG).
We are drunk on cheap energy. And rarely realize the huge amount of work that is being done for us to move down the road at 60 MPH.
I am constantly amazed that my car can propel itself and me back and forth to work using the chemical energy in less than a milk-jug of gas. (over 64 miles up and down hills all the way).
Even more so knowing the efficiency (or lack thereof) of the energy conversion involved.
Cool!
Even more so knowing the efficiency (or lack thereof) of the energy conversion involved.
Cool!
Hi folks-
Insightful Trekker said:
“We are drunk on cheap energy. And rarely realize the huge amount of work that is being done for us to move down the road at 60 MPH.”
To borrow the concept of “energy slave” from Richard Heinberg in The Party is Over: If one takes the value of 1/10 hp as the amount of power that a reasonably fit human can maintain an output of over the period of a workday, then it would take the equivalent of ~720 human energy slaves (~72hp x 10 slaves/hp) to provide us with the power we have available to us in our little cars. Obviously this crude but reasonably accurate analogy of much more dramatic when applied to SUVs. We are all living like kings and queens
Insightful Trekker said:
“We are drunk on cheap energy. And rarely realize the huge amount of work that is being done for us to move down the road at 60 MPH.”
To borrow the concept of “energy slave” from Richard Heinberg in The Party is Over: If one takes the value of 1/10 hp as the amount of power that a reasonably fit human can maintain an output of over the period of a workday, then it would take the equivalent of ~720 human energy slaves (~72hp x 10 slaves/hp) to provide us with the power we have available to us in our little cars. Obviously this crude but reasonably accurate analogy of much more dramatic when applied to SUVs. We are all living like kings and queens
That's a bit of a misleading analogy. Horsepower isn't a measure of the power of one horse, so saying that a human has a tenth the power and thus 1/10th of a horsepower is misleading. One horsepower is only the power of one horse doing a specific task.(dragging a weight out of a well by way of a pulley) A horse has a lot more than one "horsepower" for most tasks, including propelling (towing) a vehicle.
Also I fail to see how hydrogen fuel cells will make energy cheaper. A hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is an electric car driven by a hydrogen battery. It will be the same as a modern electric car, albeit with faster "charge-ups" because the electrolyte (the hydrogen) can be swapped out at a "charging station." I haven't done the math, but I suspect that refining petroleum requires less energy than is released by that petroleum, making the process over 100% efficient, which is something we will not attain with hydrogen fuel cells.
Also I fail to see how hydrogen fuel cells will make energy cheaper. A hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is an electric car driven by a hydrogen battery. It will be the same as a modern electric car, albeit with faster "charge-ups" because the electrolyte (the hydrogen) can be swapped out at a "charging station." I haven't done the math, but I suspect that refining petroleum requires less energy than is released by that petroleum, making the process over 100% efficient, which is something we will not attain with hydrogen fuel cells.
I was sort of wondering about the human power aspect myself. From spring through fall, I bike the ~16 miles between my house and the lab several times a week. I can propel myself at an average speed of something over 16 MPH (counting all the time spent accelerating away from stop lights), and on level ground can maintain about 25 MPH. I can do this without eating noticably more than I do in the winter. So I can't help but wonder just how much energy I use, and how efficient a biological converter is.
"...refining petroleum requires less energy than is released by that petroleum, making the process over 100% efficient..."
That depends on how you define efficiency. I'd think of it as the crude oil containing X amount of energy per barrel, with the resulting gasoline & byproducts containing something less than 100% of X. Then when you run the gasoline through an IC engine, you only get about 30% of it in a useable form.
The idea behind fuel cells is that the conversion efficiency is limited by chemistry, rather than theromdynamics, and so can be much higher (90% rather than 30%?). So fuel cells aren't inherently bad - what's dumb is running them on hydrogen, with all the associated drawbacks.
"...refining petroleum requires less energy than is released by that petroleum, making the process over 100% efficient..."
That depends on how you define efficiency. I'd think of it as the crude oil containing X amount of energy per barrel, with the resulting gasoline & byproducts containing something less than 100% of X. Then when you run the gasoline through an IC engine, you only get about 30% of it in a useable form.
The idea behind fuel cells is that the conversion efficiency is limited by chemistry, rather than theromdynamics, and so can be much higher (90% rather than 30%?). So fuel cells aren't inherently bad - what's dumb is running them on hydrogen, with all the associated drawbacks.
Hi Foxpaw-
You could be right. Let me clarify some things though. 1) We are not talking about the power of horses. 1 horsepower = 33,000foot–pounds per minute, or 550ft-lbs/sec. Richard Heinberg is citing 1/10 horsepower as the amount of power one can reasonably expect a healthy, fit human to maintain production of over the period of an 8 hour shift; in other words, the power to raise 330lbs 10 feet in one minute every minute for 8 hours. He also sites about 1/3hp max (running up stairs) but this amount can not be produced over a long period of time. 2) Max hp is only used when you step hard on the gas. Just because a car has 200hp does not necessarily mean that you ever use it.
3) The analogy is meant to illustrate how many human “slaves” one would need to have available to give you that kind of power. Since we expect our cars to be ready 24hours a day if you are a kindly ruler and only expect 8 hours of work at a time out of your slaves one could say that you would need a stable of 2160 slaves to cover 3 shifts for our Insights.
The Party’s Over is a rather extreme book and I do not agree with all of the conclusions Richard arrives at. I would recommend it though. It has a lot of interesting stuff in it, but like everything else should be taken with a grain of salt.
You could be right. Let me clarify some things though. 1) We are not talking about the power of horses. 1 horsepower = 33,000foot–pounds per minute, or 550ft-lbs/sec. Richard Heinberg is citing 1/10 horsepower as the amount of power one can reasonably expect a healthy, fit human to maintain production of over the period of an 8 hour shift; in other words, the power to raise 330lbs 10 feet in one minute every minute for 8 hours. He also sites about 1/3hp max (running up stairs) but this amount can not be produced over a long period of time. 2) Max hp is only used when you step hard on the gas. Just because a car has 200hp does not necessarily mean that you ever use it.
3) The analogy is meant to illustrate how many human “slaves” one would need to have available to give you that kind of power. Since we expect our cars to be ready 24hours a day if you are a kindly ruler and only expect 8 hours of work at a time out of your slaves one could say that you would need a stable of 2160 slaves to cover 3 shifts for our Insights.
The Party’s Over is a rather extreme book and I do not agree with all of the conclusions Richard arrives at. I would recommend it though. It has a lot of interesting stuff in it, but like everything else should be taken with a grain of salt.
Just think how far we could go if we used 100% of the available energy in a single gallon of gasoline. That is to say, if we utilized 100% of the available atomic energy.
Don't know the exact measurement, but I know that the ICE uses only a fraction.
Maybe my high school science teacher was wrong...
Don't know the exact measurement, but I know that the ICE uses only a fraction.
Maybe my high school science teacher was wrong...
G
Guest
·Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Hi Ext1jdh:
___The energy that binds the carbon and whatever else is in a gallon of fuel would make a gallon of gasoline the equivalent of a Fusion weapon if we could only figure out a way to crush those little atoms toward each other with less energy then what they would give back after the reaction as well as how to capture this energy with its sun like temperatures …
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___[email:20am7a1p][email protected][/email:20am7a1p]
___The energy that binds the carbon and whatever else is in a gallon of fuel would make a gallon of gasoline the equivalent of a Fusion weapon if we could only figure out a way to crush those little atoms toward each other with less energy then what they would give back after the reaction as well as how to capture this energy with its sun like temperatures …
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___[email:20am7a1p][email protected][/email:20am7a1p]
G
Guest
·Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Hi James:
“Beam me up Scotty”
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___[email:2exp5p41][email protected][/email:2exp5p41]
“Beam me up Scotty”
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___[email:2exp5p41][email protected][/email:2exp5p41]
Hi Foxpaw-
After further consideration I would agree with you about the misleading part. Richard’s use of the term “slave” is unnecessarily and inappropriately loaded with negative connotation. “Worker” would be a more appropriate and unbiased term. Besides I have to make amends for my non-PC and rude remark of yesterday; sorry xcel, I couldn’t resist it. :twisted:
After further consideration I would agree with you about the misleading part. Richard’s use of the term “slave” is unnecessarily and inappropriately loaded with negative connotation. “Worker” would be a more appropriate and unbiased term. Besides I have to make amends for my non-PC and rude remark of yesterday; sorry xcel, I couldn’t resist it. :twisted:
just think, the pack would never drain, run forever on a single tank...of hydrogen...
then again, if we had simple total mass conversion, we wouldn't need cars. And what fun would that be? Think about it, a manual transmission TMC drive with air conditioning? blech...
then again, if we had simple total mass conversion, we wouldn't need cars. And what fun would that be? Think about it, a manual transmission TMC drive with air conditioning? blech...
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!