What you are saying, do you ? exactly what I always thought too! The Cio?: if the same car has more? power, then in order to have the same performance in the same conditions, sar? need to insist less on the accelerator pedal, so less load = less fuel consumption.Originally Written by V.V.
This? according to me, exactly when it happens on some cars is mounted on is a motor "undersized", this consumes significantly more? of the same model with an engine of larger displacement and more power...
You are confusing things a bit! According to me the speech ?: to proceed for example at 100Km/h with the original map, you have to hold the throttle to 45%! With a modified map, and thus more power will we need? keep the accelerator to 35%.
Then, in parit? performance, you'll need a 10% less of the accelerator, and since this ? closely linked to the quantity? diesel fuel is injected, as a result will consume less!
Reverse speech: a parit? of the accelerator (so considering even 45%), in terms of series we were driving 100Km/h, while with greater power, travel at 110Km/h. Then in parit? of consumption, we will go to pi? strong...
In the end I answered.
Also if really? I would like to understand why? usually those who edit the map says that you can? increase the power or reduce the consumption. Why? instead, according to them, these two situations cannot coexist, as from my idea you just expressed above? Or my reasoning ? wrong?
PS: of course, the values used in the example are pure fantasy, just to make a practical example: ir? clear...
perhaps I have not explained well what does it change in consumption with the same speed and rpm with the car is the same but with different power to understand this better, for example we put the same identical car but with a different horse that s? an alfa 156 2.4 mjet from 175cv:
ori,then with 175cv,at 2000 rpm in sixth we travel to 140 km-h
from the mod,and then with 350cv,at 2000 rpm in sixth we travel 140 km-h? or not?
the rpm, and then the quantity of the pedal that we squeeze them are always the same the same? or not?
what changes in consumption??
bart reply please.
Of course, at 2000rpm, we'll always 140Km/h (if we do not do mechanical work, and then the transmission ? the same), regardless of the power of the engine!
The difference is in the torque demand, which we do via the accelerator pedal: then with 175CV we will be with the throttle to 45%, while with 350CV us we need? instead of the 30%...
I know that don't you understand... you can also get a 6-million-billion-nm torque but to go to 140km-h with the same car, we will want to always 2000 rpm and 45% of the pedal!
the rpm, and then the speed is not created from nothing by crushing, less the accelerator!!
not ? as you say McJTD... having more torque, equal? speed? and engine rpm to the pedal-the crush of less
to understand the concept you should understand how to interpret a map
from the original, to go to 140km/h at 2000rpm you have a signal of the load of the accelerator pedal equal to 40%, and ask to the controller, a value of 1000
be mapped, to go to 140km/h at 2000rpm you have a signal load of the accelerator pedal equal to 35%, why? having mapped the value to 1000 you do not find the pi? 40% of the pedal, but for 35% of the pedal, while 40% of the pedal you have now as the value of torque 1050
the numbers are taken completely at random, just as an example
[COLOR="#0000FF"][CENTER][B]In life you never stop learning![/B][/CENTER][/COLOR]
[CENTER][COLOR="#FF0000"][B]I do Not answer to private messages with requests for help! If you need a hand, ASK ON the FORUM!!![/B][/COLOR][/CENTER]
guys I know that here the numbers in case you give right!!no offense ?!!
we put the case that in the map the pedal to 2000 rpm and 50% of the required angle pedal load chiametelo as you want, and we gave a million litres of diesel fuel, where before there was only one gram,in those rides, and the percentage of the billions diesel pedal the car will make more speed or not?I say firmly no!!
if the car and always the same, and change only the cavalry has the required rpm and the required foot pedal travel at the same speed!if you say the contrary, and as to say that revolutions are born from nothing, ie with less pedal obvious menogiri and less load has always the same speed? if not more so. guys do you hear from a ingegnre mechanical understanding you f? the black eyes!! or can you? be that li f? to me!! but I strongly doubt!!
among other things, in the forum non c'? no one titrated the ncodesto so that it can shed light on this strange phenomenon??
Last edited by mcjtd; 30-11-2012 at 16:33
In fact I think the speech to make concerns more? factors: com'? true that with the increase in torque decreases the load on the pedal, ? altres? true that the speed? of the exchange, and then the ratio of Rpm/V-Eff (Schemes & Speed?) remain unaffected because of the gear ratios of the gearbox that ? to be considered a constant; therefore, it is necessary to consider the best volumetric efficiency, which is reflected in a reduced loading on the pedal to reach and maintain a given speed (Rpm) and, therefore, a particular fast? (V-Eff), which as mentioned above ? the result of a constant ? the gear ratios of the transmission. A higher efficiency in parit? load.
But not limited to:
Car Stock -> 3^ Gear - 80% Load - 3800Rpm & 90Km/h
Drive Mapped -> 3^ Gear - 50% Load - 3800Rpm & 90Km/h
Then,
Car Stock -> 3^ Gear - 80% Load - 3800Rpm & 90Km/h
Drive Mapped -> 3^ Gear - 80% Load - 4200Rpm & 120Km/h
And this, according to me, determines the true reduction of the power consumption of a comparison between car stock and mapped: in parit? load a drive mapped to develop a regime more, and then a speed? greater or equal? regime and speed? ? need to less because of better volumetric efficiency.
I hope I've explained!
I'm not convinced...eliminamo reasoning for a moment, the control units and the percentage of the working engine and load pedal angle and ragionamo for a moment, no-frills electronic means.
if I have a car with 175cv at 2000 rpm say 2000 rpm and then assumes that in order to have these 2000 rpm and I have to mash the pedal a number,let's say a quarter of the race,I have a speed? that ? a constant,you said you, too, of 140km-h if I in this car dont make the engine and the port to 350cv and leave all the rest unchanged to have the same speed? 140 km-h 2000 rpm, do I need to do to my engine, and always a quarter of the accelerator, do I need to give to get those rides! the only thing that will change? sar? the acceleration and in a blink of an eye with that pedal schiaccito the same way to me, porter? a 140km-h...
with the ecu of a half hour, and worse, because if no electronic control I can give a quarter of gas plus a quid for the car viaggera more quickly, but with electronics this is not the case because the ecu ? a German of the pipe and not cheating on your regimen!
if 50% pedal gives you 2000 rpm with any other sw from super cv at 50% of pedal always 2000 rpm do you give? you can not escape.
then you can create all the formulas you want, but if the speed to the revs of the engine ? a constant does not there are means to do it vary
Last edited by mcjtd; 30-11-2012 at 21:05
First of all, I did not invent any formula, but I was trying to reason with you others and to yourself which I think is much more? experienced than me; secondly, the difference is in the load from the pedal: dov'? wrote that after you worked on your car you have to give the same load as the pedal to get the same Rpm then the same V-Eff? Even if it were as you say yourself, that is, that the varying of the power does not vary the loads, with a good map you might still have a reduction of consumption because of better volumetric efficiency IMHO.
Write permission
Quote
