EcoTaz Test by Dice

Dice it's very funny taking Bill's post out of context like that when I think back to him being the brunt of all sorts of good natured ribs at his habit of driving slow everywhere. 62 is practically nosebleed, I've ridden over a hundred miles at 55 in a 65 zone and also followed that many at the same pace. I'm actually more skeptical his truck ever went as fast as 67 than the reverse lol.

 

What I find funny is that most who claim to be getting high mpg's always want to leave out important information, such as, weight they pull, what kind of trailer, routes they run and if they run a dedicated route.

Now if I ran a dedicated route, across flat land, all interstates, light loads, pulling a van and a lot of time to get there, I'm sure I could get great fuel mileage too!

Now I'm not saying Dice is one of them, but there are some on the other forum who don't want to give all information but sure want to boast about their big fuel mileage numbers.

I'd be willing to bet that if those big mpg guys actually ran the speed limit and wasn't a slug from a stop sign/traffic light, their numbers would be a lot lower, even with all the add on parts.

 

One more try...

I thought I was clear. An engine takes a given amount of fuel, and that fuel contains a set amount of chemical energy that can be released by combustion; let's just say 100 units. Of those 100 units, the engine generates 90 units of heat energy (90% combustion efficiency) and uses that heat to do 36 units of work (40% thermal efficiency.)

Never said there weren't, they are, however, irrelevant to my point.

Yep! As I admitted, I fubared the math by compounding the %'s. Teach me to do stuff while I'm eating!

Not when I was talking engine efficiency, I don't.

Those are just below...

40%, that's right, but at the crankshaft...

^Here's your mistake^

Go back to the 36 units of work from above. To get that same 36 units of work from our new, more effecient engine will take less fuel. we'll work backwards to figure it out. We didn't the thermal efficiency of the engine, so it still takes 90 units of heat to get our 36 units of work. But now, because we're able to get all the heat out of our fuel, it only takes 90 units of fuel, not 100. And there is your 10% reduction in fuel use.

Yep!

Not really, and it wasn't I who brought the oranges, raisins, walnuts, and grapes!

 

It was an sarcastic overexageration LIKE the statements you take out of context. I repeat You can have the the title of Mr. Tester or whatever you self proclaim. You still do not know anything about our product to give an honest evaluation nor any of the others that never have used the product.