Grumpy Bears 2015 Silverado 2WD

[Grumpy Bear]

 

4,546 miles in June using 146.22 gallons = 31.09 miles. 

 

Of this 3,534 miles were using 0W30 for 30.4 mpg

Of this 1,012 miles were using 0W20 for 31.6 mpg

Thing is I think this has more to do with higher ambient temperature than viscosity. 

 

 

This graph is displayed to show how the curve in fuel used flattens as you get toward the left. Now over 30 mpg the variation I worked so hard to erase in fuel fills will start showing up in minor variations resulting in large changes in usage. This is where stats trump observations hands down. 

[swathdiver]

44 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

4,546 miles in June using 146.22 gallons = 31.09 miles. 

 

Of this 3,534 miles were using 0W30 for 30.4 mpg

Of this 1,012 miles were using 0W20 for 31.6 mpg

Thing is I think this has more to do with higher ambient temperature than viscosity. 

 

 

This graph is displayed to show how the curve in fuel used flattens as you get toward the left. Now over 30 mpg the variation I worked so hard to erase in fuel fills will start showing up in minor variations resulting in large changes in usage. This is where stats trump observations hands down. 

Pounds/Hour of what?

[Grumpy Bear]

On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 11:13 PM, swathdiver said:

Pounds/Hour of what?

Fuel, Sorry. Incomplete label. Thought MPG was enough but proved wrong. Thank you sir. Ol brain runs faster than my fingers sometimes. 

 

6/29/2019

 

Well being Saturday we got one more tank in which didn't really dent the monthly number above but it wasn't in the mid 31's either. Reason? A/C was on seven of the nine hours the motor was turning. It was 95F and humidity was over 75% and the wife wasn't having any part of windows and fresh air. (I was glad). Monthly number down to 31.02 from 31.09 mpg for June. Meh! I would expect the AC will be a part of life if this is going to be our summer. I'm good with 30 plus and the AC on. 

 

Edited June 30, 2019 by Grumpy Bear

[swathdiver]

Ok, so you're using Pounds per Hour in lieu of Gallons per Hour?  Never thought to calculate fuel use that way, aviation versus marine backgrounds???  LOL

[Grumpy Bear]

6 hours ago, swathdiver said:

Ok, so you're using Pounds per Hour in lieu of Gallons per Hour?  Never thought to calculate fuel use that way, aviation versus marine backgrounds???  LOL

Neither. Refining background. BTU content is referenced to pounds. Pounds per gallon a reference to volume. Gasoline is not of a constant density. For the example shown I used 6.30 pounds per gallon or a specific density of .756. This is actually a Commonwealth  Standard. I could have used 6.073 pounds per gallon or a gravity of .729. World wide the difference is quite large where aromatic content is not strictly regulated. 

 

You hear people say 'winter' and 'summer' gas. The difference, besides a hint of butane for the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) is the aromatic content. The BTU value is only 1.7% difference. (reference EPA). This also changes the specific gravity slightly thus the volume per pound. Usage is tied to BTU content not volume. At 20 mpg the winter summer argument is only a difference of 0.34 mpg. Most would not even notice it as pump variation per fill is higher than that and would mask it to all but the most serious stat's freaks. 

 

Okay, seriously...I used pounds to give the differences more gravity (pun intended). Larger graduations.  But the above is true as well. 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2019 by Grumpy Bear

[Grumpy Bear]

This is one of two 'Lookers" I ran across today. This was sitting in a truck stop in Mendota Illinois. This isn't a restoration. This is just well maintained and all OEM. I love it when I run across one like this. Let's a guy know he efforts are not wasted when he is chided for them. The other one was an early Ford Ranger also all original, OEM and a daily driver. I followed that fella half way up Ill Route 2. It was like following myself.  Even the frame and under sheet metal looks pretty much like it did the day she was built. What a nice example. 

 

T

 

It's been brutal here for over a week. 90+ F and high humidity. Goofy winds and storms daily. The other day I got trapped on the I-39 in backed up traffic over 3 miles long creeping at a snails pace but moving. 98 F, dead air and could wring the water out of the air. I don't care how low your thermostat is when you at 5 mph in those conditions stuff is going to get hot But not as badly as I would have thought. Water topped out at 195 F. Fan never kicked in. Oil made it to 201 F and the trans saw it's first trip past 180F by 2 degrees. I've also noticed this last week that there has been a fair amount of additional KI retard that IS ambient air driven. This has driven back the MPG a tad. Seems 85F plus minus a tad is a sweet spot. (more later, dinner's on). 

 

 

Edited July 4, 2019 by Grumpy Bear

[Grumpy Bear]

Anyway, (dinner and a nap and breakfast over). Took 1-1/2 liters of 55% glycol mix out of the system and replaced with water and Red Line Water Wetter. Mid 40% mix range. Hydrometer shows it below -20 F with burst -60F. 

 

This improves the thermal capacity of the coolant. Improved capacity lowers cylinder head temperature even at the same water temperature. Low CHT = less KI. Less KI = improved mpg. At least at the elevated temperatures so in essence this is a move to expand the range of good economy. Sort of like the 0W oils were to expand the lower range. Just opening the window wider. 

 

Now where is my coffee and Metamucil. 

 

*******************************************************************************************

7/4/2019 late day. 

 

This experiment worked well. While it's hard to determine the time weighted average KI the actual coolant/oil/transmission temperatures did respond lower overall. That needs a bit of explanation. 

 

170 thermostat is an approximation. It will 'throttle' at 173 F minimum. If it is showing a constant 175 F it getting close to fully open. By the time it's reading 177 F it is open and the system is riding on the air/coolant thermal capacity/flow rate balanced against the load. With air temperatures 90F and above and running 55 mph 177 F was pretty normal. Now it is 173 F on the flat and down hill runs and 175 on the average accents. Oil temperature dropped 2 to 3 F and transmission is the same but recovers faster. This based on a small sample 325 mile trip today. 

 

I'm now looking for the edge of the octane required to keep all the KI at bay. Tested 87 naturally and then 88. That test on the run home. On the fill today tank adjusted to 91 octane. Only had about a 30 mile look.

 

It's a 26 gallon tank so when 13 gallons was used up I filled with 89 to bring the 87 to 88. With another 13 gallons used filled with 93 to bring the tank to 91. 

 

I saw no difference between 87 and 88 other than that created by the coolant adjustment. 91 however backed the KI down quite a bit. Too soon to say a number but certain hills previous were -9.5*. Coolant adjustment took about 2* out. So far the 91 has it under or around 2* total on my selected hills. So close.

 

Nothing I've done to date that has lowered KI has produced a better MPG. No gasoline brand I've used to date has produced a statistically significant difference. What has happened is just a cooler running total system with a more rapid response. I'll take that.  

Edited July 5, 2019 by Grumpy Bear

[Grumpy Bear]

23 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Nothing I've done to date that has lowered KI has produced a better MPG. No gasoline brand I've used to date has produced a statistically significant difference. What has happened is just a cooler running total system with a more rapid response. I'll take that.  

Only restored what was lost by restoring what was and this only from the coolant. Gasoline octane value has had no effect ever....

Thought that needed clarification. 

 

Yesterdays trip was unusual. It is pretty much straight east and west. Wind was steady at 9 mph out of the south varying only a few degrees and a few mpg to gust. It's about 175 miles each way and I started on a partial tank. Pepper does not like winds above 5 mph and treats a dead right angle cross wind about the same as a head wind. About as long as that wind stays +/- 35-40 degrees from right angle and it did. My trip over has the sun on the drives side and as hot as it was and as much as I don't like too the windows were up and the AC was on. My partial tank sank from 31 to 28 mpg by the time I reached my destination. 28 was also my resettable segment number. On the way home sun is on the off side so my window down AC off and by tanks end she is at 30.3 mpg with the segment over 33 mpg when I top off at Rochelle Illinois.

 

That looks like the AC consumes 5 mpg to use in this situation.  

 

This fits well with previous observations (over 97,000 miles of experience). With a tail wind AC uses nothing you can meter. In a straight up head wind above 8 mph where the AFM isn't active anyway it uses about 1 mpg to run. In a cross wind where use of the AC toggles the AFM off it is a killer and that is the point. The AFM when on as much as mine is it contributes HUGE to the overall MPG numbers that can be obtained. 

 

Okay....wife calls as I am filling up and running about 2 hours later than her expectations and told to get the lead out .  

 

Wind has died back to 3 mph and I have a 10 mile north segment of interstate, a fresh tank, still over 80 degrees, dog panting and the wife in like and kind so....windows up, AC on and...…...I set the cruse at 70 mph and as soon as I clear the on ramp reset the segment meter. …:

 

24.8 mpg @ 70 mph with the AC on and AFM off.

 

Yea not an average over thousands of miles but a peak I'll bet everyone wanted to see. Once off the Interstate I let the meter run and dialed it back to the speed limit, 55 mph and the combine was 28 and change by the time I parked it some 15 miles later. Nice recovery. Oddly I want to know what 70 mph in a dead wind on a day cool enough to turn off the AC looks like. Ah, for another day. 

 

So a few things. 

 

1.) Situational driving. Working with conditions instead of in spite of them yields measurable and hansom results. 

2.) Tuning to keep the AFM active and maintaining to keep it clean likewise. 

 

[KARNUT]

In the articles I’ve read recently the AC doesn’t affect mileage anymore than wind drag with the windows open. Of course that probably depends on the vehicle. Remembering the old days you could drive with the widows down and the wind noise didn’t seem as loud as it does now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swathdiver]

Not bad Marty, mine delivered 18 mpg @ 70 with the AC on and AFM off running at about 7200 pounds yesterday.  It was 96-97 degrees out during the run south and trans/transfer case temps got up to 157 on the highway and 167 on city streets to our destination.  I think the oil was 221 or 211, can't remember.  Coolant was 194-195.

[Grumpy Bear]

13 hours ago, KARNUT said:

In the articles I’ve read recently the AC doesn’t affect mileage anymore than wind drag with the windows open. Of course that probably depends on the vehicle. Remembering the old days you could drive with the widows down and the wind noise didn’t seem as loud as it does now.

As I noted the AC doesn't seem to have much effect on it UNTIL that AC becomes the 'thing' that keeps the AFM off. It's load based and as such it's zeros and ones. It's on or its off and measured by a fractions of a horsepower. The amount that triggers that is finitely minimal. When I first started working with this system I estimated it to have about a 10% impact on MPG. Stock I expect that is true at least in trucks with my OEM layout. Currently my AFM contributes roughly 18% to my mpg. The AC unit isn't using 18% more fuel, the lack of AFM is. My duty cycle percentage is pretty high. Much higher than GM ever imagined.

 

What I've done with heat management and viscosity manipulation gives the same effect the original Range device intended to give. They did it by moving AFM trigger parameters to keep it on. I've done it by making Pepper operate more time INSIDE the factory parameters. If I were to plug in the original Range it would only be off during the cycle time 'timed out' segment and effectively I'd have a 4 cylinder. NOT GOOD. 

 

The Range excessively loaded the motor by forcing it to work harder than designed. The way I do it, it works less than design and by a bunch.

 

13 hours ago, swathdiver said:

Not bad Marty, mine delivered 18 mpg @ 70 with the AC on and AFM off running at about 7200 pounds yesterday.  It was 96-97 degrees out during the run south and trans/transfer case temps got up to 157 on the highway and 167 on city streets to our destination.  I think the oil was 221 or 211, can't remember.  Coolant was 194-195.

Thanks James. I would think you fuel numbers quite reasonable for the loads you ask her haul/pull. Temps overall look pretty good too unless your oil number is actually 221 and not 211. Still if you change often enough...… 

 

Back to your fuel number. National Average is 17 so getting 18 hauling around 7200? That's VERY GOOD. Normally I'd say you guys in Florida have the heat thing rough but this last few weeks I think we are about even. This is NUTS. The humidity is suffocating. 

 

 

[CadillacLuke24]

How do you drain coolant? My last adventure resulted in the petcock pissing all over the right front end of the frame, the garage floor, and the skid plate. And I managed to get only about a gallon. 

 

Perhaps my MityVac may be of service. 

[Grumpy Bear]

3 hours ago, CadillacLuke24 said:

How do you drain coolant? My last adventure resulted in the petcock pissing all over the right front end of the frame, the garage floor, and the skid plate. And I managed to get only about a gallon. 

 

Perhaps my MityVac may be of service. 

You did better than most. The adjustments I've been making are small and so I pull it from the overflow tank. Hammer moves I haven't done yet. When I did the thermostat modification I pulled up upper hose and just cleaned up the mess. Not having a petcock is silly. You figure something out....share brother, share. 

[swathdiver]

14 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Normally I'd say you guys in Florida have the heat thing rough but this last few weeks I think we are about even. This is NUTS. The humidity is suffocating. 

The trip prior to that, the outside temp was 99-100 degrees on the trip down south.  

[Grumpy Bear]

Pepper is getting her once a year waxing one panel at a time as weather permits. I know that sounds like a goofy thing to log but this is also my maintenance log and body care is part of maintenance. Straight away I found a new chip in the first panel. The roof. Tiny where a bird played chicken and lost.  I use New-Finish or Turtle Wax Ice neither of which is technically a wax but a sealer. Neither has a stunning show car shine but both are very hydrophobic and stay put. Staying put is my #1 concern. Also cuts down on the ever expanding inventory. No detail wax required. Just distilled water, a misting bottle and a medium nap microfiber. It is way to much work to wash, clay and wax to have it disappear in a washing or three. 

 

Caught a rock in the windshield on the 4th.  One of those state never covered gravel trucks with the sign, "Not responsible for damage to vehicles". I wasn't following. He came from the opposite direction and left me a present. Small chip but still.....