rpm/mpg
#72
06-17-2012 | 01:44 PM
Elite HDF Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,542
Likes: 161
From: Booming metropolis
But im not setting the cruise at 55 or 65it either
#74
06-17-2012 | 02:22 PM
Extreme HDF Member
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,216
Likes: 219
From: Glendale AZ
It's hard to believe but that's what I've found. I've got a 6 speed and only been using 6th gear if I'm cruising 75 or higher for sustained periods, otherwise I just leave it in 5th. I actually get better mileage if I do that...kinda weird huhh? Did a 200 mile trip yesterday barely using 6th gear and got 42 MPG.
#75
06-17-2012 | 02:49 PM
Elite HDF Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,873
Likes: 13
From: NW Arkansas
If you want to discuss this further I'm game as long as we can do it civily without turning it into a pissing match. Maybe we can both learn something.
I'll start by asking these questions:
If 12.1/1 was the ideal AFR for a more complete combustion then why is it that there is not a single emission controlled vehicle manufactured today running that AFR?
Hydrocarbon emissions increase proportionately as the AFR becomes richer. Isn't that true? And hydrocarbon emissions are essentially the measurement of unburnt fuel. So... If the hydrocarbon emission levels increase as the fuel mixture is richened, how is it then that the richer mixture could be producing a more complete burn? A more complete burn should result in lower hydrocarbon emissions.
And as for the fuel economy side of this, which is what this thread started out discussing, I'd ask a very similar question. If a 12.1/1 AFR provided the best fuel economy, then why isn't every manufacturer out there building vehicles that run that AFR?
I don't claim to be the definitive authority on this topic, but I think I do have a fairly sound general knowledge of it, and if I can add to that knowledge, that's a good thing.
I'll start by asking these questions:
If 12.1/1 was the ideal AFR for a more complete combustion then why is it that there is not a single emission controlled vehicle manufactured today running that AFR?
Hydrocarbon emissions increase proportionately as the AFR becomes richer. Isn't that true? And hydrocarbon emissions are essentially the measurement of unburnt fuel. So... If the hydrocarbon emission levels increase as the fuel mixture is richened, how is it then that the richer mixture could be producing a more complete burn? A more complete burn should result in lower hydrocarbon emissions.
And as for the fuel economy side of this, which is what this thread started out discussing, I'd ask a very similar question. If a 12.1/1 AFR provided the best fuel economy, then why isn't every manufacturer out there building vehicles that run that AFR?
I don't claim to be the definitive authority on this topic, but I think I do have a fairly sound general knowledge of it, and if I can add to that knowledge, that's a good thing.
#76
06-17-2012 | 07:11 PM
Extreme HDF Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 13,402
Likes: 932
From: Illinois
For a hundred years they ran 12.1 to 1. But along comes EPA (thank you Nixon) and the 14.7 to 1 has the lowest exhaust emissions so that is why everything runs that way today. Very lean and very hot.
That is also why many aftermarket companies offer all kinds of chips and programmers to get the motor to run the way it should. Capitalism at it's best.
That is also why many aftermarket companies offer all kinds of chips and programmers to get the motor to run the way it should. Capitalism at it's best.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Coloradohunter
General Harley Davidson Chat
19
07-17-2011 09:00 AM
bleeper
Exhaust System Topics
5
05-11-2007 02:01 AM