General STS thread
Re: General STS thread
20.5. I lost a tenth or three based on some lights and I was able to go home the normal way which is shorter and quicker but may be a tad worse for fuel economy.
Re: General STS thread
20.4. Lost 2 tenths at the gate because stupidity. It is going to be difficult to maintain my goal of 20 (which means 20.7 on the DIC) for this tank. But it looks like I will get close anyway.
Re: General STS thread
It was down to 20.2 at one point but back up to 20.4 in the driveway. I think it probably wants to land around 20.5 or a touch higher, which I would call 20 mpg. This is why I like my cars to have trip computers so I can get feedback on this kind of experiment. It's interesting.
Re: General STS thread
20.6. Briefly touched 20.8. What changed? I started using neutral to coast at certain times. DFCO doesn't seem to engage much below 40 or 45 so that is one case. The strategy there is I may not want to engage DFCO because I don't really want to shed speed. Or, when I lift, it is too slow to even engage DFCO and I may as well freewheel coast. It did seem to immediately pick up tenths when I started this so that's something. The low this morning was 20.2 so touching 20.8 and ending up at 20.6 says something about those results.
I feel even more comfortable with my proclamation that this thing is worth about 20 mpg for my commute, best case. I guess that is beating EPA, though it's also a little unsatisfying that I can't even beat the corrected EPA 2008 highway figure, which is already kind of low (21). But then my commute isn't all highway.
I had a brief tinge of stress when cars started to clog up the road but then I remembered I am driving for fuel economy and I just relaxed in the right lane. Yesterday morning I forgot to mention there was a 4th gen Firebird that just hammered on it off an entrance ramp. I had to let that one go...he would have ran away if it was an LS1 anyway.
I feel even more comfortable with my proclamation that this thing is worth about 20 mpg for my commute, best case. I guess that is beating EPA, though it's also a little unsatisfying that I can't even beat the corrected EPA 2008 highway figure, which is already kind of low (21). But then my commute isn't all highway.
I had a brief tinge of stress when cars started to clog up the road but then I remembered I am driving for fuel economy and I just relaxed in the right lane. Yesterday morning I forgot to mention there was a 4th gen Firebird that just hammered on it off an entrance ramp. I had to let that one go...he would have ran away if it was an LS1 anyway.
Re: General STS thread
20.6. A fun side effect of trying to maintain momentum is taking turns at elevated speeds, for efficiency.
Re: General STS thread
And that's when this thread became lame.kevm14 wrote: I had a brief tinge of stress when cars started to clog up the road but then I remembered I am driving for fuel economy and I just relaxed in the right lane. Yesterday morning I forgot to mention there was a 4th gen Firebird that just hammered on it off an entrance ramp. I had to let that one go...he would have ran away if it was an LS1 anyway.
Re: General STS thread
Relax, it is a one tank experiment.
Re: General STS thread
Go on...kevm14 wrote:Relax, it is a one tank experiment.
Re: General STS thread
If it's not I'll have to kill myself.
"He died of not enough wide open throttle"
"He died of not enough wide open throttle"
Re: General STS thread
I looked at the Wiki for the 5L50.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_5L40-E_transmission
It is older than I thought! It has only powered what we'd consider to be GM vehicles since the 2003 CTS. But it actually dates back to the E39 5-series.
Did they actually design this for BMW? It seems likely. And check out the predecessor 4L30.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_4L30-E_transmission
Look at all those BMWs! Since 1990! And we know the history with the Turbo 400 and 4L80E for companies outsourcing trans supply to GM. I just didn't realize the depth of it on the lighter duty side.
It goes even further back to the late 60s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-Hydramatic_180
GM has been making light duty transmissions for decades in Strasbourg, France, evidently. They went from 3 speeds in the late 60s, to 4, 5 and even 6 speeds by 2007. That's pretty cool.
I'd argue GM lost years of R&D because after the 6L45/50 I don't think they have any other trans supply contracts. Because 2008 meltdown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_5L40-E_transmission
It is older than I thought! It has only powered what we'd consider to be GM vehicles since the 2003 CTS. But it actually dates back to the E39 5-series.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_5_Ser ... nsmissionsThe 5L40-E was designated in either "M82" (rear-wheel drive) or "MX5" (all-wheel drive) versions for service in BMW vehicles from 2000 model year until the design was superseded by (for BMW) the 6L45E and (for all others) the 6L50E series electronic automatic transmissions in 2007
Did they actually design this for BMW? It seems likely. And check out the predecessor 4L30.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_4L30-E_transmission
Look at all those BMWs! Since 1990! And we know the history with the Turbo 400 and 4L80E for companies outsourcing trans supply to GM. I just didn't realize the depth of it on the lighter duty side.
It goes even further back to the late 60s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-Hydramatic_180
GM has been making light duty transmissions for decades in Strasbourg, France, evidently. They went from 3 speeds in the late 60s, to 4, 5 and even 6 speeds by 2007. That's pretty cool.
I'd argue GM lost years of R&D because after the 6L45/50 I don't think they have any other trans supply contracts. Because 2008 meltdown.