View Single Post
Old 08-15-2009, 12:20 AM   #10 (permalink)
JacobAziza
Master EcoModder
 
JacobAziza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 322

Big Orange Work Truck - '83 F-250
90 day: 27.77 mpg (US)

Jessica's - '04 Matrix
90 day: 41.21 mpg (US)
Thanks: 20
Thanked 19 Times in 16 Posts
I don't follow your example.
During the glide you should be getting infinity mpg (instant).

If you get 8mpg during the pulse, over the 10 miles worth of pulse phase you use 1.25 gallons of fuel. Since the rest of the time the engine is off, you also used 1.25 gallons over the whole 40 miles, which works out to 32mpg.
So the question in this example would be, if you get 8mpg while accelerating, and can coast 3x for each pulse, do you get more or less than 32mpg from driving at a steady 35mph?

I have no idea how much more fuel it takes to accelerate the mass of the vehicle than it takes to maintain a given speed. That, and how far one can coast would determine the trade off. I can see how it might work either way, which is why hopefully someone with a diesel and a scan gauge can provide us some real numbers.

In my case, my vehicle is very heavy, so accelerating may be more a factor than for most of you?
I noticed when I had a 3.6 ton load recently that it would coast more than twice as far as I was used to, but none the less my mileage dropped from the 24-26 I've been getting the past few months to 22.
__________________




"I would usually take off on foot in the morning and being the gentleman I am---and to make a point about the inefficiency of car ownership---leave Dear Wife to dig out the [snowed in] car to drive to work (we worked in adjacent buildings). I would always arrive before her." http://forum.earlyretirementextreme....pic.php?id=881
  Reply With Quote