10-27-2009, 03:55 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
EcoModding Lurker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: central NJ
Posts: 14
Thanks: 1
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
questions on manual driving
Hey...ive just got some simple questions. Basically...regarding starting in first gear vs 2nd gear
Is it more efficient to use 1st gear for a minimum of time, and short shift(1800 rpm) into 2nd? or drag first gear out a little longer and shift to 3rd?
or...Is starting in 2nd better, because of the taller ratio? but with more load on the engine it may not be worth it?
and finally...is there a "minimum" rpm at where you will be using less fuel? for hypothetical example...if i shift to 5th at 25 mpg, the engine chugs a little bit around 900 rpms. Or if i stay in 4th at 25mph...it runs smoother but at 1200 rpms. Which version is better?
|
|
|
|
10-27-2009, 04:05 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
|
Pishtaco
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 346
Thanks: 2
Thanked 31 Times in 25 Posts
|
It depends on the gear ratios in your transmission, and your transaxle's final drive ratio. Some cars can start in second gear fine. Some can skip gears without a beat. Some can lug at low rpm in 5th gear. Others can't. Generally speaking, lugging your engine at too low an rpm is a bad thing to do. I'd rather err on the side of wasting a little gas, rather than damaging an engine.
__________________
Darrell
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
6MT. 38.1 mpg avg over 14,000 miles, 173% of '08 EPA
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
5MT. 45.8 mpg avg over 12,250 miles, 164% of '08 EPA
|
|
|
|
10-27-2009, 04:20 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 695
Thanks: 14
Thanked 16 Times in 11 Posts
|
I regularly start in 2nd gear. I shift early and "semi-lug" my engine, down to about 1000 rpm in some cases. I hate driving above 50 mph, because that takes me above 2000 rpm. You can see the results below.
__________________
- - - - -Best 10-mile commute: 87.7 mpg
- - - - -Best tank: 77.2 mpg / 935 miles
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
|
|
|
10-27-2009, 09:18 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 998
Vibe - '09 Vibe Base (2ZR-FE) 90 day: 35.32 mpg (US)
Thanks: 10
Thanked 43 Times in 40 Posts
|
...too much lugging for too long duration can "eat" main bearings, epecially if the engine's already old and parts are obviously worn.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
|
|
|
10-27-2009, 09:38 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
|
Weight Reduction
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 97
neon - '95 neon Highline 90 day: 37.7 mpg (US) Subaru - '98 Legacy L Wagon 90 day: 29.94 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
As previously mentioned, there is no benefit to lugging your engine for the sake of saving fuel. You will replace a $3,500 engine once you spin a bearing, or snap a connecting rod and burn up many times the amount of money replacing your engine, or vehicle.
Row through the gears at 60% throttle or so and you will see the best combination of acceleration, and gas mileage in my opinion. Skipping gears is ok if you feel guilty about shifting through all 5 speeds, but only if you are not dropping below 1,800 rpm or so in any upshift. (unless traveling downhill when you won't lug the engine.)
Some people have mentioned reaping excellent gas mileage from never going over 2,000 rpms but every vehicle is different. My V8 truck can handle shifting early, its got 8 cylinders to power me along effortlessly. My 4 cylinder car can not be shifted too early with out lugging, it all depends on the vehicle and engine, play it by ear and gas receipt.
you'll find that winning combo of fuel efficiency, and longevity of your engine.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
|
|
|
10-27-2009, 10:30 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
|
Don't Panic
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 3,017
Thanks: 21
Thanked 58 Times in 45 Posts
|
you really have to define "lugging" better.
yes there is a minimum rpm to keep the oil distributed, but I don't know that it is 1800rpm, or even 1000 rpm.
Bearing wear and low RPM high/load operation.
Lugging the engine - good or bad for economy?
Key concepts:
1. the rpm must be sufficient to keep the oil layer intact, i.e. above idle.
2. Bearing wear is a function of rpm and load at the low end. extremely low rpm is usually pretty low torque for an ice, so it is somewhat self-regulating.
3. if you are centering your shifts on bsfc peak, you don't really have anything to worry about anyway.
I just don't want folks racing their engines out of an irrational fear of a $3500 engine repair bill.
__________________
I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
|
|
|
|
10-27-2009, 10:39 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 695
Thanks: 14
Thanked 16 Times in 11 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcb
3. if you are centering your shifts on bsfc peak, you don't really have anything to worry about anyway.
|
Bingo. 
__________________
- - - - -Best 10-mile commute: 87.7 mpg
- - - - -Best tank: 77.2 mpg / 935 miles
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
|
|
|
10-27-2009, 11:01 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
|
EcoModding Lurker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: central NJ
Posts: 14
Thanks: 1
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
well i didnt mean to totally lug the engine around. But more like.... for example, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, all using 10% throttle to maintain safe acceleration. Or, start in 2nd and use say 14% throttle and 10% in third. Any advantage either way? Its just rpms vs load im asking about basically. And please explain bsfc peak? or better yet...how do i find it for my car? i know that is something like brake specific fuel consumption...but i thought that was for figuring out proper AFRs on the dyno?
Last edited by j.reed; 10-27-2009 at 11:07 PM..
|
|
|
|
10-27-2009, 11:31 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
|
Moderate your Moderation.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 6,885
Thanks: 461
Thanked 185 Times in 161 Posts
|
10% throttle isn't safe, especially in NJ. 40-45% is safer, but doesn't load the engine as much as you could.
If you go 100%, or close to it, you're probably running in open loop, dumping fuel. Try 70-75% and see how you feel about it. If it's too much, back it off a bit.
__________________
"¿ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"
Quote:
|
Because bean counters always win, that's why.
|
|
|
|
|
10-28-2009, 12:34 AM
|
#10 (permalink)
|
|
Don't Panic
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 3,017
Thanks: 21
Thanked 58 Times in 45 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by j.reed
And please explain bsfc peak? or better yet...how do i find it for my car? i know that is something like brake specific fuel consumption...but i thought that was for figuring out proper AFRs on the dyno?
|
here are some:
The BSFC chart thread (post 'em if you got 'em)
Basically, if you know (or make a reasonable guess) under what load/rpm your engine makes the most power for a given amount fuel, you can control the throttle and shifting to maximize your efficiency during acceleration.
The big trick is knowing when to stop accelerating and start coasting, so you don't turn all that gas energy into brake heat.
In absence of actual data, I usually shift at 2700 rpm and keep the throttle at 3/4 open. My tdi is different, it is wide open throttle and shift at 2000 rpm.
here is the tdi graph, the peak "oval" is at the top of the torque curve centered at about 1800 rpm. When I shift at 2000 rpm it drops down to about 1600 rpm and so I accelerate from 1600 to 2000 rpm at the top of the graph where it is most efficient (plus I don't brake much)

__________________
I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Last edited by dcb; 10-28-2009 at 12:41 AM..
|
|
|
|
|