Quick Test: P&G with EOC vs w/o EOC shows 24% gain

[Daox]

Yesterday on the way to work my engine kill switch started acting up a bit (its a really cheap switch I'm sure not designed for many cycles). So, I decided to keep the engine on and do P&G. Until then, my tank average was right around 66 mpg measured with my scangauge. I drove home without EOC and got 53.0 mpg last night. This morning I got 53.3 mpg on the way into work. So, for those of you who don't think EOC isn't worth it, thats a solid 24% increase in mileage.

To further emphasis this, I do mostly highway driving where the difference between EOC and w/o EOC is minimized due to the faster driving. Also, I don't run my alternator, if I had, idling losses would have been even higher.

So, yes, EOC is worth it IMO.

[320touring]

very interesting!

Thanks for that..

I'm trying to figure if E off C would be ok for my glide phase on the Motorway..

only issue is the fact that I NEED brake vacuum constantly, as its stop/start, and engine braking is not rapid enough to slow the car.

mind you, 24% would get me to 50mpg UK..

is the 24% difference from Engine ON to Engine Off?

cheers!

[Daox]

Yup, EOC = engine off coasting

If you're worried about having enough brake vacuum just build a small tank out of PVC pipe as a reservoir.

[comptiger5000]

This is enough of a difference to make me want to find a cheap 5 speed XJ (Jeep Cherokee) as a city beater/DD. The ability to EOC, etc, and the 1100 pound weight reduction over my current Jeep would make a huge difference. I'd probably be getting 16 - 18 city, versus my current 12 - 13. On the highway, the difference would be mostly due to the smaller engine.

Unfortunately, this and/or a manual tranny swap in my Jeep will likely have to wait until after college, due to budget, and nowhere to store 2 vehicles up here, amongst other things. If I could find a place to store the 5.9, I'd keep the XJ on campus, and the 5.9 elsewhere, and use it to trailer the XJ up here and back home. The roads around here would be great for EOC. However, the reduction in space for stuff, and the much less comfortable ride is enough that I wouldn't want to just drive the XJ up here and have it as my only vehicle during college.

Or, maybe I'd even get a smaller manual tranny vehicle, but my biggest limitation is that I HATE FWD, and small, efficient RWD vehicles are hard to come by...

[dcb]

you are weird, whats so bad with FWD that you cannot operate it?

[AeroModder]

Torque steer, understeer, nose-heavy, crowded engine bay, faster front tire wear, limited power/acceleration traction...

[dcb]

but you can get a tiny stick shift that gets awesome mpg for peanuts, get over it.

[cmj]

Originally Posted by dcb

but you can get a tiny stick shift that gets awesome mpg for peanuts, get over it.

I come from a world of drifting.. A RWD dominated sport.. I love my FF civic, and it's MPG's

[RobertSmalls]

Originally Posted by AeroModder

Torque steer, understeer, ... faster front tire wear, limited power/acceleration traction...

These things barely come in to play when you can drive efficiently for days without ever producing more than 30HP, and your engine peaks under 100HP.

[comptiger5000]

Aeromodder's got it. The torque steer doesn't bother me, but being nose-heavy and tending towards understeer are major issues. I hate understeer, and I tend to push cars a bit in the corners, as it helps me avoid slowing down on the backroads. Even driven gently, FWD cars have worse tire wear (unbalanced front to rear) than RWD cars.

Plus, IMO, FWD sucks in the snow. Yeah, it's a little harder to get stuck, but it's nowhere near as pleasant as far as handling when you're moving.

A RWD converted 2 door Accord with a stick and some aero mods would be perfect.