View Single Post
Old 08-14-2009, 11:20 PM   #10 (permalink)
JacobAziza
Master EcoModder
 
JacobAziza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 397

Big Orange Work Truck - '83 Ford F-250
90 day: 27.54 mpg (US)

Jessica's - '04 Toyota Matrix
90 day: 41.21 mpg (US)

Ninjette - '01 Kawasaki Ninja EX250R
Thanks: 44
Thanked 68 Times in 45 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.
__________________




Quote:
Originally Posted by Piwoslaw View Post
A few months ago I returned home just as my neighbor pulled into his driveway. It was cold (around freezing) with some rain and sleet, and he yells to me: You rode your bike? In this weather?!?

So the other day we both returned home at the same time again, only now the weather is warm, sunny, with no wind. And I yell to him: You took the car? In this weather?!?
  Reply With Quote