View Single Post
Old 07-16-2010, 06:04 PM   #5 (permalink)
ShadeTreeMech
Basjoos Wannabe
 
ShadeTreeMech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 870

The Van - '97 Mercury Villager gs
90 day: 19.8 mpg (US)

Lyle the Kindly Viking - '99 Volvo V70
90 day: 25.82 mpg (US)
Thanks: 174
Thanked 49 Times in 32 Posts
I do much the same thing on a hill that I travel frequently. I'll accelerate to 60, put it in neutral, and can coast from 1 mile to 1.5 miles depending on traffic; when traffic is heavy, that last .5 mile puts me going too slow. Were I to try coasting at 50, I wouldn't have the speed to coast over the rolling bits of the hill without putting it back into gear.

According to info from my SG higher speeds while coasting gives ridiculous high mpg readings compared to even 10 mph slower. And if I do it right I can generally accelerate to the 60 mph without making the slushbox downshift. I expiremented a bit with using the coasting fuel cutoff built into the computer to get "free" miles, but coasting seems to use less fuel in the long run.

Maybe it's just the design of the engine, or an unusually slippery body, but I've gotten my best mpg figures when traveling north of 60, even compared to being ridiculously light on the throttle and trying to stay in top gear at slower speeds. It honestly makes no sense.
__________________
RIP Maxima 1997-2012


Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf View Post
I think you missed the point I was trying to make, which is that it's not rational to do either speed or fuel economy mods for economic reasons. You do it as a form of recreation, for the fun and for the challenge.
  Reply With Quote