[SentraSE-R]

Originally Posted by ps2fixer

Of how I understand P&G, you speed up quick, kill the engine and coast in neutral and repeat the cycle to get your wanted average speed.

My question would be then, If speeding up quickly is more effective than speeding up slowly (max mpg while running) wouldn't speeding up fast to your target speed, and continue at that speed and EOC when you need to slow down/turn? Maybe I'm just not understanding how P&G actually works

The way to turn a 40 mpg highway drive into a 50 mpg highway drive is high speed pulse and glide. Normal driving @ 60 mph = ~1.5 GPH. 60 mph/1.5 gph = 40 mpg.

When you pulse from 50 mph to 60 mph, or 55-65 at moderate acceleration, you guzzle gas at ~3 GPH (60/3 = 20 mpg). When you glide back down from 60-50, or from 65-55, you're in neutral, sipping gas at .14 GPH (60/.14 = ~430 mpg). But you're accelerating only 1/3 of the time, about 8 seconds average on a pulse, and gliding 2/3 of the time, ~16 seconds on the average glide.

Over an hour, P&G has me using 3 GPH for 1/3 hour, or 1 gallon, pulsing. Add .14 GPH for 2/3 hour, or .09 gallon. 60 mph/1.09 gph = 55 mpg.

P&G benefits get much better at slow speeds. P&G in 4th gear, 25-40 mph, engine off, means the engine runs 25% of the time. P&G in 3rd gear, 18-32 mph, I'm only running the engine 15% of the time.