Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesla
I'm keenly reading all the input here, I have a science background so understand all the momentum, gravity, potential energy stuff.
Just trying to get my head around the whole pulse & glide thing, there is a few runs I do through undulating country, where I do the no brakes thing, all about timing the crest, to just roll over the top, allow gravity to pull you down, throw in a bit of juice at it on the next rise, then go again, this works well.
But I'm not convinced that doing the same on the flat will have the same benefit, particularly as vehicles have so many different systems adjusted by ECU that in some vehicles at least it would be more economical to hold speed constant at low load, eg many vehicles engage EGR at this point and I believe fuel consumption goes down at those times, but I don't know for sure, just bits I've read around the place.
|
Can't remember where it was, but I did read scientific document about different emission control systems and their effect to fuel consumption, I belive that link to document I found from this board, some topic, but anyway there was tested that EGR actually does increase fuel consumption, but there was other method including nitrogen that did decrease fuel consumption. It was within a week that I did read it but as my memory is not so great I can't remember where it was.
Name was emission controls effect to fuel consumption or something similar in meaning.
Does EGR do that in every case is then of course different question, as always to know how largely we can take finding as true, we need to know some background and testing methods, it can apply only to very specific application, where it certainly is true, but with some other application something else might be true. Especially with small amount of samples there can be always quite different results with applications not tested.
But I'm sure Tesla knows this very well, just heads up to anyone looking scientific tests that even they are not absolute truth that covers everything.