Quote:
Originally Posted by wobombat
I normally pulse up hills and glide down them, but then I realized that putting cruise control on would do pretty much the exact same thing. Sure it wouldn't manipulate the load, rpm's etc in the most efficient manner going up the hill, but otherwise it's about the same. Why then is cruise control considered inefficient and bad for fuel economy? Or is it that you shouldn't pulse up a hill.
And considering that a hill puts a constant backwards pressure on your car, wouldn't you save the most gas by getting off that hill as soon as possible without going too fast as to lose efficiency to air resistence ? Because of this, I don't understand why DWL would give you any better fuel economy than constant speed driving, except that it forces you to slow down to a more efficient speed.
|
I actually wonder this too, the difference between cruise control and pulse and glide is pretty much that down the hill, the engine is in gear and you're feeding it enough gas to not cause the engine to drag your speed down. I'm guessing the same, DWL slows your speed down.
Hills are perfect for saving fuel, because you can glide down them, and travel up them with a pretty high load.