View Single Post
Old 10-16-2015, 12:11 PM   #22 (permalink)
UFO
Master EcoModder
 
UFO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,300

Colorado - '17 Chevrolet Colorado 4x4 LT
90 day: 23.07 mpg (US)
Thanks: 315
Thanked 179 Times in 138 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninj4geek View Post
Nick666 brings up a good point that I'd like to riff on:

Ib like to think of everything in terms of energy, and use comparisons that easily demonstrate that idea.

Acceleration: faster acceleration takes more energy, and therefore more gas (engineering of your car notwithstanding). Think of riding a bicycle and accelerating to 20 mph from a dead stop.

It can be done easily if done slowly, but your legs would be on fire if you went flat-out to get to 20 mph. Same goes for the car.

This also applies for coasting, braking, conserving momentum, etc.
Of course faster acceleration takes more energy, but less time to reach the target velocity. So the most efficient way to get to the target velocity is to operate the engine in the part of the BSFC where its more efficient, and that is generally at higher loads and torque near the torque peak. So "brisk" acceleration with short shifting at the torque peak is usually more efficient, avoiding fuel enrichment and higher rpm.
__________________
I'm not coasting, I'm shifting slowly.
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to UFO For This Useful Post:
Ecky (10-16-2015), JohnAh (11-06-2015)