|
So I just did some testing on a 3km loop, and the results were very interesting. About 2/3 of the route is 50km/h city streets with tons of turns and speed bumps and stop signs (no traffic lights to reduce testing variability), and the last 1/3 is 80km/h highway with a hill climb and a flat-ish section. I repeated each method at least twice, and I kept the A/C running the whole time to simulate a worst case scenario. Most of the tests weren't perfect, but the results were pretty consistent with a clear winner. Here are the averages:
Method #1: Moderate throttle and obey the upshift indicator to reach the speed limit: 7.5 L/100km
Method #2: Get out of 1st ASAP, foot-to-the-floor in 2nd until reaching 50km/h, and to reach 80km/h also foot-to-the-floor in 3rd, then use the highest gear possible to maintain speed without noticeable lugging: 6.8 L/100km
Method #3: Get out of 1st ASAP, then foot-to-the-floor and upshift as soon as possible around 2000 RPM until reaching the speed limit, then use the highest gear possible to maintain speed without noticeable lugging: 7.3 L/100km
I'd be interested in hearing your theories as to why things worked out that way. The winning method #2 sounds more or less like the "pulse and glide" technique than many hypermilers recommend. I also forgot to mention that the engine has variable valve timing, so maybe it performs relatively more efficiently in that mode at higher RPMs? I guess that a super small engine would obviously be super efficient puttering around at a slow-ish steady speed, but it appears that it has to inject quite a bit of fuel to rev up to higher RPMs and also to sustain high load. So it looks like spending the shortest time possible in the higher revs with lower load and then taking advantage of its sweet spot cruising at low RPM and low load and then coasting to a stop is the most efficient method.
|