Battling the non-believers

[wobombat]

So EOC'ing works great for manual transmissions, but what about Automatics? Is it always a bad idea? It's harder to turn the car back on than in a manual, and as far as I can tell, automatic transmission fluid will only circulate when the engine is on, but I have yet to reach a solid conclusion about it. I feel like the parts that are spinning in the tranny when in neutral would splash the fluid around and keep those moving parts lubricated. If it really does hurt the tranny to be moving with the engine off, how long/fast can you go without damaging it? I've heard that you can keep the engine off for up to five minutes without causing damage. Any insights on this subject?

[ecomodded]

It really depends on your automatic tranny not all or perhaps most cannot be EOC but many can be. You will have to find out if your particular transmission can be EOC.
Most automatic transmission cars use a electric vacuum pump so the brakes are always loaded, engine on or off.

[user removed]

I wouldn't do EOC with any automatic transmission unless I could be assured by the manufacturer that it would not cause any problems or void any warranty. Most require pressure to engage and disengage the bands. I have seen a lot of Nissan ATs die quickly and catastrophically when towed with the rear wheels on the ground. Totally destroyed.
Engine on is fine as the tranny hydraulic pump is providing pressure and lubrication to all components.

regards
Mech

[2000neon]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I got banned from the chevelles forum for talking about fuel economy. Imagine that.

I wonder how they are enjoying the $4 gas? They sure love to biatch about it, then in the next breath brag about their big block.

That's suprising, I am on a Chevelle/ El Camino forum (Team Chevelle), and a large number of people there gas mileage very seriously. One of the main factors/ advantages of the ever popular LS swap, same with overdrive transmissions. We even had a popular thread a while back about what to do to improve gas mileage.

[ChazInMT]

Originally Posted by 2000neon

We even had a popular thread a while back about what to do to improve gas mileage.

I suppose "Buy a Honda" wasn't a popular answer!

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by 2000neon

That's suprising, I am on a Chevelle/ El Camino forum (Team Chevelle), and a large number of people there gas mileage very seriously. One of the main factors/ advantages of the ever popular LS swap, same with overdrive transmissions. We even had a popular thread a while back about what to do to improve gas mileage.

This was quite a few years ago. Perhaps the mod that took offense- I think his name was Candy***?- has had an epiphany about it or is no longer a mod...

[Neen]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Vacuum-less?

If a vehicle loses vacuum assist with the engine off, there's something wrong with it (within many minutes after engine off, not many hours). Vac reserve for braking without the engine running is a built-in safety feature of every modern car with power assisted brakes.

Yes, I guess I should have said once you lose vacuum after the first good brake application or power steering application. Point I was trying to make is that EOC is disabling engineered components on your car...and the car's performance will undoubtably suffer. My second point was that the loss in performance at that point is MORE so than a guy running a 6" suspension lift on a chassis that could maybe upsize tires by about 20%. I'm still willing to see a side by side comparo of a lifted truck next to a vacuum depleted EOC truck. If I'm wrong, well than at least we'll have data to go on instead of internet opinion eh?!
First Point is that the lifted truck will be more consistent with braking distances and handling than a car that is in between EOC and 'normal'. So the safety thing was not a good analogy as a lifted truck braking could be compared to an old 60's small car in stopping distance/handling (meaning that the give vehicle has on average a defined expectation of it's performance and that the driver is responsible to understand those limits). A car that has to be monitored based on vacuum pressure, because it is being cycled on/off is another human induced variable (point of failure outside of the car's mechanical properties) so the OP stating that the lifted car is just as unsafe as his EOC technique wasn't a good comparison because it's comparing technique to mechanical limitations. We don't compare the handling/braking characteristics of an 18 wheeler to a Lotus do we?

[2000neon]

Was it on Team Chevelle? People rarely get banned there, usually on personal attacks, or extremely vulgar, unneeded comments. There are always differences of opinions on forums, TC usually stays pretty civilized though.

[Frank Lee]

Candy didn't agree with my posts, which is fine, and I didn't post "bannable" stuff; what Candy did was read a PM of mine to another member and that put him over the top.

I was originally on there for the wealth of 283 info- there's some old guys there with loads of experience with those and the 283 is one of my favorite small block Chevys (I have several of 'em and was in the middle of hopping one up at the time).

[redpoint5]

The most repeated myth I find on car forums is that a CAI will improve FE. There is no amount of reasoning with people because it's a religious topic.

Below is just part of a discussion I attempted to have on the jeepkj forum.

redpoint5 - Fuel injected engines routinely get better fuel economy at higher altitude for 2 reasons. The first is that the thinner air is easier to push through, which is very important in a vehicle that gave no consideration to aerodynamics. The second reason is that the throttle must be opened further to produce the same power as at sea-level. A wider-open throttle has less pumping losses. An open throttle allows the engine to breath more freely and the pistons have less vacuum to work against.

Pressing the throttle further doesn't mean the engine is "working harder". The throttle merely controls how much air to restrict to the engine. The ECU then injects an appropriate amount of fuel according to how much oxygen the engine has.

People who are most concerned with fuel economy will install a warm air intake (WAI) to reduce the density of air entering the engine. This reduces peak engine power, but it also forces the driver to open the throttle further for a given amount of power. This is a proven method to improve fuel economy in nearly any vehicle.

Check out this post at ecomodder.com. These guys are serious about getting every last mile out of a tank of gas and they do ABA testing to verify their results.

To sum up this post, if you want more power, install a cold-air intake, drive when it's cold out, and at sea-level. If you want better FUEL ECONOMY, install a warm-air intake, drive when it's warm out, and at elevation.

tjkj2002 - Boy you need to stop thinking everything you read on the internet is true or lay off the wacky weed.

You will get worse mpg's at higher altitude,known fact and has been known for over 70 years.You loose HP and higher altitude,again another known fact for over 70 years,which means your engine must work harder at higher altitude thus worse mpg's.For how much power you loose at high altitude is far greater then the advantage of driving through thinner air.

Where your throttle is has everything to do with how much gas you use as the TPS sends info to the PCM to match fuel flow for throttle position.The KJ already comes with a CAI right from the factory.

Your whole post and everything in it would leave,like myself,any ASE Master Tech rolling on the ground laughing and give most automotive engineers a heart attach.