06-29-2011, 11:11 AM
|
#11 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 544
RaceJeep - '98 Jeep Grand Cherokee (ZJ) 5.9 Limited 90 day: 13.62 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 26 Times in 23 Posts
|
Being that you have a diesel (unthrottled), downshifting and lighter throttle doesn't hurt your efficiency as badly as a gas engine. Also, whether it's worthwhile to punch it, slow down, or downshift depends on how much power the engine has. If it can't hold speed at less than 80% throttle in top gear, you're probably better off slowing down.
__________________
Call me crazy, but I actually try for mpg with this Jeep:
Typical driving: Back in Rochester for school, driving is 60 - 70% city
|
|
|
Today
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
06-29-2011, 01:49 PM
|
#12 (permalink)
|
A madman
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: WV
Posts: 1,018
Thanks: 73
Thanked 183 Times in 98 Posts
|
Driving my courier route last year through maryland and WV, my best mileage came from maintaining speed uphill (55~60) while keeping the engine in the highest gear. Then coasting downhill, keeping up with traffic as far as speeds, and continuing to coast until I was back to 55. I went from 33 to 36 mpg this way.
|
|
|
06-29-2011, 02:56 PM
|
#13 (permalink)
|
Cyborg ECU
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Coastal Southern California
Posts: 6,299
Thanks: 2,373
Thanked 2,174 Times in 1,470 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucey
Driving my courier route last year through maryland and WV, my best mileage came from maintaining speed uphill (55~60) while keeping the engine in the highest gear. Then coasting downhill, keeping up with traffic as far as speeds, and continuing to coast until I was back to 55. I went from 33 to 36 mpg this way.
|
You were driving with load and then coasting in neutral. Did you use your ScanGauge to monitor engine load or just work it by feel? Sounds like the later. Works really well, huh?
__________________
See my car's mod & maintenance thread and my electric bicycle's thread for ongoing projects. I will rebuild Black and Green over decades as parts die, until it becomes a different car of roughly the same shape and color. My minimum fuel economy goal is 55 mpg while averaging posted speed limits. I generally top 60 mpg. See also my Honda manual transmission specs thread.
|
|
|
06-29-2011, 04:17 PM
|
#14 (permalink)
|
A madman
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: WV
Posts: 1,018
Thanks: 73
Thanked 183 Times in 98 Posts
|
Both, had my scangauge, but got a feel for it. Having the stupid automatic made it extremely difficult sometimes to stay in 4th gear with the torque converter locked, but it was doable with some patience. Some of the coasts I had from the top of the hills were over 1.5 miles, probably would get even better mileage if I could have done EOC as well.
|
|
|
06-29-2011, 05:42 PM
|
#15 (permalink)
|
Eco-ventor
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: sweden
Posts: 1,645
Thanks: 76
Thanked 709 Times in 450 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piwoslaw
I crawl up hills at the slowest possible speed, often reducing both gear and speed instead of keeping gear and stepping on it, but I have no idea if this is the best way to do it since 95% of my driving is in flat-to-slightly-rolling terrain.
|
I think if you study the thread on BSFC-charts you'll see that with a diesel it's most likely best to just floor it.
__________________
2016: 128.75L for 1875.00km => 6.87L/100km (34.3MPG US)
2017: 209.14L for 4244.00km => 4.93L/100km (47.7MPG US)
|
|
|
06-29-2011, 06:05 PM
|
#16 (permalink)
|
Hypermiler
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,321
Thanks: 611
Thanked 434 Times in 284 Posts
|
I pretty much agree with all that's been said. DCB's chart is key. Start at the bottom of the hill and apply 75% throttle and ~2000 rpm (in my experience it's slightly better than 2500). If that accelerates you up the hill, good. Cut power and coast near the top to crest the hill at the lowest reasonable speed. If it really accelerates you up the hill, split it into multiple p&g cycles. If you lose speed, downshift because you actually need the extra power. Next time try a faster approach at the bottom so you don't have to downshift.
__________________
11-mile commute: 100 mpg - - - Tank: 90.2 mpg / 1191 miles
|
|
|
06-29-2011, 09:02 PM
|
#17 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,024 Times in 1,304 Posts
|
You want to reach your highest speed at the bottom of the hills. That speed should be in the range where you are not going to get a ticket or aggravate any other drivers.
In a Mustang GT you should have enough power to stay in highest gear at all times when you are applying power.
Basically the best way to understand the best tactic would be to think of it as a roller coaster, applying only enough power to overcome all losses and maintain your desired average speed. A squirt of high gear acceleration to get you to the top of the hill at the lowest speed tolerable to you and others, as long as you reach a reasonable terminal velocity at the bottom.
It really depends of the grade, distance between peaks, other traffic and speed limits in fine tuning your strategy, but you can achieve significantly better mileage than on level ground if you do it right, because you do not have to pulse and glide to higher speeds which exponentially increases your aero losses.
regards
Mech
|
|
|
|