you take the high road, and I'll take the low road.

[yostumpy]

BUT which is best? Hypathectical question for your little grey cells!

A man in a land rover has to travel from A to B, a distance of approx 10 miles. There are 2 routes to choose from, one almost flat, one with a small ish hill, not a hump, but definately a hill. Now then which is most economical, assuming that both distances are more or less equal. The power used going up the hill can be offset by the 3/4 mile coast the other side presumably? What would you say.? (I don't know the answer by the way as I never seem to manage to go the same way twice in a row)

[MetroMPG]

If you can coast down the hill, that route will probably be more efficient.

You'll load the engine more on the climb, moving it into a better area of its brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) map, then use next to nothing while idling in neutral on the way down the other side.

Edit: one of the first Prius owners I knew did a similar comparison. He used less fuel overall on his "1 hill" route vs. the "flat route".

Edit 2: similarly, he found that on a route with a steep up & gentle decline, he used less fuel driving in one direction than the other. You can figure out which.

[PaleMelanesian]

What's the transmission? If it's a manual, I'd take the hill and the Pulse & Glide opportunity it presents. If it's an automatic, take the flat road and avoid fuel-robbing automatic downshifts.

I clicked your log and see it's a manual. Take the high road. I do that on my daily commute - I've chosen the hilly route over the flat one. It works in my case.

[Ladogaboy]

I'd take the short side up the hill and the long side down. Coming back, I'd take the flat road.

[user removed]

If you can climb the hill without downshifting take the hill, especially if you can climb the hill in your highest gear without having to floor the gas pedal. Not sure about coasting where you live but if that will get you in trouble than take the flat route.

regards
Mech