Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > Hypermiling / EcoDriver's Ed
Register Now
 Register Now
 

View Poll Results: How do you Pulse and Glide your diesel vehicle ?
Accelerate slowly, glide with the engine off. 3 5.00%
Accelerate slowly, glide with the engine on. 25 41.67%
Accelerate briskly, glide with the engine off. 4 6.67%
Accelerate briskly, glide with the engine on. 19 31.67%
I'm using another technique. 9 15.00%
Voters: 60. You may not vote on this poll

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-18-2011, 06:09 PM   #21 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
JacobAziza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 397

Big Orange Work Truck - '83 Ford F-250
90 day: 27.54 mpg (US)

Jessica's - '04 Toyota Matrix
90 day: 41.21 mpg (US)

Ninjette - '01 Kawasaki Ninja EX250R
Thanks: 44
Thanked 65 Times in 42 Posts
Now I could certainly be wrong, but I think that given that even the best diesel is only 40% efficient (60% of fuel goes to waste heat) that any vehicle, regardless of gearing or aerodynamics or turbo or whatever, would potentially benefit from P&G, so long as the glides were at least twice as long as the pulses, because then for 2/3 of the trip, that 60% loss is eliminated.

In other words, because ICEs are SO inefficient, just having the engine turn actually takes more fuel than actually moving the car. Therefor the greatest potential reduction in fuel comes from it not turning at all.

Someone please explain to me differently if I am missing something.

__________________




Quote:
Originally Posted by Piwoslaw View Post
A few months ago I returned home just as my neighbor pulled into his driveway. It was cold (around freezing) with some rain and sleet, and he yells to me: You rode your bike? In this weather?!?

So the other day we both returned home at the same time again, only now the weather is warm, sunny, with no wind. And I yell to him: You took the car? In this weather?!?
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 01-18-2011, 06:31 PM   #22 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
roflwaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,490

Camryaro - '92 Toyota Camry LE V6
90 day: 31.12 mpg (US)

Red - '00 Honda Insight

Prius - '05 Toyota Prius

3 - '18 Tesla Model 3
90 day: 152.47 mpg (US)
Thanks: 349
Thanked 120 Times in 79 Posts
The specifics depend on, well, the specifics. For instance a TDI has it's best fuel consumption at 90% of it's peak torque at it's torque peak, but other turbocharged or NA diesels don't have the same characteristic. Even the new 2.5L TDIs doesn't behave in the same way, although they're closer to the older TDI than the older TC'ed/NA diesels were.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2011, 06:35 PM   #23 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
roflwaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,490

Camryaro - '92 Toyota Camry LE V6
90 day: 31.12 mpg (US)

Red - '00 Honda Insight

Prius - '05 Toyota Prius

3 - '18 Tesla Model 3
90 day: 152.47 mpg (US)
Thanks: 349
Thanked 120 Times in 79 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacobAziza View Post
In other words, because ICEs are SO inefficient, just having the engine turn actually takes more fuel than actually moving the car. Therefor the greatest potential reduction in fuel comes from it not turning at all.

Someone please explain to me differently if I am missing something.
You just need one more thing. It's because ICEs are so inefficient at part load that P&G works. They're fairly inefficient even at their most efficient, but at part load their efficiency is worse. It's more efficient to operate an engine periodically at peak load than it is to operate it constantly at part load, all things being equal.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2011, 07:35 PM   #24 (permalink)
DieselMiser
 
ConnClark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Richland,WA
Posts: 966

Das Schlepper Frog - '85 Mercedes Benz 300SD
90 day: 23.23 mpg (US)

Gentoo320 - '04 Mercedes C320 4Matic
90 day: 22.44 mpg (US)
Thanks: 46
Thanked 227 Times in 156 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arragonis View Post
I meant the point. I agree for NA diesels maybe P&G is not useful (albeit depending on weight vs torque) vs turbos. For TDs I think P&G has all sorts of possibilities...
Well according to this BSFC chart for my turbocharged engine the peak efficiency for all different loads falls right around the rpm of peak tourque
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	om617a-bsfc.jpg
Views:	66
Size:	60.7 KB
ID:	7675  
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 03:19 AM   #25 (permalink)
The PRC.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elsewhere.
Posts: 5,304
Thanks: 285
Thanked 535 Times in 384 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnClark View Post
Well according to this BSFC chart for my turbocharged engine the peak efficiency for all different loads falls right around the rpm of peak tourque
Maybe we need to some ABA testing of P&G vs lugging on the same route. I've started P&G more since the new year and the average has gone up so far. I need to check when I finally get to fill up, I haven't this year yet.
__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 03:43 AM   #26 (permalink)
aero guerrilla
 
Piwoslaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 3,541

Svietlana II - '13 Peugeot 308SW e-HDI 6sp
90 day: 58.1 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,056
Thanked 630 Times in 396 Posts
Isn't it that a turbodiesel (compared to NA) has more torque at a lower rpm, just where hypermilers need it? Well, almost where they need it, I can feel my engine really kickin' it above 2200rpm, but I try to stay below 2000. Anything that will shift torque to lower rpm is welcome (Modding the variable geometry turbo? Remapping the ECU? New, cooler intake? Adding a resistor here or there?).
__________________
e·co·mod·ding: the art of turning vehicles into what they should be

What matters is where you're going, not how fast.

"... we humans tend to screw up everything that's good enough as it is...or everything that we're attracted to, we love to go and defile it." - Chris Cornell

Piwoslaw's Peugeot 307sw modding thread

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 04:45 AM   #27 (permalink)
The PRC.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elsewhere.
Posts: 5,304
Thanks: 285
Thanked 535 Times in 384 Posts
2200 ? That seems high. Mine is puffing away at 1800 onwards. Is the variable part of the turbo working OK ? Sometimes they can stick especially with little use and long times standing without use.

Plug in remappers are quite good for CR HDis. I think Euromodder was looking at one for his V50.
__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 08:26 AM   #28 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
euromodder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 4,666

GasDwarf - '13 Volkswagen up! EcoFuel CNG
Thanks: 176
Thanked 639 Times in 506 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arragonis View Post
2200 ? That seems high. Mine is puffing away at 1800 onwards.
That's a VW engine
They don't mind really low rpm.
Even the 1.4 and 1.2L TDi will put up a good fight at low rpm.

With the smaller PSA engines like Piwoslaw and mine, the horses are only ponies in the lower regions.
From low rpm, they pick up more reluctantly than their VW counterparts.

In 4th, 1800 rpm is the lower limit for me (2000rpm in 5th).
It'll do lower rpm, but at a price.


Quote:
Plug in remappers are quite good for CR HDis. I think Euromodder was looking at one for his V50.
After the 140.000km service, as the all too frequent DPF regenerations will need to be looked at.

I don't want them to blame it on the remapping, nor do I want the dealer to overwrite the new mapping in an attempt to remedy the DPF issue.
__________________
GasDwarf's fuel consumption :
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 08:31 AM   #29 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 104

Fizz - '06 Skoda Fabia Combi
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 56.62 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3
Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
I tried P+G on my regular commute, brisk acceleration followed by engine-on glide.

The results, according to the on-board fuel computer were not encouraging - 70mpg (imperial) for P+G vs at least 75mpg for a "light foot " approach.

This isn't a very objective test, since the P+G was one whole commute and I don't have a direct comparison. I'll try some more and report back!

Simon
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 09:50 AM   #30 (permalink)
The PRC.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elsewhere.
Posts: 5,304
Thanks: 285
Thanked 535 Times in 384 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by euromodder View Post
After the 140.000km service, as the all too frequent DPF regenerations will need to be looked at.

I don't want them to blame it on the remapping, nor do I want the dealer to overwrite the new mapping in an attempt to remedy the DPF issue.
What about ones you remove before a service, if I was going for a C1 HDi (on my list) then I would probably add a removeable plug in box.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ecoxantia View Post
I tried P+G on my regular commute, brisk acceleration followed by engine-on glide.

The results, according to the on-board fuel computer were not encouraging - 70mpg (imperial) for P+G vs at least 75mpg for a "light foot " approach.
Yeah, thats something I was going to mention - the on board is only slightly higher and sometimes lower than before, the SG2 is always higher. I suppose the proof will be in a few tanks time.

__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com