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

View Poll Results: Which of the below do you use the most ?
Pulse & Engine in Neutral Glide 15 39.47%
In Highest Gear with constant throttle position 23 60.53%
Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-05-2011, 01:06 AM   #11 (permalink)
Underground Man
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 71

Lil Blue - '91 Geo Metro
90 day: 52.54 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
P&G wins for fuel efficiency by far. Now it's only a matter of pulsing and gliding every 20 seconds for your 2 hour trip. But driving at constant throttle can get boring too. Usually I just do a mash up of whatever I feel interested in, and traffic conditions factor in as well..

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to actwithclarity For This Useful Post:
chumly (05-28-2014)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 08-05-2011, 01:16 AM   #12 (permalink)
Efficiency Aficionado
 
CigaR007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 623

GreenTurtle (Retired) - '01 Toyota Echo Sedan
90 day: 44.85 mpg (US)

Zulu - '14 Honda CR-Z
90 day: 46.98 mpg (US)
Thanks: 138
Thanked 154 Times in 105 Posts
I find that P&G requires too much work.

I try to do my best in 5th gear.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 01:14 PM   #13 (permalink)
Calibration Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 86

Subie - '00 Subaru Impreza STi JDM
90 day: 22.49 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 17 Times in 14 Posts
I think P&G is the biggest farce out there. Physics does not support it. People who claim it gives them better fuel economy are seeing gains because of a lower average speed. They pulse up to 70mph and coast down to 50mph then compare it with a constant drive at 60mph while in actual fact their average speed is more like 56mph.

If it were valid then why would the scientists who work on eco - competitions not do it? Why wouldn't hybrids do it too? I mean they could P&G with electric and fuel.

An accelerating engine consumes more fuel per unit of energy produced. Since transporting your vehicle from point A to point B requires that x amount of fuel be turned into energy the most efficient way is to output the energy required in such a way that it consumes the least fuel, not deliver the energy in inefficient spurts.

Finally, P&G pollutes significantly more. Most vehicle emissions are tied to the cat temps. When you shut the engine off, the cat cools below it's effective range, restart it and for the next 20-30 seconds you will be sending somewhere around 5-10x the pollutants out the tailpipe.
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 01:55 PM   #14 (permalink)
in tents
 
dennyt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 158

The Adventure Wagon - '94 Subaru Loyale Wagon 4x4
Subaru
90 day: 33.43 mpg (US)

Electro-Monkey - '11 Surly Karate Monkey BMC V2S Front Hub Motor
90 day: 694.1 mpg (US)
Thanks: 31
Thanked 30 Times in 22 Posts
I'm with Arragonis here - I cruise at the posted speed limit on long flat stretches with traffic, but I also P&G with EOC when hills, stops, and traffic allow it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hackish View Post
If it were valid then why would the scientists who work on eco - competitions not do it?
Because they build cars with small enough engines that they are operating near full throttle at steady-state cruise. Compare this to our daily drivers with engines sized for acceleration and "sportiness".

Also, it's not just "scientists" doing it - NASCAR of all places has started using pulse & glide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hackish View Post
Why wouldn't hybrids do it too? I mean they could P&G with electric and fuel.
I've had this thought before as well. It would be fun to test!

Just because something isn't available on the market, doesn't mean it's not a good idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hackish View Post
An accelerating engine consumes more fuel per unit of energy produced.
Most engines have the lowest BSFC near 80% throttle at low RPM. Of course acceleration enrichment varies by fuel system, but in a high gear the RPM rate of change is pretty slow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hackish View Post
Finally, P&G pollutes significantly more. Most vehicle emissions are tied to the cat temps. When you shut the engine off, the cat cools below it's effective range, restart it and for the next 20-30 seconds you will be sending somewhere around 5-10x the pollutants out the tailpipe.
This is an interesting consideration that isn't discussed much around here, perhaps because we don't have emissions instrumentation on our dashboards. Does anybody have experience driving around with emissions instrumentation?
__________________

Last edited by dennyt; 08-05-2011 at 02:01 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 02:29 PM   #15 (permalink)
Administrator
 
Daox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Germantown, WI
Posts: 11,127

CM400E - '81 Honda CM400E
90 day: 51.49 mpg (US)

Daox's Grey Prius - '04 Toyota Prius
Team Toyota
90 day: 49.53 mpg (US)

Daox's Insight - '00 Honda Insight
90 day: 64.33 mpg (US)

Swarthy - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage DE
Mitsubishi
90 day: 56.69 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2,443
Thanked 2,491 Times in 1,503 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by hackish View Post
I think P&G is the biggest farce out there. Physics does not support it.
I don't know where you get your info, but physics totally supports it. Look at any BSFC map for any engine out there and you can see they're FAR more efficient at higher loads.



Quote:
People who claim it gives them better fuel economy are seeing gains because of a lower average speed. They pulse up to 70mph and coast down to 50mph then compare it with a constant drive at 60mph while in actual fact their average speed is more like 56mph.
It is true to some extent that average speed speed is lower than just cruising at a set speed. However, you're talking a couple MPH at most. My personal experience shows I can increase my mileage at least 50% with P&G vs constant speed cruising.



Quote:
If it were valid then why would the scientists who work on eco - competitions not do it?
Um, all the MPG challenge built cars I've seen do use P&G. Just the other weekend at drive green expo I talked to a team from Illinois and they were using P&G with their vehicle.



Quote:
Why wouldn't hybrids do it too? I mean they could P&G with electric and fuel.
You don't get the electricity for free. Its more efficient to just run an engine than have an engine run a generator to spin an electric motor. This is one of the reasons the Volt is why it is.



Quote:
An accelerating engine consumes more fuel per unit of energy produced. Since transporting your vehicle from point A to point B requires that x amount of fuel be turned into energy the most efficient way is to output the energy required in such a way that it consumes the least fuel, not deliver the energy in inefficient spurts.
Again, BSFC maps show this not to be the case.



Quote:
Finally, P&G pollutes significantly more. Most vehicle emissions are tied to the cat temps. When you shut the engine off, the cat cools below it's effective range, restart it and for the next 20-30 seconds you will be sending somewhere around 5-10x the pollutants out the tailpipe.
This probably has some basis, and it would be very interesting to see it tested. But to say its completely true is rediculous unless you have some testing to back it up.



The short of it is P&G is the only way to get outstanding mileage without lean burn or some sort of displacement reducing technology. You NEED your engine to run at high loads or it is running inefficiently, even if its a diesel. This is why smaller (not bigger) engines get better mileage in the same vehicle. Its also why taller gearing returns better mileage.
__________________
Current project: A better alternator delete
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Daox For This Useful Post:
Impulse (08-07-2011), pletby (08-26-2011)
Old 08-05-2011, 03:14 PM   #16 (permalink)
Rat Racer
 
Fat Charlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Route 16
Posts: 4,033

Al the Third, year four - '13 Honda Fit Base
Team Honda
90 day: 42.9 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,711
Thanked 1,841 Times in 1,193 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by hackish View Post
I think P&G is the biggest farce out there. Physics does not support it. People who claim it gives them better fuel economy are seeing gains because of a lower average speed.
Yep. There's no rational way to account for my jumping from a long line of 22 mpg tanks to a 28 mpg tank right after reading about P&G. It must be all because of the 5 psi I added to my tires.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepdog44 View Post
Transmission type Efficiency
Manual neutral engine off.100% @MPG <----- Fun Fact.
Manual 1:1 gear ratio .......98%
CVT belt ............................88%
Automatic .........................86%

  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 04:12 PM   #17 (permalink)
Hypermiler
 
PaleMelanesian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,313

PaleCivic (retired) - '96 Honda Civic DX Sedan
90 day: 69.2 mpg (US)

PaleFit - '09 Honda Fit Sport
Team Honda
Wagons
90 day: 44.06 mpg (US)
Thanks: 605
Thanked 422 Times in 277 Posts
There is no way my car could ever do 80+ mpg at any speed without P&G.

Hybrids (some at least) do p&g, just in a different way. The Prius, for example. It runs the engine at it's efficiency peak. If that's more power than needed right now, the extra goes to charging the battery pack. If it's not enough power, it draws some off the pack to the motor for the extra needed. It's seamless and smooth and brilliant.
__________________



11-mile commute: 100 mpg - - - Tank: 90.2 mpg / 1191 miles
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 04:42 PM   #18 (permalink)
Cyborg ECU
 
California98Civic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Coastal Southern California
Posts: 6,092

Black and Green - '98 Honda Civic DX Coupe
Team Honda
90 day: 66.42 mpg (US)

Black and Red - '00 Nashbar Custom built eBike
90 day: 3671.43 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2,307
Thanked 2,023 Times in 1,380 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by hackish View Post
I think P&G is the biggest farce out there. Physics does not support it. People who claim it gives them better fuel economy are seeing gains because of a lower average speed. They pulse up to 70mph and coast down to 50mph then compare it with a constant drive at 60mph while in actual fact their average speed is more like 56mph.

If it were valid then why would the scientists who work on eco - competitions not do it? Why wouldn't hybrids do it too? I mean they could P&G with electric and fuel.

An accelerating engine consumes more fuel per unit of energy produced. Since transporting your vehicle from point A to point B requires that x amount of fuel be turned into energy the most efficient way is to output the energy required in such a way that it consumes the least fuel, not deliver the energy in inefficient spurts.

Finally, P&G pollutes significantly more. Most vehicle emissions are tied to the cat temps. When you shut the engine off, the cat cools below it's effective range, restart it and for the next 20-30 seconds you will be sending somewhere around 5-10x the pollutants out the tailpipe.
Every one of these assertions is incorrect or unsubstantiated, for all the reasons other have cited and more. But you should also take a look at the test I recently did on P&G technique. Note the average speeds.
__________________
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.



  Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2011, 07:50 PM   #19 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Kaysville, UT
Posts: 9

Latoya - '92 Toyota Pickup
90 day: 106.69 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
What is the best ratio of pulse to glide?

I have been practicing to Pulse and Glide on a 12 miles stretch of highway. What have you found to be the best ratio for pulse:glide?
1: Pulsing in 5th gear and glide ratio is a 10 second pulse vs a10 second glide.
2: Pulse in 4th gear with higher RPM, fuel consumption and power band is a 4 second pulse vs a 10 second glide.
As my 1992 Honda Accord is pre-computer, I have to wait until my next fill-up to see if this technique is working.
I was getting 76% above EPA before I started my P&G experiments. My goal is to get 100%.

John

Drive your ICE like a MOSFET switch. All on or all off.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2011, 04:25 AM   #20 (permalink)
Mechanical engineer
 
Vekke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kitee (Finland)
Posts: 999

Siitin - '98 Seat Cordoba Vario
90 day: 58.56 mpg (US)

VW Lupo 3L --> 2L - '00 VolksWagen Lupo 3L
Diesel
90 day: 104.94 mpg (US)

A8 luxury fuel sipper - '97 Audi A8 1.2 TDI 6 speed manual
90 day: 64.64 mpg (US)

Audi A4B6 Avant Niistäjä - '02 Audi A4b6 1.9tdi 96kW 3L
90 day: 54.57 mpg (US)

Tourekki - '04 VW Touareg 2.5TDI R5 6 speed manual
90 day: 32.98 mpg (US)

A2 1.4TDI - '03 Audi A2 1.4 TDI
90 day: 45.68 mpg (US)
Thanks: 179
Thanked 519 Times in 229 Posts
With my 3L lupo I found first test that push to 90 km/h and glide to 75 km/h gived me 2.5 l/100km. But if I did the push and glided with gentle load (tried to keep instant fuel consumtpion at 2 l/100km mark) that gived me better result which was 2.3-2.4 l/km. So with my current knowledge on the lupo push and glide with gentle load works best. On my old seat the full P&G was the clear winner.

__________________


https://www.linkedin.com/in/vesatiainen/

Vesa Tiainen innovation engineer and automotive enthusiast
  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