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

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-18-2011, 06:56 PM   #11 (permalink)
Liberty Lover
 
j12piprius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: central california
Posts: 587

pris prius - '12 Toyota plug in prius
90 day: 71.09 mpg (US)
Thanks: 417
Thanked 83 Times in 60 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeTreeMech View Post
When upshifting, you would ease off the gas while pulling out of gear. In one movement, pull out of gear and try to put the stick in the desired next gear. The stick won't engage the gear until it is time. Wait for the engine to coast down, and when the revs match, with you putting gentle pressure on the stick in the direction of the desired gear, you'll feel it start to engage. Give it the push needed to fully engage, and there you go.
By upshifting, I take it you mean going from 2nd, to 3rd, to 4th, to 5th etc.

Quote:
Upshifting is a bit trickier. It involves disengaging the current gear, revving the engine past where it needs to be for the next highest gear, then following the above mentioned step of allowing the engine to coast down to the correct rpms.
Don't you mean downshifting is tricker without using the clutch?

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 03-18-2011, 06:58 PM   #12 (permalink)
Basjoos Wannabe
 
ShadeTreeMech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 870

The Van - '97 Mercury Villager gs
90 day: 19.8 mpg (US)

Lyle the Kindly Viking - '99 Volvo V70
90 day: 25.82 mpg (US)
Thanks: 174
Thanked 49 Times in 32 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlvs2run View Post
By upshifting, I take it you mean going from 2nd, to 3rd, to 4th, to 5th etc.



Don't you mean downshifting is tricker without using the clutch?
LOL, ok, my dyslexia kicked in again. I got it backwards. Upshifting is the easy one, downshifting is trickier, I'll edit it.
__________________
RIP Maxima 1997-2012


Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf View Post
I think you missed the point I was trying to make, which is that it's not rational to do either speed or fuel economy mods for economic reasons. You do it as a form of recreation, for the fun and for the challenge.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2011, 07:28 PM   #13 (permalink)
DieselMiser
 
ConnClark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Richland,WA
Posts: 980

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 229 Times in 158 Posts
Once again I fail to see how it saves fuel.

lets say I'm driving and its time to up shift from second to third. I start out with the engine at a high rpm. After I shift, my engine is at a lower rpm.

Shifting with the clutch I take some of the high rpm rotational energy and, even though the clutch slips some, use it to generate torque to move the car forward. The rest of the energy gets turned to heat.

Shifting with out the clutch I pop it out of gear at a high rpm and let the engine spin down (wasting energy that could be used) until the syncros line up and pop it into the next gear.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2011, 08:15 PM   #14 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,023 Times in 1,304 Posts
Learn it in a 38 Ford truck with straight cut gears and no synchros, and you will have it down pat.

1st to 4th back to 1st in my M22 4 speed 59 Corvette with no clutch. Heck I drove it to work with the steering gear failing and it would only turn right. Left turn, you went through the intersection and backed up with the wheel to the right then foreward.

regards
Mech
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2011, 09:16 PM   #15 (permalink)
Basjoos Wannabe
 
ShadeTreeMech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 870

The Van - '97 Mercury Villager gs
90 day: 19.8 mpg (US)

Lyle the Kindly Viking - '99 Volvo V70
90 day: 25.82 mpg (US)
Thanks: 174
Thanked 49 Times in 32 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnClark View Post
Once again I fail to see how it saves fuel.

lets say I'm driving and its time to up shift from second to third. I start out with the engine at a high rpm. After I shift, my engine is at a lower rpm.
With a modern engine, while the engine is coasting down, you would use no fuel since DFCO would likely cut off the fuel
Quote:
Shifting with the clutch I take some of the high rpm rotational energy and, even though the clutch slips some, use it to generate torque to move the car forward. The rest of the energy gets turned to heat.

Shifting with out the clutch I pop it out of gear at a high rpm and let the engine spin down (wasting energy that could be used) until the syncros line up and pop it into the next gear.
The fact that a modern engine uses no fuel when coasting negates your argument. But regardless, the amount of fuel saved for that simple method of changing gears would be crazy small compared to the driving style shifting without the cltuch encourages compared to the driving style of the clutch fiend.
__________________
RIP Maxima 1997-2012


Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf View Post
I think you missed the point I was trying to make, which is that it's not rational to do either speed or fuel economy mods for economic reasons. You do it as a form of recreation, for the fun and for the challenge.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2011, 10:28 PM   #16 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Private
Posts: 282
Thanks: 2
Thanked 73 Times in 47 Posts
DFCO only works when decelerating with the clutch engaged. If you shift to neutral or as soon as you push in (disengage) the clutch, fuel has to flow or the engine would quit.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to moorecomp For This Useful Post:
SiVX (06-10-2012)
Old 03-18-2011, 10:47 PM   #17 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,552 Times in 2,216 Posts
I know how to clutchless shift but I don't do it regularly- except when tossing it into neutral for glides- and I don't see any potential for fuel savings either. On the "Pro" column it forces the driver to be more consciencous and smooth; on the "Con" column I do believe, even when smoothly executed, trans wear would be increased while fuel saved would be nothing.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Frank Lee For This Useful Post:
TEiN (11-06-2011)
Old 03-18-2011, 11:10 PM   #18 (permalink)
jmf
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: vermont
Posts: 38

blueberry - '93 honda civic vx
90 day: 55.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
I use clutchless shifting when I'm using my left knee to steer because I'm eating and texting with my hands. It is very important to know how to do.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2011, 11:56 PM   #19 (permalink)
DieselMiser
 
ConnClark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Richland,WA
Posts: 980

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 229 Times in 158 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeTreeMech View Post
With a modern engine, while the engine is coasting down, you would use no fuel since DFCO would likely cut off the fuel
I'm talking about the fuel already used to accelerate the engine to the high rpm before the shift. The fact that no more fuel is used does not recover any energy that has been expended. Just letting this useful energy dissipate is a waste.
Quote:
The fact that a modern engine uses no fuel when coasting negates your argument.
Hogwash!
Quote:
But regardless, the amount of fuel saved for that simple method of changing gears would be crazy small compared to the driving style shifting without the cltuch encourages compared to the driving style of the clutch fiend.
No utilizing all opportunities to recover energy saves fuel. Popping the clutch burns the clutch not the fuel. The clutch was designed to wear, gears are not. Save fuel and your transmission by using the clutch.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ConnClark For This Useful Post:
TEiN (11-06-2011)
Old 03-19-2011, 12:16 AM   #20 (permalink)
Liberty Lover
 
j12piprius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: central california
Posts: 587

pris prius - '12 Toyota plug in prius
90 day: 71.09 mpg (US)
Thanks: 417
Thanked 83 Times in 60 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnClark View Post
I'm talking about the fuel already used to accelerate the engine to the high rpm before the shift.
That would only occur shifting down.

The shifting without clutch would be primarily used shifting up and then EOC.

Quote:
Popping the clutch burns the clutch ... The clutch was designed to wear, gears are not. Save fuel and your transmission by using the clutch.
So you're saying don't use the clutch, use the clutch?

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com