07-27-2008, 06:30 PM
|
#39
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 150
|
Time to wake up this thread.
So I did a P&G experiment on my comute:
- Commute: 3 miles one way, with lights, 35PMH limit surface streets, return often with 1.5miles highway (next exit) and lights & stop sign. Night twice a week, drive to the gym, about 10 miles R/T surface street.
Experiment result
- Old method: Fast acceleration from light, 1st/2nd/3rd then coast down, 3rd or 4rth gear short pulse, then glide. Result is accelerations are short followed by long glides. Shifting usualy around 2500RPMs.
Result: 35MPG over 338 miles
- New method: Slow acceleration from light, 1st/2nd/3rd/4rth/5th, fast shifting to stay below 1500rpms, but anemic acceleration. I don't really do WOT acceleration, but my foot is pretty heavy after the 1st gear. End result is I spend more time accelerating than coasting.
Result: 35.22MPG over 191 miles
Bottom line:
Seems like both techniques work about the same in terms of fuel economy. However the new method supposedly with better MPGs is harder to drive I find because the car is less responsive. I am more likely to miss a light.
I wonder if I should try one run with normal driving, no P&G. I wonder if I'd fall back sub 30 or not, with somewhat controlled driving conditions. City EPA for my car is 25MPG (new rating) so I'm 40% overjust from P&G and some awareness of lights.
__________________
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Car Talk & Chit Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
» Fuelly iOS Apps |
No Threads to Display.
|
» Fuelly Android Apps |
|
|