Pulsing On Flats - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 08-27-2007, 08:38 AM   #1
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 313
Country: United States
Pulsing On Flats

If I'm driving along in an automatic transmission equipped vehicle that cannot do engine off coasting at a very steady 55mph on a perfectly flat section of road using cruise control, would using a P&G technique increase mileage significantly while maintaining the same average speed?

With a heavier vehicle, adding to the mass needing to be accelerated each pulse cycle, what kind of MPG increase should one expect is see if a steady cruise control speed returned 30mpg?
__________________

__________________
2TonJellyBean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 08:50 AM   #2
Registered Member
 
omgwtfbyobbq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,516
Country: United States
Ideally, I would guess something like 35-40mpg, but we need the OD gear ratio/tire size to get a good idea. It's more wear on the transmission clutch packs, but if the mileage increase is large enough it may be worthwhile.
__________________

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormulaTwo
I think if i could get that type of FE i would have no problem driving a dildo shaped car.
omgwtfbyobbq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 12:31 PM   #3
Registered Member
 
GeekGuyAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 160
Country: United States
I did a test on this. Driving cruise at 40mph I got 29.4mpg. Drivingpulse and glide (accelerate to 45 with rpm no higher than 2200 then coast to 35; average was 36mph) yielded 34.8mpg. So a 5.4mpg increase on my car, which is 18.3% higher than keeping a steady speed. That test was a month ago, and now with better technique I can get 40mpg on the same route.
__________________
GeekGuyAndy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 01:07 PM   #4
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 313
Country: United States
Andy, one issue with your test is that while you observed an 18.3% improvement, you were also reducing your average speed by 10% which in and of itself could be a significant portion of those savings.
__________________
2TonJellyBean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 02:14 PM   #5
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 102
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2TonJellyBean View Post
Andy, one issue with your test is that while you observed an 18.3% improvement, you were also reducing your average speed by 10% which in and of itself could be a significant portion of those savings.
Andy went from straight 45 to a pulse and glide from 35 to 45. If his acceleration (during pulse) and deceleration (during glide) were constant and smooth, then I dont see how his average speed was below 40mph. With constant acceleration from 35 to 45 your average speed will be smack in the middle at 40mph. Thats math.

If Andy pulse and glided from 35 to 40, THEN he would have experienced about a 6.5% decrease in speed. Please explain your 10% decrease in speed theory. Maybe Im missing something. But for now Id have to disagree witht he 10% decrease in speed. Has anyone tried to see the difference from a constant 55mpg to P&G from 50-60 on level ground. Id like to know as I currently only P&G on hills taking advantage of sweet downhill coasts where I actually gain speed.
GasSavers_StanleyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 02:19 PM   #6
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 102
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2TonJellyBean View Post
Andy, one issue with your test is that while you observed an 18.3% improvement, you were also reducing your average speed by 10% which in and of itself could be a significant portion of those savings.
OOPS, my bad. Just noticed that his avg speed was 36mph. I dont understand how his average speed was only 36 when he was pulsing from 35 to 45. His car must have been decelerating real fast or he spent a LOT of time coasting at low end of speed due to car not slowing down much near the end. Andy please explain.

Andy, maybe you should compare this P&G run to a straight constant speed of 36 mph. This way you are comparing two runs of the same length and same average speed. 2TonJellyBean does make a good point.

Sorry JellyBean for earlier post.
GasSavers_StanleyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 02:51 PM   #7
Supporting Member
 
cfg83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,779
Country: United States
StanleyD -

Quote:
Originally Posted by StanleyD View Post
OOPS, my bad. Just noticed that his avg speed was 36mph. I dont understand how his average speed was only 36 when he was pulsing from 35 to 45. His car must have been decelerating real fast or he spent a LOT of time coasting at low end of speed due to car not slowing down much near the end. Andy please explain.

Andy, maybe you should compare this P&G run to a straight constant speed of 36 mph. This way you are comparing two runs of the same length and same average speed. 2TonJellyBean does make a good point.

Sorry JellyBean for earlier post.
I can theorize a response to this. It may be that his route brought him to full stops and/or traffic slow downs. On the freeways in LA, even though my overall strategy is to P&G between 50 and 65, my best runs show an average speed of only around 50 MPH because the flow of traffic allowed me to extend my glides below 50 MPH.

There are your "strategies" and the compromises you choose to make in real time.

CarloSW2
__________________
Old School SW2 EPA ... New School Civic EPA :

What's your EPA MPG? http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp
cfg83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 03:22 PM   #8
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 39
Country: United States
I took it as he slowed down, glided to an average of 36MPH but I could be wrong or reading it wrong.
__________________
Zvolen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 03:24 PM   #9
Registered Member
 
trebuchet03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 812
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to trebuchet03
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfg83 View Post
StanleyD -



I can theorize a response to this. It may be that his route brought him to full stops and/or traffic slow downs.
Or disproportionate pulse and glide time. It makes sense that the rate of deceleration would slow down as your vehicle speed slows down. Purely from aero resistance.

From a math standpoint, ideal situations (for calculation) is pulse time=glide time (I don't think I have to tell you that though ). But the ideal economy situation is pulse time << glide time. And the real world situation is pulse time < glide time and glide time above mean pulse/glide speeds is less than glide time below the mean pulse/glide speeds (the mean in this case being 40).

Then again - there could have been a woman with a walker crossing the street, halting traffic
__________________
Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately it kills all its students.


Bike Miles (Begin Aug. 20 - '07): ~433.2 miles

11/12
trebuchet03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 06:55 PM   #10
Registered Member
 
GeekGuyAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 160
Country: United States
Hello again,
The route had only one stop, but was on 3.8 miles total so even one stop on that would bring me down to 0mph, which would decrease the overall average speed. Especially since I likely didn't accelerate to 45 right before the stop, so even the last quarter mile on both ends is dropping the average. These runs incuded from a stop in the beginning to a stop in the end also, so I wouldn't expect 40mph even on a average moving speed of 40mph if you know what I mean.
__________________

__________________
GeekGuyAndy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Driving like an idiot increased my MPG GasSavers_Red General Fuel Topics 33 03-08-2007 09:53 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.