I've been thinking about this for awhile now so Im going to try and explain and see what you guys think. I'm not sure exactly how to explain it, so I'll do my best and you follow along
. It all comes down to, if you left your car idle for a solid hour, how much fuel would you consume?
Im going to use my Metro as an example. Would it be safe to say that a 1 hour idle burns 1 gallon? If that is so, imagine drifting down an infinitly long hill at a constant 30mph. Even though you are drifting, a very good FE technique, after 1 hours drive you would only net 30mpg. Thats horrible for my car.
So, in theory, to get up to my average 60mpg in the summer months, you have 2 options. Either the 1gallon per hour estimate is clearly incorrect and it is closer to 1/2gallon per hour (thats alittle hard to believe), or you would need to increase your speed to net a higher mpg. So, at some point, accelerating would be more effecient than drifting.
Of course, that makes sense. To take it to the extreme, if you only drifted at 1mph, you would only go a few miles on an entire tank. At 15mph, you would increase FE by going further before your tank ran out. So, where is this "sweet spot" on the entire spectrum where drifting is not hindering your FE but excessive accelerating is not hindering you either?
Got that? I know there are tons of veriables, but work with me here
. My car is a `95 1L 5speed btw...