Vacuum gauge instead of Scangauge?
 

I was talking with my friend today and he said a great way to monitor fuel economy is hooking up a vacuum gauge to the intake manifold. Basically, you train yourself to drive in ways that keep the vacuum maximized and stay away from actions which cause it to drop.

Has anyone tried this and been able to train him/herself?

On the old cars, that's what you'd use.

I think a TPS reading is much better, though. For example, on my Saturn, I know that TPS 11 will give me about 65 mpg on flat with no wind, so if I'm getting onto an expressway, I give it TPS 17 or so to get into traffic, and when the speed gets to 65 I back off to TPS 11.

Vacuum sorta tells you that, but I'm not sure how well.

my dad had a vacuum gauge hooked up to a 1981 buick centure. i was young and only cared about going fast, so i don't know if it worked. i do know that it would bounce up and down a lot.

The vacuum goes low (poor mpg) when you first open the throttle then increases some as the engine picks up speed and sucks more air, so it kinda represents mpg better than just the throttle position, but it has a lot of shortcomings:

1. if you are idling at the light, it says you have high manifold vacuum (getting good mpg), if you are engine off coasting, it will say poor mpg :)
2. Likewise, it will likely be confused anytime the engine is not directly coupled to the drive wheels.
3. It can only show roughly the improvement in mpg. Actual mpg depends on what gear you are in (and a host of other things).
4. it is instantaneous, so for P&G style it is not as much help.

But it is damn cheap and effective.

But look at the " Similar Threads" section below, and definately check out Coyote Xs ride.

That's the way they did it years ago. I was thinking of having a switched lighting system to tell you when you are in a certain area of the gauge and to warn you to back off for mpg.

OK, so if I understand those shortcomings it can be a benefit to me.

I am still having difficulty understanding, from a physics equation standpoint, how P&G can be better than constant cruising speed. Unless of course it has to do with "tricking" the PCM somehow, or that people think it helps because they spend some amount of time at a lower speed, or that it makes the Scangauge think you're getting good FE.

My gut instinct would be that constant speed trumps ANY amount of acceleration in terms of the amount of fuel to get from A to B.

It's been covered a few times, but the basic reason is that your gasoline engine is not real efficient over a wide rpm range. In general, it is most efficient at lower rpm's (say 2-3 thousand) with a health dose of throttle (over half but not full).


So, if you had just enough engine that it barely kept the the car at 55mph at two thirds throttle at 2200rpm in top gear (I'm just throwing numbers out here), would you see any benefit from P&G? (I appreciate the hypotheticalness of this question and the impracticalities it implies)

Electric motors get a far less return from pulsing and gliding, as do diesel engines. Diesel engines do not have a throttle plate and don't have to maintain a substantial vacuum in the intake system. Gasoline cars at higher RPM and/or with the throttle plate partially closed suffer from more pumping losses.

Nope. IMO.

My experience has shown that any gas engine starts to work good at 3000rpm. Doesn't matter if I advance or retard the cam. Same results, they just start to smooth out and pull.

Personally, I think that one of the biggest things that P&G overcomes is ENGINE DRAG. Engine drag is the drag that is associated with the engine being in gear. If you understand manual shiftthen it will be easier to understand. Imagine going 50mph in 2nd gear in your car. Your car actually CAN go 50 in 2nd gear, but its not a good idea because you are making the engine race and getting VERY poor FE. Furthermore, as soon as you let go of the gas pedal the car will quickly slow itself down because the car does not naturally want to rev at a zillion rpm. The only way you can rev that high is by FORCING the car to rev high by flooring the pedal. A speed of 50mph is more suited for 4th or 5th gear, although 2nd gear can attain it, just not as efficiently.
Well now imagine doing 80mph in 5th gear. Just like a car can go 50mph in second gear, a car can go 80mph in 5th gear. Just not a good idea and with poor FE. Speeds of 80mph are more suited for errrrrr, lets say 6,7, or 8th gear. Hence are problem: I dont know about YOUR car but my 98 Camry doesnt have an 8th gear:) I can only get 80 mph by really pushing the pedal. As soon as I let go of the gas pedal the car immediately slows down trying to reach a more reasonable and comfortable rpm. By going 80mph I am fighting the cars natural inclination to not race and run at an equlibrium rpm.
SOLUTION: Anytime your car is at a speed where the engine is racing, it is trying to slow down but we fight against the cars tendency to slow itself by pushing the pedal and forcing it to go increase rpm. So once you force a car to go 80mph, just free the car from any gear and let it GLIDE. It no longer wants to slow itself down. The only force working against a gliding car is wind resistance, tires, ect, BUT NOT the engine.
No one will go 50 in a stick shift and downgrade into 2nd gear if they want to slow down to 20 mph unless they want to do it quickly. They will go MUCH farther if they go 50 and just remove the car from gear and let it GRADUALLY slow down. Once the car reaches 20mph, they will re-engage the gear. Well thats exactly what P&G is. You reach a speed that the car will not naturally move at and then let it slowly reach a slower speed. Dude, just drive at 60 to top of a gradual incline and then record speed at bottom of hill. Then do the same experiment BUT put the car in neutral just before you start going downhill. I bet any dollar amount that speed at bottom of the hill in neutral will be HIGHER than when car was in gear. Neutral driving is better for car than in-gear driving. Thats big advantage of P&G. If you are gliding for half of your drive then you are subjected to engine braking for only half your commute. Imagine if we could get rid of aero drag for half our drive. :). I know this was long explanation, but I hoped it helped. Any oppossing comments welcome. Im here to share and learn just like anyone else. If Im misleading Jim then I wanna know cause Im also misleading myself. Good luck !!!
https://www.gassavers.org/gaslog/sig.php?id=547

BMac: as the rpm goes up, the power goes up, but the fuel efficiency goes down (fuel used for a given amount of power). So you wind up shifting before you get to the "sweet spot" :)

StanleyD: It seems obvious now that you mention it, but you must be correct. Turning the engine over the whole time has to be a significant penalty, even if it is running at max efficiency.

Scenario (more made up numbers): You are in 5th gear, trying to go a mile
effort one, you keep the engine lit, your engine turns 3000 revolutions
effort two, you coast half the distance, your engine turns 1500 revolutions.

StanleyD, you've covered it very well I think.

Back to Jim's question re. the ScanGauge,...

There's nothing like real time data to let you know how you're doing. If you're not sure whether to take the hill at 45 or 50 or 55, your scangauge will tell you.

Looks like you've done some nice mods to the car.
Do another one that will really help with FE, get the ScanGauge.

I've seen about a gazillion posts on CleanMPG.com from people who have reported 10-20 percent increase just from putting one in their car.
I wish my '89 would support one, but they are based on OBDII which began in '96.

I have a vacuum gauge installed in my car, and have gained some knowledge from it however about all I use it for right now is to know when my engine is off/on. (no tach)

If you are using pulse and glide a vacuum gauge doesnt work, as the point is to keep your engine either loaded or off.

If you are trying to drive like a granny to achieve MPG then the vacuum gauge will work as long as you don't pay attention to it saying 2nd gear at 30 is better than 3rd as it does in my car. It wants me to rev my engine before I change gears cause if I change too soon there is actually load on the engine causing the vacuum to decrease.

From what I have gathered load and easy throttle would be better than next to no load and heavy throttle.

Of course most of this is just common sense that you would have figured out had you installed the gauge.

On that note, my opinion is if you can get one for cheap/borrow one it might be worth it. I wouldn't mind getting rid of mine at this point after having it in for a month or two. I have pretty much gleaned all the info I can from it as I use Pulse and Glide as my driving style.

Yep; my brother, many decades ago. :) Check out his comments in this message from my intro thread.

(The same thread also has a photo of my dad with one of his Isettas, for anyone into Urklemobiles. ;))

You're not alone. I have the same difficulty, as does a PhD friend of mine I asked for an explanation. But I've seen it for myself, so while I'm still trying to get my head around the how and why, I do accept that it works... and I use it to my advantage. :)

(For what it's worth, probability and statistics don't respond to gut instinct either. :p)

I've seen this numerous times -- at many different speeds -- since I started doing NICE-ON P&G (I have an automatic but this part works the same as with a stick shift). If I DWL and hold the throttle constant, I'll see MPG climb up to 80 or so and my speed increases a little if the grade is steep enough. I used to think that was pretty cool ("Wow, 80MPG!"), until I realized the engine was actually holding the car back. If I drop it into neutral and take my foot off the gas, MPG more than doubles the other figure, and speed picks up nicely on even subtle downgrades.

In other words, free acceleration. :thumbup::)

And it feels so velvety smooth! :cool:

Rick

Gauge
 

This is what is installed in the Jelly Bean. Thought at first it was good only for looks. Thats changed, with only 3 cylinders its in the green way to much. So it took a while to learn its value. One is it buzzes when its into the power quite when its not. Very seldom do I see red, only down hill. Going up hill the help comes in by showing me how to stay out of the power. I have learned to lock my leg going up hill better. No chance for a scan gauge sooo we do with what we have. And its cheap like me!

https://inlinethumb43.webshots.com/55...425x425Q85.jpg

OK thanks for the explanations; I really appreciate them instead of the usual "USE THE F-ING SEARCH FUNCTION" response on SaturnFans. I get it now -- I had been doing Pulse and In-Gear Glide instead of Pulse and Neutral, Engine-On Glide!

So: accelerating slowly but having engine-idle-at-highway-speeds sessions uses less fuel than a constant, semi-high speed. Won't help me much on my new commute; I do 55-60 the whole time!

Rick Rae, that's probably one of the reasons why Statistics and Probability are not considered Mathematics AFAIK.

Well, in-the-know GasSavers tell me that above a certain RPM, below a certain load, in gear (did I get all the conditions right?) a lot of vehicles will cut fuel to the engine entirely, which puts you on par with EOC as far as fuel consumption is concerned. On those vehicles I guess it comes down to: Do you gain more using idle fuel over a long glide in neutral or using no fuel over a short glide due to engine braking? I'm still experimenting to find out which is the case with my vehicle... two tanks of in-gear "gliding," this one's in neutral.

Another approach I've played with a few times is to leave it in "D" and try to find the "Goldilocks zone" with the accelerator. By that I mean: If you just take your foot off the gas in gear, you start engine braking. If you leave your foot locked in place, your MPG value goes up somewhat because the load is reduced thanks to the downslope. Somewhere in between, there's a point where you're feeding just enough gas to rev-match the engine to how fast the road wants to turn the tranny. So you're not engine braking, but neither are you putting any load on the engine. If you tracked it perfectly you'd get the same glide distance as you would in neutral. Again it would come down to a similar question: Do you gain more running the engine at higher RPMs but with zero load over a long distance or in idle over a much shorter distance?

I wouldn't even bother with that, but A) I've yet to see evidence that my car does fuel cutoff, and B) throwing my automatic in and out of neutral at highway speeds makes me uneasy (when I think about it :)). Basically, I'm still searching for what works best for my vehicle, my abilities, my routes. Fun stuff! :cool:

Pulse to 60, glide to 55. ;) Is your terrain perfectly flat, or do you have some hills you could glide down without losing speeed? Even overpasses can be useful.

Bottom line, I think, is that P&G is just another available tool. Use whichever ones work best for you and your situation.

And that includes vacuum gauges. :cool:

Rick

The more automated things are, the harder it is to get them to do what you want ;)

An informal test occured to me on the way in, so I tried it:

at a light footed 50mph on a flat road, I was doing 2500 RPM @ 0.8 GPH
In neutral @ 2500 RPM I get 0.4GPH

So, roughly speaking, at 50mph, HALF my fuel is going into keeping the engine turning.

Lately I've been P&G'ing my auto-tranny car between 50-62 mph. Up to only 60 if I and the traffic can stand it. If I'm on a 40-50 mph limit road I'll P&G between 40-50 or 45-55. On a fast road with a steeper longer downgrade I'll goose it up to 70-75 when I'm on the downhill side, and let her coast longer faster. On upgrades I limit my throttle, really a drive-with-load technique. Charging up the hill seems to burn fuel quickly but I have no ScanGauge on this old car to know for sure.

For my car I coast in neutral with engine on. My tach has shown me that at highway speeds in Drive, rpms are about 1500 vs. 800-900 in neutral. I'm pretty sure my '89 doesn't have fuel cut for such coasting.

I do cut the engine for long slow coasts, upcoming red lights, etc. but only below 40 mph as that's the "flat towing" speed limit for my car. Many other auto trannies won't allow that.

Using the Scangauge for feed back I can tell that my 4 Runner does not cut the fuel in engine on coasting at all. Going down hill at 60mph in gear the fuel burn is .5-.6 gph, flip in neutral its .3-.4 gph at 60mph. The instant FE numbers take a jump higher when I flip in neutral as well. So for me its far better to coast in neutral.

Which is an excellent example of why to use a Scangauge.
Far better than gut instinct, other gauge types, pretty much anything else, if you want improved FE.
Requires OBDII which started in '96 so not workable for older cars like mine...

I don't want to spend the $$$ on a SG. I think my car does fuel cutoff.

Can any other Saturn owners here confirm that s-cars do fuel cutoff? Even if they do cutoff, it seems to me like the glide goes MUCH further out of gear than in gear.

In any event, I've changed my commuting route over the past couple days to one that seems to avoid long waits at left turns. Yay!

However, my MPG may suffer for a little while yet -- I changed my battery a couple weeks ago, and I think in so doing wiped out the computer's FE knowledge.

Rather spend it on the extra gas you're burning from driving blind, eh? ;)

Rick

Seriously Jim, you drive a lot, the scangauge will pay for itself in 1/3 the time of a "normal" person.

On the vacuum gauge, it works more for a carbed vehicle than a fuel injected one. A carb uses airflow across a venturi to create a vacuum at a specific point to mix fuel into the air, but under a situation where the carb is in a full vacuum condition doe to the throttle plate being closed it won't draw as much. On a fuel injected vehicle, the engine is going to put in fuel depending on the O2 sensor in closed loop, with input from the TPS, MAF and IAT with the primary reading coming from the O2. Keeping it in a high vacuum state doesn't make that much difference on fuel injection, at least it didn't when I tried it a few years ago. Pre-computer cars with engine economy gauges were just vacuum gauges.

On the P&G with slight throttle, I think there is something to that. I don't do P&G after trying it and seeing my mileage drop (my engine is too underpowered for the vehicle, takes way too much gas and time to get the speed back up) but I have noticed that if I have a very slight throttle on I can coast farther than I can with no throttle. I figure that with the throttle slightly open, the engine isn't trying to draw air from the tiny idle bleed hole, it's getting it from a much larger area so it isn't pulling nearly as hard.

Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying here but I can't see how this approach could be as good as coasting in neutral (at least for FE, safety is another question). I think what you are describing is giving the engine just enough gas to overcome the effect of engine braking so that your speed at any point on the hill will be equivalent to what it would be if you were coasting in neutral. I think that the amount of gas required to do this would be the same as what would be required to rev the engine to the appropriate rpm in neutral (i.e. there is no load on the engine except its own friction, and the power required to pump air, and whatever other losses are involved). Therefore you would burn the same amount of gas by this approach as coasting down the hill in neutral with the engine revved to the higher rpm and I don't think that would produce better FE then just coasting in neutral. I would actually like to be wrong about this because I would rather coast in gear then in neutral if the FE is the same.

I think there's a significant difference between the fuel needed to overcome engine braking and the fuel needed to rev the engine to speed in neutral - because if you're going to coast in gear you'd be providing that fuel continuously during the coast - assuming you could find the exact correct pedal position to accomplish it. If you're coasting in neutral and need to spin the engine up before going back in gear you only need to do it once at the end of the coast. A huge difference, as long as you're coasting more than ten feet.

If a driver just doesn't find sufficient control with the engine in neutral I won't disagree with their own perception. However I think it would be difficult or impossible to show that you can coast in gear as well as you can coast in neutral. With or without fuel or wind or anything else. If you're in gear then the car's momentum is being used to spin the engine. If spinning the engine is of value to the driver then OK. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking it's going to get you as far on the same fuel compared with coasting in neutral.

If you want to improve on that, you cut the engine off, or install a fuel cut button. I rarely cut the engine on my auto trans car but I know that some standard drivers do it. You can bump start a stick shift car pretty quickly so it's not quite the same as with an auto.

Jim: my $0.02 worth.

A vacume gauge is not going to be as helpful as a scangauge, no question. However a vacume gauge beats the daylights out of nothing.

As far as cost goes, a lot of people who have bought a scangauge have found they have been able to make some significant improvements over what they had been able to do before. I don't think I've heard anyone who's said they didn't think they had gotten enough of a return from their scangauge, to make them feel it had been worthwhile to purchase.

However, I don't have one, largely because I don't have the extra cash for one. Consequently, I do the best I can, with what I have. Also I principaly drive a 1989 Honda and I can't use a Scangauge with it.

As far as coasting, engine on, in neutral, versus engine on, in gear, their are factors which are at play, that are not all the same. For example, by monitoring the Oxygen Sensor, I can tell that if the engine rpm is above about 1200 and the throttle is fully closed, the ecu quits firing the injectors, totally. Consequently, if I am in a position to coast, in gear, with no throttle position, then I get more effectiveness than if I put the car in neutral and coasted. If I could coast farther enough, in neutral, would it be better? Don't know, but that's where a scangauge might help.

I am probably going to try getting a fuel mileage display from an Acura and hook it up on my car, because although it's technically incorrect, the relative efficiencies are what I'm really after. Additionally, since other people on GasSavers have already figured out the wiring and so forth, this seems like a great possible, cost effective way to go, for me.

You could safely drop the "difficult or" in a vehicle without fuel cutoff (as mine appears to be).

If someone suggested that, I missed it. I certainly don't think that's the case. You guys with stick shifts have it all over us automatics in that regard (as well as others). :p

You didn't misunderstand, you merely overlooked. :D

FE-wise, I absolutely agree that coasting in gear can't match NICE-ON coasting... which in turn pales in comparison to EOC. The bit you might have overlooked is this:

I can't safely EOC with my automatic. I've watched my transmission temperature climb unnervingly high during NICE-ON experiments, I sometimes think I hear disturbing sounds bouncing off of reflective surfaces when I drop it back in "D," and I don't have a definitive answer to whether NICE-ON coasting is safe for my vehicle. And my engine doesn't appear to cut fuel during in-gear idle coasts, so I can't trade off zero fuel use against engine braking.

That leaves trying to feather the accelerator into the "Goldilocks region" as one other option to explore, which is all I'm doing: exploring. I'm not offering it as a recommended or even useful technique at this point; I'm too new to all of this... crawl before you walk, and all that. :) I just gave it as another example of where you'd have to weigh this against that to determine which approach was better for a given situation (vehicle, driver, traffic, etc.) Apologies if I muddied the waters by mentioning it at that point.

Correct.

Seems about right. The other effects are that A) you'll glide farther than you would if you took your foot off the gas and subjected yourself to engine breaking, and B) you'll use less gas than if you keep the throttle locked. Where's the sweet spot? Dunno, but playing around with it is one way to find out.

I don't think you're wrong. No way would you come up with the same numbers. I doubt you could even get close and that's assuming perfect control of the gas, which brucepick and I both implied would be nigh onto impossible.

If I can get half the efficiency of a NICE-ON glide I'll be pleasantly surprised. As you both said, I'm giving the engine fuel to keep it at speed the whole time, after all (even if it is unloaded, assuming a perfect rev match).

For the record, I don't have that perception, and the value to this driver is not destroying either of my transmission or my nerves. ;)

Honestly, I want to NICE-ON coast (heck, I want to EOC glide!). I've been playing with it; I love the velvety feel, I love the MPG numbers. But until I feel confident it doesn't put excessive stress on my transmission or TC, I'm not going to push it. In the meantime, I'm playing with whatever other techniques I can think of to see how close I can get to the same fuel efficiency. Maybe I'll settle on coasting in neutral at low speeds and something else on the highway; who knows at this point. Like I said, I'm new. :)

I hope that clarifies things a bit?

Rick

FYI, I did an auto to manual swap on an older VW, used a $300 parts car for all the bits. It wasn't too bad. Only ***** was those funky axle bolts. I'm sure folks have done it on your year and sorted out the computer crap. Sure, not everyone can, but if you can then definately consider it.

https://www.vwgolf-mk2.com/eatmtconversion.html

skewbe, my livelihood is tied to my car, so it's not an option for me right now.

Besides, seeing what kind of numbers I can pull out of a 2.0L automatic (with the top down! :cool:) is enjoyable and a good learning experience. Plus getting on the "most efficient auto car" leaderboard isn't out of the question if I keep at it! :thumbup::)

Rick

P.S. By the way brucepick, when I was quoting you and said "you guys with stick shifts," that was a generic "you" -- I do know you have an automatic.

I wasn't saying you bump the throttle once at the end of the coast to match revs so you can put the car in gear. I was saying you would burn the same amount of gas if you kept the rpms higher the entire way down the hill with the car in neutral as you would coasting in gear and giving the car light throttle the way Rick was describing. It doesn't matter though because Rick wasn't saying that he could match the efficiency of coasting in neutral by coasting in gear with light throttle which was my initial interpretation of his post. And we all agree it would be impossible to get the throttle position exactly correct anyway but I'm curious to see what his testing turns up.

I think you guys are starting to make a believer out of me with the P&G stuff. My new route has lots of rolling, hilly, lonely country roads to glide on.

I have been hovering around 55 by accelerating gently in 1st, 2nd, 3rd gears and WOT in 4th and 5th, up to 60. Then I let it glide down to 50, then back up to 60 with WOT in 5th. The WOT hypothesis is based on someone else's comment about high gear full throttle being efficient...perhaps because there is less of a contriction for incoming air?

Anyhow, it *seems* to be working, but I am going purely off of trip odo + approximate fuel gauge needle position for the past two days. Believe it or not, those long commutes to Johnson Controls were at least good for getting me used to the fuel gauge.

Someone else alluded to my long commutes, which were often 1.25 hr +. Well, I got a new job so it's only 20-25 minutes now! The sad part is in the winter my MPG may take a royal dive because the car will just be getting completely warmed up and my trip will be over. But hey, I'll be using less fuel overall (an important thing to remember when being obsessed with fuel consumption -- overall amount used is more important than efficiency, usually.)

I might buy a drainpan magnet heater from JC Whitney's with my "allowance" next month. Heh!

P&G definitely works. I don't understand it on a physics level yet, but I've seen all the proof I need to accept it... the "how" part will seep into my head eventually. :)

I've seen arguments for WOT, 1/2 to 2/3rds throttle, staying below 2000 RPM, accelerating at a certain load (the SG gives you percent engine load), etc. You'll possibly want to experiment and find out what works best for your route and your car. Without immediate feedback it'll take longer to tell what you're doing, but it's still possible.

If nothing else you could commit to doing P&G a certain way for a while and calculate your FE, then try doing it a different way for a while, etc. until you find what gives you the best numbers. (Then go back and recheck the other methods, because you've probably gotten more skilled over time!)

Rick

P.S. Johnson Controls, eh? I used to be an MTS IV at the Robertshaw Controls Corporate R&D Center before they were bought out by Siebe PLC and the R&D operation was shut down. One of the best and most enjoyable jobs I ever had (and I could bicycle to work!)

Rick, yes I shift at 2000 RPM...so the WOT in 4th and 5th is not burning a ton of fuel...just allowing the engine full access to fresh air so it can accelerate "at its own pace".

Johnson Controls was not fun for me...I worked for Optima Batteries, not the Building Efficiency division. I signed on for a nice paycheck and 40% travel annually...little did I know that 40% would occur mostly in one lump, to start up a plant in Mexico!

Also the battery plants are filled with respirable lead dust, concentrated sulfuric acid, and glass fibers which are strikingly similar to asbestos -- NOT FUN! So I bailed, because even though I'm young I feel I've seen enough of the insides of plants, and plus we have a 6-month-old at home to play with!

:)

Re. WOT - I know that at least some engine management systems enrich the mixture at WOT to provide some additional cooling for the combustion chamber. I know mine does that. So I really avoid WOT but I do go to 3/4 or 7/8 sometimes. Since mine is an automatic I can feel the tension point when the kickdown cable is ready to activate.

Same here, for the same reason.

YIPE! I wouldn't ever do that again. An automatic's fluid pump is driven off the input shaft from the engine. When coasting with the engine off, fluid is not being pumped which means various bearing inside the trans are not being lubed. When they aren't being lubed, they are running metal on metal, and burning off. That is what is causing your high temps, and is greatly increased your tranny wear. It is such a problem that if a tow truck tows an automatic 20 miles on the drive wheels with the engine off, that transmission is toast. Tow truck drivers that are pulling RWD cars will either tow them backwards, or disconnect the driveshaft before towing.

I guess I need to change my posting style; with two posts misunderstood in the same thread, I'm obviously doing something wrong (and that's sincere, not sarcastic). Apologies to all; I'll work on cleaning up my act.

Telco, not only would I never do that again, I would never do it in the first place: I know better. That wasn't several sentences talking about EOC, it was a list of my non-options:

• I can't EOC.
• I'm uncomfortable P&Ging with the engine idling and the tranny in neutral.
• Without fuel cutoff, P&Ging in gear just equals engine braking.

Which leaves "Goldilocks gas" as something to try, even though it won't ever be as effective as some other techniques. I was just clarifying why I'm even bothering with it.

The sentence after "I can't... EOC..." (that talks about rising tranny temps) mentions NICE-ON, but I guess it gets lost in the blur. Like I said, I need to change my posting style. :(

Sorry all, I'll try to do better.

Rick

P.S. For the record, I do coast with the engine off sometimes: Ten feet into a parking space after keying off or out of a potential-energy parking space before cranking the engine, etc. Trivial stuff roughly equivalent to pushing a stalled car out of traffic and which -- as far as I know -- don't risk damage. (If anyone knows differently please speak up!)