Speed up...coast down to slower speed

The “Accelerator” view might have made a little sense years ago. Back in the '70’s, BMW introduced several models that encouraged you to drive with a heavy throttle and then let up when you reached your intended speed (they were called, I believe, the “e” series, for “efficiency,” but they were ridiculed by BMW cognoscenti because they had less performance, so their model run was brief). In their defense, BMW was trying to help make their models more efficient after the gas crises of the '70’s.

As I recall, BMW said the drag of a partially opened carburetor venturi made engines run less efficiently when they were partially open. This is undoubtedly one of many, many factors which condition the efficiency of an engine, but it may not a major one. Even if somewhat reasonable, though, this approach completely ignores the wear on the engine and the danger to other drivers, and it is irrelevant with fuel-injected engines.

Fuel injected engines have throttles just like carburettors do. The efficiency drop off at part throttle happens mostly because at part throttle, the engine has to pump air from the low pressure of the intake manifold to the atmosheric pressure of the exhaust in addition to powering the car.

On the other hand, diesel engines have no air throttles, they control power simply by the amount of fuel injected. Since the pumping losses at idle and low power are very low, the idle fuel consumption of a diesel is substantially lower than a gas engine of similar size.

circuitsmith July 22 Report
I think Floyd meant to use e=mv2, where e=kinetic energy.

You mean he meant to get the formula wrong?

E<font size="-1">k</font> = 1/2*mv^2

Well, at least I was half right! ;o)

While some people are speculating as to what I did, I would like to clear that up.
It’s clear from the figures I used the formula was E=mv2. I used Einstein’s E=mc2 because I thought it would be more familiar to non-technical people. And to technical people like the two MIT graduates, they should know that the numbers I used were v (velocity) numbers and not a c (celeritas) number.

Thank You B.L.E. Your explanations are spot on, As someone in the other thread posted, anyone doubting the pulse and glide, please read about the autospeed link:
http://autospeed.com/cms/title_Brake-Specific-Fuel-Consumption/A_110216/article.html
The efficiency plot shows that MODERATE accelerations, 3/4 throttle at 1/3 to 1/2 redline rpm is most efficent on a HP per consumption basis. At 3/4 throttle, you minimize pumping losses and at 1/3 to 1/2 redline, frictional losses are low.
So you can increase your mpg significantly, not 1-2%, but 20%
I also agree some of the others saying it would be reckless to do this in traffic, but if the road is empty, go for it, moderate accel and coast will not do any damage to your car…

bobandbrigit, BLE and Floyd all make good points. Note BLE’s “you can actually get worse gas mileage using this technique”, and “pulse and glide really pays off … around 40mph or less”. I guess those economy runs that were mentioned on the program and on this thread fall into that category, so aren’t relevant to Linda’s husband’s practice, which seems to be, or include, at highway speeds. I would also discount all coasting in neutral or even switching off the motor, as that is obviously falsifying the “game”, and also not what Mr Linda does, which is alternately flooring and fully releasing the gas pedal.

I have to say I’m surprised at those who say hilly country gives better mileage than flat, although obviously I have to believe what they say. But I suggest that most people don’t have a choice of whether to make a given journey on either hilly or flat roads, so the relevant question is how you get the best mileage on the flat, not what mileage you could get if you were on some different journey. And in any case, again, Linda didn’t mention hills as part of the scenario.

Some anecdotes:

Long ago, I drove in a convoy of British Army Land-Rovers from Brighton to Colchester, which is about 120 miles. Practically all was on what in the USA would be a state or interstate highway, so there were few stops for traffic-lights and such, and the majority was on pretty level ground. The convoy kept close together, so obviously the road traveled and max and average speeds were identical for all participants, and the vehicles were pretty much identical and similarly loaded too. Now, the interesting thing is that my truck, uniquely I think, had a hand-throttle - a ratcheted lever that enabled me to fix a desired throttle opening and take my foot off the pedal. Any time I met a slight grade, or needed to close up or open up in the column, I just moved the lever a couple of notches, so as to produce the minimum necessary change in throttle-opening. On arrival, we all gassed up: my truck took 8 Imperial gallons, and ALL the others 9 or more.

Years later, I owned an old Chevy Caprice, with V8 engine and of course 3-speed auto gears. My very senior mechanic knew those cars - he had managed the Belgian government’s small fleet of them, decades before. He advised me to get up to my desired speed as fast as possible, and then stay there. That ties in with BLE’s “engines become very inefficient at light loads” - get out of partial load, and incidentally low gears, as soon as you can - but definitely not with Mr Linda’s alternate flooring-and-releasing thereafter. Incidentally, we never heard whether Mr Linda’s car has auto or stick shift. If auto, wouldn’t every flooring of the pedal cause a downshift? Repeated constantly over a journey, that would be a huge waste of energy right there.

Related to satisficer’s BMW story: in previous decades, many French cars were set up so that a tiny gas pedal movement got you direct to full throttle-opening; most of the pedal movement being just window-dressing. So unless you had a really fine feel for the pedal, you were pretty much obliged to use Mr Linda’s on-off technique, whether you wanted to or not. We always thought this was a manufacturer’s trick to make you think your car (which would always be seriously underpowered by US or even British standards) was more sporty than it really was. But in light of this thread, I guess it could have been an economy move too. Those cars were stick-shift, of course.

Reverting to auto shift: I’ve just bought a ’94 Le Baron convertible, with 3-litre engine and conventional 3-speed auto box plus, I understand, a lock-up overdrive 4th gear added on. And I was astonished, and even a little scared, at the big burst of gas away from rest that a little pedal movement gave me. This seems set up to encourage just the “get up to speed quickly and stay there” technique that my mechanic recommended. I don’t know how that works out yet, but it may be relevant that this car was considered a gas-guzzler, for its size and power, even in its own day: a contemporary consumer report says 20mpg (US) city, 28 highway.

When I P&G with my motorcycle, the relative position of my bike to the car I’m following usually grows and shrinks by about a car length. If that car length variation of relative position causes a car behind me to have to take evasive measures, he is tailgating.
I go in and out of P&G according to speed and road grade. On gentle downhill stretches, P&G really comes into it’s own. On upgrades, I go back to ‘normal’ driving.
If the speed variation is too big, your average speed is too low yet your peak speeds are too high and you may well be better off driving steady at the average speed you were achieving. Remember that air resistance quadruples when you double your speed so your average air resistance will always be higher than your average speed. The lower your speed variations are, the closer your average air resistance matches your average speed. The high average air resistance of a big speed delta can completely offset the efficiency gains of your engine.
On the other hand, every pulse involves accelerating the engine’s flywheel from idle to cruising rpm so if you pulse too often, the power needed to repeatedly accelerate the flywheel can offset the engine’s efficiency gain.
It’s kind of a judgement call when P&G is effective and when it isn’t. If I have to pulse more frequently than every 10 seconds or so to stay within a 5 mph speed delta, I usually switch to steady state cruising. At that point, the gains, if any, are too small to warrent the effort in my opinion.

My motorcycle’s gas mileage on my commute to work has gone from 45-48 mpg to 51-54 mpg by adapting P&G on the slower parts of my commute.

“It’s clear from the figures I used the formula was E=mv2.”

Is it cery vommon to type v for c where you lice?

Ek = 1/2*mv^2

That’s useful stuff, BLE. My biking was with an open-face helmet and no screen, so air resistance was a very palpable phenomenon, being literally right in my face. By that purely subjective, unscientific measure, my recollection is that air resistance wasn’t a significant limiter of performance until well above 50mph, closer to 60. So, as the square of something insignificant is still pretty small, the effect of resistance on a P&G technique would have been small up to those speeds.

My equally unscientific guess is that for a car, with much greater frontal area, this figure would be lower - say, 40-50 instead of 50-60. If that holds good so far, then credence is led to your earlier figure of “around 40mph or less” for the zone in which benefits can be had from P&G in cars.

My provisional conclusion is that Mr Linda, by 1) flooring the gas instead of moderate acceleration, 2) doing it at much over 40mph (if he does), and 3) lifting off, isn’t saving any money, but is surely damaging his car, inviting a rear-ender from any inattentive driver behind him; and, incidentally, giving his passenger a lousy ride.

lrrs168 is correct with respect to throttle positions that are more open being more efficient as long as the engine load is not sufficiently high as to have the computer transition from a cruise condition where the control is set to run as efficiently as possible to a less fuel efficient condition where the computer starts to optimize for power. through experimentation with both my fords and my acuras, it seems that when the computer begins to optimize for power, it will also signal a computer controlled transmission to downshift.
So slightly accelerating will produce more power per gallon than steady-state cruise.
I dont know about other manufacturers, but in the ford that I have, the computer will actually shut-off all fuel while decelerating with the throttle fully closed and the RPM above 1400. Being computer controlled, there is not excess fuel delivered when I begin accelerating again.

The net result of the increased efficiency while accelerating and the fuel shut-off while decelerating is increased efficiency by performing a acceleration-coast-acceleration driving style, assuming the acceleration leaves the computer in a ‘cruise’ air/fuel/spark configuration and the deceleration is in a 0% throttle setting while in gear (at least on a Ford).

I should also point out that another by-product of this driving style in southern California is very targeted road rage, and is not advisable. Also, if you do this while I am in the car, I will ask to get out and will call for a cab.

  So, yes "pulse and glide" reportedly works just fine, even on a brand new fuel injected car.  "In theory" of course it should make no difference, but in practice an engine is not some theoretical energy source, it's an engine.  But you are a giant swollen asshole if you are doing it in traffic, and deserve to be run off the road.  Everyone on these fuel economy forums that lists all these techinques (pulse and glide, driving ridiculously slow, etc.) always say first thing DON'T DO IT IN TRAFFIC.  Luckily nobody here does this (well, that I've seen, in other words they don't do it in traffic.)

Another big problem I’d worry about with “pulse and glide” (P&G): what happens if you have to cut your coast short? I’m still unconvinced that (for most driving) the benefits from P&G outweigh the costs, but assuming they do, you rely on the coasting period to realize the full benefits of P&G offsetting the enormous energy you use with every pulse to overcome inertia to get back up to speed. If you have to brake either to respond to traffic or make a turn safely, you risk losing a lot of your benefit. (And as a safety issue, you should never develop a habit that even for a microsecond makes you second-guess applying the brakes; as countless studies have shown, when driving those micro-seconds count.)

I’d think the best compromise would be to drive steadily, but use the coasting method to its fullest when slowing down, nearing stop lights, exiting highways, etc. You get guaranteed benefit when you use the coast, and you don’t have to worry about balancing every pulse with an appropriately long glide. Just a thought, and interested to hear the thoughts of those who use P&G regularly.

– secondary comment –

(Quick response to B.L.E. regarding the car behind having to tailgate you in order to be affected by your P&G technique), when I drive I try to maintain the same safe distance with the car in front of me. If I were behind you, I would not have to slow down to avoid an accident, but I would choose to slow down to match your movements. If I don’t know that you are using P&G, I assume that you are slowing down for a road-condition reason. In short, I break for break lights, and that is a safety habit I’d rather not practice ignoring.)

– interesting discussion question: what if every driver used P&G? –

My response to BLE raises, I think an interesting thought experiment: would P&G be more or less effective if every driver did it? If for any reason the rhythms didn’t mesh, then the tail-end of one driver’s coast could force the driver behind to stop their’s short. If all cars P&Ged in roughly the same way, the system might adjust to the same rythm, but what if different sized cars required longer or shorter coast/pulse periods? I don’t know the answer, but I thought the question was interesting? (and very Kantian of me to ask, I know)

Pulse & Glide is a well documented method for maximizing fuel economy. However it has limitations.

Pulse & Glide, however, works best for hybrid drivers because the engine will completely shut off during the glide (coast) and use no gas, where as a normal internal combustion engine will continue to idle and use some gas. The best time for Prius drivers to use Pulse & Glide is below 40mph in city driving.

There is a lot of debate as to whether its better to accelerate hard and then glide or accelerate gradually and then glide. On the gasoline side, I’m not sure it makes a lot of difference. My opinion, for a hybrid, accelerating hard will drain the hybrid batter faster and the glide will not recharge it. Which means the engine will have to kick on quicker to recharge the battery. Therefore it should be better to accelerate slowly.

Pulse & Glide doesn’t work well at freeway speeds. The wind resistance is so great that it requires too frequent of a pulsing. At freeway speeds, it is better to use cruise control.

and, as mentioned before, it’ll really cheese off the people behind you