Nope. Did not measure anything, infact I offered up real times to speed and glide for a Fit and that was not used.

It's just a calculation not based on anything to do with Fuel and reality.

 

Ahhh... what I'm saying is that energy is based on the distance that an object travels. If you push an object from point A to B. Then it takes work to do so depending on weight. But in this case, the same object is being pushed two different distances. Meaning the one that travels a shorter distance does more work, unless there's a whole lot of force dragging on it in the other direction. So theoretically, if you travel from point A to B, it's the same energy as traveling from point B to A. However, If the work is not equal, then that means during one trip, there was an extra force pushing the object backwards. Also, just because you keep the average velocity the same doesn't make the energy use the same. I can average 35 mph going 100ft, compared with going 3 miles averging 35mph. Of course I'm going to use more energy going 3 miles. I'm not saying if P&G is more or less effecient. I'm just saying the test doesn't give me a good look of how much more/less energy will be used up and lost if both method were applied to the same distances.

Two coins falling from the same height will have the same amount of energy. But if one coin is lower than the other in height, it's going to have less energy than the other coin.

Hence, you're moving the car at a smalling distance using P&G and then claiming that it uses less energy. But then when you measure coasting, you measured it on a longer distance and stated that it used more energy.

 

Have you ever rode a bike? P&G is used in biking all the time.

 

But even if the problem involves the same distance, it matters how it's pushed. For example, traveling 5 miles on 1st gear wastes more gas than traveling 5 miles on 5th gear. Yet, they both involve the same amount of work. (if you're wondering about consevation of energy, the energy in driving in first gear went to waste fighting higher friction from high revs, and fighting the tendency of first gear to engine brake)

work of the car (the work the thread starter is talking about) does not measure work of the engine/tranny (fuel consumption.) Under the hood, the work involved in driving in first gear for 5 miles is HIGHER than the work driving in fifth gear in a same distance.

If talking about fuel economy, make sure you're talking about the right energy. the equation W= F*d, The F stands for "force to X from Y" and d = displacement of X traveled. Since we're talking about fuel economy, we talk about the objects closest to the immediate energy released by fuel: the engine and tranny. You can't just plug in numbers out of context and expect some meaning out of it.

 

Hahaha. To tell you the truth, I don't think either one is more efficient than the other. The reason why? If you accelerated at the same speed you decelerated, then you basically go the same distance. But if you accelerate faster, then you're just using more power (energy per time), but when you coast off it when you hit top speed, you get about the same distance. I think I'm going to stop caring about this thread now. LOL.. Good luck guys!

 

Both cases the vehicle traveled the same distance. The distance was established by burn and coast and the steady state matched the distance. The best argument against is the displacement of the air varies at burn and coast and doesn't for steady state but that equation requires more computer power than I have.
One case is just more efficient than the other. We'll do a trial Monday to see actual test matches theoretical. Fifteen miles of repeated burn and coast down and 15 miles steady state same route. Greatfun.

 

Keep in mind the argument for this not working has a great deal to do withh the fact that the energy used to get up to speed will be more than the avg run, with the glide. ie from A to B. That's because the car is way less efficient when flat footed (highest acceleration) to do that work. With all the discussion on the wind force being the real load, I think that detail was dismissed or not understood as this evolved here. That's the energy part. Energy used to do work.

Same as the reason a person that pumps the gas on a steady run will get less mpg as a person with a steady foot.

get it

 

No, and neither does anyone who has actually studied engine efficiency. Have you ever driven a car with a CVT? I'd guess not.

globeandmail.com: globeauto.com New hybrids cordless, clean and cutting edge
"A gasoline engine is most efficient at wide open throttle and least efficient at or just off idle -- conditions under which we drive the majority of the time."

(WO/1996/001193) HYBRID VEHICLE
"[...]it is well known that a gasoline or other internal combustion engine is most efficient when producing near its maximum output torque. Typically, the number of diesel locomotives on a train is selected in accordance with the total tonnage to be moved and the grades to be overcome, so that all the locomotives can be operated at nearly full torque production."

 

Figures BS like this in hybrid note lol
here some help......
When you go WOT on our Fit's, the combustion controls "ECU" go "open loop". When in open loop, the fuel/air ratio is made rich. That is the worst case for efficient power from the engine. When closed loop, at any other load or RPM the ECU will look at the O2 sensors as feed back and trim the fuel flow for best efficiency.

 

So, facts don't concern you. Oooookay. Bye now.

 

FACTS?? LOL

You must of typed too fast on my ECU description.

 

Acceleration cannot be used to determine how much energy was involved if you're talking about rotation. Let's say there's a nut that is so tight and you can't unscrew it. To solve this problem, instead of muscling it, you just use a longer wrench.

The same is said for torque and acceleration. Just becuase Pulse involves fast acceleration doesn't mean it used a lot of energy. As I said earlier, gearing matters as much as the engine. Accelerating to 35 mph on first gear in 3 seconds does not take a lot of energy.

Remember (and I don't think you do, because you seem like you don't know physics), for rotation, work = torque * rpm*time. What is the peak torque and peak rpm of a fit anyway? And b/c it's a pulse, the time is small too. Therefore, the work involved in accelerating 0-35 mph (35 mph is around the fit's speed at redline in first gear) is very low. You can't argue against this.

 

Still know facts.
Funny how the normal ones that take the opposing side with out a single fact have yet to disclose any results.

Moderator, what are your qualifications? What eco accomplishments have you made with you Fit? How about positive help on this site? Scan in you engineering degree so when you say I do not know physics, your own skill set is clear.

If it worked, results based on real testing would be easy to find. Also EPA or OEM mention would as well. That all by itself backs up my claim 100%. ... an the bashers go stone silent lol

 

<sigh> I've tried not to post in this thread, as it's just the usual uneducated comments.

All I will say is... I have proven P&G works numerous times in my Fit. The ScanGauge II made it even easier to prove and also easier to do efficiently.

If it's not for you... fine, drop it and don't do it.

 

Speaking of stone silent, you keep avoiding my questions. Tell me which burns more energy: driving 10 miles on first gear, or driving 10 miles on 5th gear. According to your "newton's 2nd law", where W = F*D, they should use the same amount of gas. And you know this isn't true. How do you explain it with your D+ physics?

Your basis for logic is specious reasoning. It's like in simpsons where
"Yes. The bear program is keeping out bears!"
"Dad your using specious reasoning. Look, I can say this rock is keeping out tigers from this city. But I don't see any bears"
"Lisa...I would like to buy that rock from you"

Specious reasoning is the basis for your anti-P&G argument.

------------
And about moderating.

A moderator isn't necessarily an expert. A moderator moderates. i.e. He keeps trolls away from threads. I'm very close to closing this thread, b/c you avoid everyone's question, and just repeat the same thing "I'm a winner!". Had you actually addressed my questions, I would keep this going. But you don't. I asked you five questions, and you respond the same way "you all don't know anything!"

If you don't respond to any of my questions, I will close this thread on the conclusion you are trolling this thread. Answer my first vs fifth gear travelling 10 miles question, or else I have no choice but conclude you are a troll. Don't take it personally, that's my job as a moderator.

 

I have not answered any of your off beat questions for two reasons.
1) You failed to answer a single one of mine that had been asked before you started on me and the topic.
2) Your repeated negative comments toward me show a totally disrespect and what you are all about.

I see you can't read as well. The fact is I did not answer your off beat questions. You and you alone. So show us all just why your tic tac is so low for all your help as a moderator and close my thread before anyone has a chance to show some legit results from testing. ie take you toys and go home. I was expecting that from you the second you showed you real character and started the name calling like my 7 year old.

 

Why doesn't everyone take a "time out" or "GLIDE" for a while? Peace everyone!

 

You need to tell that to Dale Earnhardt who just won Michigan by accerating and coasting for two laps to save gas. Thats as good a test as you will ever see.

 

[quote=pcs0snq;334990]I have been thinking about this for some time and wanted to toss this out for discussion.



This would suggest that Pulse and Glide method can't result in better eco because the energy to get back up to speed will always be more than the energy saved coasting. That is the net energy will be more that just driving steady. This is based on sound physics. There is no such thing as free energy as this would sugest.

Tell that to Dale Earnhardt who won Michigan by P&Ging for 2 laps. The key is efficiency. Any time you drive further on the same gas you are increasing mpg. Of course it is not recommended because so many other things can be trouble. However, you may want to shift to neutral in your manual Fit only on downhill runs to save at least some gas.

 

[quote=pcs0snq;339120]The fact is, there's still no test results that show the Honda Fit can go from A to B using less fuel using P&G.
Show me some real A-B-A test data that shows these huge gains (50% lol) and I'll eat my shoe.

Considering Dale Earnhardt just won Michigan using P&G during a caution and shown clearly accelerating and coasting you may wish to re-consider your opinion.