because if ya cant beat em, join em. if anyone here had paid any attention to the other thread that was going on a week or 2 ago, theyd know that I am being sarcastic. but I guess for some reason people cant remember that far back.
- Status
because if ya cant beat em, join em. if anyone here had paid any attention to the other thread that was going on a week or 2 ago, theyd know that I am being sarcastic. but I guess for some reason people cant remember that far back.
Especially with a lack of emoticons, while in the midst of people that really are dead serious about engines slamming to a halt once you cut off the fuel, ESPECIALLY long after that particular horse has been beaten to death.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,512
- 21
- 81
Actually, almost all modern vehicles calculate fuel consumed based on the injector duty cycle signal from the ECU, it just happens that this generally corresponds roughly with the vacuum reading.Originally posted by: Vic
To the OP: the owners manual for your Toyota Corolla S specificially says not to operate the engine under load below 2000 rpm and that to do so can cause engine damage and shorten engine life.
Now how much money are you saving?
And FYI to all: determining fuel mileage can be done through observing an intake manifold vacuum pressure gauge. The greater the vacuum, the less fuel is being consumed. This is exactly how "fuel computers" that are installed in certain car models work. They measure vacuum against vehicle speed. For those with turbocharged engines, a boost gauge can serve the same function (as it's just a vacuum gauge that can also measure positive pressure, aka "boost").
ZV
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Actually, almost all modern vehicles calculate fuel consumed based on the injector duty cycle signal from the ECU, it just happens that this generally corresponds roughly with the vacuum reading.Originally posted by: Vic
To the OP: the owners manual for your Toyota Corolla S specificially says not to operate the engine under load below 2000 rpm and that to do so can cause engine damage and shorten engine life.
Now how much money are you saving?
And FYI to all: determining fuel mileage can be done through observing an intake manifold vacuum pressure gauge. The greater the vacuum, the less fuel is being consumed. This is exactly how "fuel computers" that are installed in certain car models work. They measure vacuum against vehicle speed. For those with turbocharged engines, a boost gauge can serve the same function (as it's just a vacuum gauge that can also measure positive pressure, aka "boost").
ZV
Well, technicallly, most ECUs use a duty cycle pre-determined from fuel tables programmed in the ECU with a little help from the oxygen sensor as well as the air metering device, be it speed density, mass air-flow, or manifold absolute pressure.
And yes, it is suprising how this topic gets argued, when you can see with your own eyes on one of those cheap "MPG gauges" that were so popular in the '80s early '90s were pegged at 99 during deceleration. (Granted, they are vacuum gauges with a pretty interface, but the principle that fuel consumption is based on engine load, which is based on manifold vacuum, is the same)
What page? I'll try looking for it, but it's a big book.Originally posted by: Vic
To the OP: the owners manual for your Toyota Corolla S specificially says not to operate the engine under load below 2000 rpm and that to do so can cause engine damage and shorten engine life.
Now how much money are you saving?
As long as gas is inside the tank, the engine is using gas.
Even a moron consumes oxygen and turns it into carbon dioxide. Which a smarter plant can turn back into oxygen with the aid of the sun and water.
EDIT: WARNING, reading the following lines of text can cause severe dain bramage, read at yor own risk!
WRONG! /lexluther
As long as gas is being used by the engine, the engine using gas, regardless of if there is gas in the tank or not. Geez, how many times do I have to explain this?!?
No, the the gas is being converted to turn signal fluid by the flytostik convertor. Any excess fluid is used to lubricate the muffler bearings and then goes on to a hypotonic eyewash for the driver...
That's ok, I'll trade the cost of the clutch I'd have to replace ahead of schedule against the .01 mpg gained from engine braking.
I can't believe people don't realize how much strain this puts on other components as well, such as the CV joints and/or u-joints, differential, trans synchros and even motor/trans mounts.
It simply not necessary, and anyboy who drives that way all the time thinks their last name is Andretti. Especially the clowns that do it to save their brakes.
I can't believe people don't realize how much strain this puts on other components as well, such as the CV joints and/or u-joints, differential, trans synchros and even motor/trans mounts.
It simply not necessary, and anyboy who drives that way all the time thinks their last name is Andretti. Especially the clowns that do it to save their brakes.
Actually, cars only use gas when you think they're using gas. I've improved my mileage 300% by "willing" my car not to consume gasoline when I'm just cruising along at a constant speed.
Funny, my 240,000 mile celica didn't seem to have trouble with it.
If you're wearing out your clutch, you don't know how to engine brake. That goes double for your CV joints/diff/synchro, and I would love to know how you're wearing out your engine mounts:laugh:
I don't.
But I fix cars all day as a result of it.
Actually I don't. I'm the one that tells the mechanics to do it.
As a result of proper engine braking? I doubt it. I really, really doubt it.
How many miles do you get out of your clutches? How many miles on the cars you're fixing? Methinks technique is to blame.
Do not try and save the gas, that is impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth: There is no gas. Then you will see that it is not the gas which is saved, but yourself.
There's no such thing as proper engine braking.
What you described earlier was a method to be in the correct gear for anticipated acceleration. The same goes for racing. I don't call that engine braking.
Downshifting into a lower gear earlier than necessary thereby causing drag from the decelerating engine to slow the car is not only wasteful, but a strain on other parts of the car as well.
This method can in no way safely outperform the brakes, therefore is a complete and utter waste of time.
That is your error, not mine.
First, I fail to understand...no, scratch that. Downshifting WILL NOT cause a problematic level of strain on other parts of the car, unless you're trying to go into second at freeway speeds, or you don't revmatch before letting out the clutch. I agree that if you do it horribly wrong, bad things will happen...a rule which applies to pretty much every area of life anyway.
Second, while obviously the brakes are more powerful (though in many vehicles with a high power-to-weight ratio, like sports cars or motorcycles, the engine can produce the same amount of deceleration as moderate braking), that in no way makes engine braking a "waste of time." Ever gone down a steep hill? Maybe while pulling a trailer? Yeah. Or, if you're coming up to a light or a traffic slowdown, where there is a good distance between you and the place where you'll stop, using the engine to slow you down by taking your foot off the gas is more efficient than keeping your speed until you're closer, and then braking normally.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,333
- 136
The purpose of engine braking and downshifting is not to outperform the brakes, but to ensure that that car is in the proper gear at all times. No one here was ever arguing anything differently.
And I would love to hear how using the engine to decelerate (when done properly) could possibly be more of a "strain" than using the engine to accelerate.
It doesn't say anything about that in the book. In fact, it tells you to switch gears at 2500 rpm which would put you under 2000 rpm.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter