On May 7, 8:38=A0pm, "Mortimer" <m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Sam the Bam" <samtheb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
messagenews:993f6e42-2d59-4a=
c6-81e2-33f9ede9aebd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > On May 6, "travis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <travis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> They coast downhill with the engine off and do not use
> >> compression braking, which adds a few mpg. =A0I've
> >> tested this shit in a non hybrid car, btw, coasting downhill
> >> or on flats versus running against the engine's compression.
> >> You can recover 10% mpg just by aggressive coasting.
>
> How much fuel does an engine use when you are going downhill with your
foo=
t
> off the throttle, using engine braking?
That doesn't really matter, since it's not how vehicle fuel
consumption
is calcuated. Since people have been using that lame idea with
*everything* from *horses* to *elevators* to *trains* to
*supertankers*
for going on *2000 years* now.
So it's mostly why post-medieval things like robots, lasers,
satellites, GPS,
digital computers, microwaves, Laserdisks, A/C, Space Shuttles,
and Cruise Missiles were even invented for the Exxon, Ford, GM,
and Chrysler morons.
I'd expect it to be about as much as
> with the engine idling. Just because the engine is running faster and
> there's a greater throughput of air due to the more frequent induction
> strokes, why should that cause more fuel to be used, assuming you have
fue=
l
> injection rather than a carburettor?
>
> Is the fuel consumption the same if you coast downhill with the engine
on
> but the clutch pressed and/or the transmission in neutral?
|
