G35 Sedan V36 2007- 08 Discussion about the 2nd Generation G35 Sedan 2007 - 08

29.1 mpg

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
  #16  
Old 04-26-2011 | 12:22 PM
Ginevan's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 70
From: Annapolis, MD
Originally Posted by vqsmile
Does everyone know that if you shift into neutral when coasting downhill or to a stop, you actually use more fuel than if you coast in the highest gear with your foot off the gas? The ecu shuts off the injectors entirely when coasting in gear with throttle plate closed.
Understandable, but you decelerate when you stay in gear (backforce from the motor not firing) therefore you will coast farther in neutral while using a miņute amount of gas than staying in 6th gear, then having to accelerate again much sooner, and more frequent if that behavior was repeated through the tanks cycle.

You would also accelerate more down a hill if you were in neutral (basic newtonian physics)

Right? Obviously some quantitative numbers would prove this, but please correct me if im wrong.
 
  #17  
Old 04-26-2011 | 12:27 PM
makeinu0's Avatar
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 197
Likes: 4
From: Honolulu, Hi
K all the Mainland people, stop complaining cuz I live in Hawaii and it's hitting $4.70 this week! lol
But not as bad as neighbor islands I guess....





Damn island.
 

Last edited by makeinu0; 04-26-2011 at 12:36 PM.
  #18  
Old 04-26-2011 | 12:28 PM
vqsmile's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,945
Likes: 427
From: SF bayarea (925)
Originally Posted by Ginevan
Understandable, but you decelerate when you stay in gear (backforce from the motor not firing) therefore you will coast farther in neutral while using a miņute amount of gas than staying in 6th gear, then having to accelerate again much sooner, and more frequent if that behavior was repeated through the tanks cycle.

You would also accelerate more down a hill if you were in neutral (basic newtonian physics)

Right? Obviously some quantitative numbers would prove this, but please correct me if im wrong.
Initially, I had the exact same thoughts about it that you have mentioned, but apparently ZERO fuel is quite a bit less than idling requirements. Having tried it both ways now, I can say I am getting better results with the in-gear coasting (btw, I live in a hilly area).
 
  #19  
Old 04-26-2011 | 12:30 PM
vqsmile's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,945
Likes: 427
From: SF bayarea (925)
Originally Posted by makeinu0
K all the Mainland people, stop complaining cuz I live in Hawaii and it's hitting $4.70 this week! lol

Damn island.

Yeah, but at least you never have too far to drive
 
  #20  
Old 04-26-2011 | 12:34 PM
Ginevan's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 70
From: Annapolis, MD
Originally Posted by vqsmile
Initially, I had the exact same thoughts about it that you have mentioned, but apparently ZERO fuel is quite a bit less than idling requirements. Having tried it both ways now, I can say I am getting better results with the in-gear coasting (btw, I live in a hilly area).
Then ill just turn off my car while coasting. Power steering and brakes, psch, they made out fine in the old days without em.

I'll try this on my next tank though and see if I remember to compare. Normally I stay in gear and give it just enough pedal to keep the throttle open, but just barely.

However, I'm not convinced that it completely cuts fuel to the motor, this would cause a very lean condition not good for the motor, right? So next time I drive I'm going to test it and shut off the ignition while in gear and see if I feel a difference in backforce.

BTW, that last paragraph was not intended to sound rude
 
  #21  
Old 04-26-2011 | 12:37 PM
Ginevan's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 70
From: Annapolis, MD
To Hawaii, don't you have a higher standard of living there too though? Higher cost and income to match?
 
  #22  
Old 04-26-2011 | 12:42 PM
vqsmile's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,945
Likes: 427
From: SF bayarea (925)
Originally Posted by Ginevan
Then ill just turn off my car while coasting. Power steering and brakes, psch, they made out fine in the old days without em.

I'll try this on my next tank though and see if I remember to compare. Normally I stay in gear and give it just enough pedal to keep the throttle open, but just barely.

However, I'm not convinced that it completely cuts fuel to the motor, this would cause a very lean condition not good for the motor, right? So next time I drive I'm going to test it and shut off the ignition while in gear and see if I feel a difference in backforce.

BTW, that last paragraph was not intended to sound rude
Did they have steering wheel locks though? Be careful!

From what I have read, there is no lean condition as there is no fuel NOR spark(edit: the no spark part may be incorrect); combustion ceases. Pretty much all modern cars do this now.
 

Last edited by vqsmile; 04-26-2011 at 01:08 PM.
  #23  
Old 04-26-2011 | 12:43 PM
makeinu0's Avatar
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 197
Likes: 4
From: Honolulu, Hi
How do you delete this??
 

Last edited by makeinu0; 04-26-2011 at 12:54 PM. Reason: double post
  #24  
Old 04-26-2011 | 12:44 PM
makeinu0's Avatar
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 197
Likes: 4
From: Honolulu, Hi
Vpsmile, Very tru, but at the same time, thats the exact reason y we only get like 15mpg.... lol

Ginevan, The higher standard of living comes from the fact that we have loads rich people coming here to live from mainland and Asia (similar to Miami I guess), so the AVERAGE income is polarized into one direction. In reality, the income here is extremely low compared to the mainland. The true locals here cannot afford the high standard of living set for the foreigners.... :-(

sad, but its reality
 
  #25  
Old 04-26-2011 | 12:45 PM
Ginevan's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 70
From: Annapolis, MD
BTW, I was 100% kidding about turning off the car, I know about the lock, lol.

Also, I didn't know spark ceases as well. Seems pretty feasible, but to satisfy the engineer in me, I plan on testing to confirm.
 
  #26  
Old 04-26-2011 | 12:47 PM
PAIXAO's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (14)
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,338
Likes: 444
From: The Commonwealth
Just went 452 miles on 17.4 gallons last week. Its not impossible to get good mileage out of these cars. I also drive about 500 miles a week and always have gotten 400+ miles out of every tank since Ive owned the car. I have 85000 miles on it now.
 
  #27  
Old 04-26-2011 | 01:06 PM
vqsmile's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,945
Likes: 427
From: SF bayarea (925)
Originally Posted by Ginevan
...
Also, I didn't know spark ceases as well. Seems pretty feasible, but to satisfy the engineer in me, I plan on testing to confirm.
Yeah, after thinking about this again, I'm curious about this as well. I can't specifically recall reading that the spark is cut, but regardless, there is definitely no problems with a lean condition. The question then is, how come? Maybe because there is no engine load since it's coasting?
 
  #28  
Old 04-27-2011 | 01:30 AM
surfjax87's Avatar
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 352
Likes: 29
From: Huntsville, AL
Originally Posted by Ginevan
Kinda. But some cars perform a little bit more efficiently in higher RPM's (obviously not bouncing off the rev limiter.) And this may be an extrapolation, but if one were to shift at 1600 every time, that wouldn't be too efficient.
Efficiency is lower at low rpm vs mid rpm, but it still uses less fuel.

This whole gas thing is killing me. I'm trying to be real gentle with the gas pedal, but about twice a week I'm really stressed out from work and have to go on a nice fun drive to clear my head and put a smile on my face. I'm only getting about 20-21 mpg.
 
  #29  
Old 04-27-2011 | 01:39 AM
Ginevan's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 70
From: Annapolis, MD
Originally Posted by surfjax87
Efficiency is lower at low rpm vs mid rpm, but it still uses less fuel.
That makes no sense...

Efficiency is more distance per unit of fuel, yet your saying Efficiency goes down (less distance per unit of fuel) and using less fuel?

Doesn't make sense.

And if efficiency is up in the mid rpm, then how would you get better mpg at low rpm if it's inefficient?
 
  #30  
Old 04-27-2011 | 01:41 AM
Ginevan's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 70
From: Annapolis, MD
Originally Posted by vqsmile
Yeah, after thinking about this again, I'm curious about this as well. I can't specifically recall reading that the spark is cut, but regardless, there is definitely no problems with a lean condition. The question then is, how come? Maybe because there is no engine load since it's coasting?
But there is engine load. Just in the opposite direction, moment, etc. The wheels are keeping the motor spinning rather than the motor keeping the wheels spinning.

BTW, I did infact just test, the car does cut fuel when coasting in gear. Turned the key while coasting and felt zero difference.
 


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: 29.1 mpg



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:45 AM.