Actually, not much of a stretch at all, the size and fuel consumption of our
beauties put some folks off from them, so instead they go with something
like a 6 banger sedan or convertible.
. I can't see where sticking your foot in down in the throttle would be good
for gas mileage, except maybe for a very light high horsepower car, where it
could brought up to speed quickly then allowed to coast. But as far as our
heavy solid luxury machines are concerned, I would think a light throttle
foot would be best.
Phil <><
----- Original Message -----
From: "William" <mopar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 9:18 PM
Subject: IML: Accelerating and Fuel Economy
> Hi All,
> This may be a bit of a stretch as far as Imperial content, but since they
> are big cars, and do use a fair bit of fuel, I hope this isn't too far off
> topic. I have a question regarding fuel economy and acceleration. Not
based
> on my practical desire to conserve fuel as much as the theorietical
optimum
> (read: settle an argument!). I am not interested in cruising economy, as
> that is pretty straightforward.
> Regarding acceleration, as I see it, there are two variables; throttle
> setting and shift point. What combination will provide the most economic
run
> to cruising speed X? Is it wide open throttle and high shift points over a
> short distance, low throttle and low shift points over a long distance, or
> something in between? I remember reading about the Mobil Economy Run,
where
> in certain cases it was optimal to use WOT (or near) to accelerate to
> cruising speed, but conventional wisdom usually states slow acceleration
is
> best.
> One side is that it is better to accelerate quickly to cruise speed. The
> counterpoint being that earlier you shift, and the less throttle you use,
> the better. Which is correct? Thanks for the input on this one. I will
> reveal later which side I was on...
> William
> 83 EFi
> Edmonton, Canada
>
>
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network