Accelerate and Coast driving
 

I've read that some advocate (and correct me if I am wrong) that if you want to drive ~60 miles per hour, then accelerating to 62 miles per hour and letting the car coast to ~58 MPH (I'm making up the numbers, but you get the point) and repeating this, will achieve better fuel efficiency than driving a constant 60 MPH.
If that is correct, here is my quesiton...
Isn't it better for (health of) the engine to run continually, instead of starting and stopping over and over again and again, in short spurts?
Won't continuous starting and stopping tax the engine and hurt it over time?
Not a mechanic, just a new owner with a ton of questions.
Thanks!

Re: Accelerate and Coast driving
 

Do a search for "Pulse and Glide"

A 4 mph window won't really get you any substancial savings, but some can really get great mileage by using that techique.

I have not found it to do much good in my TCH.

Re: Accelerate and Coast driving
 

I don't subscribe to the Pulse & glide method, it doesn't seem to do a whole lot for me either, I find I get better gas mileage just using the cruise control. But then again, I live in a hilly area, so pulse&glide doesn't get me very far anyway.

Re: Accelerate and Coast driving
 

Actually, the question wasn't as much about the fuel efficiency, but more about the effect of the engine of constant start and stops. Any thoughts on this?

Re: Accelerate and Coast driving
 

The hybrid system is designed with that in mind. It is not hard on the engine at all (or the whole concept would be pointless). The engine is spun up to speed by the electric motor before it is fired up. Its not at all like cranking an engine from a cold stop.

Re: Accelerate and Coast driving
 

Good answer...thanks!

43.6 MPG average for 178 Miles
 

Listen the pulse and glide does work and here is how I used it. While taking a trip on Wednesday from Austin to Dallas I averaged 43.6 mpg with speeds of up to 80mph (ssshhh don't tell).

The technique was to use the cruise control for mildly flat terrain then turn it off when I hit the hills and there were many of those on the I-35. If I would have left the cruise on it would simply slow down the speed on the downhill part then haul butt going up the hill to something like +3mph over the target speed until I hit the peak of the hill. By using the G/P method, I would accelerate the car downhill all the while keeping the mpg indicator buried at 60mpg then let the car sort of glide up the hill until I was at just about the speed limit. Then lightly add acceleration.

Needless to say, 43.6 while not besting some of the numbers here was a solid highway mpg avg.

Re: 43.6 MPG average for 178 Miles
 

going down hill the cruise control wouldn't have any effect as long as gravity is a factor ;)

Re: Accelerate and Coast driving
 

I thought this topic was already......previously addressed but, i guess not!! There are many "tricks" one can use to achieve better fuel economy. I have been as high as 54mpg for a short period of time using none of these methods. My "real" average is more like 38-43mpg. I have never dropped below 38mpg for more than a few minutes...........and i'm happy with that!! :D

Re: 43.6 MPG average for 178 Miles
 

I'm not sure that's true. It sure looks to me like the cruise helps keep the car from speeding up. As an experiment, I turned off the cruise while going down a hill, and the car immediately started speeding up, where it had been constant before that.