Using DFCO to increase your MPG

[BailOut]

I see that you live in Oklahoma, Steve. Please try to expand your horizon enough to realize that not everyone lives in the Great Plain. Many of us, talnlnky included, live in hilly and/or mountainous regions, and in these areas it is not uncommon at all to be in DFCO for extended periods of time.

During my own commute there are instances where I am in fuel cut for as much as 7 miles at a time, for a total of around 20 miles per workday. Considering that commuting represents 90% of each tank, calculate that and then tell me that DFCO doesn't mean anything to FE.

[talnlnky]

Originally Posted by BailOut

I see that you live in Oklahoma, Steve. Please try to expand your horizon enough to realize that not everyone lives in the Great Plain. Many of us, talnlnky included, live in hilly and/or mountainous regions, and in these areas it is not uncommon at all to be in DFCO for extended periods of time.

During my own commute there are instances where I am in fuel cut for as much as 7 miles at a time, for a total of around 20 miles per workday. Considering that commuting represents 90% of each tank, calculate that and then tell me that DFCO doesn't mean anything to FE.

Well, I used to live in a Hilly/mountainous area, now it's more of an extremely slow grade... but from time to time I get to go up and down some hills, or even the Cascade mountain range.

Some of my best tanks of gas have come from commutes that involved hills/mountains, where I was able to coast A LOT in gear.

[sbergman27]

Originally Posted by BailOut

I see that you live in Oklahoma, Steve. Please try to expand your horizon enough to realize that not everyone lives in the Great Plain.

Big mistake there, Bailout. My home address is in Oklahoma. But I drive to New Mexico, and/or Colorado nearly weekly. In fact, I just got back from Grand Teton National Park, in northwestern Wyoming, just south of Yellowstone, a few days ago.

(Yes, I drive *quite* a lot.)

Nice try. But you really need to get out more before you counsel me upon "expanding horizons". I probably cover more ground in a month or two than you do in a year. And more varied (and mountainous) ground, at that.

So why don't you try addressing the facts I've presented rather than trying to sneak in a personal attack based upon your guess about my driving experience. I have made quite a number of factual points, in previous posts, which you seem set upon ignoring.

Look. DFCO is a handy tool in the tool chest. But you have overemphasized it in comparison to some of the other useful tools there. I like seeing 9999 on my Scangauge II as much as anyone. But even over extended DFCO periods, the effect needs to be kept in perspective. Because the Yaris engine easily uses 20 times its idle consumption just as soon as you start ascending the next hill.

-Steve

[BailOut]

Originally Posted by sbergman27

So why don't you try addressing the facts I've presented

Because your "facts" change nothing. At the end of the day everything that you've presented is interesting but completely unnecessary, and contains as much opinion as fact.

I say again, getting caught up in the minutiae helps no one. Let us agree to disagree on the best implementation and/or public understanding of DFCO and move on.

[sbergman27]

Originally Posted by BailOut

Because your "facts" change nothing.

Tell you what. Using 0.16 GPH for coasting in neutral, 0.20 GPH for idle, and 0.0 GPH for DFCO, and ignoring engine braking factors for now... why don't you work out for yourself how much DFCO could realistically be saving you on a per tank basis? I don't really care about the answer. But I think it would benefit you to go through the exercise.

Sorry if you feel I stepped on you toes regarding your "discovery". But the numbers I have presented cut to the very heart of this matter. If you disagree, then please present an alternative model.