I want to clarify what "pulse and glide" is. The "glide" is intended to be done with the car out of gear. The "pulse" should be brisk (but not full throttle) acceleration. The stories I've read seem to point to a 15MPH spread being a sweet spot. It should be noted that trying to P&G from 65-80MPH is going to be a frustrating waste of time, because at those speeds air resistance owns the day and will wipe out any possibility of significant gains. 40-55MPH is more like it.

As noted, some folks shut their engines off (FAS) and coast (EOC) during this phase. I am also not a fan of that idea, especially when there is even a remote possibility of having to steer or brake the car suddenly.

I personally worked very hard at P&G for about a month. I never found that elusive mileage improvement, and wore out a clutch pedal cover in the attempt. But there definitely are folks who have definitely made it work.

 

Agreed. Trying to Pulse & "Glide" with the car in gear will often give you worse mileage than just maintaining speed. It's true that engine braking in gear will consume zero fuel, but it also consumes a lot of momentum. You then have to burn fuel to regain that momentum. It's usually worse than the minimal fuel used to idle the engine in neutral.

If your can can handle the hill, climb in 5th gear just short of wide open throttle. Your mileage is better the lower the rpm and the more open the throttle is.

Pulse and glide can work well, but it takes practice and finesse and a mileage computer more precise than the onboard one. Scangauge is the one I use.

 

If you're trying to conserve fuel you shouldn't be going faster than 65 in the Fit. It doesn't take much to accel even in 5th between 55 and 65, just don't mash the gas and you'll keep a good average.

Not sure why it's being said sitting in 5th uphill WOT is saving any fuel? That makes no sense. More open throttle = more fuel.

 

Brake Specific Fuel Consumption is your friend here.

AutoSpeed - Brake Specific Fuel Consumption

Basically, yes you are using more fuel, but using that fuel more efficiently. You get more increase in power than you do in consumption, because you're moving into the engine's optimal operating mode. High throttle at low rpm, but not WOT, is the most efficient.

Absolutely right. I've tested it and the effect continues as you go slower. Cruising at 25 mph in 5th gear gives 70 mpg.

 

Good read, thank you for sharing.

I never quite understood the exact how's and why's of that, I just knew there must be a good scientific reason for it, my below statement should have read differently and more to that effect instead of just "I can..."
I never investigated much because I had no interest and don't enjoy driving like that (annoying, not smooth), and my wife would probably punch me . I also prefer to not be out of powerband in case I may need it. I am not a hypermiler by any means, I just do the best I can to combine efficiency, safety and comfort to get the best mileage I can without all the "extras".

I understand to some people it's a hobby akin to performance enthusiasts, just on the other side of the spectrum, and I can respect that.

I learned something new today, so thank you.

 

So first tank down...

362.9 Miles
9.523 Gallons
38.11 MPG

Not bad. Im seriously improving and really employing pulse and glide on my commute now, which is basically the only driving i do aside from occasional short errands around town. On the two trips ive made back and forth to work im sitting at 42.5 accordding to the built in trip meter. For what thats worth, its much higher than I had before.

I commute to eastern suffolk county on long island, so there is rarely any traffic, allowing me to pulse and glide to my hearts content.

Cant thank you all for the advice, i love the results so far! Keeping this pace and getting 450 miles to a tank would be amazing ^_^

 

So I got a scan gauge! What a useful little toy. I have taken two 90 minute trips so far and according to the gauge I was at 51 and 53 mpg on each one respectively. Cool!!

My trip meter is up to 46, but thats running from the beginning of the tank before I had the scan gauge.

Either way I'm utterly pleased with those numbers. Right around 900 miles now.

I am still using pulse and glide when terrain is condusive to it, drafting when I can safely. If i'm crusing I never go over 60, if im pulse and gliding i usually pulse to 65 and glide to 50 or so. Rarely use a/c but if i do i cycle it on and off. Windows down when under 50 mph.

The best part of it is that its now more affordable for me to drive the hour to see my girlfriend in Queens than to take the train!! I love this machine.

 

So i have gotten pretty confident with my pulse and glide skills and i decided to try FAS despite getting warnings against it.

I think people over react to the safety factor, at least on a modern cat like the fit. For one, the 2013 honda fit mt does not lose power steering or braking ability whatsoever when the key is in the II position. This was not the case on my old accord. When you factor this out, coasting with the engine off is only slightly more risky than regular coasting in neutral, as you cant accelerate quite as quickly. For anyone who can bump start halfway efficiently (it takes me less than a split second to do it at speed) this is negligible. I find that driving with good habits pretty much eliminates the need to rapidly accelerate anyway. When have

My findings have honestly been pretty positive. Idle fuel coasting reads at about 200 mpg on when i'm going at 55-60 mph. This is great, but infinite gas mileage is even better!

That is, it would be. I did find something strange. When coasting with the engine off, my scan gauge does not read 9999 as expected, and as it does when I am coasting in gear. Instead it reads a very minute amount of fuel (.02 Gph) and reads 2000-3000 mpg rather than the infinite 9999 i expected. I'm sure it must be a mistake...no fuel could be going into the engine when it's turned off right? Just to be sure, of course my foot is off the gas. Anyone else having this issue??

 

Yes. That's a bug in the Scangauge. It also happens on Camrys and some other cars. Annoying. I contacted them about it and they said, "it's not a big error" and end of story. However, remember that whatever the gauge is reporting, you are truly using no gas.

You are keying back to "on" after the engine dies, right? That re-enables things like abs and airbags, that you just might want.

The brake vacuum assist will eventually fade, but it takes 4-5 presses to get there. If I get past 3 brake applications, I'll bump-start to replenish the boost. That way if/when an emergency comes up, I'm ready. Not good to be in that place unprepared.

 

Yeah i always key back as soon as i'm sure the engine isnt going to hop back to life. And i havent experienced that with the brakes, i have tested applying them numerous times ( at least ten) with good pressure (i was coming to a stop) and they still responded. Strange.

 

Here are the four tanks I have filled up so far over my first 200 or so miles driving the car:


Honda fit fuel log

7/25/13
362.9 miles
9.523 gallons
38.11 mpg
$40.26


459.8 miles
9.574 gallons
48.025 mpg
$37.71

8/8/13
405.8 miles
9.567 gallons
42.417 mpg
$38.26

8/14/13
437.3 miles
10.186 gallons
42.931 mpg
$39.72

 

So I have been continually experimenting with pulse and glide. One thing I have really found is that trying to accelerate at 70 load, which is what I often see suggested in here, is inneffective. I assumed this was the most efficient point to operate the engine and therefore the best way to accelrate before a glide, but no way.

With a failure to achieve much over 40 mpg with this technique, (not half bad still, I know) I instead tried to accelerate more slowly. 30-38 mpg acceleration on the instant readout on my scan gauge. After repeating this I noticed that the LOD readout is right around 50. I believe this to be a much more efficient way of driving, as the three trips I have recorded so far with this method have read out at 55, 52, and 53 mpg respectively. This is awesome.

I cant wait to start a fresh tank and really calculate some mileage. As I still have about half a tank left on this fill, I am anticipating close to a 48 mpg calculation.

48 is my personal best, although I believe the tank was overfilled prior to that tank's calculation, rendering it inaccurate.

I am confident with this refined method that my next tank will post over 50 mpg. 50 LOD pulse people! Give it a try!

 

What rpm range are you using with that 50 LOD?

 

I will take note today on my drive home. Since I started this technique I have risen from 41 mpg to 47 mpg
On the built in trip meter, and every reading on my
Scan gauge has been from 50-55.

My standard technique once I am at highway speed is to pulse in 5th gear up to 60 or so and then glide in neutral down to 45. I will extend my pulse if I think the grade will significantly shorten my glide. I am always in 5th gear however, my real time mpg on the pulse is usually between 35 and 38. Also I rarely if ever FAS these days, I may do it when rolling to a stop or into a parking lot, or if a light is off in the distance and I think i'm going to have to stop.

I still expect to be just under 50 mpg on this tank, and I have only been using this technique for a 200 of the 350 miles or so since my last fill up. Compounded with the fact that I don't really FAS, and that's damn good.

 

Ok, if you're in 5th at those speeds that means about 2200-2900 rpm. That's a bit high for best mileage, but it's the best we can do with the gears Honda gave us. 2500-2200 is better. I have noticed that lower LOD works with higher rpm, and higher LOD with lower rpm. Down at 30 mph in 4th, for example, I like the results from 80 LOD.

Your numbers look reasonable for engine-on gliding at those speeds.

 

Well my wife has been driving her 2009 5 speed base Fit now for 94,000 miles since I started this thread. LMPG in New England with 4 BlizzaKs on in the winters, is now 44.8 mpg. She does not hypermile, and is hard on the brakes doing most of her driving in Boston. When I drive it for a tank or two, I can usually get about 52 mpg Pulsing and gliding in neutral where possible and with tires at 40 psi. Not bad for a non hybrid. Only about 10 mpg less than our 2010 Prius, and much cheaper and simpler.....

 

New best in avatar. San Jose to paso Robles @ 55 mph with cc.

 

From 31 mpg in June to a increase to 32.7 now.

 

Right about where I'm at. After 1 yr. 10 mos. my average is 32.6

 

I was averaging 33 mpg for most of 2012, then beginning of 2013 drop down to around 32 mpg I attribute this to winter and change in gas. But continue to drop with my trip to Dallas down to average of 31 mpg in June. Recently even with the roof rack and bad oem tires began to increase back up to 32.7 mpg. These numbers are based on total miles driven in 2013. Still overall cannot complain combine driving mpg with a car rated EPA of 33 mpg highway. Probably 10 mpg below a hybrid but without the additional cost, manual transmission, cargo room and fun to drive experience.