Hello all

This is a followup to the P&G thread i created a while ago. Anyway, to recap,in that thread, I did a technique i *thought* was P&G but turns out it was a technique called driving without brakes.

I did the real P&G and although it works, I have to say it's not worth it. The reason: if you do it wrong, it'll KILL your mileage. Basically , if the glide is too quick, it means the road conditions, whatever they may be, are decelerating the car. It also means the pulse requires more energy. Here are examples of unfavorable conditions for P&G

- Driving at High speed
- Road too bumpy
- up hill
- on a bridge (very windy)

Here are conditions favorable for P&G
- for speeds 40 and below
- road is flat, or downhill
- long stretch road of city driving

Right now, the technique that gives me significantly higher mileage is driving w/o brakes. Moderate acceleration, and using neutral as much as possible. What was most surprising is you'd be amazed how far you can go on neutral when the raod is flat, or when the road goes slightly downhill.

To remind all, before i did driving w/o brakes technique, I get around 270-310 miles per tank. With DWB, I get around 320-340. It is not as suprsing as it sounds. Use neutral as much as possible to capture as many free miles. All you need is around 10-30 to improve your mpg rating by ~1-3 mpg

 

I have taught my wife that technique in her AT CRV and she has increased her mpg from 22mpg to 28mpg. Neutral is your friend and getting the most out of the glide is key. Glad to hear you improved your mpg. Keep it up and you will get brave enough to learn P&G, I did and I have no SG.

 

Very sketch test results...........

Looks like P&G does not work after all,,,ROLFLMAO

 

Hi to all,

I’m very glad to see, that this hype about P&G, is becoming more relative in terms of its efficiency.
The technique about driving with as few as possible brake usage, is for my humbled opinion most efficient.
It saves not only your gas, but also that of your traffic partner on the road.
It brings a kind of smoothness into the traffic, which will help everybody.
It needs more attention and a less selfish thinking, to also consider the efficiency of the partners on the road.
For the global environment it won’t help, if I’m gliding down to a minimum of speed and by that also slowing down a truck, which will use a lot more fuel to accelerate back to speed.
Also, can P&G technique be responsible that overtaking is increasing since the care behind you doesn’t have an idea what is wrong with you, and every time it happens, it is just a senseless acceleration more.
By that, it may also slow down the oncoming traffic, which also needs to accelerate again.
And so, there could be many more examples to add.
P&G as explained in its highest art, is for my opinion a sport, which belongs to a save track, fare away of any daily traffic!

 

P&G and driving like you have no brakes, are two totally different hypermilling methods.

When using P&G, in the most typical setting on rural or freeway cruse, you never mess with brakes. If you get boxed in and have to use them you just made a judgment error on the pulse. P&G in this setting can be done 100% of the time and if done right, can produce some gains. If done to extream, with FAS the gains are over 10%. I too tested it after I found out the proper way to P&G from a better form and went from 48 to 53mpg in a A-B-A test with a 50 to 60mph cycle keeping the pulse to no more than 80% on the SG. That s about 10% fuel saving

Driving with out brakes, is somethibng done in 100% urban traffic with lots of stops signs or lights. At best you may get in one pulse and glide 30 to 40% of the cycles.

 

I didn't say that. I said it's condition sensitive. It makes sense since the "glide" part is the key of why P&G works, and if road conditions disfavor "gliding" then P&G won't work there.
They're similar. DWB is "one cycle" of P&G, while P&G involves repeating cycles of the technique.