What do you guys think about this?

Ride along as CleanMPG teaches us how to hypermile a Ford F-150 EcoBoost - AutoblogGreen

 

I was tempted to stop reading when they called a 2wd F-150 a "huge truck".

 

I doubt they save enough gas money to buy a new starter. Most tree huggers don't own trucks.

SPark

 

While I see what they're trying to do, it's impractical and they can't even get their facts right.



And on a serious note, do NOT try shutting the engine off while going down the road on a 4WD truck. These things use the same 4WD system that the '04-08 trucks do, and I tried that once on my '07. When the engine shuts off there is no more vacuum, and the IWEs will start grinding away as they try to engage.

 

I could see car makers in the future making an engine that will mimic a shutdown when it senses the vehicle is coasting for a stretch.

As for a full shutdown, I'm glad it's not on my dime.

 

My car does that, as does some of the new Ram 1500s.

2013 Ram 1500 Cool Tech: Deep Dive - PickupTrucks.com News

 

It is interesting though that Ford said it is operational when shut off.
I was interested if it really works technically to save gas that way.

 

Volvo's new E-Drive drivetrain shuts the engine down when stopped at stoplights. Then when you take your foot off of the break the engine starts back up on it's own.

A few weeks ago I drove a Mercedes S65 BiTurbo V12 to the local Mercedes dealership for some warranty work, it had the same type of system. I didn't know, and I thought the car stopped running on me at the stoplight.

I just wonder about wear and tear on the starter motor and the engine it's self over time with a system like this. I know I won't manually shut my engine off at every stoplight.

 

start/stop technology is going to become very common. Manufactuers can design the starters to handle this kind of duty, so I wouldn't worry about the wear and tear. Not to mention that starting up an engine that was running recently takes very little energy compared to a true "cold" start.

 

.
Given the current design of vehicles it is not only MORONIC it is UNSAFE.

1. braking affected - no vacuum, no power brakes.
   .
2. steering affected - power steering assist disabled|reduced.
   .
3. in a panic/emergency situation will there be enough presence of mind to QUICKLY restart the engine? HIGHLY UNLIKELY. HELL most drivers can't chew gum and drive safely at the same time (exaggeration).
   .
4. BAD for the automatic transmission - even wrecker towing requires that the drive wheels not be on the ground - rear (4X2) front AND rear (4X4).
   .
5. additional restarting required - shorted lifespan of starter.
   .
6. minimal (if any) MPG improvement.

------------------------------

-click- the pic'
Goth 150
< This space intentionally -blank- >

 

I would argue a couple of those Joe.

It's affected, but you do have power brakes. I tested the feel of my brakes on a hill on my driveway last year, and IIRC the ABS pump kicks in to help stop the car.
.
Still have power assist. From 2011-present these trucks have electric power steering.
.

30% isn't minimal. They made that trip across the country with a 31 MPG average.

 

Supposedly, at least the 2.7EB motor in the 2015 will have stop/start technology. Color me very skeptical - especially as someone who exacts a large electrical load from the system (to the point of running a second battery).

 

Argue @ 70MPH down a mountain grade as a semi' enters your lane.

"How did they die? What was the cause of death?? Coroner - "Stupity. But HEY, they were getting GREAT MPG."

"...45 miles per hour ..." / "...870 miles..." / "...missed the mileage-crushing Rocky Mountains ...". BOY HOWDY! WHAT A TRIP! AND (probably) SCENIC TOO!

WHOA OK THEN ... Never mind. I'm all warm-and-fuzzy now.

Don't you mean 26%? (23/31)

AND ... IT ONLY TOOK 19 HOURS. (870/45). *@65MPH that would be 13 hours.

And that would mean that for that 19 hours $39.20 was saved ( (870/23) - (87/31) x $4/gal). Don't know about you, but my time is worth more than $6.50/hour.

We be jommin' now mama

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fuel economy but at this point in time with the technology of these (and previous) vehicles, coasting at low speeds t'ain't the answer.
.

 

I wasn't trying to say that it was. I've never done some of the stunts that they did; my point was that it wasn't quite as bad as your first post indicated.

 

Actually, pretty much every car does this. When you're coasting, the engine is being turned by the wheels, and the fuel injectors will cut. No need to shut the engine off, as it just cuts fuel anyways.