Bad for the car?
01-17-2008, 07:58 AM
#23
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location:
Posts: 334
RE: Bad for the car?
Parents stopped paying for gas...........Huh???
Anyway, then you are very young. Since you drive a stang, whether your own or parents doesn't matter. I'm sure your buddies ride with you? best way to improve your situation is have your buddies drop $5 toward gas when you fill up. They should not think they are getting a free ride.
I'm sure you do the same when they drive?????????????
There used to be bumper stickers that read
'***, Gas or Grass...nobody rides for free"
Now I'm not condoning the use of controlled substances or asking females for favors, but you get the point.
Anyway, then you are very young. Since you drive a stang, whether your own or parents doesn't matter. I'm sure your buddies ride with you? best way to improve your situation is have your buddies drop $5 toward gas when you fill up. They should not think they are getting a free ride.
I'm sure you do the same when they drive?????????????
There used to be bumper stickers that read
'***, Gas or Grass...nobody rides for free"
Now I'm not condoning the use of controlled substances or asking females for favors, but you get the point.
01-17-2008, 08:05 AM
#24
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The High Country
Posts: 3,547
RE: Bad for the car?
ORIGINAL: torque_is_good
Parents stopped paying for gas...........Huh???
Anyway, then you are very young. Since you drive a stang, whether your own or parents doesn't matter. I'm sure your buddies ride with you? best way to improve your situation is have your buddies drop $5 toward gas when you fill up. They should not think they are getting a free ride.
I'm sure you do the same when they drive?????????????
There used to be bumper stickers that read
'***, Gas or Grass...nobody rides for free"
Now I'm not condoning the use of controlled substances or asking females for favors, but you get the point.
Parents stopped paying for gas...........Huh???
Anyway, then you are very young. Since you drive a stang, whether your own or parents doesn't matter. I'm sure your buddies ride with you? best way to improve your situation is have your buddies drop $5 toward gas when you fill up. They should not think they are getting a free ride.
I'm sure you do the same when they drive?????????????
There used to be bumper stickers that read
'***, Gas or Grass...nobody rides for free"
Now I'm not condoning the use of controlled substances or asking females for favors, but you get the point.
Run out of gas, get ***. Use grass, no need for gas in jail.
01-17-2008, 09:28 AM
#25
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 7,635
RE: Bad for the car?
The real answer is "it depends". And yes, a 1 - 3 shift is a bit clumsy.
Actually, after looking at the transmission ratios, a 1 - 2 - 4 sequence might be better than 1 - 3 - 4, and physically easier to do. 1st to 3rd is a huge jump, much larger than 2nd to 4th.
Skip-shift is a legitimate OE fuel mileage improvement strategy, andat least at GM uses it as OE (they call it CAGS) to avoid gas-guzzler penalties. Under light acceleration you simply cannot engage 2nd - you actually end up in 4th. Beyond some throttle opening and/or rpm in 1st, access to 2nd gear was enabled. Like you'd expect, the GM guys don't like it very much either, and various eliminators started showing up. Link.
The point is that under the right conditions you will get better fuel economy by lugging the engine slightly with a greater throttle opening than you would by letting the engine rev a little more freely with slightly less throttle, and you aren't adding that small amount of acceleration enrichment that goes into the beginning of each gear for each gear that you skip (think in terms of the accelerator pump in a carburetor analogy).
It's going to be quite driving- and vehicle-specific, and I strongly suspect that GM gained more with this from their 350-ish size engines than you could ever get from the 281. So I'm sure that means that a 1 - 4 skip would not pay off in a 4.6L car of similar weightexcept under the most unusual circumstances. But skipping one gearhas some potential as long as you aren't expecting or demandingsnappy throttle response after the upshift. Probably noworse on the engine than crawling along at 5 mph in 2nd in heavy traffic.
Norm
Actually, after looking at the transmission ratios, a 1 - 2 - 4 sequence might be better than 1 - 3 - 4, and physically easier to do. 1st to 3rd is a huge jump, much larger than 2nd to 4th.
Skip-shift is a legitimate OE fuel mileage improvement strategy, andat least at GM uses it as OE (they call it CAGS) to avoid gas-guzzler penalties. Under light acceleration you simply cannot engage 2nd - you actually end up in 4th. Beyond some throttle opening and/or rpm in 1st, access to 2nd gear was enabled. Like you'd expect, the GM guys don't like it very much either, and various eliminators started showing up. Link.
The point is that under the right conditions you will get better fuel economy by lugging the engine slightly with a greater throttle opening than you would by letting the engine rev a little more freely with slightly less throttle, and you aren't adding that small amount of acceleration enrichment that goes into the beginning of each gear for each gear that you skip (think in terms of the accelerator pump in a carburetor analogy).
It's going to be quite driving- and vehicle-specific, and I strongly suspect that GM gained more with this from their 350-ish size engines than you could ever get from the 281. So I'm sure that means that a 1 - 4 skip would not pay off in a 4.6L car of similar weightexcept under the most unusual circumstances. But skipping one gearhas some potential as long as you aren't expecting or demandingsnappy throttle response after the upshift. Probably noworse on the engine than crawling along at 5 mph in 2nd in heavy traffic.
Norm
01-17-2008, 09:38 AM
#27
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 2,181
RE: Bad for the car?
Exactly, back in the day a buddy of mine bought a Camaro SS and it would make him shift from 1st to 4th if he didn't go over a certain RPM in 1st gear. He ended up buying some kind of kit that eliminated the "skip" shift. But it isn't going to hurt anything if you go from 1st to 3rd, I just don't think your going to see any real world benifits from it. Just lay off the gas a little bit. I don't know about you guys, but MPG we're not very high on my priority list when I bought the Stang. I just did about 200 miles of highway driving over the weekend and only averaged 19.3 mpg (damn 3.73's!!)
ORIGINAL: Norm Peterson
The real answer is "it depends". And yes, a 1 - 3 shift is a bit clumsy.
Actually, after looking at the transmission ratios, a 1 - 2 - 4 sequence might be better than 1 - 3 - 4, and physically easier to do. 1st to 3rd is a huge jump, much larger than 2nd to 4th.
Skip-shift is a legitimate OE fuel mileage improvement strategy, andat least at GM uses it as OE (they call it CAGS) to avoid gas-guzzler penalties. Under light acceleration you simply cannot engage 2nd - you actually end up in 4th. Beyond some throttle opening and/or rpm in 1st, access to 2nd gear was enabled. Like you'd expect, the GM guys don't like it very much either, and various eliminators started showing up. Link.
The point is that under the right conditions you will get better fuel economy by lugging the engine slightly with a greater throttle opening than you would by letting the engine rev a little more freely with slightly less throttle, and you aren't adding that small amount of acceleration enrichment that goes into the beginning of each gear for each gear that you skip (think in terms of the accelerator pump in a carburetor analogy).
It's going to be quite driving- and vehicle-specific, and I strongly suspect that GM gained more with this from their 350-ish size engines than you could ever get from the 281. So I'm sure that means that a 1 - 4 skip would not pay off in a 4.6L car of similar weightexcept under the most unusual circumstances. But skipping one gearhas some potential as long as you aren't expecting or demandingsnappy throttle response after the upshift. Probably noworse on the engine than crawling along at 5 mph in 2nd in heavy traffic.
Norm
The real answer is "it depends". And yes, a 1 - 3 shift is a bit clumsy.
Actually, after looking at the transmission ratios, a 1 - 2 - 4 sequence might be better than 1 - 3 - 4, and physically easier to do. 1st to 3rd is a huge jump, much larger than 2nd to 4th.
Skip-shift is a legitimate OE fuel mileage improvement strategy, andat least at GM uses it as OE (they call it CAGS) to avoid gas-guzzler penalties. Under light acceleration you simply cannot engage 2nd - you actually end up in 4th. Beyond some throttle opening and/or rpm in 1st, access to 2nd gear was enabled. Like you'd expect, the GM guys don't like it very much either, and various eliminators started showing up. Link.
The point is that under the right conditions you will get better fuel economy by lugging the engine slightly with a greater throttle opening than you would by letting the engine rev a little more freely with slightly less throttle, and you aren't adding that small amount of acceleration enrichment that goes into the beginning of each gear for each gear that you skip (think in terms of the accelerator pump in a carburetor analogy).
It's going to be quite driving- and vehicle-specific, and I strongly suspect that GM gained more with this from their 350-ish size engines than you could ever get from the 281. So I'm sure that means that a 1 - 4 skip would not pay off in a 4.6L car of similar weightexcept under the most unusual circumstances. But skipping one gearhas some potential as long as you aren't expecting or demandingsnappy throttle response after the upshift. Probably noworse on the engine than crawling along at 5 mph in 2nd in heavy traffic.
Norm
01-17-2008, 09:42 AM
#28
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location:
Posts: 6,414
RE: Bad for the car?
I doubt he has the same situation, but my parents also paid for gas when I was in Highschool. Reason being...I had a 40 mile round trip EVERYDAY to a private catholic school that I HATED! There was a nice public school a mile and a half from my house where most of my friends went and I wouldve gladly paid for my own gas if I went there. If my parents didnt want to pay for gas, I wouldnt have went to that terrible private school. Just to note, the public school in my area was very, very nice as well. Just dont judge him yet, you dont know his circumstances.
