Sheesh... 3000 mpg?
That's virtually incomprehensible. Although apparently possible.
I guess we 'pay' a lot for the thrill, comfort, and safety features that the average passenger car provides.
On the other hand, I've always thought that running an engine full time seemed kind of unnecessary. But as you mentioned, pulse and glide does not lend to 'comfortable' very well. Every time I've used it as a tactic to just get me to the next gas station, anyone riding with me perks up as if ready to ask what is wrong... LOL But it does
One of my recurring solutions in my head has been an even higher gear (or even set of gears) that can allow the engine to run at just above idle speeds (say, 1200 RPM), so that it is running at the bottom of the torque curve for each 10 MPH or so.
In other words, 1st - 3rd, acceleration, just as they are now.
4th, 1200RPM @ 45MPH
5th, 1200RPM @ 55MPH
6th, 1200RPM @ 65MPH
and with freeway speeds trending toward what they are... 7th, 1200RPM @ 75MPH.
Running the engine at higher RPM (even though not using the torque) still requires more fuel than a lower RPM does, and if the engine/tranny/weight/dynamics are all matched, there's no reason that an average everyday car cannot be designed this way.
Then again, I'm a control freak, and whatever I own must
be a stick shift. Could be done with an automatic too obviously, but many people are more concerned with 'git' than 'got', and would rather feel the power than save the gas. Stupid IMHO, but a reality. Just look at any car commercial.
Sure, acceleration is great, but I'd rather save at the pump. Kept driving a 50cc scooter around for quite a while @ 90MPG for that reason. Granted, it wasn't the initial
reason, but that's another thread (likely for another forum too).
And so the difference shows there too - 90MPG vs 3000MPG - there's more than just the aerodynamics in that. LOL Not sure, call me crazy, but the engine having to zip along @ 9000RPM continuously to keep 27MPH may
have had something to do with it...
One other question about your car I can't quite make out - the O2 sensor. Don't they have to be up to temperature to provide useful information to the computer? It would seem that 2 or 3 seconds wouldn't be enough to get it hot enough to give good data... ?