| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
So says Popular Mechanics:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...?click=pm_news 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumably with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combustion engines... |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On Jul 30, 9:29*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ting-in-neutra... 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumably with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combustion engines... Interesting, I didn't know about the injectors shutting off when coasting in gear. With a carbureted engine, you would save some, but it is much harder on the brakes. I had a motor home that wouldn't lock in low, it would just jump to 2nd no matter the selector position. That was downright scary in Colorado brake fade was a certainty, not so much if, as when. As soon as I got to the flat lands I pulled the valve body and put one in from a 4wd truck. then it would stay where you put it, and descending grades was almost fun. On the other hand, with a standard trans, always coast into red lights on level ground. I'm going to idle in neutral with the clutch out, waiting for the light, so it sets up the maneuver nicely, it saves the throw out bearing. |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On Jul 30, 9:29*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ting-in-neutra... 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumably with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combustion engines... I dont buy it, it isnt a gasolene consumption issue, when coasting in gear the engine is not moving at idle speed, the extra rpms are a drag on the transmission and lower mpg, the trans also has more drag being in gear. He is only thinking gasolene not drivetrain friction loss. |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On 2010-07-30, HeyBub wrote:
So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...?click=pm_news 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. The guy is an idiot. My parents owned a 70s Saab Monte Carlo with asperated V4 and positive engagement. When the car was not accelerating, the transmission disengaged entirely from the engine. It could also be switched to normal operation, but got better mileage with the tranny in constant disengaged mode, though it took some getting used to. It also had excellent disc brakes, obviously. I understand there were other cars with this feature. I ended up owning it for awhile. Great car. nb |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On Jul 30, 10:05*am, ransley wrote:
On Jul 30, 9:29*am, "HeyBub" wrote: So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ting-in-neutra... 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumably with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combustion engines... I dont buy it, it isnt a gasolene consumption issue, when coasting in gear the engine is not moving at idle speed, the extra rpms are a drag on the transmission and lower mpg, the trans also has more drag being in gear. He is only thinking gasolene not drivetrain friction loss. == Coasting in neutral has to be one of the more stupid ideas circulating. You are essentially losing control of your vehicle in a sense and the transmission has no effect on braking and brakes will have to be used more. For acceleration, one has to engage the clutch and shift to the desired gear or in an automatic shift to the desired "mode". Why complicate one's existence? The saving is insignificant at best. I doubt that any great number of drivers would even contemplate such a stupid maneuver. == |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On Jul 30, 12:25*pm, Roy wrote:
On Jul 30, 10:05*am, ransley wrote: On Jul 30, 9:29*am, "HeyBub" wrote: So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ting-in-neutra.... 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumably with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combustion engines... I dont buy it, it isnt a gasolene consumption issue, when coasting in gear the engine is not moving at idle speed, the extra rpms are a drag on the transmission and lower mpg, the trans also has more drag being in gear. He is only thinking gasolene not drivetrain friction loss. == Coasting in neutral has to be one of the more stupid ideas circulating. You are essentially losing control of your vehicle in a sense and the transmission has no effect on braking and brakes will have to be used more. For acceleration, one has to engage the clutch and shift to the desired gear or in an automatic shift to the desired "mode". Why complicate one's existence? The saving is insignificant at best. I doubt that any great number of drivers would even contemplate such a stupid maneuver. == I like the sound of my engine so whenever possible I put it in neutral and red line the tach. |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On Jul 30, 10:29*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ting-in-neutra... 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumably with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combustion engines... He's assuming at least two things that are wrong: "a rule of thumb for idling fuel consumption is 1 gph" That is not a rule of thumb, and idling a CAT C-15 set up for 475 hp. doesn't burn anywhere near 1 gph. Still, coasting in neutral is a bad idea for the control issues alone. ----- - gpsman |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
In article , ransley wrote:
On Jul 30, 9:29=A0am, "HeyBub" wrote: So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ting-in-neutra... 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumably with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combustio= n engines... I dont buy it, it isnt a gasolene consumption issue, when coasting in gear the engine is not moving at idle speed, the extra rpms are a drag on the transmission and lower mpg, That doesn't make any sense at all. If the injectors are delivering no fuel, none of that matters. The engine isn't consuming any fuel, but the vehicle is still moving forward: mpg is infinite. the trans also has more drag being in gear. He is only thinking gasolene not drivetrain friction loss. According to the article, coasting in neutral burns gas, coasting in gear doesn't. If that's correct, then OBVIOUSLY you use less fuel coasting in gear. |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On Jul 30, 12:15*pm, notbob wrote:
On 2010-07-30, HeyBub wrote: So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ting-in-neutra... 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. The guy is an idiot. My parents owned a 70s Saab Monte Carlo with asperated V4 and positive engagement. *When the car was not accelerating, the transmission disengaged entirely from the engine. *It could also be switched to normal operation, but got better mileage with the tranny in constant disengaged mode, though it took some getting used to. *It also had excellent disc brakes, obviously. *I understand there were other cars with this feature. *I ended up owning it for awhile. *Great car. nb That was one of Saab's two-strokes, right? The thing with two-strokes is the accelerator doesn't just feed the fuel, it feeds the lubricant. Try to engine brake with one and you get high revs with no lube. Then pretty soon you get no revs at all. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freewheel Chip C Toronto |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On Jul 30, 10:52*am, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Jul 30, 12:25*pm, Roy wrote: On Jul 30, 10:05*am, ransley wrote: On Jul 30, 9:29*am, "HeyBub" wrote: So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ting-in-neutra... 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumably with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combustion engines... I dont buy it, it isnt a gasolene consumption issue, when coasting in gear the engine is not moving at idle speed, the extra rpms are a drag on the transmission and lower mpg, the trans also has more drag being in gear. He is only thinking gasolene not drivetrain friction loss. == Coasting in neutral has to be one of the more stupid ideas circulating. You are essentially losing control of your vehicle in a sense and the transmission has no effect on braking and brakes will have to be used more. For acceleration, one has to engage the clutch and shift to the desired gear or in an automatic shift to the desired "mode". Why complicate one's existence? The saving is insignificant at best. I doubt that any great number of drivers would even contemplate such a stupid maneuver. == I like the sound of my engine so whenever possible I put it in neutral and red line the tach. LOL |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On Jul 30, 12:01*pm, Chip C wrote:
On Jul 30, 12:15*pm, notbob wrote: On 2010-07-30, HeyBub wrote: So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ting-in-neutra.... 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. The guy is an idiot. My parents owned a 70s Saab Monte Carlo with asperated V4 and positive engagement. *When the car was not accelerating, the transmission disengaged entirely from the engine. *It could also be switched to normal operation, but got better mileage with the tranny in constant disengaged mode, though it took some getting used to. *It also had excellent disc brakes, obviously. *I understand there were other cars with this feature. *I ended up owning it for awhile. *Great car. nb That was one of Saab's two-strokes, right? The thing with two-strokes is the accelerator doesn't just feed the fuel, it feeds the lubricant. Try to engine brake with one and you get high revs with no lube. Then pretty soon you get no revs at all. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freewheel Chip C Toronto == Ain't that the truth... == |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On Jul 30, 1:01*pm, Chip C wrote:
On Jul 30, 12:15*pm, notbob wrote: On 2010-07-30, HeyBub wrote: So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ting-in-neutra.... 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. The guy is an idiot. My parents owned a 70s Saab Monte Carlo with asperated V4 and positive engagement. *When the car was not accelerating, the transmission disengaged entirely from the engine. *It could also be switched to normal operation, but got better mileage with the tranny in constant disengaged mode, though it took some getting used to. *It also had excellent disc brakes, obviously. *I understand there were other cars with this feature. *I ended up owning it for awhile. *Great car. nb That was one of Saab's two-strokes, right? No. The two stroke was a three cylinder. The V-4's were four cycle. snip Joe |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
According to the article, coasting in neutral burns gas, coasting in gear doesn't. If that's correct, then OBVIOUSLY you use less fuel coasting in gear. No it's not so obvious..Lets say there is a gradual 1 mile down hill. Lets say coasting in gear uses no gas but due to the engine drag you can coast for only 1/2 mile then you need to use the gas to go the next 1/2 mile. OR if you coast in neutral and use a small amount of gas to keep the engine turning, but no drag on the car you can coast 1 mile? Which uses less gas to cover that mile? Not so obvious.. But I think coasting in neutral is a bad idea for many reasons including saftey, and I'd rather pay a few pennies more for gas and have less wear and tear on a $2000 transmission. Mark |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On Jul 30, 3:01*pm, Joe wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:01*pm, Chip C wrote: On Jul 30, 12:15*pm, notbob wrote: On 2010-07-30, HeyBub wrote: So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ting-in-neutra... 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. The guy is an idiot. My parents owned a 70s Saab Monte Carlo with asperated V4 and positive engagement. *When the car was not accelerating, the transmission disengaged entirely from the engine. *It could also be switched to normal operation, but got better mileage with the tranny in constant disengaged mode, though it took some getting used to. *It also had excellent disc brakes, obviously. *I understand there were other cars with this feature. *I ended up owning it for awhile. *Great car. nb That was one of Saab's two-strokes, right? No. The two stroke was a three cylinder. The V-4's were four cycle. snip Joe Ah! thanks. Chip C |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
Chip C wrote:
On Jul 30, 12:15 pm, notbob wrote: On 2010-07-30, HeyBub wrote: So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ting-in-neutra... 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. The guy is an idiot. My parents owned a 70s Saab Monte Carlo with asperated V4 and positive engagement. When the car was not accelerating, the transmission disengaged entirely from the engine. It could also be switched to normal operation, but got better mileage with the tranny in constant disengaged mode, though it took some getting used to. It also had excellent disc brakes, obviously. I understand there were other cars with this feature. I ended up owning it for awhile. Great car. nb That was one of Saab's two-strokes, right? The two-strokes were 3-cylinder inlines. The 96 phased in the Ford Taunus V4 in 1967 and 1968. It didn't need freewheel but Saab kept it. I'm curious about the author's assertion that a car won't corner without drag or thrust from the engine. If that were true of Saabs, the company would have gotten rid of freewheel. I drove a 96 until 1984. I didn't lock out freewheel because I didn't notice any problem. |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:29:04 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ng-in-neutral- fuel-economy?click=pm_news 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumably with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combustion engines... Most newer cars the OBDII keeps the RPMs up according to the speed, not the pedal. I can shift into neutral while driving say at 35mph and my RPMs won't drop to idle but rather slowly decrease with the speed of the vehicle. I guess this is to limit drive train noise from slack. |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
HeyBub wrote:
So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...?click=pm_news 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumably with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combustion engines... Shut the engine off at the same time to save even more. If you are going in a straight line the lack of power steering and brakes shouldn't bother you. -- LSMFT Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin-- |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On Jul 30, 11:25*am, Roy wrote:
On Jul 30, 10:05*am, ransley wrote: On Jul 30, 9:29*am, "HeyBub" wrote: So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ting-in-neutra.... 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumably with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combustion engines... I dont buy it, it isnt a gasolene consumption issue, when coasting in gear the engine is not moving at idle speed, the extra rpms are a drag on the transmission and lower mpg, the trans also has more drag being in gear. He is only thinking gasolene not drivetrain friction loss. == Coasting in neutral has to be one of the more stupid ideas circulating. You are essentially losing control of your vehicle in a sense and the transmission has no effect on braking and brakes will have to be used more. For acceleration, one has to engage the clutch and shift to the desired gear or in an automatic shift to the desired "mode". Why complicate one's existence? The saving is insignificant at best. I doubt that any great number of drivers would even contemplate such a stupid maneuver. == Then you cant Rev it and make it sound good |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On Jul 30, 12:21*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , ransley wrote: On Jul 30, 9:29=A0am, "HeyBub" wrote: So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ting-in-neutra.... 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumably with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combustio= n engines... I dont buy it, it isnt a gasolene consumption issue, when coasting in gear the engine is not moving at idle speed, the extra rpms are a drag on the transmission and lower mpg, That doesn't make any sense at all. If the injectors are delivering no fuel, none of that matters. The engine isn't consuming any fuel, but the vehicle is still moving forward: mpg is infinite. the trans also has more drag being in gear. He is only thinking gasolene not drivetrain friction loss. According to the article, coasting in neutral burns gas, coasting in gear doesn't. If that's correct, then OBVIOUSLY you use less fuel coasting in gear. Coasting the motor idles right, even coasting at 70 downhill the motor is only getting gas to idle, but in gear at 70 it wont be 6-700 rpm it will be maybe 1400 rpm, the increase is drag through the drivetrain not gasolene. |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On Jul 30, 2:11*pm, Mark K wrote:
According to the article, coasting in neutral burns gas, coasting in gear doesn't. If that's correct, then OBVIOUSLY you use less fuel coasting in gear. No it's not so obvious..Lets say there is a gradual 1 mile down hill. Lets say coasting in gear uses no gas but due to the engine drag you can coast for only 1/2 mile then you need to use the gas to go the next 1/2 mile. OR *if you coast in neutral and use a small amount of gas to keep the engine turning, but no drag on the car you can coast 1 mile? Which uses less gas to cover that mile? Not so obvious.. But I think coasting in neutral is a bad idea for many reasons including saftey, and I'd rather pay a few pennies more for gas and have less wear and tear on a $2000 transmission. Mark They both use the same gas, in gear or out, with foot of the accelerator its in idle mode, just enough gas to run the motor. |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
In article , ransley wrote:
On Jul 30, 12:21=A0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article = ..com, ransley wrote: On Jul 30, 9:29=3DA0am, "HeyBub" wrote: So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...g-in-neutra..= .. 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumab= ly with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combus= tio=3D n engines... I dont buy it, it isnt a gasolene consumption issue, when coasting in gear the engine is not moving at idle speed, the extra rpms are a drag on the transmission and lower mpg, That doesn't make any sense at all. If the injectors are delivering no fu= el, none of that matters. The engine isn't consuming any fuel, but the vehicl= e is still moving forward: mpg is infinite. the trans also has more drag being in gear. He is only thinking gasolene not drivetrain friction loss. According to the article, coasting in neutral burns gas, coasting in gear doesn't. If that's correct, then OBVIOUSLY you use less fuel coasting in gear. Coasting the motor idles right, even coasting at 70 downhill the motor is only getting gas to idle, but in gear at 70 it wont be 6-700 rpm it will be maybe 1400 rpm, the increase is drag through the drivetrain not gasolene. It doesn't matter what the rpm is; if the injectors aren't delivering any fuel, the engine isn't using any. What part of "the engine doesn't use ANY fuel when coasting in gear" do you find hard to understand? Did you even read the article? |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
In article , ransley wrote:
They both use the same gas, in gear or out, with foot of the accelerator its in idle mode, just enough gas to run the motor. You didn't read the article, did you? According to the article, when coasting in gear, the injectors don't deliver ANY gas to the cylinders. |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:29:04 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote: So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...?click=pm_news 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumably with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combustion engines... He says "When coasting in neutral, the engine is idling, consuming just as much gasoline as when it's idling at a traffic light or warming up in your driveway, roughly gallons per hour (gph), " But he NEVER got around to filling in the number of gph used during idling. However if it is the same in all three cases, it doesn't matter what the number is. What's clear is that applying the brakes means you have wasted gas. For example, you have sped up not enough to get through the light when it's green, and more than you needed to get there when it was red. So you have to apply the brakes. Or you have to turn at the corner, and you have to apply your brakes to do so without skidding. If you wanted to save gas, you'd slow down far enough in advance that you didn't need your brakes for a 90 degree turn. I had a girlfriend who lived near 65th and California in SW Chicago, when I lived near 57th and Woodlawn. I had many stop lights and a minumum of 5 turns to make to get home from her house. I tried to do it without using the brakes. It was usually late at night with very little traffic. It took me about 7 tries, but eventually I made it all t |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
In article , BQ340 wrote:
On 7/30/2010 5:46 PM, Doug Miller wrote: In , wrote: They both use the same gas, in gear or out, with foot of the accelerator its in idle mode, just enough gas to run the motor. You didn't read the article, did you? According to the article, when coasting in gear, the injectors don't deliver ANY gas to the cylinders. Well, engines don't use any gas while slowing to idle speed. Once the engine is at idle speed it needs gas to keep running- so it depends on how long you are coasting vs. how long it takes the engine to slow to idle speed. I guess you didn't read the article either... |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
In article , BQ340 wrote:
On 7/30/2010 7:17 PM, Doug Miller wrote: In , wrote: On 7/30/2010 5:46 PM, Doug Miller wrote: In , wrote: They both use the same gas, in gear or out, with foot of the accelerator its in idle mode, just enough gas to run the motor. You didn't read the article, did you? According to the article, when coasting in gear, the injectors don't deliver ANY gas to the cylinders. Well, engines don't use any gas while slowing to idle speed. Once the engine is at idle speed it needs gas to keep running- so it depends on how long you are coasting vs. how long it takes the engine to slow to idle speed. I guess you didn't read the article either... Yes, I did read it & I understand how engines work. You can't coast forever & use no gas unless you turn the engine off, what am I missing here? Where did anyone suggest you could "coast forever & use no gas"? What you're missing is the concept that if there is no signal pulse to the injector, then the injector delivers no fuel -- and if the injectors aren't delivering fuel to the cylinders, then it's IMPOSSIBLE for the engine to be using ANY fuel. |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On 2010-07-30, J Burns wrote:
I'm curious about the author's assertion that a car won't corner without drag or thrust from the engine. If that were true of Saabs, the company would have gotten rid of freewheel. I drove a 96 until 1984. I didn't lock out freewheel because I didn't notice any problem. They kept that feature so long? Cool. Freewheel (I forgot the term-thnx) never bothered the Saab. Besides, it was a Monte Carlo, their sporty model. The guy I sold it to said, "Damn, this thing is good enough to compete in". I think he eventually did. nb |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On Jul 30, 5:44*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , BQ340 wrote: On 7/30/2010 7:17 PM, Doug Miller wrote: In , *wrote: On 7/30/2010 5:46 PM, Doug Miller wrote: In , * wrote: They both use the same gas, in gear or out, with foot of the accelerator its in idle mode, just enough gas to run the motor. You didn't read the article, did you? According to the article, when coasting in gear, the injectors don't deliver ANY gas to the cylinders. Well, engines don't use any gas while slowing to idle speed. Once the engine is at idle speed it needs gas to keep running- so it depends on how long you are coasting vs. how long it takes the engine to slow to idle speed. I guess you didn't read the article either... Yes, I did read it & I understand how engines work. You can't coast forever & use no gas unless you turn the engine off, what am I missing here? Where did anyone suggest you could "coast forever & use no gas"? What you're missing is the concept that if there is no signal pulse to the injector, then the injector delivers no fuel -- and if the injectors aren't delivering fuel to the cylinders, then it's IMPOSSIBLE for the engine to be using ANY fuel. == And it will stop running so you had might as well have turned off the key. Some automatics don't like to be rotated by the drive train with the ignition off at speeds over 30 or 40 mph and damage can ensue. == |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
HeyBub wrote:
So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...?click=pm_news 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumably with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combustion engines... What droppings, it is an ignorant journalist that will help the difficult of mind waste money and Eff-ing help to mess up the environment. Could we have a clause to include them in The Season where folk go out with Large Guns? |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On Jul 30, 1:21*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
According to the article, coasting in neutral burns gas, coasting in gear doesn't. If that's correct, then OBVIOUSLY you use less fuel coasting in gear. WHILE coasting yes, but as someone else tried to explain, coasting in gear will slow the car faster than coasting in neutral. That doesn't matter if you're coasting to a stop, but if you're not, the fact that you've slowed more means you will use more fuel after coasting to regain that lost speed. |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On Jul 30, 6:59*pm, Larry Fishel wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:21*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote: According to the article, coasting in neutral burns gas, coasting in gear doesn't. If that's correct, then OBVIOUSLY you use less fuel coasting in gear. WHILE coasting yes, but as someone else tried to explain, coasting in gear will slow the car faster than coasting in neutral. *That doesn't matter if you're coasting to a stop, but if you're not, the fact that you've slowed more means you will use more fuel after coasting to regain that lost speed. == If people want to coast, then build a soap-box racer and go at it. Driving a car and coasting in neutral or with the key tuned off is just asking for trouble. I would hope these "gas saving" coasters stay off the roads that I travel on. == |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:23:32 -0400, BQ340
wrote: On 7/30/2010 7:17 PM, Doug Miller wrote: In , wrote: On 7/30/2010 5:46 PM, Doug Miller wrote: In , wrote: They both use the same gas, in gear or out, with foot of the accelerator its in idle mode, just enough gas to run the motor. You didn't read the article, did you? According to the article, when coasting in gear, the injectors don't deliver ANY gas to the cylinders. Well, engines don't use any gas while slowing to idle speed. Once the engine is at idle speed it needs gas to keep running- so it depends on how long you are coasting vs. how long it takes the engine to slow to idle speed. I guess you didn't read the article either... Yes, I did read it & I understand how engines work. You can't coast forever & use no gas unless you turn the engine off, what am I missing here? MikeB MikeB What you are missing is the engine is being turned over by the wheels through the transmission, with the fuel shut off untill a mi imum engine speed is reached, where the fuel comes back on. In many cases, putting the car in neutral does NOT allow the engine to return to curb idle - it idles at almost the same speed as the engine would be running in gear at the speed you are coasting.. My PT cruiser behaves this way - the idle slows down as the car coasts to a lower speed. |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:19:38 -0700 (PDT), Roy
wrote: On Jul 30, 6:59Â*pm, Larry Fishel wrote: On Jul 30, 1:21Â*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote: According to the article, coasting in neutral burns gas, coasting in gear doesn't. If that's correct, then OBVIOUSLY you use less fuel coasting in gear. WHILE coasting yes, but as someone else tried to explain, coasting in gear will slow the car faster than coasting in neutral. Â*That doesn't matter if you're coasting to a stop, but if you're not, the fact that you've slowed more means you will use more fuel after coasting to regain that lost speed. == If people want to coast, then build a soap-box racer and go at it. Driving a car and coasting in neutral or with the key tuned off is just asking for trouble. I would hope these "gas saving" coasters stay off the roads that I travel on. == In most areas it is not only dangerous, but illegal to coast with power off - and in many it used to be (don't know if it still is)illegal to coast in neutral. |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
notbob wrote:
On 2010-07-30, J Burns wrote: I'm curious about the author's assertion that a car won't corner without drag or thrust from the engine. If that were true of Saabs, the company would have gotten rid of freewheel. I drove a 96 until 1984. I didn't lock out freewheel because I didn't notice any problem. They kept that feature so long? Cool. Freewheel (I forgot the term-thnx) never bothered the Saab. Besides, it was a Monte Carlo, their sporty model. The guy I sold it to said, "Damn, this thing is good enough to compete in". I think he eventually did. nb The one I was driving in 1984 was a 1973. They quit importing them into the US not long after that because the windshield was too close to the driver, although I thought the Saab's shoulder harness made the distance adequate. In 1966, a friend from high school took me on a trip in his 2-cycle 96. I was impressed, so my parents bought a 1967 V4. They bought a second in 1968. In February of 1969, my older sisters asked me to drive them and a friend on a weekend visit to Vermont. I wanted to take the 1968 because the radials would hold better on ice. They insisted on taking the 1967 because it had a radio. FM through a 5" speaker made their day. On the way back we encountered rain after dark. With frost in the ground and the temperature below 35, ice under the water was inevitable unless the road was treated. Where were the sanders? Eventually I recommended stopping at a diner until a sander came by. They wouldn't hear of it. On a 45 mph highway, I crested a hill at 20. At the bottom, a car had spun and gone through the guard rail. The car was clear of the travel lane and there were probably no serious injuries, but a dozen onlookers were standing in my lane and a truck was coming the other way. I applied the brakes very lightly and lost traction. I let off the brakes and tried again. It kept happening and I wasn't slowing. Oblivious to the danger I'd warned them about, my sisters demanded, "Quit fooling around!" Eventually I got enough traction to stop. So did the truck behind me. That's the only time I wondered if locking out a Saab's freewheel would have helped. It wouldn't have mattered with the the 1968. Its radials held better on ice, and its disk brakes seemed to allow better control of light braking than did the leading-shoe drum brakes of the 1967. |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
mm wrote:
I had a girlfriend who lived near 65th and California in SW Chicago, when I lived near 57th and Woodlawn. I had many stop lights and a minumum of 5 turns to make to get home from her house. I tried to do it without using the brakes. It was usually late at night with very little traffic. It took me about 7 tries, but eventually I made it all t Did it EVER occur to you that you could have saved a ton of gas and a lot of mental aggravation, computations, and honing your driving skills by simply staying at your girlfriend's house? Geeze! Why do I have to think of everything! |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
Clot wrote:
HeyBub wrote: So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...?click=pm_news 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumably with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combustion engines... What droppings, it is an ignorant journalist that will help the difficult of mind waste money and Eff-ing help to mess up the environment. Could we have a clause to include them in The Season where folk go out with Large Guns? #1 Huh? #2 Where I am, folks ALWAYS go out with Large Guns. |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
"Roy" wrote in message ... On Jul 30, 10:05 am, ransley wrote: On Jul 30, 9:29 am, "HeyBub" wrote: So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ting-in-neutra... 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumably with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combustion engines... I dont buy it, it isnt a gasolene consumption issue, when coasting in gear the engine is not moving at idle speed, the extra rpms are a drag on the transmission and lower mpg, the trans also has more drag being in gear. He is only thinking gasolene not drivetrain friction loss. == Coasting in neutral has to be one of the more stupid ideas circulating. You are essentially losing control of your vehicle in a sense and the transmission has no effect on braking and brakes will have to be used more. For acceleration, one has to engage the clutch and shift to the desired gear or in an automatic shift to the desired "mode". Why complicate one's existence? The saving is insignificant at best. I doubt that any great number of drivers would even contemplate such a stupid maneuver. It was a standard feature built into some older cars. You flipped a lever and "freewheeled" Whenever you weren't accelerating, it just coasted == |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On Jul 31, 3:10*pm, "RBM" wrote:
"Roy" wrote in message ... On Jul 30, 10:05 am, ransley wrote: On Jul 30, 9:29 am, "HeyBub" wrote: So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ting-in-neutra.... 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumably with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combustion engines... I dont buy it, it isnt a gasolene consumption issue, when coasting in gear the engine is not moving at idle speed, the extra rpms are a drag on the transmission and lower mpg, the trans also has more drag being in gear. He is only thinking gasolene not drivetrain friction loss. == Coasting in neutral has to be one of the more stupid ideas circulating. You are essentially losing control of your vehicle in a sense and the transmission has no effect on braking and brakes will have to be used more. For acceleration, one has to engage the clutch and shift to the desired gear or in an automatic shift to the desired "mode". Why complicate one's existence? The saving is insignificant at best. I doubt that any great number of drivers would even contemplate such a stupid maneuver. It was a standard feature built into some older cars. You flipped a lever and "freewheeled" Whenever you weren't accelerating, it just coasted == == Massey-Ferguson made a few models of tractors that way. Our neighbor's girl was killed when one of these tractors descended a hill in "freewheel mode". Driving a heavy tractor with no engine breaking was one of the more stupid ideas to come up with in a while. That feature could be locked out but the girl forgot about it. Her husband had two young kids to raise on his own. == |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
"Roy" wrote in message ... On Jul 31, 3:10 pm, "RBM" wrote: "Roy" wrote in message ... On Jul 30, 10:05 am, ransley wrote: On Jul 30, 9:29 am, "HeyBub" wrote: So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ting-in-neutra... 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumably with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combustion engines... I dont buy it, it isnt a gasolene consumption issue, when coasting in gear the engine is not moving at idle speed, the extra rpms are a drag on the transmission and lower mpg, the trans also has more drag being in gear. He is only thinking gasolene not drivetrain friction loss. == Coasting in neutral has to be one of the more stupid ideas circulating. You are essentially losing control of your vehicle in a sense and the transmission has no effect on braking and brakes will have to be used more. For acceleration, one has to engage the clutch and shift to the desired gear or in an automatic shift to the desired "mode". Why complicate one's existence? The saving is insignificant at best. I doubt that any great number of drivers would even contemplate such a stupid maneuver. It was a standard feature built into some older cars. You flipped a lever and "freewheeled" Whenever you weren't accelerating, it just coasted == == Massey-Ferguson made a few models of tractors that way. Our neighbor's girl was killed when one of these tractors descended a hill in "freewheel mode". Driving a heavy tractor with no engine breaking was one of the more stupid ideas to come up with in a while. That feature could be locked out but the girl forgot about it. Her husband had two young kids to raise on his own. I don't know any perceived advantage to having free wheeling on a tractor would be, but sadly it was ignorance not free wheeling that killed her. I've had tractors, skid steers, and all manner of engine driven equipment, all my life. Unless you know everything about the operation of the equipment, you've got no business touching it. == |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
On Jul 31, 5:28*pm, "RBM" wrote:
"Roy" wrote in message ... On Jul 31, 3:10 pm, "RBM" wrote: "Roy" wrote in message .... On Jul 30, 10:05 am, ransley wrote: On Jul 30, 9:29 am, "HeyBub" wrote: So says Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ting-in-neutra... 'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumably with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combustion engines... I dont buy it, it isnt a gasolene consumption issue, when coasting in gear the engine is not moving at idle speed, the extra rpms are a drag on the transmission and lower mpg, the trans also has more drag being in gear. He is only thinking gasolene not drivetrain friction loss. == Coasting in neutral has to be one of the more stupid ideas circulating. You are essentially losing control of your vehicle in a sense and the transmission has no effect on braking and brakes will have to be used more. For acceleration, one has to engage the clutch and shift to the desired gear or in an automatic shift to the desired "mode". Why complicate one's existence? The saving is insignificant at best. I doubt that any great number of drivers would even contemplate such a stupid maneuver. It was a standard feature built into some older cars. You flipped a lever and "freewheeled" Whenever you weren't accelerating, it just coasted == == Massey-Ferguson made a few models of tractors that way. Our neighbor's girl was killed when one of these tractors descended a hill in "freewheel mode". Driving a heavy tractor with no engine breaking was one of the more stupid ideas to come up with in a while. That feature could be locked out but the girl forgot about it. Her husband had two young kids to raise on his own. I don't know any perceived advantage to having free wheeling on a tractor would be, but sadly it was ignorance not free wheeling that killed her. I've had tractors, skid steers, and all manner of engine driven equipment, all my life. Unless you know everything about the operation of the equipment, you've got no business touching it. == == I agree with that...the girl's husband was very negligent in not going over procedures with her. I once owned a MF 1100 myself and I forgot once but was able to stop the tractor with the brakes before it got enough momentum to be uncontrollable. Scary though...a lot of weight going down a steep incline...almost like a suicide feature. == |
Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas
Roy wrote:
On Jul 31, 3:10 pm, "RBM" wrote: .... It was a standard feature built into some older cars. You flipped a lever and "freewheeled" Whenever you weren't accelerating, it just coasted == == Massey-Ferguson made a few models of tractors that way. ... I'd have to see the spec's for that to believe it... I don't know about M-F having any hand clutch models or not, but either that or the 2-speed power-shift w/ a neutral between is the only way I'm aware of that any tractor would have such a behavior. Since Ferguson wasn't folded into Massey-Harris until the early to mid-50s sometime, it would have had to been fairly modern to have been M-F branded and it "just does not compute". I'm thinking the story has been sanitized in the telling... Have had several that did have hand clutches and Allis-Chalmers w/ the "Power Director" (their version of the 2-speed power-shift). Never seen any that would free-wheel unless shifted or clutch disengaged. -- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:23 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter