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...

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.

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.

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

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.

==

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.

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

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.

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

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

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...
==

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

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

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

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.

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.

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--

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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...

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.

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

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.
==

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?

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.

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.
==

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

"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
==

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.
==

"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.
==

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.
==

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.

--