Coasting in neutral doesn't save gas

Page 2 of 4  

dpb wrote:

For clarification, I meant that only the freewheeling was a worthless feature; certainly the clutchless downshift is useful and in some circumstances I could see the hill-holder (albeit not much call for it around here).
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

My dad had a 971 Ford with the 10 speed Selecto-0-Speed transmission. The tractor would coast in some gears too. I think 5th, 6th, and 9th. They had red lines drawn through the gear numbers to indicate which ones were the coast gears.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dean Hoffman wrote:

OK, so there was at least one other w/ the aberration...
Did you ever find an actual productive use for the feature?
Or do you recall if Ford had some sales pitch?
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

That was my earlier conclusion based on the M-F design.
I found a Ford sales brochure which doesn't even mention the overrunning clutch in its extolling of Selct-O-Shift...
<http://www.antiquefarming.com/PDF/ford_801.pdf
I was simply trying to find out if somebody really did have a reason that could be advanced that I couldn't/can't see...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

No. It was something to avoid going downhill without an implement in the ground.

No, I don't. My dad bought it used. It did make a good cultivating tractor. There's just a little here at a site called Yesterday's Tractors. > http://tinyurl.com/32g9oso
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dean Hoffman wrote:

OK, thanks; was curious if somebody who had one did find a reason to have it other than it simplified design and thereby kept cost/complexity down.
Overall, I think I'd take the A-C power-shift or the JD synchro-mesh w/ the four ranges each w/ hi/lo/rev that was shifted sans clutch inside each range (but required clutching between ranges).

Indeed! :) As noted earlier it wouldn't be an issue out here but I can imagine it could be a lot of "fun" where we were in VA and E TN...

If you didn't see it, earlier posted a link to a sales brochure that extolled Ford's new SOS but never mentioned the overrunning clutch.
<http://www.antiquefarming.com/PDF/ford_801.pdf
What kind of cultivating out of curiousity? Corn and/or beans I suppose...we're dryland wheat and row crops are milo (grain sorghum) and various feeds for silage, etc. Only rarely a little dryland corn and the occasional sunflower but beans won't make it dryland.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

Mainly corn back then. Dad did raise some soybeans but he was one of the few. No Roundup back then so weeds were a problem in the beans. He had a couple not very eager "volunteers" for rogueing. One thing has really changed. There used to be whole families of Latinos who would travel around to do the rogueing. Grandma age down to toddler. That would be a rare sight now. Beans are pretty common now. Roundup is one reason. Another is the seed corn companies. Guys are alternating seed corn and beans. Pioneer has a big plant nearby as do Mycogen and now Monsanto. I don't remember a time when there wasn't irrigation in my area. It's as much a part of farm life as planting and harvesting. Farmers have gotten by this year without much irrigation so far. Most of the irrigation is done by pivots anymore. Farmers just cut the plant population when they get to the corners. So I do see a lot of dryland, I guess. It's hard to tell the difference some years. One of our farmer customers commented that the crops are much better at handling dry weather than in the past. Some relatives do farm dryland because of some oddity in the water table. Milo and wheat mainly. One relative will harvest his wheat then put in some short season beans. I'm in south east/central Nebraska by the way.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dean Hoffman wrote:

There's always been irrigation here as well but water rights are closed so expansion is only by acquiring existing water rights from somewhere else. We're in one of those areas that has "some oddity" in the water table; namely there's a salt water layer not terribly far below the fresh water that if pump too much will intrude.
This is far SW KS where annual precip is roughly a third to perhaps two-thirds of what you would expect depending how far east ya' are there. Irrigation is, of course, center-pivot w/ some intrusion of drip systems on trial/experimental basis. So far they're installation cost and maintenance has kept it from taking over but it does reduce water loss so expect it gradually will increase. Given how dry dry is out here, many of the corners are in continuous CRP, particularly if the ground is a little harder. The one quarter of dryland corn neighbor put out this year look really good until mid-June when it turned hot and dry and now it's almost completely burned up after the last two weeks of 100+F and nothing but one 3/4" rain 3 weeks ago now. I haven't walked into it to see if it managed to make anything at all or not...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

== The MF1100 had a pull up bolt on the cab floor which was pulled/pushed up or down to engage or disengage the freewheeling aspect. I know cause I owned one of them...these were the bigger tractors not those puny little Ferguson pieces of shit that were a glorified go cart. The 1100 could pull a 14' cultivator with ease. It had a dual range transmission. I bought mine used for next to nothing and used it until the motor packed it in....oh, and it does compute. I have a service manual which I will sell for $25 if you are interested.
==
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/30/2010 5:46 PM, Doug Miller wrote:

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.
MikeB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I guess you didn't read the article either...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/30/2010 7:17 PM, Doug Miller wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/30/2010 7:44 PM, Doug Miller wrote:

I was expanding on your statement "According to the article, when coasting in gear, the injectors don't deliver ANY gas to the cylinders."
That is true, it uses no fuel, but only until the engine reaches idle speed- then it uses fuel again as the car continues to coast.
MikeB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

nner.com> wrote:

As Doug pointed out, that isn't what the article says. Even at idle speed the engine doesn't need any gas as long as it's coasting. The car movement is turning the engine over. It's only when the car slows way down and creeps to a stop that fuel flow resumes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.