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?
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
=3D=3D 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. =3D=3D
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?
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.
=3D=3D 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. =3D=3D
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.
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.
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.
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!
#1 Huh?
#2 Where I am, folks ALWAYS go out with Large Guns.
== 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 ==
=3D=3D 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. =3D=3D
HomeOwnersHub website 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.