The dangers of coasting downhill not in gear
 

Terrible tragedy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cDonald-s.html

The dangers of coasting downhill not in gear
 

On 18/08/2016 15:47, Alycidon wrote:

Terrible tragedy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cDonald-s.html

The dangers of coasting downhill not in gear
 

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 18/08/2016 15:47, Alycidon wrote:

Terrible tragedy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cDonald-s.html

Terrible tragedy.

My grandpa used to coast in neutral as he approached a junction, but this
was a wartime remedy that he never unlearned afterwards - right up until his
death in 1999.

Ironically, with a modern car with fuel injection and an engine control
unit, it probably uses more fuel to have the engine idling in neutral than
to leave it in gear with your foot off the throttle. In gear with your foot
off the throttle, the motion of he car keeps the engine turning over and the
ECU recognises that it will not need any fuel to keep the engine turning and
will cut off the fuel. In neutral, there is no "overun" of the car driving
the engine, and a small amount of fuel is needed to keep the engine idling.
The difference is probably very small either way.

I can see this in the instantaneous fuel consumption display on my car's
trip computer. In gear, with my foot off the throttle, the consumption falls
to 999 mpg (the largest number it can display, effectively saying "you can
travel an infinite distance per gallon of fuel because you aren't using
any"). If I press the clutch and/or take the car out of gear, the
consumption falls, but not so far - to about 200 mpg, saying that it is
using a very small amount of fuel (just enough to keep the engine ticking
over) in relation to the distance travelled in a unit time.

The dangers of coasting downhill not in gear
 

On Thursday, 18 August 2016 16:29:06 UTC+1, NY wrote:


Ironically, with a modern car with fuel injection and an engine control
unit, it probably uses more fuel to have the engine idling in neutral than
to leave it in gear with your foot off the throttle. In gear with your foot
off the throttle, the motion of he car keeps the engine turning over and the
ECU recognises that it will not need any fuel to keep the engine turning and
will cut off the fuel. In neutral, there is no "overun" of the car driving
the engine, and a small amount of fuel is needed to keep the engine idling.
The difference is probably very small either way.


Back in the day when I was young and daft, I used to turn my engine off at the top of long hills to save fuel.

All went well until someone invented steering locks.

The dangers of coasting downhill not in gear
 

On 8/18/2016 8:09 AM, JNugent wrote:
On 18/08/2016 15:47, Alycidon wrote:

Terrible tragedy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cDonald-s.html



I've noted that all three of them look retarded, like most limeys do.
Also, just so you limetards know, "coasting" is what one does on a
bicycle, not in a car.

LOL

The dangers of coasting downhill not in gear
 

On 8/18/2016 8:29 AM, NY wrote:

My tranny grandpa used to coast in neutral as he approached a junction, but
this was a wartime remedy that he never unlearned afterwards - right up
until his death in 1999.

Did he play with the shifter?

The dangers of coasting downhill not in gear
 

On 18/08/2016 16:29, NY wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

On 18/08/2016 15:47, Alycidon wrote:

Terrible tragedy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cDonald-s.html

Terrible tragedy.

My grandpa used to coast in neutral as he approached a junction, but
this was a wartime remedy that he never unlearned afterwards - right up
until his death in 1999.

A peaceful passing, I hope!

Ironically, with a modern car with fuel injection and an engine control
unit, it probably uses more fuel to have the engine idling in neutral
than to leave it in gear with your foot off the throttle. In gear with
your foot off the throttle, the motion of he car keeps the engine
turning over and the ECU recognises that it will not need any fuel to
keep the engine turning and will cut off the fuel. In neutral, there is
no "overun" of the car driving the engine, and a small amount of fuel is
needed to keep the engine idling. The difference is probably very small
either way.

I can see this in the instantaneous fuel consumption display on my car's
trip computer. In gear, with my foot off the throttle, the consumption
falls to 999 mpg (the largest number it can display, effectively saying
"you can travel an infinite distance per gallon of fuel because you
aren't using any"). If I press the clutch and/or take the car out of
gear, the consumption falls, but not so far - to about 200 mpg, saying
that it is using a very small amount of fuel (just enough to keep the
engine ticking over) in relation to the distance travelled in a unit time.

Yes - same here, right down to the 999 mpg reading.

The dangers of coasting downhill not in gear
 

On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 3:47:43 PM UTC+1, Alycidon wrote:
Terrible tragedy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cDonald-s.html

Even more tragic when you consider that modern cars don't use fuel under engine braking.
By putting it in neutral he actually wasted fuel.

The dangers of coasting downhill not in gear
 

On 18/08/2016 18:27, Paul George wrote:

On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 3:47:43 PM UTC+1, Alycidon wrote:

Terrible tragedy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cDonald-s.html

Even more tragic when you consider that modern cars don't use fuel under engine braking.
By putting it in neutral he actually wasted fuel.

uk.t added.

I shall refrain from adding uk.r.d for obvious reasons.

The dangers of coasting downhill not in gear
 

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 18/08/2016 16:29, NY wrote:
My grandpa used to coast in neutral as he approached a junction, but
this was a wartime remedy that he never unlearned afterwards - right up
until his death in 1999.

A peaceful passing, I hope!


He carried on driving, with self-imposed limits like not in rush hour and
not going into the city centre, until well into his 90s. The last time I
rode with him as a passenger I was impressed that he got up to a reasonable
speed on the open road, rather than dawdling, and I felt completely safe.
Sadly he had a fall when he'd popped down the road to the shops, and that
marked the start of a gradual decline. He spent his final months, after he'd
left hospital for his injuries (broken wrists etc) in a very opulent nursing
home where they looked after him and made a fuss of him - and he let them do
it, whereas always before he'd been annoyed and embarrassed if anyone made a
fuss and did things for him. It's a shame he didn't quite achieve his goal
of living into the next millennium - he died on Boxing Day 1999.