Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


Car coasting fuel saving

Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> Random Banter Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

Daimo
Could Be A Chat Bot



Joined: 14 May 2005
Karma :

PostPosted: 09:49 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Car coasting fuel saving Reply with quote

Something I remember from a few years back.

Driving along, come to a downhill section.

You take it OUT of gear, and the engine still needs ignition and fuel to keep it turning over as the clutch is not engaged and needs the fuel to keep it turning over.

But.

If you leave it in gear, the wheels are still spinning the engine, there-fore no fuel needs to be injected to keep the engine running, so effectivly you're getting free mileage.

Is this actually true? I've been coasting when-ever appropriate, and whilst its not going to save me a whole load of juice, I reckon i'll save a good 10+ miles just by coasting down particular roads on my way home.

Obviously you can argue that you use this fuel going up the hill, but my routes to and from work are slightly different so I would be going up less steep inclimbs going up, than I do coming back home.

But does that actual theory work, or is the engine still pushing fuel in (off throttle in gear coasting) hence making my outlook total BS? Laughing

Or does this only work on more modern engines (2002 powerhouse Fiesta 1.25 whoooop whoooop).
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Wafer_Thin_Ham
Super Spammer



Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Karma :

PostPosted: 09:58 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes it is true. Works on all relatively modern engines. Depends on your exact engine/ECU though.

Used to work on my 2000 petrol 2ltr Focus. Put it in fifth and then you have minimum engine braking too. Wink
____________________
My Flickr
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

P.
Red Rocket



Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:00 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its still injecting fuel regardless...once the engine is turned over its injecting.
If you say... switched it off, left in 5th gear and made sure you was on a hill and your steering lock wouldn't come back on... Laughing ... you could coast the hill and bump by lifting the clutch at the bottom and continue on your way.


I havent tried this in any car at all...honest... Laughing

EDIT : saw big_hams post.. really? didnt know that would work Laughing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Daimo
Could Be A Chat Bot



Joined: 14 May 2005
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:02 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wont turn it off, thats dangerous, esp in a commuter traffic.

So it is still injecting fuel, but is it actually burning?
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:11 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi

If the throttle is closed and the revs reasonable it probably cuts the injectors. So going down hill with the throttle closed you are probably using no fuel at all.

If you dip the clutch then the revs will drop to idle and the injection system needs to supply fuel to stop the engine stalling. Hence you will be using fuel.

This isn't a particularly new thing. My 20 year old Alfa 33 is set up like this (noticeably above idle rpm with less than 5 degrees of throttle from memory). However it won't apply to most things with carbs.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

bikertomm
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Jul 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:26 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm always in 5th letting it pull itself along... or down long downhill sections I just neutral it, thought it has to be more saving than just leaving it in gear and letting the revs build up!

Thumbs Up
____________________
07' Honda Hornet now full powaah! My guide on performing an oil change!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

lihp
World Chat Champion



Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:35 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

bikertomm wrote:
I'm always in 5th letting it pull itself along... or down long downhill sections I just neutral it, thought it has to be more saving than just leaving it in gear and letting the revs build up!

Thumbs Up


But the revs are being built up by the wheels turning the engine, thus not needing to use any fuel to run the engine
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:42 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

bikertomm wrote:
or down long downhill sections I just neutral it, thought it has to be more saving than just leaving it in gear and letting the revs build up!


No, it will use more fuel than if you just left it in 5th.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Daimo
Could Be A Chat Bot



Joined: 14 May 2005
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:55 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah thats what I thought. The wheels turning means the engine is rotating hence keeping it running.

Im just kinda questioning if it actually still fires fuel in whilst doing it though.

Fezzy Zetec 1.25 isn't carb'd, its FI, so presumably its not putting fuel in.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

lihp
World Chat Champion



Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:58 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

Daimo wrote:
Yeah thats what I thought. The wheels turning means the engine is rotating hence keeping it running.

Im just kinda questioning if it actually still fires fuel in whilst doing it though.

Fezzy Zetec 1.25 isn't carb'd, its FI, so presumably its not putting fuel in.


No it doesn't, it cuts the injectors, otherwise it may as well burn it.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

fatpies
World Chat Champion



Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:58 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

Daimo wrote:
Yeah thats what I thought. The wheels turning means the engine is rotating hence keeping it running.

Im just kinda questioning if it actually still fires fuel in whilst doing it though.

Fezzy Zetec 1.25 isn't carb'd, its FI, so presumably its not putting fuel in.


Thats one of the advantages of FI I suppose, but I still like carbs. But carbs suck constantly on the cycle
____________________
"It's easy to attack and destroy an act of creation. It's a lot more difficult to perform one"
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Daimo
Could Be A Chat Bot



Joined: 14 May 2005
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:06 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ace, free miles Smile

Gotta make factory figures somehow. Still, a 1.25 engine only making 40mpg is still lame Sad But then financially, how can you justify spening £6k+ on a car that'll give you 60mpg. It'll take years to recover the losses, with the only added bonus of having a newer car.

Festers only got 41k, for £1500, so atm, I dont think I can justify it.

I spec'd up a new Vauxhall Corsa LE last night (alloys, sideskirts etc). 1.3 cdti, £16.6k before i'd done anything else. Seriously, £16k for a corsa?

My first corsa was £11.5k for a brand new 1.6 16v Sport. WTF??????
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

shereen
World Chat Champion



Joined: 15 Mar 2011
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:01 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

When you coast you have less control of the vehicle - I would rather have my brakes at 100% stopping power than save a couple of quid on petrol. What if you squashed a kitten because you couldn't brake fast enough?

Is it really worth it to save on 10 miles of go go juice?
____________________
"The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand, the largest experiment in anarchy that we have ever had"
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:12 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

Daimo wrote:
Ace, free miles Smile


Well, you pay for them by going up the hill Wink

Daimo wrote:
Gotta make factory figures somehow. Still, a 1.25 engine only making 40mpg is still lame Sad But then financially, how can you justify spening £6k+ on a car that'll give you 60mpg. It'll take years to recover the losses, with the only added bonus of having a newer car.


Buying a new car is unlikely to pay in fuel savings.

Take you Corsa example. Say it loses 2/3 of its value in 3 years, so £11k gone in depreciation. That depreciation is enough to pay for about 55000 miles at 30mpg (using £1.30 a litre petrol). At the difference between 40mpg and 60mpg that would take ~220000 miles to pay for itself, even ignoring the higher costs of diesel fuel, bigger servicing costs and potential for large bills.

For most people buying a new car, fuel is far from their biggest cost.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

The Artist
Super Spammer



Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:12 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

The amount of fuel used at idle is minimal though. The simplest thing to do would be to put in neutral at the top of hills and coast down. Yes it will use fuel but it will be such a small amount it is negligible compared to actually using the engine to pull the car along.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

fatpies
World Chat Champion



Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:16 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kickstart wrote:

For most people buying a new car, fuel is far from their biggest cost.

All the best

Keith


Nah people use these sorts of things to justify their purchase to themselves.

When I used to work in an office I remember this dizzy woman. She bought a NEW car to save on the £150 or so road tax.

Madness..
____________________
"It's easy to attack and destroy an act of creation. It's a lot more difficult to perform one"
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:23 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Artist wrote:
The amount of fuel used at idle is minimal though. The simplest thing to do would be to put in neutral at the top of hills and coast down. Yes it will use fuel but it will be such a small amount it is negligible compared to actually using the engine to pull the car along.


Except if it is left in gear it is using no fuel. Putting it into neutral is extra effort with no fuel efficiency gain.

fatpies wrote:

Nah people use these sorts of things to justify their purchase to themselves.

When I used to work in an office I remember this dizzy woman. She bought a NEW car to save on the £150 or so road tax.

Madness..


They use it to justify it, but there is no sense behind it. Same for many people paying more for a diesel when they are doing a nominal round town mileage.

Parkers price guide web site somewhere has a page to work out how long it takes for the extra cost of buying a diesel over a petrol version of the same model takes to pay for itself. Think a Fiat Panda too over 200000 miles for the diesel model to pay for itself over the petrol version Laughing .

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Andy_Pagin
World Chat Champion



Joined: 08 Nov 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:29 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

My Sierra used to switch itself off on hills all by itself, unfortunately it was always when going up a hill.
____________________
They're coming to take me away, ho-ho, hee-hee, ha-haaa, hey-hey,
the men in white coats are coming to take me away.
Yamaha Vity -> YBR125 -> FZS600 Fazer -> FZ1-S Fazer
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Daimo
Could Be A Chat Bot



Joined: 14 May 2005
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:35 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

shereen wrote:
When you coast you have less control of the vehicle - I would rather have my brakes at 100% stopping power than save a couple of quid on petrol. What if you squashed a kitten because you couldn't brake fast enough?

Is it really worth it to save on 10 miles of go go juice?


If you take your foot off the throttle, are you not in control of the car??? How bad a driver must you be Laughing Nothing changes. Your not either on the throttle or on the brakes are you.

Kickstart, already said, my route out, and my route home are a bit different. When I go out, I have to go down and then up then down then up (quite steep hills, call them nucular sized bombholes Laughing ), then down again on a motorway . I'd have to do the same on the way home as well if I went home the same way

But on my way back, due to the roads, I only go up the motorway hill (that I go down on as mentioned above) and come off a junction at the top off the hill, which takes me down a back road pretty much to my house, then I can coast in 5th most of the way down the hill so effectivly im missing out on a large amount of hills.

I can't go "to" work on this route, as the junction joining the other way isn't one large junction, you have to drive for another 2 miles to re-join the motorway.

Its hard to explain, but trust me, im not dim, I know which uses more juice.

tbh, I was only confirming what I already knew, and as people have confirmed about the fueling off throttle, my question has been answered Smile
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Daimo
Could Be A Chat Bot



Joined: 14 May 2005
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:37 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Artist wrote:
The amount of fuel used at idle is minimal though. The simplest thing to do would be to put in neutral at the top of hills and coast down. Yes it will use fuel but it will be such a small amount it is negligible compared to actually using the engine to pull the car along.


Actually, the amount of fuel used at idle is quite high.

On our VXR, on idle, it ran at 0.2mpg.
On our S3, on idle, it runs a little more.

Likewise the engines ran more fuel efficiently at 90mph than they do at 70mph.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:40 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

Daimo wrote:

Kickstart, already said, my route out, and my route home are a bit different. When I go out, I have to go down and then up then down then up (quite steep hills, call them nucular sized bombholes Laughing ), then down again on a motorway . I'd have to do the same on the way home as well if I went home the same way


Whichever route you take isn't going to change the overall amount that you go down / up hill by. If one has a single steep hill while the other has a far longer gentle hill isn't going to make any real difference.

Where you might lose out is on roads where the down hill section ends with (or is broken up by) things that cause you to brake and / or stop. Braking is just throwing away a load of the energy.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Daimo
Could Be A Chat Bot



Joined: 14 May 2005
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:41 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kickstart wrote:
town mileage.

Parkers price guide web site somewhere has a page to work out how long it takes for the extra cost of buying a diesel over a petrol version of the same model takes to pay for itself. Think a Fiat Panda too over 200000 miles for the diesel model to pay for itself over the petrol version Laughing .

All the best

Keith


I agree.

I don't know how Vauxhall could charge over £2k more, for an engine thats been out nearly 8 years, over a 1.2 16v.

OK you have a turbo, and IC, but the engine materials cost less. I cannot fathom where £2k comes from. Add another £1k, and you can have a re-conditioned 2.0 16v turbo engine (minus turbo I may add) from VX!!

So they ahve the market, it returns 25mpg more than the 1.2 16v engine, but they ask £2k for the privilage, and then the added cost of the mroe expensive derv juice.

Whats more comical, was a 1.3 Toyota IQ, at £16k as well!! What an absolute joke.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

fatpies
World Chat Champion



Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:43 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kickstart wrote:


Whichever route you take isn't going to change the overall amount that you go down / up hill by. If one has a single steep hill while the other has a far longer gentle hill isn't going to make any real difference.

Where you might lose out is on roads where the down hill section ends with (or is broken up by) things that cause you to brake and / or stop. Braking is just throwing away a load of the energy.

All the best

Keith


Routes help! I go a 2.7 mile trek into town for supplies now and again. Via the shortest route is it 2.3 miles. But has 12 traffic lights which are sequenced to stop you at EVERYSINGLE ONE. The back route has one traffic light. It also goes around a hill rather than up and down it though.
____________________
"It's easy to attack and destroy an act of creation. It's a lot more difficult to perform one"
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

The Artist
Super Spammer



Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:45 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

Daimo wrote:
The Artist wrote:
The amount of fuel used at idle is minimal though. The simplest thing to do would be to put in neutral at the top of hills and coast down. Yes it will use fuel but it will be such a small amount it is negligible compared to actually using the engine to pull the car along.


Actually, the amount of fuel used at idle is quite high.

On our VXR, on idle, it ran at 0.2mpg.
On our S3, on idle, it runs a little more.

Likewise the engines ran more fuel efficiently at 90mph than they do at 70mph.


You got any solid proof of this? I can't believe your car is more efficient at 90mph than 70mph. I was under the impression most modern cars are more efficient at 40-50mph than any other speed.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Daimo
Could Be A Chat Bot



Joined: 14 May 2005
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:46 - 31 Oct 2011    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kickstart wrote:
Whichever route you take isn't going to change the overall amount that you go down / up hill by. If one has a single steep hill while the other has a far longer gentle hill isn't going to make any real difference.


As I said, I cannot explain it, so theres no point. People will argue it as the internet knows, but unless you know my route, and the hills involved, people will just think im stupid. Im ok with this, I know im not stupid, common sense is something I have lots of.

It cannot be explained over the internet. People just wont get it.

i've got the answer to my question. Im happy.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
Old Thread Alert!

The last post was made 14 years, 57 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> Random Banter All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 

Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.11 Sec - Server Load: 0.76 - MySQL Queries: 13 - Page Size: 139.8 Kb