[TW]Fox;17203854 said:No it wouldnt, as it's being driven by the wheels.
Haha good point, but still it would be using a bit of fuel though.
[TW]Fox;17203854 said:No it wouldnt, as it's being driven by the wheels.
Haha good point, but still it would be using a bit of fuel though.
OkIf you were coasting it would though, as its ticking over?
All good points, but if I coast, although I'm burning fuel, I'll 'roll' further/faster because when I simply take my foot off the accelerator the engine starts to slow my car down noticeably.
I can't think of many situations where i'd 'want' to be coasting that don't involve me slowing down anyway, so i'm not sure that's really a huge problem is it?
[TW]Fox;17203981 said:Yup, this is why coasting isn't even more economical![]()
Yeah that was the point I was going to make, if the OP meant that. A lot of people think it saves fuel but it doesn't really (unless you fail in using the right gear) and isn't exactly safe for most people.
Just turn your engine off, then it can't use fuel.
For maximum economy, remove the keys from the ignition too.
There are a number of roads near me where if you put it in neutral at the start you will maintain speed for ages without needing to use the accelerator, if you were in gear you would need to depress the throttle to maintain your speed.
If it was in 5th though, how much would you need to depress the accelerator and would it in fact use more fuel than forcing the car to idle?
I suppose it depends on the road but I can't think of anywhere round here where you'd use less petrol coasting along in neutral idling compared to holding a constant speed in top gear.
Just turn your engine off, then it can't use fuel.
For maximum economy, remove the keys from the ignition too.