Can someone explain something?

I usually approach lights in 3rd gear, using breaks to slow down, and just dip the clutch down at the last second, then go into first, then drive off again.

Is this more economical than approaching and going 4th to 3rd to 2nd to 1st. I sometimes approach in 4th and then shift down to 2nd prior to stopping completely.
 
I'd presume it would be as everytime you dip the clutch, the engine would need some petrol to keep ticking over I think, although I could be completely wrong.

It's also 10x less hassle than going through the gears too.
 
Tommy B said:
I usually approach lights in 3rd gear, using breaks to slow down, and just dip the clutch down at the last second, then go into first, then drive off again.

Is this more economical than approaching and going 4th to 3rd to 2nd to 1st. I sometimes approach in 4th and then shift down to 2nd prior to stopping completely.
Click to expand...
I imagine if you shift quickly, going down the gears may use marginally less petrol, as in 3rd you might spend more time below the RPM where it will keep the fuel cut.
 
Matt82 said:
why not just drive as you were taught or as the highway code says?
Click to expand...

I can't even remember now.

What's the official way of going from about 50mph to a complete stop then?
 
Tommy B said:
I can't even remember now.

What's the official way of going from about 50mph to a complete stop then?
Click to expand...

Nowadays it's just stay in whatever gear you're in whilst braking and then clutch down at the last minute.
 
Tommy B said:
What's the official way of going from about 50mph to a complete stop then?
Click to expand...
ANCHOR.gif
 
Lopéz said:
Coasting is dangerous and really not good practice, so it's a bit of a moot point.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was always told that by my instructor. I do it though, I believe it does save petrol - lower the RPM the less labour the engine is under and fuel is consumed!
 
mishima said:
Yeah I was always told that by my instructor. I do it though, I believe it does save petrol - lower the RPM the less labour the engine is under and fuel is consumed!
Click to expand...
If you would actually read the thread you'd realise that it doesn't, and even if it did, it is really worth putting yourself and others at risk to save a tiny bit of fuel?
 
mishima said:
Yeah I was always told that by my instructor. I do it though, I believe it does save petrol - lower the RPM the less labour the engine is under and fuel is consumed!
Click to expand...
Just because someone is a driving instructor doesn't mean they know what they're on about ;)
 
CypherPunk said:
If you would actually read the thread you'd realise that it doesn't, and even if it did, it is really worth putting yourself and others at risk to save a tiny bit of fuel?
Click to expand...

Explain the risks to me...
 
Tommy B said:
Whilst their cars have a faster 0-60 time on paper, all my mates claim that the Golf is much, much quicker at accelerating at faster speeds. For example, doing 30-50 in the Golf would be faster than doing 30-50 in the Corsa, even though the Corsa's 0-60 time is significantly less. Is this true with cars of this sort of performance?
Click to expand...

this is why we say that 0-60 is such a poor indicator of performance. A car might seem quicker on paper due to a smaller 0-60 time. but the only reason the 0-60 is because it can make the 60 in 2 gears, where the other car needs 3. The car in 3 gears might pull better in the gears, so will feel quicker, but 0-60 is slower because of the extra gear change

also, on a flat out 0-60 run, you spend a lot of the time up the top end of the rev range. A car with lots of power up the top end, might have a quicker 0-60 time, but actually feel slower in day to use due to having no pull down the bottom of the rev range (like my picasso, 0-60 is under 10, but the car feels very slow due to having now power untill about 4k rpm
 
mishima said:
Yeah I was always told that by my instructor. I do it though, I believe it does save petrol - lower the RPM the less labour the engine is under and fuel is consumed!
Click to expand...


Didn't you read the thread? ;)


Like I said earlier, coasting in gear = no fuel being used.

Coasting in neutral (e.g. engine is idling) = using fuel + very dangerous. It'll take longer to stop, you're not in full control, if you need to accelerate to get out of trouble, you're screwed.
 
Scarfacé said:
Didn't you read the thread? ;)


Like I said earlier, coasting in gear = no fuel being used.

Coasting in neutral (e.g. engine is idling) = using fuel + very dangerous. It'll take longer to stop, you're not in full control, if you need to accelerate to get out of trouble, you're screwed.
Click to expand...

Yeah I did read the thread but I dont agree with you! Just because you have said something doesn't mean its truth. I don't coast in gear only out of gear and usually do it of a night, on the longer roads. That is true you don't have control in as much as you can accelerate, but stopping power what are we talking? a few microseconds? ;)

Lower RPM = lower fuel consumption - http://www.whatcar.co.uk/advice-special-report.aspx?NA=217158&EL=3141785

So if the engine is @ 10RPM or lower then I think its going to be using less fuel than at 20 or 30!
 
What the hell?



If you're in gear and just coasting down a hill with your foot OFF the clutch, eg stick your feet out the window if you want... you are using ZERO fuel... eg ZERO, zilch... the fuel is cut off. This is why in cars with trip computers, it'll read that you're doing 99.99mpg or similar.



If you stick it in neutral, you're USING petrol for the engine to tick over.



Coasting IS dangerous, you're not in full control of the car.
 
Now you aren't even reading what im posting..

I didn't say it wouldn't consume any fuel I just said it would consume less fuel being in neutral (coasting). You're right I'm not in full control of the vehicle, neither is the old man who's 82 who lives a few doors away from me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom