Being in neutral while moveing

[Dave W]

Are you seriously saying that your lane change works better if you add power and momentum?

In the instance I'm describing, yes. If you don't understand it I can't help you there. You turn the wheel and step on the gas to avoid the obstacle, then come to a safe stop once out of danger. In a real world situation there are other cars on the road. Like the car in the lane you're turning into. You may need to squeeze in front of them, or you'd just end up side swiping them.

I guess nobody has ever taken any sort of high performance driving courses. Obviously that isn't what is going on here anyways.

 

[Truktek2]

Looks like I'm late to the party. You guys do realize that todays cars are computer controlled? That major auto manufacturers spend millions on fuel.consumption studies? That teams of highly skilled engineers figured out fuel calculations based on load, atmospheric pressure, air temp, speed, tranny shift points etc? That computers can compensate for any of these variables faster than you can? Want to save gas? Drive normally, keep your tires inflated, dump unnecessary weight and drive below 55. Now sonny, get off my lawn.

 

[graver555]

He may have 'nodded knowingly,' but it still makes no sense at all. Shifting into neutral places no additional load on the timing belt.

Besides wear and age the only think I can think of to break a timing belt is an idler pulley failing and the belt rubs against it till it overheats or wears through

 

[graver555]

In the instance I'm describing, yes. If you don't understand it I can't help you there. You turn the wheel and step on the gas to avoid the obstacle, then come to a safe stop once out of danger. In a real world situation there are other cars on the road. Like the car in the lane you're turning into. You may need to squeeze in front of them, or you'd just end up side swiping them.

I guess nobody has ever taken any sort of high performance driving courses. Obviously that isn't what is going on here anyways.

Well considering I dont have a high performance car (and even with one) I dont know about you but my reflexes arent good enough determine between accelerating past the car next to me and braking and hoping the car behind the one next to me reacts in time. Assuming they were however my car and most others would not be able to accelerate quickly enough to make a difference. Mayby if you were driving a top fuel dragster down the interstate mayby but.....

Honestly just braking as hard as the situation will allow will give you more time before you hit the car in front of you to react and hopefully let others around you become aware enough to evade your evasions (if that last part sounds like it did in my head...)

 

[Pilgrim]

Again I realize that it is controversial whether it helps or not. It is my belief that an engine under no load and less rpm dose not use as much gas compared to a car either sitting at a stop trying to turn its wheels or running at 1800 rpm rather then 1100 while slowing down to a stop.

I just had to drop this in, even though it's late in the discussion...

About the comment above by the OP: shifting into neutral at a stop is NOT controversial, it's bad driving. If you're worried about gas, come to a stop and kill the engine, then re-start when the light changes. (Don't blame me when your starter motor wears out early.) When you leave the car in gear with the brakes on, it often idles at 100-200 RPM lower speed than if it's in neutral.

If you car is at 1100 or 180 RPM when stopped at a light, get the damn car fixed, don't debate about whether to be in gear or not. It blows my mind that people drive malfunctioning cars and pull all kinds of weird, dumb stuff to compensate, when they should just keep the car properly maintained!!

When you shift to neutral, you lose ALL control of your acceleration - you are nearly helpless if an emergency occurs. All you can do is steer and brake.

I can't tell you how many times I have had to goose the gas just a bit as I was stopping when someone behind me waited too long to brake. I'd have been rear-ended half a dozen times if I had not had the car in gear and been able to pull forward slightly to avoid the idiot behind me.

Originally Posted by uOpt
Are you seriously saying that your lane change works better if you add power and momentum?

A proper lane change at any speed absolutely requires a knowledge of weight transfer, traction and how to use acceleration and deceleration to transfer weight while retaining control. Momentum is a not really an issue other than how it affects weight transfer and traction. The Bondurant School and State Patrol Instructor schools teach this quite effectively. It's a longer discussion than appropriate here....but done well, you can change lanes in a full-size car at 50 MPH in 1.5 car lengths...while retaining control. Been there, learned that.

 

[DerHoggz]

For most cars, starting the engine consumes a non-trivial amount of fuel, not to mention that's when most of an engine's wear occurs. Turning off your ignition is likely doing the opposite of what people think while shortening the overall life of the vehicle.

Also for most automatic vehicles, shifting from neutral to drive while coasting causes some transmission internals to immediately go from standstill to full speed. This may not make a notable jolt or horrible sound when done each time, but it will one day end the party earlier than just driving as the car was designed.

I don't really understand the claims of cars "shutting off the fuel supply" and "infinity" fuel economy. An idling engine is burning fuel. Maybe a small amount, but there is fuel flowing.

One more point, gasoline's physical volume fluctuates rapidly with temperature. It takes up more space when hot, less when cold. Using the fill up and odometer to measure mileage is definitely unscientific, but is probably close enough for our personal averages. To get a little more for your money, try to fill up in morning when the underground tanks are their coolest.

I had read about a decade ago that starting up a car isn't that energy intensive any more.

 

[uOpt]

In the instance I'm describing, yes. If you don't understand it I can't help you there. You turn the wheel and step on the gas to avoid the obstacle, then come to a safe stop once out of danger. In a real world situation there are other cars on the road. Like the car in the lane you're turning into. You may need to squeeze in front of them, or you'd just end up side swiping them.

I guess nobody has ever taken any sort of high performance driving courses. Obviously that isn't what is going on here anyways.

OK, so you are saying that after you didn't pay attention and your kinetic energy has built up too high for the distance you left to a now too slow car and a read-end is unavoidable...

... that you now invade the lane left or right to you although there is somebody traveling in there. Is that right?

I can assure you that simply avoiding the obstacle (without having to worry about staying fast enough to not be hit from cars from behind) works a lot better with less kinetic energy and less impulse, aka you don't need the engine.

It's not that you can build up significant speed increases in those fractions of a second anyway, especially not in an automatic which spends the first second downshifting.

 

[graver555]

Looks like I'm late to the party. You guys do realize that todays cars are computer controlled? That major auto manufacturers spend millions on fuel.consumption studies? That teams of highly skilled engineers figured out fuel calculations based on load, atmospheric pressure, air temp, speed, tranny shift points etc? That computers can compensate for any of these variables faster than you can? Want to save gas? Drive normally, keep your tires inflated, dump unnecessary weight and drive below 55. Now sonny, get off my lawn.

I didnt know todays cars have wheel skirts, boat tails, grill dams, no spoilers, belly pans, fastback bed covers *for trucks*, hot air intakes, or any other number of just airo mods.

Invalid Link Removed

Try to keep up old man.

 

[DerHoggz]

I didnt know todays cars have wheel skirts, boat tails, grill dams, no spoilers, belly pans, fastback bed covers *for trucks*, hot air intakes, or any other number of just airo mods.

Invalid Link Removed

Try to keep up old man.

That site also suggests removing mirrors, power steering, and wipers as well as blocking airflow over the radiator. Boat tails are just asking to cause trouble when maneuvering.

 

[graver555]

That site also suggests removing mirrors, power steering, and wipers as well as blocking airflow over the radiator. Boat tails are just asking to cause trouble when maneuvering.

They also put interior mirror to make up for it, keep wipers in the car with them or make air dams around them, closely monitor engine temps (less air flow means more heat making the engine more efficient anyway) and people have driven without power steering for years.

And even with boat tails they arnt much if any bigger then larger luxery cars or trucks would be.

 

[3506string]

(less air flow means more heat making the engine more efficient anyway)

 

[graver555]

A hotter engine runs more effectivly. Once you get the car warm the difference between warm and hot is much smaller but its still there.

Sorry I see how I worded that could be unclear.

 

[Tony Flow MMMM]

I just had to drop this in, even though it's late in the discussion...

About the comment above by the OP: shifting into neutral at a stop is NOT controversial, it's bad driving. If you're worried about gas, come to a stop and kill the engine, then re-start when the light changes. (Don't blame me when your starter motor wears out early.) When you leave the car in gear with the brakes on, it often idles at 100-200 RPM lower speed than if it's in neutral.

If you car is at 1100 or 180 RPM when stopped at a light, get the damn car fixed, don't debate about whether to be in gear or not. It blows my mind that people drive malfunctioning cars and pull all kinds of weird, dumb stuff to compensate, when they should just keep the car properly maintained!!

When you shift to neutral, you lose ALL control of your acceleration - you are nearly helpless if an emergency occurs. All you can do is steer and brake.

I can't tell you how many times I have had to goose the gas just a bit as I was stopping when someone behind me waited too long to brake. I'd have been rear-ended half a dozen times if I had not had the car in gear and been able to pull forward slightly to avoid the idiot behind me.



A proper lane change at any speed absolutely requires a knowledge of weight transfer, traction and how to use acceleration and deceleration to transfer weight while retaining control. Momentum is a not really an issue other than how it affects weight transfer and traction. The Bondurant School and State Patrol Instructor schools teach this quite effectively. It's a longer discussion than appropriate here....but done well, you can change lanes in a full-size car at 50 MPH in 1.5 car lengths...while retaining control. Been there, learned that.

#1 engine idles higher in neutral because there is no load DUH, but idle speed does not equal gas consumption... This is elementary crap. Get a scan gauge and set it on gallons per hour... Yea....

# 2 if you can't bump your car back into drive fast enough please let's ban all manual cars there simply unsafe!!! What if your I between gears? Or you miss a gear oh the humanity.

 

[Tony Flow MMMM]

OK, so you are saying that after you didn't pay attention and your kinetic energy has built up too high for the distance you left to a now too slow car and a read-end is unavoidable...

... that you now invade the lane left or right to you although there is somebody traveling in there. Is that right?

I can assure you that simply avoiding the obstacle (without having to worry about staying fast enough to not be hit from cars from behind) works a lot better with less kinetic energy and less impulse, aka you don't need the engine.

It's not that you can build up significant speed increases in those fractions of a second anyway, especially not in an automatic which spends the first second downshifting.

This guy makes sense

 

[bolophonic]

You guys are debating the minutiae of very hypothetical, theoretical situations in order to prove hypothetical, theoretical points when the reality is that the OP has no business attempting to "hack" his poorly maintained car. Dude wants to experiment with turning his car off while driving in order to save a nickel while admitting that he can't even get his brake pads on correctly.

 

[graver555]

You guys are debating the minutiae of very hypothetical, theoretical situations in order to prove hypothetical, theoretical points when the reality is that the OP has no business attempting to "hack" his poorly maintained car. Dude wants to experiment with turning his car off while driving in order to save a nickel while admitting that he can't even get his brake pads on correctly.

I did not say I put them in correctly. I said one was wedged in sideways. It was due to the clip (more of a shim really) that holds it in place rusting out bacause this set of pads didn't come with a replacement and it was the first brake job I did since I owned the car.

And any maintance related to drivability is very done. Many comfort and convience things are not because I either dont have the time, money, or skill but my car is always safe to drive. Only once was it not and that was due to not having the money for pads and I refused to let anyone ride with me and I only drove at times where there would be no traffic.

I have never let it be unsafe since then.

 

[carl h.]

I did not say I put them in correctly. I said one was wedged in sideways. It was due to the clip (more of a shim really) that holds it in place rusting out bacause this set of pads didn't come with a replacement and it was the first brake job I did since I owned the car.

And any maintance related to drivability is very done. Many comfort and convience things are not because I either dont have the time, money, or skill but my car is always safe to drive. Only once was it not and that was due to not having the money for pads and I refused to let anyone ride with me and I only drove at times where there would be no traffic.

I have never let it be unsafe since then.

Not recognizing unsafe condition of brake components is a big sign you shouldn't have been doing the job yourself. Do you know what else is ready to fail and take your brakes with them?

You didn't even know enough to keep an unsafe car off the public roads!

 

[graver555]

Not recognizing unsafe condition of brake components is a big sign you shouldn't have been doing the job yourself. Do you know what else is ready to fail and take your brakes with them?

You didn't even know enough to keep an unsafe car off the public roads!

Yes because you have neeevvvveerrrrrrr done anything dumb before when you had to or didn't realize something would fail.

Guess you never had a string break because you didnt recognize it was ready to fail. Huh, wish I was that smart.
Or more relevant a tire blow on the highway.

Also even if a brake pad fell all the way out it would not "take the brakes with it" The caliper itself would press against the rotor. albeit it would ruin both but the car would stop and there are 2 more sets not even conectted to that caliper hydrauliclly.

 

[David Jayne]

Also even if a brake pad fell all the way out it would not "take the brakes with it" The caliper itself would press against the rotor. albeit it would ruin both but the car would stop and there are 2 more sets not even conectted to that caliper hydrauliclly.

Not to pile on, but just fyi what would actually happen is the piston would come out of the caliper bore, taking lots of brake fluid with it. If it was a front caliper, you'd lose your front brakes entirely.

 

[cleary]

I'm assuming down in the world's nethers you drive manuals?

No need to assume, it's in the post

Actually, I'm a rare one here. Automatics make up 95% of the market.

PS I'm not sure how the rules apply in other parts of the world, but if I were driving the OPs car (which I presume by his description is not worth a lot) and someone were about to rear end me at relatively low speed, I'd take the hit.
The other driver is at fault and it's likely the OPs car would be written off (cost of repairs worth more than the car, insurance pays cash instead).

The alternative being suggested to accelerate into another lane opens the risk of being tboned in the drivers side door or passenger doors while pulling into the other lane, collecting a cyclist or motor cyclist and causing them serious injury etc.

Get rear ended, there's a lot of padding there, and provided your car isn't one of those ones that explode on rear end impact it's a much safer option.