cardoor Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 I'm desperately trying to save money on fuel as it's just not feasible to work anymore. I've been told that coasting is more dangerous as you have less control of your car, but i still feel in control and you are actually more cautious as you'll allow greater stopping distances. And does engine braking use more fuel? All seems rather vague so thought I'd pose the question and start a debate for you know it alls:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Just be in the right gear at the right time...if you brake whilst still in gear and dip the clutch when almost stationary your braking distance will be less 'cos you're using engine braking as well as the brakes..to save fuel ease off earlier and brake later..anticipate the road ahead and avoid having to brake sharply.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynic Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 It doesn't have to be dangerous. Just don't do it to extremes. You can save a lot of petrol by driving a couple of feet from the back of lorries on motorways but you would be an idiot to try it. Anticipation is the key to economical driving. Accelerate and de-accelerate as slowly as you feel comfortable with and stick to sensible speeds. This will save a lot of petrol. It is easiest on a motorway. Stick to a sensible speed, but make sure you are going faster than the HGVs. Read the road well ahead and you shouldn't ever have to break on a motorway apart from when there is completely stationary traffic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardoor Posted July 18, 2011 Author Share Posted July 18, 2011 The trouble with leaving longer safe gaps on the motorway so you can anticipate when you need to brake, is that you then get other drivers cutting you up which then often leavs you having to brake sharply, especially rushhour in the mornings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 I'm desperately trying to save money on fuel as it's just not feasible to work anymore. I've been told that coasting is more dangerous as you have less control of your car, but i still feel in control and you are actually more cautious as you'll allow greater stopping distances. And does engine braking use more fuel? All seems rather vague so thought I'd pose the question and start a debate for you know it alls:) Just a small message that WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE. Under no circumstances coast. If your engine were to cut out whilst coasting, your car requires brakes to stop. Your brakes are DEPENDANT on your engine running, no engine, no brakes, no brakes = death. Trust me on this one. Regards Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Your brakes are DEPENDANT on your engine running No they're not. They're simply harder to operate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 There was an article in the paper a while ago that said most drivers waste fuel by running the revs too high before changing gear. If you try to keep the revs below2500 you can save fuel. And rather than coasting in neutral, which is dangerous, letting the car run in gear but without any accelerator on modern engines uses no fuel. In fact coasting in neutral actually uses more fuel. It's not always easy in a hilly place like Sheffield, but I've tried it and it does work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Not sure about using no fuel algy, but no foot on the accelarator will use no more fuel than coasting. Coasting is definately dangerous as you have no control over speed whatsoever..not to mention the consequences should the engine stop running ( no power assisted brakes/power steering). Don't do it!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 No they're not. They're simply harder to operate. Which makes the car simpler to operate brake wise. You may have taken the post too literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Just a small message that WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE. Under no circumstances coast. If your engine were to cut out whilst coasting, your car requires brakes to stop. Your brakes are DEPENDANT on your engine running, no engine, no brakes, no brakes = death. Trust me on this one. Regards Angel. No they're not. They're simply harder to operate. In all cars from way back to the late 80s, the brake pedal will work without engine assist at all times. For the first two uses of the brake pedal AFTER the engine is cut out there is no discernable difference in effort required as there is still sufficient pressure in the servo to allow normal operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.