Rupert_Baehr Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 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!!! Wrong! On a modern car with fuel-injection and electronic fuel control, if you put the car in neutral/depress the clutch, the engine idles. - It is still fed with fuel and it still consumes fuel. If you take your foot off the accelerator (engine braking) the fuel control system cuts off fuel to the injectors. The engine burns no fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 The original question was: "Is driving economically potentially dangerous?" The answer is no. - But to comprehend that answer, you have to understand how to drive economically and 'driving economically' is not the same as 'coasting'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 The power steering is not operated from the same servo, and the brakes will continue to work for several presses of the pedal as already explained. . But both operate from a servo. The brakes may vary from car to car but my vast experience tells me it's a death trick to coast without the engine running or even in neutral because the control over your vehicle is a lot less. I really see no reason why you're pushing this dangerously stupid point when it's clear your brakes simple don't work properly without servo assist. Did you try the hill with no engine trick yet or are you bright enough to know doing it would be the act of an idiot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 The original question was: "Is driving economically potentially dangerous?" The answer is no. - But to comprehend that answer, you have to understand how to drive economically and 'driving economically' is not the same as 'coasting'. Anyone that has taken an advanced driving course knows that. That would be my suggestion for the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 But both operate from a servo. They might, unless the power assist is electronic... As is quite common. The brakes may vary from car to car but my vast experience tells me it's a death trick to coast without the engine running or even in neutral because the control over your vehicle is a lot less. Nobody ever actually suggested turning the engine off, maybe you could read the thread in detail before joining in? I really see no reason why you're pushing this dangerously stupid point when it's clear your brakes simple don't work properly without servo assist. Because the point is correct. That's the way the world works, you don't get to change reality just because you don't like. I see you've changed your position though, moved from "brakes won't work" to "brakes won't work properly". Did you try the hill with no engine trick yet or are you bright enough to know doing it would be the act of an idiot? Did you go and try you foot brake whilst stationary? You're still here so clearly your brakes worked and the car didn't roll you to a fiery death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I really see no reason why you're pushing this dangerously stupid point when it's clear your brakes simple don't work properly without servo assist. That's not what you said before, this is: What a stupid post. No engine means no servo. That means your vehicle won't stop Idiot post of the year. I think everyone on this thread is in agreement now that power-assisted brakes don't work properly (not as effective) with the engine off. Nice to see you've accepted that, you could stop with the abusive name calling if you want. EDIT: Which "Dangerous point" do you think Cyclone is pushing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Ralge Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 They might, unless the power assist is electronic... As is quite common. Nobody ever actually suggested turning the engine off, maybe you could read the thread in detail before joining in? Because the point is correct. That's the way the world works, you don't get to change reality just because you don't like. I see you've changed your position though, moved from "brakes won't work" to "brakes won't work properly". Did you go and try you foot brake whilst stationary? You're still here so clearly your brakes worked and the car didn't roll you to a fiery death. But without my engine on, my handbrake stops me more easily on a slightly sloped drive, so ineffective is unassisted foot-braking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I've never said otherwise. Once the residual pressure is used the foot brake becomes quite hard. But it does still work, which is not what upinwath said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Wrong! On a modern car with fuel-injection and electronic fuel control, if you put the car in neutral/depress the clutch, the engine idles. - It is still fed with fuel and it still consumes fuel. If you take your foot off the accelerator (engine braking) the fuel control system cuts off fuel to the injectors. The engine burns no fuel. I think its hard for some to take in because they're seeing the revs at something like 1500-2000 when its in gear (depending which gear, what kind of engine, and at what speed) and only 800 when in neutral, so they wrongly assume that being in neutral means less fuel is burnt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.