Most economical way to drive a car?

[illuminati]

Talking about freewheeling down hill, this is something i tend to do on long steep hills, although as someone mentioned it is against the law.

but i wanna throw this into the mix....

someone told me that these modern deisils make it a waste of time, because when you are going down hill in gear, the car doesnt actually use any fuel, and the car going down hill in neutral would actually use more fuel

i personally find this hard to believe..

thoughts anyone?

 

This is true. The engine is being driven by the momentum of the car going down hill, the ECU can see you are not pressing the accelerator so doesn't inject any fuel, there is no need to. If you free wheel in neutral then you need to keep the engine running so you have to inject fuel.

If you have an MPG readout on your car you will see it go up to 999MPG whilst going down hill!

Edited July 4, 2017 by illuminati

[martin6]

For every downhill there is an uphill negating any saving !

[illuminati]

For every downhill there is an uphill negating any saving !

 

Not true. If you drive up the hill you will use X amount of fuel. If you freewheel down the hill you will use Y amount of fuel to keep the engine running. If you drive down the hill you will use 0 fuel.

So you journey up and down the hill whilst free wheeling will use X + Y fuel.

If you journey up and down the hill whilst driving you will use X + 0, or X fuel.

 

X + Y is greater than X

[MAC33]

I try to use the brake as little as possible by looking ahead.

 

The previous owner of my 3000 cc Toyota Avalon said it gets 500 kms for its 63 litre fuel tank but I'm getting between 650 - 700 kms!

 

I drive around ten percent of the time in neutral,and always take it out of gear at the traffic lights.

[mossdog]

but if you can manage to drive in top gear at 40, would that return an even better MPG? i assume it would

.........take no notice of experts Beano including political ones that assume everything but know nowt!

[banjodeano]

I try to use the brake as little as possible by looking ahead.

 

The previous owner of my 3000 cc Toyota Avalon said it gets 500 kms for its 63 litre fuel tank but I'm getting between 650 - 700 kms!

 

I drive around ten percent of the time in neutral,and always take it out of gear at the traffic lights.

 

I have just come back from touring Ireland, so we were in no rush at getting about, mostly pottering about on country roads, nice and steady enjoying the views, but hammered it on the motorway coming back home, a total of 1500 miles for the princely sum of £120..I thought that was a decent return.

[Cyclone]

but if you can manage to drive in top gear at 40, would that return an even better MPG? i assume it would

 

No, the engine is most efficient at a mid level of revs.

 

---------- Post added 07-07-2017 at 07:40 ----------

 

Yes and no. When you have to apply the brakes, the cruise control is paused. When you switch it back on again the selected cruise speed is attained much quicker than normal and a glance at the mpg at this point can be a bit scary.

 

How is it attained "quicker than normal", my cruise accelerates back up to speed more slowly than me putting my foot down myself.

[Fogey]

Over a period of 2 years my car has managed an average fuel consumption of 60mpg for an average of 27mph (according to the readout).

 

Like others have said I try to avoid breaking by slowing down a little more gradually.

 

Also I definitely noticed better performance when I switched to 'premium' unleaded, specifically from Shell, - I reckoned when I made the decision after trying for several weeks that it was costing me around 10% more to fill the tank but was delivering between 15% and 30% better mileage with the car feeling somehow smoother and happier when accelerating and driving generally, all based on the fact that I tend to be doing the same mileage on the same roads most of the time.

 

My question is this, I have started to develop a habit for using engine braking if I have plenty of time to do so safely. I can see the advantages to reducing the wear on the brakes but I can't believe there isn't a price to be paid, so what is it?

 

I thought I had read in the Highway code that it was advisable to use engine breaking when slowing down gradually but I don't seem to be able to locate that particular bit any more. - Any advice?

[DT Ralge]

Over a period of 2 years my car has managed an average fuel consumption of 60mpg for an average of 27mph (according to the readout).

 

Like others have said I try to avoid breaking by slowing down a little more gradually.

 

Also I definitely noticed better performance when I switched to 'premium' unleaded, specifically from Shell, - I reckoned when I made the decision after trying for several weeks that it was costing me around 10% more to fill the tank but was delivering between 15% and 30% better mileage with the car feeling somehow smoother and happier when accelerating and driving generally, all based on the fact that I tend to be doing the same mileage on the same roads most of the time.

 

My question is this, I have started to develop a habit for using engine braking if I have plenty of time to do so safely. I can see the advantages to reducing the wear on the brakes but I can't believe there isn't a price to be paid, so what is it?

 

I thought I had read in the Highway code that it was advisable to use engine breaking when slowing down gradually but I don't seem to be able to locate that particular bit any more. - Any advice?

 

Depends on what you mean by engine braking.

- slowing down by use of a lower gear, followed by a lower gear etc with not so much braking in-between.

- on a steep hill holding a lower gear to save excessive wear and heat generation (and brake fade) in brakes

Or

- braking in gear without going down through your gears and only picking a lower gear when you know what gear will take you through the hazard.

 

Many/most drivers I sit with drive with a variation of the first.

The sloppiest drivers in my book simply go down through the gears without actually bringing the clutch up to use any of the intermediate gears. This method will get through brakes at a rate of knots but does at least involve a show of brake lights.

Old-school drivers use their gears, engine, transmission to slow down. This stems from a bygone age when brakes were rubbish and engines, gearboxes, clutches and transmissions were heavy lumps of metal and therefore gave effective braking at a time when brakes were truly rubbish.

Current thinking realises that engines etc are relatively light, flimsy even. As such, they are good at giving/producing acceleration but poor at braking. At the same time as this, brakes are now very cheap and very effective.

 

Current thinking is "brakes to slow, gears to go", therefore.

In purist Advanced driving circles, we look for "one gear per hazard" that involves full control at all times (two hands on the steering wheel rather than going for unnecessary intermediate gears - one hand spending a lot of time on the gearstick - and clutch up to use engine braking).

Add into this, we want to see an accurate assessment of the hazard, met and dealt with by just one (block) gear change.

[Cyclone]

I changed cars a year ago, both have big engines, but the new one is 7 years newer and also an auto box, by comparison it's nearly impossible to engine break with it, there is hardly any retarding effect. Perhaps that's a function of the autobox though rather than anything else.