<travisgod@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:85f0b9db-a9d9-4ce4-bba8-8613beab28ba@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On modern cars, its LESS than idling. They typically shut fuel flow OFF
>> on deceleration until the engine speed drops down to idle speed. So
>> going downhill (in gear) uses zero fuel. Going downhill in neutral
>> requires the engine to idle, so that would in fact use MORE fuel than
>> coasting in gear.
>
> Your stupidity doesn't QUIT, does it?
>
> What if gravity is insufficient to overcome compression losses?
Then you wouldn't be coasting and you wouldn't be on topic.
>
> In THAT CASE, you are better off ****fting to neutral and letting the
> engine consume at idle.
>
> The engine speed will NOT DROP TO IDLE SPEED, you freakin moron,
> because the engine is DIRECTLY coupled to the driveline via either the
> clutch in a manual or the converter lockup (another clutch) in an
> automatic.
I see reading comprehension is't your strong point either! Did you
read
above were it was metioned the vehicle would be in neutral for it to be at
idle speed ???
>
> Try THIS.
>
> Put your car in automanual mode. Put it in FIRST GEAR. Evaluate the
> decleration rate on a LEVEL road from any given speed versus first or
> second if you do NOT understand engine braking!
I don't think many people drive around in first gear all the time!
You will find that
> RPMs typical of highway speeds in top gear involve actually fairly
> HIGH levels of engine braking.
>
> You should immediately notice DECREASED compression braking when you
> put the car into 2nd versus 1st. This is WHY you down****ft to slow
> down.
Well which is it einstein ? First you state: " RPMs typical of highway
speeds in top gear involve actually fairly HIGH levels of engine braking".
Then you state:"You should immediately notice DECREASED compression
braking
when you put the car into 2nd versus 1st."
So if you notice DECREASED engine braking in second gear versus first
why
would you have HIGH levels of engine braking in top gear ???? Sounds
contradictory to me.
>
> GD, I do this thing every fking day I drive the kids to school. I put
> the VW into 3rd on a particular decline and let it engine brake to max
> at <40mph so the cops with lasers at the bottom won't tag me. If I
> let the transmission select a higher gear or I did so myself, I would
> exceed the speed limit.
How come gravity is able to overcome compression losses on your hill
???
>
> The car MAXES out on this decline around 38mph in 3rd gear. If I
> desire to go FASTER, I MUST use fuel!
But when you are coasting you use NO FUEL!
If I ****ft to 4th, RPMs drop,
> compression braking lessens and I can roll to a higher terminal speed
> at which, if I desire to go faster, I must EITHER increase
> acceleration or decrease deceleration. That could be accomplished by
> up****fting OR pressing on the accelerator.
And until you press the accelerator you are STILL using NO FUEL!
>
> EITHER WAY, gravity is competing against engine compression and drag.
But you admit that the car is COASTING and it is COASTING IN GEAR! Isn't
that what the discusion is about ? Isn't that what you keep saying can't
happen?
>
> Do you people even drive cars or are you just idiots?
Yes we drive cars, we leave the idiot part up to you being you are so
good
at it.
YES, there ARE
> hills in which drag + engine compression > gravity, therefore you MUST
> use fuel or ELSE you remove engine compression as a decelerative load!
And there are also hills which the vehicle will be able to coast down
with
the vehicle in gear (such as your example above), and that is what this
discussion is all about.
>
> Trav
|
