Quote from DragonCommando :

If you are engine braking it should use the same amount of fuel as it would at the same RPM. so if you are engine braking or cruising at 3k RPM, it should use the same amount of fuel.
That is assuming the fuel system is static and just adds fuel as it needs to, if the computer is programed to, it may actualy lower or cut fuel, but I've never thaught of testing it.

Dunno what a "static fuel system" is, as i dont really have a dynamic one..

but i DO know that if u engine brake u do not use any fuel, if u have injectors.. on a carb, there is no way to cut the fuel easely..

I'd just like to point out that, at least in the us, it is technically not legal to put the car in neutral while moving other than between shifts. Pushing in the clutch down a hill is fine, but the car must be in gear.

Quote from speed1 :

I'd just like to point out that, at least in the us, it is technically not legal to put the car in neutral while moving other than between shifts. Pushing in the clutch down a hill is fine, but the car must be in gear.

I am fairly certain it is the same in ontario, but that doesn't stop people from doing it. It's not as easy to spot as not wearing a seat belt, esspecialy in an automatic.

It is illegal for a reason, if you put yourself in a situation where you can not control the speed of the car with the throttle, and you need to. It is your fault you got into trouble.

I have seen people put the car in neutral on a hill, and something actualy goes wrong where they need to power away. It never ends well.

One person had their car damaged by a run away shopping cart I laughed my head off for a while after that one.

It's a grade 2 fault in our driving test if you put the car into neutral at any time without the handbrake on and the car completely stopped, or if you pull in the clutch without changing gears or just before you stop. Depending on how bad the incident was, it can be counted as grade 3, which is instant fail. Getting four grade 2 faults is also an instant fail. It's a big no-no. There is no advantage to it whatsoever anyway, so there's no need to do it. It doesn't prolong engine life (at least not if you do regular maintenance), and uses more fuel. Don't do it kids

IMO, putting the clutch in is almost as bad. What if, for some unknown reason, your brakes fail (probably due to the extra heat they're getting due to no engine braking :razz. Your only way of slowing down is to dump the clutch, which could easily lock up the drive wheels, especially if the car is RWD, putting you into an spin. Unlikely to happen, and kind of a worst case scenario, but if you had the car in gear with the clutch out, the engine braking would help stop you flying ahead while you realise what the hell just happened.

Personally, When I have the clutch pushed in down a hill, its going at a fairly slow speed, so that wouldnt be an issue, and I'm in the habit of blipping the throttle to smooth things out.

I actually never heard of it being illegal in PA. Doesn't surprise me that it is though. Although for some stupid reason, it is also illegal to use the left lane for more than a few miles at a time in my state. I'm unsure of an exact number, but they covered it in Drivers Ed. and a great friend of mine who lives out of state got pulled over for it.

I had that thought of 2000 RPM vs 700 RPM when I though it would use fuel any way I did it. It would certainly be worth while if I'm really desperate to use 700 RPM worth of fuel over 2000. Since the engine doesn't use fuel with 0 throttle and decelerating though, my thought is blown clear out of the window now with the info from this thread.

Quote from rsnake53 :

Although for some stupid reason, it is also illegal to use the left lane for more than a few miles at a time in my state. I'm unsure of an exact number, but they covered it in Drivers Ed. and a great friend of mine who lives out of state got pulled over for it.

It is illegal because the left lane is for faster traffic passing slower traffic. Too many morons drive in the left lane and cruise along at the same speed as traffic on the right so that they tie up the faster traffic pulling up behind them.

Yep, can't tell you how many times I've seen someone chugging along in the left lane right next to someone else. More often than not they're doing the speed limit, because surely no one should be going faster than that anyway. :rolleyes:

Yeah its interresting,speed limit is 55 mhp usually here in NJ(i see forbin you live not too far from me) and the left lane is for faster traffic,but i heard few ppl got pulled over going slower than speedlimit(im sure it was just an A hole cop) but meh.. well when i have this when they go side by side,i floor the m-power and pass on shoulder

Quote from dougie-lampkin :

It's a grade 2 fault in our driving test if you put the car into neutral at any time without the handbrake on and the car completely stopped, or if you pull in the clutch without changing gears or just before you stop.

So, you're supposed to just sit at a 3> minute light with the clutch in? Or am I reading that wrong?

I don't know what all the automatic hate is about. Manuals are fun, yes, on a track, but automatics are faster, usually smoother (unless you're well above an average driver), and probably cost less due to less wear. In my opinion, for the everyday "tool" car, you'd be somewhat crazy to buy a manual, unless cost was really that big of a deal.

I read somewhere that something like 75% of cars sold in the US are automatics. In European countries that number is usually reversed. I wonder, are Americans just lazy that way, or is there another reason?

It's also odd that there isn't a separate "manual operator" license in the US, like there is in the UK (I believe?).

Why would a manual have less wear? It's much much more complicated system.

I can tell you that a lot of automatics are awful - my Dad's Omega being the worst, the petrol version was 2 seconds quicker to 60...

Quote from MadCat360 :

automatics are faster

Erm, no...,

Quote from MadCat360 :

usually smoother (unless you're well above an average driver)

Huh? Autos are reknowned for NOT being smooth...

Quote from MadCat360 :

cost less due to less wear

You what?

Quote from MadCat360 :

I read somewhere that something like 75% of cars sold in the US are automatics. In European countries that number is usually reversed. I wonder, are Americans just lazy that way, or is there another reason?

Must... not... answer... truthfully...

Quote from Jakg :

Why would a manual have less wear? It's much much more complicated system.

Yeah, thats one of the exact arguments FOR and automatic.

Quote from MadCat360 :

So, you're supposed to just sit at a 3> minute light with the clutch in? Or am I reading that wrong?

3 Minutes at a light with a clutch in is not hard, at all. Unless you are driving something with a beastly heavy clutch, its not much different from keeping your foot on the brake at a light, so I'll assume you're one of those drivers who shifts into park every time the car stops.

Quote from MadCat360 :

don't know what all the automatic hate is about. Manuals are fun, yes, on a track, but automatics are faster, usually smoother (unless you're well above an average driver), and probably cost less due to less wear. In my opinion, for the everyday "tool" car, you'd be somewhat crazy to buy a manual, unless cost was really that big of a deal.

An everyday "tool" car is most likely going to be an ungodly underpowered ecobox, the exact type of car that benefits so much from a lighter tranny with less power lost by the time it reaches the wheels and more engine control.

Quote from MadCat360 :

read somewhere that something like 75% of cars sold in the US are automatics. In European countries that number is usually reversed. I wonder, are Americans just lazy that way, or is there another reason?

Lazy, thats the only reason I can think of. And I dont think that number is right. It might have been right 10 years ago for all cars (not those sold, but older ones to), but defiantly not now.

Quote from MadCat360 :

It's also odd that there isn't a separate "manual operator" license in the US, like there is in the UK (I believe?).

Not enough people drive standard to make it profitable for the DMV/BMV.

Automatics cost less?

Obviously you've never had to replace one. Automatics can and usualy will be alot more expensive to repair.

150k and you replace the clutch that costs $250 including install. And this is being very hard on the clutch to have to replace it at 150k (honda civic with an actual parts cost of $117)


Changing the fluid in an auto isn't realy that expensive, but replacing the auto because it is slipping can be very expensive.

When I worked at a garage, within one year we changed more automatics than we replaced clutches. the cost of replacing the automatic was close to $1000 or sometimes more for a USED one. The cost of replacing the single clutch we replaced that whole year was what I listed above.

Now which do you think is more expensive? Manuals only need replacing if you did something stupid and damaged the transmission. Autos have a nasty habbit of overheating when the fluid gets low. And it gets low alot more often than one would think, alot of people don't know how to take care of an automatic and assume that it takes care of it's self.

If you recall, this was being discussed a few pages back. Why dont you go read that, you'll see that just about everyone said this was probably not actually true (automatics being cheaper long term), and that it was just perceived to be.

5-speed manual ftw!

It´s so much better to play with, when u got a 3.0L straight 6 engine and rear wheel drive. Can´t even imagine how boring automatic would be..

Quote from speed1 :

3 Minutes at a light with a clutch in is not hard, at all. Unless you are driving something with a beastly heavy clutch, its not much different from keeping your foot on the brake at a light, so I'll assume you're one of those drivers who shifts into park every time the car stops.

Don't assume. But why keep the clutch in when you can just put it in neutral? I don't understand why your test says you must have the hand brake on.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Erm, no..., Huh? Autos are reknowned for NOT being smooth...

If autos are so slow, why did they use them in F1? Every auto I've driven is smoother than most drivers in a manual (most people are not racing drivers, remember), and faster shifting.

I enjoy a manual transmission as much as anyone else but for an everyday runaround car why wouldn't you have an auto? Cost? $1,000 every 150k miles is not that big a price to pay for a little convenience.

Quote from MadCat360 :

If autos are so slow, why did they use them in F1? Every auto I've driven is smoother than most drivers in a manual (most people are not racing drivers, remember), and faster shifting.

I don't think automatic transmissions have ever been used in F1. Or many motorsports at all.

They use Semi-Auto transmission (or similar) in the way that the clutch is electronically assisted. Never a full auto tranny.

Quote from MadCat360 :

Don't assume. But why keep the clutch in when you can just put it in neutral? I don't understand why your test says you must have the hand brake on..

Thats just it, not only is putting it in neutral not completely legal, it is a bad idea. You need to be in control of your vehicle at all times.

Also, I took my drivers test using a standard gear box, and I have no idea what you're talking about with the hand brake.

Quote from DTrott :

I don't think automatic transmissions have ever been used in F1. Or many motorsports at all.

Full automatic transmissions (upshift and downshift) have been used in F1 before. There have also been some systems where a driver could press a button on the steering wheel to pre-select a gear then the car would actually make the shifts at the soonest possible point. So, for example, the driver is travelling down a straight at 190mph in 6th gear. He presses a button on the steering wheel to pre-select 2nd gear. Nothing happens at first, but the car now monitors the engine RPM to determine when it can change down to the next gear safely. The driver starts braking, the engine drops below X rpm, it's now safe to drop a gear so the car drops a gear. This continues until the driver is in the pre-selected gear.

Quote from DTrott :

I don't think automatic transmissions have ever been used in F1. Or many motorsports at all.

Yeah, only autobox I can think of in a racing car was the Chaparral, and that was the down fall of that car.

Quote from speed1 :

Yeah, only autobox I can think of in a racing car was the Chaparral, and that was the down fall of that car.

Read my post above. Fully automatic gearboxes have been used in F1 before.

Quote from amp88 :

Read my post above. Fully automatic gearboxes have been used in F1 before.

As in the driver has no input as to what gear the car is in? Interesting.