News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transm... by rsync on Thursday November 17, 2016 @10:36AM (#12978319)
"In modern cars, disengaging the clutch (or using neutral) when coasting (toward a stop or down a hill) is less efficient than staying in gear. This is because it takes some fuel to keep the engine idling, where staying in gear allows the computer to completely cut fuel flow, as long as the forward motion is keeping the engine turning."

This is very interesting - thank you.

I shift cars into neutral while going down hills because I strongly dislike the subtle lurching of the hill descent control ...

I never thought I was saving any appreciable fuel.

However, what does happen is that (provided you don't mind speeding) you exit the bottom of the hill with much more stored energy, allowing you to coast (in or out of gear) much further before it is necessary to apply the throttle again.

So it's interesting that the direct effect of coasting in neutral does not save fuel - however I still think the net effect (again, provided you don't mind speeding when exiting a hill) is fuel-saving ...

Re:Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transm... by rhinoceraptor on Thursday November 17, 2016 @01:19PM (#12979915)
It's actually illegal in many states to coast downhill in neutral.
Re:Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transm... by nawitus on Thursday November 17, 2016 @02:14PM (#12980465)
Coasting down a hill in neutral definitely saves fuel compared to coasting in gear if you can utilize the kinetic energy. If you're coasting down a hill and then need to stop quickly it's better to coast in gear.