is it possible to achieve these "MPG" figures

[ypauly]

There are some astonishing MPG claims here
http://hypermilers.blogspot.com/

sorry if a repost i did a search and found many mpg type threads a quick flick through i didn't find this site



ETA wrong forun should have been general gassing could one of you nice mods move it please

Edited by ypauly on Thursday 7th August 14:33

[rfn]

That website implies you will use less fuel if you coast in neutral than if you stay in gear. What rubbish.

[Tony*T3]

This is in todays paper (Sun I think). Guy sounds like a cock quite frankly. Most of what he says he does is against the law and common sense.

Think its very poor reporting by the paper.

[y2blade]

i saw the bit in the sun at lunchtime cue loads of pricks drafting lorrys in neutral and those that arnt will be doing 40mph max on the motorways

happy days!!!!

[Stedman]

What a tit?

[Fume troll]

rfn said:

That website implies you will use less fuel if you coast in neutral than if you stay in gear. What rubbish.

In what way is that rubbish?

Cheers,

FT.

[Fume troll]

ypauly said:

There are some astonishing MPG claims here
http://hypermilers.blogspot.com/

sorry if a repost i did a search and found many mpg type threads a quick flick through i didn't find this site



ETA wrong forun should have been general gassing could one of you nice mods move it please

Edited by ypauly on Thursday 7th August 14:33

It's certainly possible, but you have to be very determined. The returns diminish fairly quickly in comparision to the "effort".

Cheers,

FT.

[eowen]

Fume troll said:

rfn said:

That website implies you will use less fuel if you coast in neutral than if you stay in gear. What rubbish.

In what way is that rubbish?

Cheers,

FT.

A car in neutral is a car in tick over - using fuel.

A modern car in gear with foot off the gas shuts off the fuel - and uses barely any (if at all) as far as it was explained to me by a mechanic.

[rfn]

Fume troll said:

rfn said:

That website implies you will use less fuel if you coast in neutral than if you stay in gear. What rubbish.

In what way is that rubbish?

Cheers,

FT.

I was fairly convinced from reading about the subject (being a pretty hefty MPG geek myself) that less fuel is used if you just leave it in gear rather than allowing the engine to idle - something to do with the wastegates being shut when you aren't accelerating, but the car actually having to do "work" when moving at tickover speed?

I'm not sure but that was the impression I got.

Also, it's pretty dangerous to be encouraging people to coast on the roads - it leaves you with limited "get me out of here" ability.
Edit: eowen explained it better than me.

Edited by rfn on Thursday 7th August 15:20

[Strawman]

Couldn't be bothered to read that blog, but astonishing figures can be achieved by specialist in miserly driving techniques. There are official competitions where people are given a gallon of fuel and a route map, and class based wins for distance achieved, a few years ago I read up on one of these, family saloon was won by some guy in a Skoda Octavia 1.8L petrol I think he managed 74 MPG (or similar) which must be more than twice what the official consumption is.

[duff]

Tony*T3 said:

This is in todays paper (Sun I think). Guy sounds like a cock quite frankly. Most of what he says he does is against the law and common sense.

Think its very poor reporting by the paper.

The Sun print a load of bks, surely not!!!

[eowen]

It is almost as bad as that list suggesting filling at night when the fuel is heavier. Taking a dump before you go for a drive will save more...

Taking all the crap out of the car, roof boxes, roof racks off is definately worth doing.

[Fume troll]

eowen said:

Fume troll said:

rfn said:

That website implies you will use less fuel if you coast in neutral than if you stay in gear. What rubbish.

In what way is that rubbish?

Cheers,

FT.

A car in neutral is a car in tick over - using fuel.

A modern car in gear with foot off the gas shuts off the fuel - and uses barely any (if at all) as far as it was explained to me by a mechanic.

That's true - however a modern car with a foot off the gas is losing energy from the total system more quickly than one which is coasting with the energy idling - this is because the engine is being turned faster. Therefore (assuming you are going to speed up again) the overall system uses more energy.

We experience this energy loss as "engine braking", i.e. the car slows down more in gear as the kinetic energy is being used to drive the engine at a higher speed.

Cheers,

FT.

[emicen]

rfn said:

Fume troll said:

rfn said:

That website implies you will use less fuel if you coast in neutral than if you stay in gear. What rubbish.

In what way is that rubbish?

Cheers,

FT.

I was fairly convinced from reading about the subject (being a pretty hefty MPG geek myself) that less fuel is used if you just leave it in gear rather than allowing the engine to idle - something to do with the wastegates being shut when you aren't accelerating, but the car actually having to do "work" when moving at tickover speed?

I'm not sure but that was the impression I got.

Also, it's pretty dangerous to be encouraging people to coast on the roads - it leaves you with limited "get me out of here" ability.
Edit: eowen explained it better than me.

Edited by rfn on Thursday 7th August 15:20

Certainly fuel cut off on over-run is present but I believe it is rpm dependant as well as load.