Reversing - Heavier on fuel?

[Grant76]

Little office debate going on...

Does anyone know if reversing is heavier on fuel?

Cheers

[Mr Sparkle]

I would have thought most cars are less aerodynamic going backwards and might have more drive-train resistance because of extra gears needed to reverse the direction of rotation(?) Also it would place the cooling system under more stress since it's not getting air through the radiator as well.

[StottyZr]

Same as first gear. I'd expect its exactly the same, your moving the same mass.

^ Answer above put a lot more thought into it than me and he's right. Saying that, the difference would be neglible if any at all, its an extra cog in the gearbox and at reversing speeds the drag difference will be almost non exsistant.

[mrmr96]

Reverse gear is quite short, if that's what you mean?

[cuprabob]

Over a defined distance I would say yes as reverse gear is generally lower geared than 1st.

Your office colleagues want to get a life though :-)

[Rawwr]

Drive around for a week in reverse and report your findings.

[Japsteeze]

Grant76 said:

Little office debate going on...

Does anyone know if reversing is heavier on fuel?

Cheers

Heavier on fuel than what exactly? Drilling a hole in the fuel tank?

Not very descriptive post OP.

[Mr Sparkle]

I don't think reverse is lower than first in many cars? Most are between 1st & 2nd in ratio I thought (might be wrong), but in any case going forward you could always use 3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th.

[StottyZr]

Mr Sparkle said:

I don't think reverse is lower than first in many cars? Most are between 1st & 2nd in ratio I thought (might be wrong), but in any case going forward you could always use 3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th.

I always thought it was exactly first gear, with another cog in there. Could be totally wrong but I used a bit of common sense, the ratios are very similar if not the same, and my old car won't go into reverse without going into first... first