re: Driving a manual

Keeping your car in gear is actually more efficient than coasting in neutral. Keeping the engine running while in neutral requires fuel. Keeping it in gear while still moving provides enough energy to keep the engine running without fuel.

I used to outrun automatic Vettes with my 6 speed Z28 all the time. It really pissed them off when I had the back wheels right at their window when I caught rubber on the upshift.

What's a lost art is trying to find a damn mechanic to rebuild a damn manual transmission. In all of Nashville there are only 2 independent shops to rebuild a damn manual. My Jeep has been in the shop for 3 weeks now and likely for a few more while this guy tries to find parts. Hindsight, I would have just bought an already rebuilt one and found a place to simply swap them out.

quote:

---

LOL. I was thinking the same thing. The roads would be a lot safer if everybody drove a manual.

---

I wish that were true, but sadly most would just get to cruising speed then breakout the phone. I wish cars were equipped with a Bluetooth feature that blasted the sound of a hungry baby screaming at maximum volume every time the phone is held while the car is moving.

quote:

---

Driving a manual by VolsOut4Harambe

---

Nothing better if you like to drive.

Imagine when automatic driving cars are the majority.

"Man, i still drive a car! Yall are lazy!"

Genuinely curious: Are you making your assertion from the instant mpg readout from an automatic or a manual, or where? Because if you watch a manual vehicle's mpg readout (or at least the ones I've owned) they pretty much say "into the wild yonder blue" when shifting to neutral and coasting.

If that were true (and I'm sure it may be to a certain extent, but from personal experience I'm not sold on it, but I could be wrong because I frequently am) one caveat that it does NOT take into account (well, two actually, if we're talking about stop and go driving and saving fuel) is wear and tear on the clutch components (remember that in my earlier post I said the techniques are to preserve the clutch and/or conserve fuel, hence, they are often mutually beneficial to both). For sure it shortens the lifespan of your vehicle's clutch if said clutch is constantly engaged when in gear; like our dodge 1 tons that we pick up fat chicks all around North Mississippi with are. It is an accepted method to stay out of gear as much as possible in a vehicle with a clutch like so, or you'll drastically reduce its usable life.

Another one is that when in stop and go traffic & making turns etc., you will always save more fuel (than an auto at least) if you, for instance, coast a tenth of a mile up to a red light instead of throttling fuel to the engine. Extrapolated out to the multiple times a day that it's done, and you can see huge fuel consumption decreases. Throttling fuel is just that: throttling fuel.

Sticking with that same scenario, if you're in gear then you're usually at a higher rpm due to the scenario at hand, and, therefore, burning more fuel. "Well jackass, just upshift and keep the rpm's low!" you say?

Well, first off that's not realistic to do unless your "maw maw and pee paw" on a site seeing tour at lunch time rush hour, and secondly, if you're driving a vehicle with a directly injected engine like all modern diesels have, and most if not all BMWs, Mini Coopers, etc., then lugging the engine like that creates a whole set of new problems on the horizon. Lug a direct injected engine all the time and you're gonna eventually kick over a chitcan full of problems. In the case of diesels, the immediate problem with lugging the engine is that your deisel exhaust temps and other not good stuff happens when you do it. So what's better: Clogged or, God forbid, broken off injectors, shot HP fuel pumps, carbon buildup, overheated engines, reduced clutch life...or supposedly better MPG?

It's really all just a case of how we want to do things though. I suppose that, if it's your money and your car, or mine, we can drive our vehicles like we damned well please, but I wonder... where are the Mythbusters when you need em?

It's been an interesting thread though, and, to me, it shows that the "manual: good or bad" debate is not dead, and so, neither is the manual, yet.

(And neither is the phenomenon of men debating to a relatively pointless end, over relatively pointless chit.)

quote:

---

Genuinely curious: Are you making your assertion from the instant mpg readout from an automatic or a manual, or where? Because if you watch a manual vehicle's mpg readout (or at least the ones I've owned) they pretty much say "into the wild yonder blue" when shifting to neutral and coasting.

---

I'm making the assertion that a manual transmission car uses less fuel while "coasting" in gear versus coasting in neutral. While in neutral, the vehicle needs fuel to keep the engine running. In gear, the energy produced by the spinning wheels keeps the engine running without fuel.

If you're at the top of a hill, the car that goes down in neutral will use more fuel than the car that goes down in gear (assuming the driver doesn't press the accelerator)