561–570 of 893 posts
Well, of course. You need the other hand to hold the cell phone.
I'd love to see research on this. I know that if I'm not in the highway, cell phone conversations (or text based applications) receive low priority - such that, my phone has been thrown to the passenger side when I've needed to shift or I regularly have to tell people I'm talking to to wait a minute.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only that but staying in gear when going down hills or slowing down will reduce the wear on your breaks by using the inertia of the engine to slow the car instead of break pad friction/heat.
I've always wondered about this. In my head, using the engine/transmission to "brake" when in gear going down hills or slowing down seems like a bad idea. Something is getting stressed in order to slow the car down. Having to replace my brakes makes sense, they get worn out, and its relatively inexpensive (especially if I do it myself). I have always been wary of staying in gear to brake. And, as it so happens, my ma…
As for wear on the engine: the engine is actually designed to mesh with the transmission. Engine braking is not much different than accelerating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, american car engineering is mind blowing. I have a 2008 Lexus IS350 - 3.5 liters V6, naturally aspirated and it produces 306 bhp. Friend has 2008 Ford Mustang - 4 liters V6, and it makes 210 bhp. What the hell.
Isn't Lexus a Japanese car company?
A few years ago I had to learn stick shift because there was a good deal on a car I liked and decided to see if it's worth it. Ever since, all my cars are standard transmission and I wouldn't have it any other way. They're definitely going away, but I'll keep buying as long as they're available. There is something very satisfying about the mechanical nature of a stick shift car. Mind you, I drive in traffic heavy Los…
> They're definitely going away Stick is the default and overwhelming majority in Europe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
can confirm with anecdata: in my car the computer reports 0.0 fuel consumption when coasting in gear but non-zero when in neutral/clutch depressed.
A counter point: In my previous car the screen showed 0.0 when idling, which obviously was false (as the engine was still running). It should probably show infinite instead. (km/l for 0 km).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but it will cause increased wear on the clutch plates. However, idling, keeping the clutch disengaged in neutral for longer periods of time increases wear on the dual-mass flywheel. So, whatever you do, you are damaging something :) . Personally I try to balance it out, but on longer down-hill slopes or when slowly coming to a traffic light I try to keep it in gear. It takes a bit of effort to train, but I real…
Are you sure? I am pretty sure the clutch does not wear when fully engaged. It is only during engagement and disengagement where there is chance of wear. The transmission on the other hand...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>when automatic transmissions are consistently outperforming humans at fuel efficiency Do you have data to back this up? Unless you're driving a dual clutch "dry" transmission or a CVT, because of Physics, an automatic transmission will always be less efficient. The Automatic transmission Torque converter [1] will waste some of the energy provided by the engine, especially with city driving. Also, most automatic cars…
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.
I don't think you need a computer for this: it's called engine braking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_braking
Earlier quoted context omitted.
can confirm with anecdata: in my car the computer reports 0.0 fuel consumption when coasting in gear but non-zero when in neutral/clutch depressed.
Simple understanding on how a car works - "wheels turn the engine" when in gear, otherwise fuel is consumed when in neutral..
I remember when I was learning to drive being taught about engine braking (with an automatic) and the tradeoff between using up the brakes or burning fuel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why are Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Skoda, Volkswagen and such reporting slower zero to sixty times on automatic transmissions?
They are? Not in the US: BMW 340i: Auto 4.8s, Manual 4.9s http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Vehicles/2017/3/340iS... BMW M3: DCT 3.9s, Manual 4.1s http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Vehicles/2017/M/M3Sed... C&D review of the VW Golf R: "The manual loses to the automatic Golf R against the stopwatch. The 0.7-second deficit from zero to 60 mph, which takes 5.2 seconds, is almost fully attributable to the two s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if you're coasting down a hill and not braking, your engine is idling and you're making use of gravity. The engine will be turning over at ~1000rpm instead of 2000rpm in my diesel. Understandably it is dangerous as you are not in control of the transmission and therefore the wheels, hence the failure in the UK. But I got through some incredibly scarce times by coasting a bit on the commute to work... With automat…
> The engine will be turning over at ~1000rpm instead of 2000rpm in my diesel. Right, but when you're coasting you're burning fuel to turn over, unless you have a perpetual motion engine. Whereas engine braking (on a car with an ECU i.e. one made since 1996 or so) you could be doing 2000rpm but burning no fuel (gravity is turning the wheels which are turning the engine).
... which brakes the car, so you still lose energy.
Can't find literature at the moment, but ISTR that the valve train can take several kW to operate.