I've done that and it's one of the reasons I hate autostick. I've been driving manual tarnsmissions for almost 30 years and once in awhile i try to "shift" my autostick. I'll be glad when i get this MDS turned off so i can drive my auto in peace.
I've done that and it's one of the reasons I hate autostick. I've been driving manual tarnsmissions for almost 30 years and once in awhile i try to "shift" my autostick. I'll be glad when i get this MDS turned off so i can drive my auto in peace.
I used to feel the same way. I was not explained what the +/- was all about on a Magnum loaner I had once so I just tried it and messed up a few times. I'd do the go to Neutral thing to get back in Drive. Felt like a gimmick and potential trouble for the tranny. So when I bought my Charger I told the salesman not to bother and that I wouldn't be using the feature. I've been getting into the old-dog-won't-learn-new-trick mode for a few years now.
Fast forward to reading up on it online and trying it out... and I really took to it (and I'm slow). No, it's not 100% control like a real manual, but the tranny just follows its programming instructions to save itself. And shifts are suggestions, not actuations, which rubs the control freak and computer-hater in me the wrong way. BUT, if your choice is an auto AND you miss the more spirited/connected driving that manuals give you (I did), on top of the invaluable ability to use engine braking... I really think that you should give yourself more time to learn it because you're missing out. A lot more rewarding (especially with a performance car) than hanging on to the steering wheel and waiting for the car to do things on its own.
Since moving on to a Challenger which, besides being new and in better shape, has the Sport Mode option (no upshifting at redline, a frequent gripe) and a quicker responding TCM it seems, AutoStick has become even more enjoyable and I couldn't do without it now. My current learning curve is about transitions between stick and paddles, but that's just another hurdle for the ol' dog...
Not saying you're wrong or I am right but how does this compute when i take it out of gear and the engine rpm's "drop" from nearly 2000 to 750 for the duration of the downhill roll? Also, the truck (in my case) picks up considerable speed in "coast" going down the hill and subsequent inertia that carries it over minor hills after the first drop before I lose enough speed to put it back in "Drive" again. Ineed some serious convincing that an engine running at 2000rpm for 45 seconds uses less fuel than the same engine running at 750rpm for a full minute.
__________________ 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T Deep Water Blue 20" rims Cool as Hell
1995 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX 2.0 Turbo Automatic........with 99 front end and rear facia.
1995 Toyota T-100 SR5 Best Truck I've ever owned
2005 Kia Sorento Great car but everybody keeps doorbanging the poor thing.
1975 Mustang II V-8 Highly Modified to 400+ HP, nothing stock except the radiator cap
Not saying you're wrong or I am right but how does this compute when i take it out of gear and the engine rpm's "drop" from nearly 2000 to 750 for the duration of the downhill roll? Also, the truck (in my case) picks up considerable speed in "coast" going down the hill and subsequent inertia that carries it over minor hills after the first drop before I lose enough speed to put it back in "Drive" again. Ineed some serious convincing that an engine running at 2000rpm for 45 seconds uses less fuel than the same engine running at 750rpm for a full minute.
I didn't understand that logic either.
4k RPMS uses more fuel then 800 RPMS I would assume?
Not saying you're wrong or I am right but how does this compute when i take it out of gear and the engine rpm's "drop" from nearly 2000 to 750 for the duration of the downhill roll? Also, the truck (in my case) picks up considerable speed in "coast" going down the hill and subsequent inertia that carries it over minor hills after the first drop before I lose enough speed to put it back in "Drive" again. Ineed some serious convincing that an engine running at 2000rpm for 45 seconds uses less fuel than the same engine running at 750rpm for a full minute.
Originally Posted by Madcoder
I didn't understand that logic either.
4k RPMS uses more fuel then 800 RPMS I would assume?
It has nothing to do with RPMs and everything to do with fuel need/demand. An engine that's idling takes gas to stay running while an engine going downhill in gear with zero throttle input, that is actually providing engine braking, has zero fuel demand and as a result the PCM doesn't fire the injectors. So, an engine idling in neutral while going downhill actually uses more fuel than an engine left in gear with zero throttle input while going dowhill (Which uses zero fuel in this case).
Another reason i love my 6speed. it goes to what ever gear i tell it to and cannot talk back. Glad to hear you are safe. i used to coast in N in my grand am all the time. i could put it back to D whenever and it was fine.
As far as the newer engines, in the new challengers when you are coasting in gear, the road drives the engine and not fuel. best way to recoupe those mpgs
__________________
2012 Classic 6Spd, Blue Streak Pearl, 430N, Sound Group II, STP
Best quotes
If the ethanol is the light end of the fuel, maybe we could have a metal pot sitting over an open fire, and pour gas in the pot and let the fire heat it up until the ethanol cooks off
It has nothing to do with RPMs and everything to do with fuel need/demand. An engine that's idling takes gas to stay running while an engine going downhill in gear with zero throttle input, that is actually providing engine braking, has zero fuel demand and as a result the PCM doesn't fire the injectors. So, an engine idling in neutral while going downhill actually uses more fuel than an engine left in gear with zero throttle input while going dowhill (Which uses zero fuel in this case).
so............does the engine (In my case a 1995 Toyota T-100 without the latest technological advances), "run" with ZERO fuel being ingested when left in gear and coasting down a hill? If that is the case, why doesn't it "die" and after the load is re-applied, you feel some sort of restart? Are you telling me that these cars that I "can" coast at 60mph+ in and then drop back in gear are essentially shutting off and then restarting?
so............does the engine (In my case a 1995 Toyota T-100 without the latest technological advances), "run" with ZERO fuel being ingested when left in gear and coasting down a hill? If that is the case, why doesn't it "die" and after the load is re-applied, you feel some sort of restart? Are you telling me that these cars that I "can" coast at 60mph+ in and then drop back in gear are essentially shutting off and then restarting?
You sound a bit confused, so I'll just explain it in a way you might understand better.
When coasting downhill in gear with a modern EFI engine the engine is being "driven" by the road, which is turning the tires, which turns the driveshaft, transmission, and engine. The fuel demand is zero, no fuel is delivered, and the engine is putting out no power. The engine is actually "absorbing" power in the form of engine braking, which will slowly slow you down. In this state you are using no fuel because none is required. The engine doesn't die because it's not disconnected from the drivetrain or the road, all of the other systems are still functioning as well, there's just no fuel so the engine is acting like a big air pump.
When freewheeling downhill in neutral, the engine is disconnected from the road so in order to stay running in this state requires fuel, just as if you were sitting parked in your driveway. Take away the fuel here and the engine dies, you lose power steering, eventually you lose power brake assist, etc.
Maybe thinking about a bicycle will help?
Coasting downhill in gear is sort of like coasting downhill on a bike with your feet still in the pedals. Let's assume it's an older bike that can't freewheel, if the bike is moving then the pedals are moving. In this scenario your feet never leave the pedals, your legs are moving but you're not doing any work. Have you disconnected anything from the chain or tires by coasting? Nope. Are you able to transition to pedaling without changing anything else? Yup. Are you what's moving your legs? Nope, the movement of the wheels on the ground is moving them for you.
Now let's do the same scenario, only this time you take your feet off the pedals. If you want to move your legs now, what supplies the power/energy? Your body. Is it easy to transition back to pedaling now that your feet are removed from the pedals which continue to spin at a pretty fast rate? Nope.
Not the best example, but maybe it helps get the point across. Kinetic energy turns the engine and keeps it "running" when your foot is off the gas but it's still in gear. Kinetic energy requires no gasoline.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Yahooligan For This Useful Post:
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
2009 Dodge Challenger R/T Deep Water Blue 20" rims Cool as Hell 
Linear Mode
