I drive a manual transmission Renault clio 1.4 16v 03 plate and I like to coast down gentle slopes as a way of saving fuel. it's not a drastic saving, but I feel every little helps. when I say 'coasting' Ii mean moving with the car in neutral and the engine switched on
I do this to the disapproval of everyone ever.
1: it reduces my control over the car
2: it would prevent me from accelerating quick enough to avoid an 'emergency situation' (because I would have to put it in gear before I could accelerate).
3: I have recently been told that when going down a hill in gear the car uses no more fuel than if I were in neutral, despite the fact that the rpm is greater.
1: Control: I have not noticed any difference in the handling (steering etc) when coasting, only that I am not slowed by 'engine braking'. does anyone have a solid argument about why coasting reduces control?
2: 'Emergency Situations': can anyone give me an example of a situation where instant acceleration is the way to avoid such situations?
3: Third Point: is there any truth to this? surely 1800rpm uses more fuel than 800rpm? furthermore, on a gentle slope if I were in gear and not accelerating, I would decelerate at a greater rate than if I were in neutral, meaning I would have to accelerate more to maintain speed and thus use more fuel. for example, the road to my house is a gentle slope with a 30 limit, I can coast in neutral all the way along this at around 800rpm (or at least significantly less) maintaining a speed of 30. in 5th gear (around 1800rpm when not accelerating), I slow down to 25 after a few seconds, meaning that I have to apply the gas to maintain my speed, and hence use more fuel than if I were coasting.