GET 50+ MPG with your versa.

[MPG]

1. I never recommended coasting an automatic in neutral. If you paid ANY attention rather than wasting your time being confrontational, you would know this as I specifically recommended coasting an automatic in DRIVE In my opening post.

2.when coasting on the freeway what kind of road hazard could you possibly encounter ahead that would require even faster acceleration towards it in order to avoid it? What absolute nonsense. Even so, shifting back into gear takes no time.

3. Handling actually improves when the powertrain does not engage the front wheels. Not the other way around.Which is exactly why rear wheel drive has always dominated motorsports.

4. Coasting in gear always wastes more fuel than coasting in neutral. And this comes straight from real life personal experience of calculating real time fuel economy by dividing miles by gallons. As well as from my scangauge 2.

[srellim234]

Reread MY first post. "Coasting in neutral is actually against the law in many states." That's all it said. That was not confrontational, only a statement of fact. All you had to do was respond that you weren't suggesting coasting in neutral but you chose to get in a huff and defensive in an absurd way.

Your replies instead have been to defend coasting in neutral. You have not cited one authority or study that the laws are not necessary. You have not cited anything that indicates the laws you want people to break are based on anything other than safety. Get in an accident while you are coasting in neutral, however, will provide the loophole for an insurance company not to pay a claim. You also may find yourself with additional charges in court as they would use that to show intent to operate your motor vehicle in an unsafe manner. The same way people are now being handled when they get in accidents while talking or texting.

Rereading YOUR original post, you are right in that you did not suggest coasting in neutral. You also never indicated freeway driving as you just claimed. Only staying in the right lane of a roadway.

As for your claim that coasting in gear wastes more than coasting in neutral: your anecdotal claim has little merit. I just finished citing Popular Mechanics where they placed an oscilloscope on the engine and measured it. The burden of factual proof and not hearsay is in your court.

[AZhitman]

4. Coasting in gear always wastes more fuel than coasting in neutral. And this comes straight from real life personal experience of calculating real time fuel economy by dividing miles by gallons. As well as from my scangauge 2.

No. In neutral, your injectors in the Versa are still firing - the car is idling.

In 6th gear, coasting, since the wheels keep the engine turning the ECU cuts fuel if the throttle is closed and RPM is above 1500 rpm.

Of course, there's mechanical drag, which means you may not be able to coast as far, but fuel consumption is less in gear.

You can't rely on the scangauge data. This depends on how you setup the scangauge. You can program it to calculate fuel cut off on coasting. Or you can program to assume engine idle when coasting in gear. Regardless, you can't rely on it.

A good rule of thumb, per EcoModder and HyperMiler: If you have to stop due to a red light, stop sign, or traffic backup, use engine braking where it cuts off the fuel flow. Any other time, go to neutral. The longer coasting distance easily overcomes the slight bit of idle-level fuel consumption.

[MPG]

Do you two understand the difference between actual facts based on real life results. And theoretical "should, would, could" talk? Even if we were to ignore the nonsensical claim of a motor using less fuel at 3000 or even 6000 rpm as compared to 750 rpm, how could we ignore the fact that after several REAL LIFE tests, coasting in neutral returned significantly better fuel economy? Because at the end of the day I have cold hard cash left over in my pocket while you two throw it all away on fueling the same exact car.

[srellim234]

What REAL LIFE tests? It's become very obvious that with regards to coasting in neutral you have no facts or data or references to back it up. No test in which the ONLY variable is coasting in neutral. Added mileage can be due to many other factors you practiced on the tanks in question. And you still haven't effectively addressed the safety issue. All we have is your baseless claims. Which lose even more credibility when you suggest that people should intentionally break the law.

[AZhitman]

I don't mean to be rude here, but I'm a little insulted by your arrogance.

Do you two understand the difference between actual facts based on real life results. And theoretical "should, would, could" talk?

Your ONE car results in limited testing with ZERO controls for extraneous factors don't impress me. They're not scientific, they're not reliable, and they're not universally applicable across all conditions.

As an FYI, I've spent TONS of time working on a high-mileage hybrid project that was an early participant in the Automotive X-Prize. This isn't "should / could / would" talk. This is FACT.

Here's where we find out that you DON'T know what you're talking about:

Even if we were to ignore the nonsensical claim of a motor using less fuel at 3000 or even 6000 rpm as compared to 750 rpm

Nonsensical claim, huh?

Would it interest you to know that the information came DIRECTLY from Nissan? And that other auto manufacturers confirm it?

I'm going to RESTATE the following: In neutral, your injectors in the Versa are still firing - the car is idling. In 6th gear, coasting, the ECU cuts fuel if the throttle is closed and RPM is above 1500 rpm.

What part of that is "nonsense"? Are you disputing the words of the engineers that built the car? If so, then apparently we have nothing further to discuss.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xfxSkDHJKo[/youtube]

My 400whp turbo KA24 also uses NO fuel when coasting in gear, as illustrated by my wideband O2 sensor with datalogging. At idle, she's still using quite a bit of fuel - 75lb injectors flow a lot.

how could we ignore the fact that after several REAL LIFE tests, coasting in neutral returned significantly better fuel economy?

I addressed this above. One car, limited testing, and the variables are plenty.

Also, and apparently you missed this: If you have to stop due to a red light, stop sign, or traffic backup, use engine braking where it cuts off the fuel flow. Any other time, go to neutral. The longer coasting distance easily overcomes the slight bit of idle-level fuel consumption.

Because at the end of the day I have cold hard cash left over in my pocket while you two throw it all away on fueling the same exact car.

At the end of the day, you drive a Versa. I'd rather have my head crushed by an elephant.

I get plenty of fuel economy from most of the cars I drive. My 'vette gets 28mpg on the freeway, 20 in town, and I'm never in anyone's way. My Datsun wagon gets over 40. With a carburetor. And NO "hypermiler" tricky driving. My Cube gets 32mpg in town, driving it normally. I simply don't care.

MPG, please don't misunderstand me - I respect your endeavor 100% (please see my prior posts in this thread for proof)... But to criticize someone who doesn't believe exactly as you do is ridiculous.

[srellim234]

Here's Mike Allen's column from July 29 of this year. He effectively explains how your Scangauge II is pretty worthless for comparing coasting in gear vs. coasting in neutral.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/ho ... el-economy

Being the original source this is more explanatory than the article I cited earlier.

[MPG]

my versa idles at 0.15 gallons per hour, as soon as i engage any gear while still stationary, it jumps to 0. 22 gallons per hour. but the only thing i trust is the actual money savings at the pump, so when i first got into hypermiling, rather than reading someone else's opinion, i personally performed several tests on coasting in gear, coasting in neutral and coasting with engine shut off on the same exact route. and the results were obvious. so you can pull articles off the internet all day long, because i have actual money doing the talking for me. its as simple as that.

[AZhitman]

as soon as i engage any gear while still stationary, it jumps to 0. 22 gallons per hour.

Well, no s***, Sherlock.

That's because the engine is under load! It's trying to go forward while being restrained by the e-brake!!!

COASTING in 6th USES NO FUEL over a certain RPM. Period. Facts > your opinion.

Go post that nonsense on ecomodder or hypermiler and they'll laugh you off the boards.

[MPG]

as soon as i engage any gear while still stationary, it jumps to 0. 22 gallons per hour.

Well, no s***, Sherlock.

That's because the engine is under load! It's trying to go forward while being restrained by the e-brake!!!

COASTING in 6th USES NO FUEL over a certain RPM. Period. Facts > your opinion.

Go post that nonsense on ecomodder or hypermiler and they'll laugh you off the boards.

go on your hypermile sites and claim that absolutely no fuel is used when coasting in gear at 6000 rpm and we will see who will be laughed at.

how do you explain the fact that i pump less fuel in my tank after a 500 mile trip coasting in neutral as compared to coasting in gear? if your theory is correct then i should be getting better fuel economy coasting in gear not worse. this is an actual fact i can prove over and over and over, so tell me how the leftover money in my pocket is not real, but imaginary.

[MPG]

here is what a member on ecomoder said."While coasting in 6th gear at 70 miles an hour on a flat freeway I get 65-75 MPG on my gauge. the RPM is at about 1500. When in neutral on the same stretch at the same speed my gauge is in the high 90's, and the engine RPM is about 600.

now, notice how the difference is only 900 rpm. for the versa it is well over 2000 rpm difference between idle and 6th on the freeway. but quick quick, ignore this guy too, and write his experience off as "opinion".

[AZhitman]

Are you retarded?

I don't care if your RPMs are 10,000. YOUR FUEL IS CUT OFF!!!! The engine is simply freewheeling. NO COMBUSTION IS OCCURRING. Let me break it down for you: No gasoline is coming OUT of the tank and going into the cylinders. NONE.

That's not my opinion. That's a FACT.

The RPMs don't matter. Forget that.

Oh, and do you mind explaining how you put your 6-speed in gear and keep it stationary without stalling?

[srellim234]

He explains it the same way he explains everything else. No facts. Claims he's advocating coasting in gear but then spends all of his time and effort defending and justifying coasting in neutral. Doesn't pay any attention to actual facts and measurements. Makes the comment about how our cars are identical when he drives a Versa 6 speed, I drive a Versa CVT, and you drive a Cube! He doesn't know what the h*ll he's talking about!

[MPG]

Are you retarded?

I don't care if your RPMs are 10,000. YOUR FUEL IS CUT OFF!!!! The engine is simply freewheeling. NO COMBUSTION IS OCCURRING. Let me break it down for you: No gasoline is coming OUT of the tank and going into the cylinders. NONE.

That's not my opinion. That's a FACT.

The RPMs don't matter. Forget that.

Oh, and do you mind explaining how you put your 6-speed in gear and keep it stationary without stalling?

your theory of 0 fuel being used at 6000 rpm is idiotic to say the least, the only time the injectors spray absolutely zero fuel is when the engine is shut off. if your idiotic theory were true i would not be getting better fuel economy in neutral NOW WOULD I???? and neither would that guy from ecomodder i quoted. but of course you choose to ignore this reality, because it flies in the face of your stupidity. fact is my car uses less fuel in neutral than in gear wether coasting or idling.. this is the reality here in the real world, not bench racing and talking tough hiding behind your computer screen. ...

like i said earlier. my versa is idling at 0.15 GPH and jumps to 0.22 GPH as soon as i put it in gear. OBVIOUSLY I AM NOT RELEASING THE CLUTCH PEDAL SHERLOCK

[MPG]

oh, and srellim, i hope you are happy with your embarrassing 28mpg. thats about how much i got from my automatic V8 BMW 740il. think of me every time you run out of gas at 380 miles, and the fact that i have another 380 to go with my versa before i hit the gas station.

[AZhitman]

your theory of 0 fuel being used at 6000 rpm is idiotic to say the least, the only time the injectors spray absolutely zero fuel is when the engine is shut off.

You're a moron.

THAT'S NOT THEORY. It's FROM NISSAN THEMSELVES. How many times do I have top point it out to you?

The ECU (look it up, since you don't know what it is) SHUTS OFF the injectors when coasting (mno load) above a certain RPM. That's COMMON KNOWLEDGE. Not a "theory".

like i said earlier. my versa is idling at 0.15 GPH and jumps to 0.22 GPH as soon as i put it in gear. OBVIOUSLY I AM NOT RELEASING THE CLUTCH PEDAL SHERLOCK

Dude, do you know how a car works? Have you ever built a car?

I've built more cars than your broke a$$ has DRIVEN.

Therefore, let me educate you, because even my wife is sitting here laughing at you: If you haven't released the clutch pedal, NOTHING HAS CHANGED!!! If your stupid POS Scangauge toy reads differently JUST because you moved the shifter, then it's BROKEN.

Do you get that? Moving the shifter with the clutch depressed does NOTHING at the engine. NOTHING.

You're calling me stupid, when you know nothing about how your car works? Kid, you need to spend some time in the garage.

p.s. If you;re so worried about fuel economy, you should take the bus. Lots of broke people do it.

[AZhitman]

Here: If you won't believe me, maybe you'll believe an independent source.

While coasting with the engine running and the transmission in gear, most cars' engine control unit with fuel injection will cut off fuel supply, and the engine will continue running, being driven by the wheels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_econo ... _behaviors

[srellim234]

Considering you have no clue what my driving history,conditions and practices are, you are proving once again you don't know what you're talking about.

[MPG]

i have yet to see you explain how i get better fuel economy coasting in neutral as opposed to coasting in gear...... you keep avoiding it like the plague. if absolutely no fuel is being used when coasting in gear, yet some fuel is being used at idle, then logically i would get better fuel economy coasting in gear... AND YET I DONT... I GET BETTER COASTING IN NEUTRAL OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER, EVERY TIME I TESTED THIS.

my scangauge is not broken, it works just fine. every time i put it in gear. any gear. my gph rises. as soon as i pop it back in neutral it instantly dorps... obviously it is reading an increase in consumption just from that one thing alone.

and yes, you are an arrogant prick. i would at least have some respect for you if you didnt keep dodging my real time test results like a coward because you know you have no explanation... at least admit it...

as things stand right now, you and your buddy are barely hitting the EPA estimates with your driving while i am getting double the EPA thanks to lots of neutral coasting. its a simple fact of life that you can only ignore.

[AZhitman]

i have yet to see you explain how i get better fuel economy coasting in neutral as opposed to coasting in gear......

Why do we have to explain? I'm not gonna sit here and explain some made-up numbers from a gauge that is notoriously inaccurate, that you probably never calibrated. That would be silly.

We're avoiding your stupid "real world" testing because it's only ONE unfounded and unverified datapoint out of MILLIONS, and the Scangauge is notoriously inaccurate. Do a Google search for "scangauge inaccurate".

But, for the sake of argument, maybe you're absolutely right. Remember, no one disputed your numbers. YOU attacked the "fuel cut" issue. Right? Yep.

if absolutely no fuel is being used when coasting in gear, yet some fuel is being used at idle, then logically i would get better fuel economy coasting in gear... AND YET I DONT... I GET BETTER COASTING IN NEUTRAL OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER, EVERY TIME I TESTED THIS.

Understand this: Just because we can't explain your vague and unfounded "results" doesn't mean you're right.

Hell, for all I know, you could suck at math. You certainly know d!ck about how a car works.

You swore up and down that it just HAD to use fuel coasting in gear, didn't you? You were WRONG.

The injectors are indeed completely shut off while coasting in gear with no throttle, regardless of how much you don't like it, and how much you whine about it.

Why do you feel the injectors have to be operating? The engine is perfectly capable of rotating while coasting along, spark plugs firing, with no fuel, only air in the cylinders. Sure, it's not making power, but if you're coasting down hill with your foot off the throttle you're not wanting any power anyway.

Think of this - if you pull the spark plug wires, and crank the starter, the engine turns over, right? The engine doesn't have to have fuel and spark to turn over, it just takes energy to turn it over. When coasting with no throttle, the inertia of the car provides energy (through the wheels, differential, transmission) to turn over the engine.

I'm not sure why I even asked you that - You've probably never opened the hood.

my scangauge is not broken, it works just fine.

How do you know? Because the pretty little lights come on?

Do you have any idea what parameters the Scangauge uses to spit out the numbers? What sensors it reads from? Or is it just "magic" to you? Have you calibrated it? Search "scangauge calibration".

every time i put it in gear. any gear. my gph rises. as soon as i pop it back in neutral it instantly dorps... obviously it is reading an increase in consumption just from that one thing alone.

Fine. Whatever dude. Then your clutch is dragging. Take it to the dealer. It's placing load on the engine, and it shouldn't. With the clutch IN, the drivetrain is COMPLETELY disconnected from the engine. Can you at least comprehend that?

Moving the little stick-thing (as you and a lot of non-car-people like to call it) does NOTHING to the engine. At all. NOTHING.

and yes, you are an arrogant prick.

No, I'm just smarter than you.

as things stand right now, you and your buddy are barely hitting the EPA estimates with your driving while i am getting double the EPA thanks to lots of neutral coasting. its a simple fact of life that you can only ignore.

Uhh, I think I mentioned, I don't give a damn about fuel economy. People like you are in my way. If you can't afford gas, get off the road.

If you took the bus like the rest of the broke people who worry about saving $3 a month on gas, you'd be getting INFINITE miles per gallon.

Now, instead of telling an expert that he's "stupid" just because he doesn't agree with you, a BETTER tactic would be to say, "OK, guys, I get it. But why am I getting these results?" THEN, we'd get into the math and the variables involved in your test.

[AZhitman]

your theory of 0 fuel being used at 6000 rpm is idiotic to say the least

I forgot to remind you of this post again.

Psst... hey dude... Guess what?

You're wrong.

[MPG]

This is too funny. You wasted all this time bitching and moaning that coasting in gear is more fuel efficient, and had no actual realtime results backing your claim. not only that, but when I present you with my results disproving your claim, you ignore them several times, and then finally admit you can't tell your a** from a hole in the ground. Because when all is said and done I'm still getting better mileage from coasting in neutral. Hahaha, just as I thought there was still some hope left you expose your utter stupidity.

Well tell you what my retarded friend, you have fun talking tough behind the safety of your computer screen while I go back out there in the real world applying theories that actually work. Have a good one. And tell your wife to give me a call when she gets sick of faking those orgasms so as not to insult your little 2 inch.

[Rev_D21]

I am going to agree with Greg. According to the training I received through Toyota EFI engines shut off fuel from the injectors during engine braking essentially turning the engine into an air pump. I know it's tough to wrap your head around the concept but it's a FACT, engine braking uses no fuel while coasting in neutral is basically idling and while we are on the subject here's another FACT, big trucks are no longer allowed to idle at truck stops by LAW because it wastes fuel. You are using 'fuzzy math' to quote someone with a higher IQ than you. If all science was based on how much money you had in your pocket at the end of the week this would be one backwards country.

[wingFeather]

So that combustion sound I hear is just my imagination? Perhaps certain power train configurations cut off fuel while coasting, but not every car is this way. For example, in my Mercedes I still hear combustion happening as I glide to a stop in gear. Jake braking would be like having overdrive off... there would be a sharp drop in speed when coasting.

[AppleBonker]

This is too funny.

You have no idea. I'm not sure why I'm replying (no one in here needs my backup, but they also haven't taken the time to explain your test method to you so I'll give that a go). Though, it might be that I'm hoping it will lessen the throbbing in my head...

You wasted all this time bitching and moaning that coasting in gear is more fuel efficient, and had no actual realtime results backing your claim.

Did you mean real-world? Aside from having a test running right now (which I'm sure none of us is doing), the results wouldn't be "real-time". I'll let it slide, that's just me being an a**.

when I present you with my results disproving your claim, you ignore them several times, and then finally admit you can't tell your a** from a hole in the ground

Well, your results are wrong (now before you get your panties in a bunch, I'll explain in more detail below). Additionally, I don't need to test certain things to know how they work. I could throw my computer off my roof, and I know it'll come crashing down to the ground and probably break. No testing needed. Now if someone came in and claimed that they threw their computer off the roof and it floated down gently and was completely functional afterwards, I could probably claim they were wrong, or there were some other variables in play that were not mentioned.

No where did I see anyone "admitting" they can't tell their a** from a hole in the ground. You should probably try it though.

Because when all is said and done I'm still getting better mileage from coasting in neutral

Alright, as someone who actually designs and tests things, I'll try to explain to you why you are, in fact, wrong. You are claiming real-world results on ONE variable in an experiment where you lack control of INFINITE variables. Granted, most experiments don't control all variables, but the tester generally tries to limit the influence of the non-tested variables. I'll go ahead and list a few key variables here that you probably did not control during your testing (and they all could have a huge effect the results you obtained):

Atmospheric conditions (temperature, wind, humidity, elevation)
Other drivers (you said you've tested over 500-mile runs, did any drivers at any point cause you to change driving styles during any of those runs?)
The actual route (different roads, different pavement, different friction on the tires)
The pump (I'm guessing your "money in your pocket" was dealing with filling up. Do you always use the same pump? Does it always cut off at the same time?)

I'll go ahead and stop there, because I know you didn't control any of these. If you actually want to test (real-world, mind you) the affect coasting in drive/neutral has on your mileage, I suggest you control at least these key variables. Find a test track that you can have all to yourself (preferably an oval to make it easier on the driver). Then, have them get up to speed and at regular intervals coast down a specified amount. Do this repeatedly, and do not change the distance of the coast or the rate of acceleration from coast (it will be challenging). Then, repeat the test but change the coast method (if you tried in drive before, now do it in neutral). Also, it would be best to attach a removable fuel cell so you can get an accurate measurement of fuel consumed, rather than using the "how much can I add back to the tank" method.

Until you provide results for a properly designed experiment, your results are bunk and you are wrong. Plain and simple. Nissan built the car, so I believe they have a firm grasp on how it functions. If they claim that fuel is not being injected whilst coasting in drive about 1500 rpm, I'm going to believe them until it is proved otherwise. You have yet to provide compelling data to prove them wrong.

Well tell you what my retarded friend, you have fun talking tough behind the safety of your computer screen while I go back out there in the real world applying theories that actually work. Have a good one. And tell your wife to give me a call when she gets sick of faking those orgasms so as not to insult your little 2 inch.

Maybe you missed the part where his wife was laughing at you? Actually, I've met his wife. She has a pretty low tolerance for stupidity. Ergo, I'm pretty sure I have a much better chance of banging Jessica Alba than you do with his wife. Tough sh*t, son.

[AZhitman]

This is too funny. You wasted all this time bitching and moaning that coasting in gear is more fuel efficient, and had no actual realtime results backing your claim. not only that, but when I present you with my results disproving your claim, you ignore them several times, and then finally admit you can't tell your a** from a hole in the ground. Because when all is said and done I'm still getting better mileage from coasting in neutral. Hahaha, just as I thought there was still some hope left you expose your utter stupidity.

Well tell you what my retarded friend, you have fun talking tough behind the safety of your computer screen while I go back out there in the real world applying theories that actually work. Have a good one. And tell your wife to give me a call when she gets sick of faking those orgasms so as not to insult your little 2 inch.

OK, kid.

Instead of wasting $200 on your nifty little Scangauge toy, you should have bought this:



I'm linking this thread on a couple hypermiler sites I belong to, just for laughs.

By the way, you drive a Versa - You're never gonna get laid.

[Dano]

pwnt.

And well done at that.

[Mr1der]

don't mind me here, I'm just wasting about 10 minutes reading all this.

whelp, back to look at cars with 850CFM's and more cubic inches than the Versa's interior.

also, if I want a hatchback that gets 50 to the gallon, I think I'm gonna get a CRX-HF or a 210.

to me, hypermiling is nothing more than a pissing contest for smug ***holes with nothing better to do.

I hope the retard isn't banned yet though...

[AZhitman]

Sorry, James. Since this a$$ decided to get personal when he couldn't back up his talk, he's been removed from our fine community.

However, I found this amusing from "Mr. Fuel Economy"...

with slow cars like ours, improvement in the quarter mile is all in the launch. you will get best results with an abusive redline clutch slip. there is a sweetspot where the clutch pedal will actually stay half way sucked in all through the launch, perfectly transferring all the power to the ground with virtually no wheelspin. the rpm will drop from redline to about 4k and remain at 4krpm all through the launch till you get up to speed and then back up to redline. as soon as this happens the clutch pedal will fully release back into place and you will be able to pop second gear.... with such a launch you will be able to pull a 16.5 quarter, but not much better, because the versa is not intended for performance anymore than a lamborghini is intended for fuel economy. in fact, the mr18 is so unresponsive that you cant even blip the throttle in time for a quick revmatch.

Uhhhh, yeah. OK dude.

More gems from little Cris:

http://www.audifans.com/marketplace/sho ... rs&id=5438
http://azbmw.org/index.php?name=Forums& ... ic&t=10259
http://azbmw.org/index.php?name=Forums& ... c&p=103520 (Toolbag sold his Bimmer, bought a Honda, then a Versa... talk about backsliding...)

Oh, lookie! My new friend Cris lives near me. What was that you said about my wife, kiddo?

[Mr1der]

wtf?

he's never apparently been good at launching a car for drag racing...

how old is this tool?

I hope to god he's not trying to rev match while drag racing...

jesus...

he's probably one of those morons that thinks it's a great price on that car but has no forethought into just how much it costs when things start going wrong on it.

probably whines about using premium in it too.

find a facebook page or something, it's sure to be comedy!