Welcome! Wikis are websites that everyone can build together. It's easy!

Location: Official MythBusters Fan Site

Discussion: Will putting your car in neutral actually save gas?


Watch

Anonymous  (Get credit for your thread)


2 3 | Next
MrTim
MrTim
Will putting your car in neutral actually save gas?
Jul 3 2008, 10:21 PM EDT
I heard a radio commercial touting the fuel efficiency of a new car. Part of the claim was that this car has technology that puts the car in neutral at stop lights to save fuel. This sound very gimmicky to me. What's the most it could save you in a tank of city driving. I'd like to see a test. Sounds like a quick little build team thing in a cluster of car myths. Plus since a auto maker is claiming it it should be tested. Check it out: http://www.gm.com/corporate/responsibility/reports/00/vision/environment/product3.html
Taking it a step further, does one achieve any benefit from shifting into neutral going downhill or are you risking destroying your transmission (automatic) by slamming into gear as you approach the bottom of the hill? http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4230705.html
5  out of 8 found this valuable. Do you?    
martiandrifter01
martiandrifter01
RE: Will putting your car in neutral actually save gas?
Jul 4 2008, 7:04 PM EDT
Damage risk from shifting in/out of Neutral with an automatic transmission=Yes.

Possibility of saving fuel by auto-shifting into Neutral at stop lights=Yes.

Possibility of saving even more fuel by shutting off the engine entirely at traffic stops=Yes, definitely; Ford toyed with a car that did exactly that and used a flywheel to restart the motor when the brakes were released back in th '70s.
0  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
MrTim
MrTim
RE: Will putting your car in neutral actually save gas?
Jul 13 2008, 5:25 PM EDT
Turning your car off at every stoplight will ultimately cost you far more when you need a new starter. Cars are not made to be started 20-30 times a day. I would expect this strategy would last maybe a month or so before you were replacing parts. 1  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
weaponsboy
weaponsboy
RE: Will putting your car in neutral actually save gas?
Jul 13 2008, 7:12 PM EDT
Putting your car in neutral AT ANY POINT will do absolutely bupkis. The reason for this is that all neutral does is disconnect the wheels from the engine via the transmission. So, the engine will still be running at the same speed (and therefore using the same amount of fuel), but will have absolutely no effect on the wheels. 1  out of 5 found this valuable. Do you?    
kalleguld

kalleguld
RE: Will putting your car in neutral actually save gas?
Jul 24 2008, 8:21 PM EDT
"Possibility of saving even more fuel by shutting off the engine entirely at traffic stops=Yes, definitely; Ford toyed with a car that did exactly that and used a flywheel to restart the motor when the brakes were released back in th '70s."
Others have played around with it, too. Volkswagen has put it in their current Lupo models. It's really funny how you panic the first few times you stop at a red light.

Weaponsboy: your argument is flawed: If running the engine at the same speed always yielded the same fuel economy, how do you explain that a fully loaded car gets a lower mpg than an empty one?
Do you find this valuable?    
weaponsboy
weaponsboy
RE: Will putting your car in neutral actually save gas?
Jul 24 2008, 10:13 PM EDT
"Weaponsboy: your argument is flawed: If running the engine at the same speed always yielded the same fuel economy, how do you explain that a fully loaded car gets a lower mpg than an empty one?"
I meant the same speed as if you weren't giving it any gas and had you foot on the brake, like you normally would have at a stop light.
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
Machinist68
Machinist68
RE: Will putting your car in neutral actually save gas?
Jul 25 2008, 11:55 AM EDT
I have a standard transmision in my truck so puting it in nutral at a stop light will save the clutch throwout bearing. but not any noticable amount of fuel. I have gotten pretty good at judgeing the length of a traffic light more than five seconds turn of the motor and watch for the light next to yours to turn yellow for the restart. saves a little bit
The big saveings from a standard trans comes from shifting into nutral on long hills and letting gravity do the work I leave the engine running for brakes and power steering but at engine idle the fuel savings are huge. The more RPMs the more fuel you burn short shifting and coasting wereever posible can increase your fuel milage. Automatics not so much.
However one fuel saving tip for automatics is shut off the overdrive at low speeds. The reason for this is the torque converter lock up speed is set to engine RPMs without the torque converter locked 15% of the engines power is wasted. So the higher gear keeps the engine speed low but doesn't lock the converter. It takes some time to figure out the lock up speeds on the varios vehicals most of the time it feels like the trans just found another gear when the converter locks. If you feel 5 shift points on a 3speed auto with over drive the last one is the torque converter locking.
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
MrTim
MrTim
RE: Will putting your car in neutral actually save gas?
Jul 25 2008, 12:49 PM EDT
"I have a standard transmision in my truck so puting it in nutral at a stop light will save the clutch throwout bearing. but not any noticable amount of fuel. I have gotten pretty good at judgeing the length of a traffic light more than five seconds turn of the motor and watch for the light next to yours to turn yellow for the restart. saves a little bit
The big saveings from a standard trans comes from shifting into nutral on long hills and letting gravity do the work I leave the engine running for brakes and power steering but at engine idle the fuel savings are huge. The more RPMs the more fuel you burn short shifting and coasting wereever posible can increase your fuel milage. Automatics not so much.
However one fuel saving tip for automatics is shut off the overdrive at low speeds. The reason for this is the torque converter lock up speed is set to engine RPMs without the torque converter locked 15% of the engines power is wasted. So the higher gear keeps the engine speed low but doesn't lock the converter. It takes some time to figure out the lock up speeds on the varios vehicals most of the time it feels like the trans just found another gear when the converter locks. If you feel 5 shift points on a 3speed auto with over drive the last one is the torque converter locking."
I still feel the wear & tear on the starter will be more expensive than the gas. Especially for my drive. I hit several dozen lights each day.
Do you find this valuable?    
MrTim
MrTim
RE: Will putting your car in neutral actually save gas?
Jul 25 2008, 12:50 PM EDT
"I still feel the wear & tear on the starter will be more expensive than the gas. Especially for my drive. I hit several dozen lights each day."
BTW, I am talking about turning the engine off at lights not putting it in neutral.
0  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
DJofCA
DJofCA
RE: Will putting your car in neutral actually save gas?
Jul 25 2008, 4:41 PM EDT
"I still feel the wear & tear on the starter will be more expensive than the gas. Especially for my drive. I hit several dozen lights each day."
Your next car should be a Prius ....when Toyota gets a bit less greedy! It would be absolutely perfect for your commute, since it does that whole energy-salvage-from-the-braking thing AND it turns off the engine for you if you are stopped! It will be a while before Toyota catches up with supply and the dealers quit adding an extra $3- 4K onto the base price with stupid non-optional "options" to boost dealer profit (dealers are all selling them with mandatory $2100 chrome wheels, $400 pinstriping, & $800 Bluetooth phone system? HAH! At least Costco Auto sales sells without the extra junk on). I'm also still waiting for Toyota to be brave enough to offer it with "all-electric'" mode WITH the current gas engine. If it could be plugged in at night would that would solve the historic "all electric" problem of short range/getting stranded AND give the advantage of all-electric efficiency for short commutes). I've read on electric car forums that the dashboard switch that "doesn't do anything" in the earlier models was for the European market to allow you to switch it to "electric only" mode - don't know if it's true, but I really like the idea of an 'electric only" switch for stop-and-go traffic and city driving. Unfortunately the Electric car forum folks also said that if you mess with anything (like reprogramming the Prius chip to enable the "electric only" button) it voids the warranty on the $24K car you just paid $29K for... . So while most of the major electric car issues have ALREADY been solved, you can't buy the car that way. Imagine that!
Sigh. That gets us back to "conspiracy theory", doesn't it.
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
Machinist68
Machinist68
RE: Will putting your car in neutral actually save gas?
Jul 25 2008, 4:44 PM EDT
How long is the light a couple of seconds or half a minute? Remember starters are built a lot beter now since 70,000 mile warrantys started. The older ones are pretty cheap also. At a light that lasts more than 5 seconds you would definatly save money shuting of the engine their is a huge campain to convince drivers in Japan to do this. Most starters wont wear out prematurely because you do this. Do you find this valuable?    
Machinist68
Machinist68
RE: Will putting your car in neutral actually save gas?
Jul 25 2008, 4:48 PM EDT
"Your next car should be a Prius "
Let me know when they build a full size pickup with trailer towing capability and I'll be at the dealership next day.
Do you find this valuable?    
amy_c
amy_c
RE: Will putting your car in neutral actually save gas?
Jul 25 2008, 10:13 PM EDT
""Your next car should be a Prius "
Let me know when they build a full size pickup with trailer towing capability and I'll be at the dealership next day."
Great point, Machinist. Myself, I'm a suburban mom and *depend* on my minivan. They are talking about a hybrid minivan for the US in the next few years. I will be first in line if it ever happens. Until then... sorry, Green Team.
Do you find this valuable?    
DJofCA
DJofCA
RE: Will putting your car in neutral actually save gas?
Jul 26 2008, 1:51 AM EDT
""Your next car should be a Prius "
Let me know when they build a full size pickup with trailer towing capability and I'll be at the dealership next day."
That's why I have two vehicles - the 11 mpg F-250 with the 460 engine for when I'm hauling the horse trailer, a ton of hay, etc., The 31.75 mpg Saturn for when it's just me or me+up to 3 that I'm hauling around and I DON'T need the 8 K lb hauling capacity. If I had to haul stuff all the time it'd be a diesel truck (17 mpg). Diesel gets a bum rap in CA because apparently formula is amount of pollution produced per gallon of fuel burned rather than the number of miles traveled per amount of pollution produced. Nice way to keep 50 mpg diesel cars off the road. I found that tidbit on the Aptera webside in reply to why the chose gas instead of diesel. The Aptera is a 85-100 mpg vehicle scheduled to go into production later this year according to their website. The Aptera is technically classified as a Motorcycle, but looks like something out of the Jetsons to me. Starting around $30K I think, California only at this point.
Do you find this valuable?    
RedRat

RedRat
RE: Will putting your car in neutral actually save gas?
Jul 26 2008, 1:02 PM EDT
Perhaps the real question here is "Exactly how much does it really save?". Unless you are talking stop and go driving and stop signs at every corner for your entire commute, putting the car in neutral is more a pain than what it saves you. Frankly, I have better use of my time than farting around with shifting gears when I am on the go. This is much like counting pennies and then forgetting the dollars going out the window. My suspicion is that the extra wear and tear on transmission and clutch (both manual and automatic) are not worth this kind of horsing around. For the AVERAGE motorist, if you want to save gas (and that is your be all and end all) than buy a lighter weight car and smaller more efficient engine. Basically, if you feel you "need" a full size pickup with towing capability, just suck it up and pay the enormous gasoline bill, there is isn't really much hope for you.

And to those who think electric vehicles are the answer, remember that the electricity to charge your batteries must come from someplace. Unless you live in an area with wind, solar, hydro, or nuclear, you are not doing much for the carbon footprint. In most areas of the U.S., we generate electricity from fossil fuels. So you have a choice, pollute at the end of your exhaust pipe or at some distant power plant. I do get a kick out of the movie stars who drive the electrics and claim they are not polluting, tell that to the people who live in Four Corners!
Do you find this valuable?    
w00teth

w00teth
RE: Will putting your car in neutral actually save gas?
Jul 27 2008, 3:12 PM EDT
Well, I'm not sure, but I know that my dad is a hyper-mileage person and he turns the car off, and he doesn't put it into neutral. (he drives a toyota corolla, a small car) Do you find this valuable?    
OldGrayBeard

OldGrayBeard
RE: Will putting your car in neutral actually save gas?
Jul 27 2008, 7:28 PM EDT
"Putting your car in neutral AT ANY POINT will do absolutely bupkis. The reason for this is that all neutral does is disconnect the wheels from the engine via the transmission. So, the engine will still be running at the same speed (and therefore using the same amount of fuel), but will have absolutely no effect on the wheels."
Really? Have you ever watched the odometer of a car when you hold the brake and shift from neutral to drive? The rotational speed of the engine does NOT stay the same. And in most cars the thottle will automatically compensate slightly to keep the rev's from falling too low. That being said, when you hold the car against the engine the energy attempting to push the car forward has to go somewhere. And since the transmission doesn't get red hot when you do this (even for a very long time) I would have to assume that the energy wasted, (at idle) with the car in gear and held back by the brake, can't be a great amount. But with the price of gas these days, every little bit helps.
Do you find this valuable?    
OldGrayBeard

OldGrayBeard
RE: Will putting your car in neutral actually save gas?
Jul 27 2008, 7:48 PM EDT
"Perhaps the real question here is "Exactly how much does it really save?". Unless you are talking stop and go driving and stop signs at every corner for your entire commute, putting the car in neutral is more a pain than what it saves you. Frankly, I have better use of my time than farting around with shifting gears when I am on the go. This is much like counting pennies and then forgetting the dollars going out the window. My suspicion is that the extra wear and tear on transmission and clutch (both manual and automatic) are not worth this kind of horsing around. For the AVERAGE motorist, if you want to save gas (and that is your be all and end all) than buy a lighter weight car and smaller more efficient engine. Basically, if you feel you "need" a full size pickup with towing capability, just suck it up and pay the enormous gasoline bill, there is isn't really much hope for you.

And to those who think electric vehicles are the answer, remember that the electricity to charge your batteries must come from someplace. Unless you live in an area with wind, solar, hydro, or nuclear, you are not doing much for the carbon footprint. In most areas of the U.S., we generate electricity from fossil fuels. So you have a choice, pollute at the end of your exhaust pipe or at some distant power plant. I do get a kick out of the movie stars who drive the electrics and claim they are not polluting, tell that to the people who live in Four Corners!"
The wear and tear of putting a manual transmission into neutral?? A set of drive gears spinning in some oil. What wear? Do you really think there's more wear in spinning the main shaft in the transmission (driving nothing) than there is in using the throw bearings to hold the clutch apart (not that that really amounts to much of anything)?
Do you find this valuable?    
OldGrayBeard

OldGrayBeard
RE: Will putting your car in neutral actually save gas?
Jul 27 2008, 8:06 PM EDT
I would love to see someone do some cold hard un-biased testing to see what the break-even point is on letting the engine idle versus turning it off and then hitting the starter again. As I understand it, most cars use a little bit more gas starting up than at idle. And don't forget that it takes electricity to run the starter. That means you have to recharge the battery via the alternator/generator and thus pull more power from the engine and so burn more fuel.

As for the fly-wheel starter, it still requires energy to spin it back up to speed and it also means that you have to drag around extra weight all the time. More mass to accelerate means it will take more energy to do it.

Bottom line is that it will take more consumer demand and we in America have been programmed into a bigger-is-better mind-set. Every day on my way to work I see single 110 lb drivers being carried down the highway at 85 MPH by 9500 lb., V8/10 gas guzzling monsters. They're not pulling trailers, moving construction equipment or transporting a college football team. They're carrying the 105 lb Mrs. and 25 lbs of groceries. Seriously, they could get the job done with a Smart car or VW bug. Who really needs a Denali or a Hummer to drive around town?
Do you find this valuable?    
RedRat

RedRat
RE: Will putting your car in neutral actually save gas?
Jul 28 2008, 12:37 AM EDT
"I would love to see someone do some cold hard un-biased testing to see what the break-even point is on letting the engine idle versus turning it off and then hitting the starter again. As I understand it, most cars use a little bit more gas starting up than at idle. And don't forget that it takes electricity to run the starter. That means you have to recharge the battery via the alternator/generator and thus pull more power from the engine and so burn more fuel.

As for the fly-wheel starter, it still requires energy to spin it back up to speed and it also means that you have to drag around extra weight all the time. More mass to accelerate means it will take more energy to do it.

Bottom line is that it will take more consumer demand and we in America have been programmed into a bigger-is-better mind-set. Every day on my way to work I see single 110 lb drivers being carried down the highway at 85 MPH by 9500 lb., V8/10 gas guzzling monsters. They're not pulling trailers, moving construction equipment or transporting a college football team. They're carrying the 105 lb Mrs. and 25 lbs of groceries. Seriously, they could get the job done with a Smart car or VW bug. Who really needs a Denali or a Hummer to drive around town?"
Amen to your last paragraph. I live in a small city that seems to be the breeding grounds for SUVs, seems that just about everybody has one. Of course the selling point to that average Mrs. is that if you have anything smaller your family is not safe. After all, "it's for the Children". That particular selling point has been used to sell just about everything.

My point is that I am not really interested in 5% or even 10% improvements in gasoline mileage. I want truly significant improvements, I want a minimum of 30% or more. Frankly, if you enjoy putting the car in neutral and all that fooling around, go for it. But frankly I am sick and tired of the is diddley crap stuff of some guy going from 20mpg to 22mpg (10% increase). Yeah, yeah, I know 10% is nothing to sneeze at but I will be damned if I am going to fool around shifting. Besides I have automatic transmissions in both of my cars. As to a manual, I live in a very hilly environment, most people in the area where I live go through clutches with their manual transmissions. Unless you are a mechanic and are comfortable with tearing transmissions apart, they are still expensive to replace.
Do you find this valuable?    
2 3 | Next

Related Content

  (what's this?Related ContentThanks to keyword tags, links to related pages and threads are added to the bottom of your pages. Up to 15 links are shown, determined by matching tags and by how recently the content was updated; keeping the most current at the top. Share your feedback on Wetpaint Central.)