Most economical way to drive a car?

[Jim Hardie 523]

Most economical way is to use cruise control (if you have it) whenever you can, in the most appropriate gear for the vehicle speed/engine load (typically, keeping revs between 1,300 and 1,800, -ish depending on car weight/engine size/gear ratios).

 

Yes and no. When you have to apply the brakes, the cruise control is paused. When you switch it back on again the selected cruise speed is attained much quicker than normal and a glance at the mpg at this point can be a bit scary.

[ivan edake 13]

Does anybody really care about all this mush?Just drive so you enjoy it,forget the mpg.

[Jim Hardie 523]

Does anybody really care about all this mush?Just drive so you enjoy it,forget the mpg.

 

Well you cared enough to have a gander. It's just a discussion stemming from someone's query. That's what the forum is for.

Not everyone can afford to drive with their foot to the boards.

[Isabelle 10]

Managed to get an extra 15/20 miles out of my car this week by driving more smoothly

Only got just under 39mpg but I don't think that's bad for a 16 year old car with a dodgy clutch

[illuminati 10]

Talking about freewheeling down hill, this is something i tend to do on long steep hills, although as someone mentioned it is against the law.

but i wanna throw this into the mix....

someone told me that these modern deisils make it a waste of time, because when you are going down hill in gear, the car doesnt actually use any fuel, and the car going down hill in neutral would actually use more fuel

i personally find this hard to believe..

thoughts anyone?

 

This is true. The engine is being driven by the momentum of the car going down hill, the ECU can see you are not pressing the accelerator so doesn't inject any fuel, there is no need to. If you free wheel in neutral then you need to keep the engine running so you have to inject fuel.

If you have an MPG readout on your car you will see it go up to 999MPG whilst going down hill!

Edited July 4, 2017 by illuminati

[martin6 10]

For every downhill there is an uphill negating any saving !

[illuminati 10]

For every downhill there is an uphill negating any saving !

 

Not true. If you drive up the hill you will use X amount of fuel. If you freewheel down the hill you will use Y amount of fuel to keep the engine running. If you drive down the hill you will use 0 fuel.

So you journey up and down the hill whilst free wheeling will use X + Y fuel.

If you journey up and down the hill whilst driving you will use X + 0, or X fuel.

 

X + Y is greater than X

[MAC33 10]

I try to use the brake as little as possible by looking ahead.

 

The previous owner of my 3000 cc Toyota Avalon said it gets 500 kms for its 63 litre fuel tank but I'm getting between 650 - 700 kms!

 

I drive around ten percent of the time in neutral,and always take it out of gear at the traffic lights.

[mossdog 10]

but if you can manage to drive in top gear at 40, would that return an even better MPG? i assume it would

.........take no notice of experts Beano including political ones that assume everything but know nowt!

[banjodeano 31]

I try to use the brake as little as possible by looking ahead.

 

The previous owner of my 3000 cc Toyota Avalon said it gets 500 kms for its 63 litre fuel tank but I'm getting between 650 - 700 kms!

 

I drive around ten percent of the time in neutral,and always take it out of gear at the traffic lights.

 

I have just come back from touring Ireland, so we were in no rush at getting about, mostly pottering about on country roads, nice and steady enjoying the views, but hammered it on the motorway coming back home, a total of 1500 miles for the princely sum of £120..I thought that was a decent return.

[Cyclone 10]

but if you can manage to drive in top gear at 40, would that return an even better MPG? i assume it would

 

No, the engine is most efficient at a mid level of revs.

 

---------- Post added 07-07-2017 at 07:40 ----------

 

Yes and no. When you have to apply the brakes, the cruise control is paused. When you switch it back on again the selected cruise speed is attained much quicker than normal and a glance at the mpg at this point can be a bit scary.

 

How is it attained "quicker than normal", my cruise accelerates back up to speed more slowly than me putting my foot down myself.

[Fogey 10]

Over a period of 2 years my car has managed an average fuel consumption of 60mpg for an average of 27mph (according to the readout).

 

Like others have said I try to avoid breaking by slowing down a little more gradually.

 

Also I definitely noticed better performance when I switched to 'premium' unleaded, specifically from Shell, - I reckoned when I made the decision after trying for several weeks that it was costing me around 10% more to fill the tank but was delivering between 15% and 30% better mileage with the car feeling somehow smoother and happier when accelerating and driving generally, all based on the fact that I tend to be doing the same mileage on the same roads most of the time.

 

My question is this, I have started to develop a habit for using engine braking if I have plenty of time to do so safely. I can see the advantages to reducing the wear on the brakes but I can't believe there isn't a price to be paid, so what is it?

 

I thought I had read in the Highway code that it was advisable to use engine breaking when slowing down gradually but I don't seem to be able to locate that particular bit any more. - Any advice?