See, among others,

http://www.valvoline.com/carcare/art...401go&cccid=3&
scccid=3 .

http://www.idavette.net/hib/fuel/

The lower octane gas in the Rocky Mountain states is appropriate for the
altitude.

I doubt the lower octane affects fuel mileage.

"Guy" <guysidkso@lycos.com> wrote
> I only know that the regular unlead gas is 86 instead of 87 in Utah and
> Colorado. I do not know that affects the gas mileage, also.
>
>
> "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote
> > Drewaffe wrote:
> >
> > > What am I doing wrong? Or does Colorado just suck? Is my expectation
> > > of 25mpg city driving unreasonable?
> > >
> >
> > Yes it is, especially considering your altitude and mountainous terrain.
> >
> > EPA estimates on the V-6 Accord are 21 city, 30 highway. In your
> > driving conditions, anything over the EPA city number is a good result
> > for city driving.
> >
> > John
>
>

 

See, among others,

http://www.valvoline.com/carcare/art...401go&cccid=3&
scccid=3 .

http://www.idavette.net/hib/fuel/

The lower octane gas in the Rocky Mountain states is appropriate for the
altitude.

I doubt the lower octane affects fuel mileage.

"Guy" <guysidkso@lycos.com> wrote
> I only know that the regular unlead gas is 86 instead of 87 in Utah and
> Colorado. I do not know that affects the gas mileage, also.
>
>
> "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote
> > Drewaffe wrote:
> >
> > > What am I doing wrong? Or does Colorado just suck? Is my expectation
> > > of 25mpg city driving unreasonable?
> > >
> >
> > Yes it is, especially considering your altitude and mountainous terrain.
> >
> > EPA estimates on the V-6 Accord are 21 city, 30 highway. In your
> > driving conditions, anything over the EPA city number is a good result
> > for city driving.
> >
> > John
>
>

 

"Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f%7Ne.8993$RS.544@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> The lower octane gas in the Rocky Mountain states is appropriate for the
> altitude.

I hadn't considered that. The altitude has the same effect as not opening
the throttle all the way, so lower octane works fine.

Mike

 

"Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f%7Ne.8993$RS.544@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> The lower octane gas in the Rocky Mountain states is appropriate for the
> altitude.

I hadn't considered that. The altitude has the same effect as not opening
the throttle all the way, so lower octane works fine.

Mike

 

Larry J. wrote:
> Waiving the right to remain silent, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> said:
>
>
>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0600, "'Curly Q. Links'"
>><motsco_@_interbaun.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Drewaffe wrote:
>>><SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
>>>
>>>>rather than let the engine do it.
>>>
>>>----------------------------
>>>
>>>It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
>>>juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
>>
>>And prey tell what ARE those reasons.
>
>
> Much of the speed reduction when going downhill is achieved by taking
> your foot off the gas and letting the engine do the "brake" work. By
> putting the transmisison in neutral, you have to rely entirely on
> your braking system, risking rapid overheating of the brakes.
> Overheated brakes work very poorly, leaving you open to destruction.
>
apart from the very obvious danger of what you describe, coasting in
neutral also /raises/ gas consumption on an injected car. if the ecu
sees no throttle above a certain rev, it assumes coasting mode and shuts
off gas delivery entirely. it won't do that if it's idling because the
revs aren't high enough to register as a coast.

coasting in neutral could arguably save gas on a carburetted engine so
that's probably where this bad practice arose, but for injected engines,
absolutely leave it in gear all the time.

 

Larry J. wrote:
> Waiving the right to remain silent, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> said:
>
>
>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0600, "'Curly Q. Links'"
>><motsco_@_interbaun.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Drewaffe wrote:
>>><SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
>>>
>>>>rather than let the engine do it.
>>>
>>>----------------------------
>>>
>>>It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
>>>juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
>>
>>And prey tell what ARE those reasons.
>
>
> Much of the speed reduction when going downhill is achieved by taking
> your foot off the gas and letting the engine do the "brake" work. By
> putting the transmisison in neutral, you have to rely entirely on
> your braking system, risking rapid overheating of the brakes.
> Overheated brakes work very poorly, leaving you open to destruction.
>
apart from the very obvious danger of what you describe, coasting in
neutral also /raises/ gas consumption on an injected car. if the ecu
sees no throttle above a certain rev, it assumes coasting mode and shuts
off gas delivery entirely. it won't do that if it's idling because the
revs aren't high enough to register as a coast.

coasting in neutral could arguably save gas on a carburetted engine so
that's probably where this bad practice arose, but for injected engines,
absolutely leave it in gear all the time.

 

Drewaffe wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I just purchased a 2003 Honda Accord LX Sedan Automatic and moved to
> Colorado Springs.
>
> Loaded down with all of my personal belongings, I got 32mpg during the
> 770 mile drive from Dallas. This was fine with me.
>
> During the first few weeks that I was here, my driving was evenly split
> between city, small highway (55mph) and mountain driving. I averaged
> 24mpg.
>
> Determined to do better, I committed to keep the TAC under 3,000 for
> the entire volume of gas in the newly-filled tank. I just filled it up
> last night and did the calculation. 22mpg.
>
> My eyes are crossing...
>
> Almost all of my driving for this past tank has been city driving. I
> have not been an A/C fiend, and I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
> rather than let the engine do it. I take my time getting places and I
> don't jackrabbit starts or stops.
>
> What am I doing wrong? Or does Colorado just suck? Is my expectation
> of 25mpg city driving unreasonable?
>
you're in reformulated gas territory, which probably means lower calorie
content for your gas and therefore lower mileage.

 

Drewaffe wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I just purchased a 2003 Honda Accord LX Sedan Automatic and moved to
> Colorado Springs.
>
> Loaded down with all of my personal belongings, I got 32mpg during the
> 770 mile drive from Dallas. This was fine with me.
>
> During the first few weeks that I was here, my driving was evenly split
> between city, small highway (55mph) and mountain driving. I averaged
> 24mpg.
>
> Determined to do better, I committed to keep the TAC under 3,000 for
> the entire volume of gas in the newly-filled tank. I just filled it up
> last night and did the calculation. 22mpg.
>
> My eyes are crossing...
>
> Almost all of my driving for this past tank has been city driving. I
> have not been an A/C fiend, and I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
> rather than let the engine do it. I take my time getting places and I
> don't jackrabbit starts or stops.
>
> What am I doing wrong? Or does Colorado just suck? Is my expectation
> of 25mpg city driving unreasonable?
>
you're in reformulated gas territory, which probably means lower calorie
content for your gas and therefore lower mileage.

 

"'Curly Q. Links'" (motsco_@_interbaun.com) writes:
> Drewaffe wrote:
> <SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
>> rather than let the engine do it.
> ----------------------------
>
> It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
> juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
>
> 'Curly'

Not to mention that it will cause worse gas milage. Modern fuel-injected
engines shut off fuel flow when decelerating, but have to maintain
fuel flow for the engine to idle.
Dan
(This account is not used for email.)

 

"'Curly Q. Links'" (motsco_@_interbaun.com) writes:
> Drewaffe wrote:
> <SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
>> rather than let the engine do it.
> ----------------------------
>
> It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
> juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
>
> 'Curly'

Not to mention that it will cause worse gas milage. Modern fuel-injected
engines shut off fuel flow when decelerating, but have to maintain
fuel flow for the engine to idle.
Dan
(This account is not used for email.)

 

In article <NeadnULG0ZmWoZjeRVn-pA@speakeasy.net>, jim beam
<nospam@example.net> wrote:

> Larry J. wrote:
> > Waiving the right to remain silent, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> said:
> >
> >
> >>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0600, "'Curly Q. Links'"
> >><motsco_@_interbaun.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Drewaffe wrote:
> >>><SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
> >>>
> >>>>rather than let the engine do it.
> >>>
> >>>----------------------------
> >>>
> >>>It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
> >>>juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
> >>
> >>And prey tell what ARE those reasons.
> >
> >
> > Much of the speed reduction when going downhill is achieved by taking
> > your foot off the gas and letting the engine do the "brake" work. By
> > putting the transmisison in neutral, you have to rely entirely on
> > your braking system, risking rapid overheating of the brakes.
> > Overheated brakes work very poorly, leaving you open to destruction.
> >
> apart from the very obvious danger of what you describe, coasting in
> neutral also /raises/ gas consumption on an injected car. if the ecu
> sees no throttle above a certain rev, it assumes coasting mode and shuts
> off gas delivery entirely. it won't do that if it's idling because the
> revs aren't high enough to register as a coast.
>
> coasting in neutral could arguably save gas on a carburetted engine so
> that's probably where this bad practice arose, but for injected engines,
> absolutely leave it in gear all the time.

Hello,
Great post. I just wanted to add that it's a bad habit to get into. I
doubt that it saves any gasoline. In addition, it adds more "wear" to the
transmission. In other words, your transmission will wear out quicker if
you shift into neutral every time you go downhill.
Jason

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

 

In article <NeadnULG0ZmWoZjeRVn-pA@speakeasy.net>, jim beam
<nospam@example.net> wrote:

> Larry J. wrote:
> > Waiving the right to remain silent, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> said:
> >
> >
> >>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0600, "'Curly Q. Links'"
> >><motsco_@_interbaun.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Drewaffe wrote:
> >>><SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
> >>>
> >>>>rather than let the engine do it.
> >>>
> >>>----------------------------
> >>>
> >>>It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
> >>>juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
> >>
> >>And prey tell what ARE those reasons.
> >
> >
> > Much of the speed reduction when going downhill is achieved by taking
> > your foot off the gas and letting the engine do the "brake" work. By
> > putting the transmisison in neutral, you have to rely entirely on
> > your braking system, risking rapid overheating of the brakes.
> > Overheated brakes work very poorly, leaving you open to destruction.
> >
> apart from the very obvious danger of what you describe, coasting in
> neutral also /raises/ gas consumption on an injected car. if the ecu
> sees no throttle above a certain rev, it assumes coasting mode and shuts
> off gas delivery entirely. it won't do that if it's idling because the
> revs aren't high enough to register as a coast.
>
> coasting in neutral could arguably save gas on a carburetted engine so
> that's probably where this bad practice arose, but for injected engines,
> absolutely leave it in gear all the time.

Hello,
Great post. I just wanted to add that it's a bad habit to get into. I
doubt that it saves any gasoline. In addition, it adds more "wear" to the
transmission. In other words, your transmission will wear out quicker if
you shift into neutral every time you go downhill.
Jason

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

 

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:04:43 GMT, "Larry J."
<usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:

>Waiving the right to remain silent, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> said:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0600, "'Curly Q. Links'"
>><motsco_@_interbaun.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Drewaffe wrote:
>>><SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
>>>> rather than let the engine do it.
>>>----------------------------
>>>
>>>It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
>>>juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
>>
>> And prey tell what ARE those reasons.
>
>Much of the speed reduction when going downhill is achieved by taking
>your foot off the gas and letting the engine do the "brake" work. By
>putting the transmisison in neutral, you have to rely entirely on
>your braking system, risking rapid overheating of the brakes.
>Overheated brakes work very poorly, leaving you open to destruction.

Whilst yes, that was the case in the 60s, not since the late 70s at
the latest has this even been an issue. A semi, comming down a
mountain, yes, a car down a hill, no. Keep with the times, and stop
with the decades old misinformation please.

 

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:04:43 GMT, "Larry J."
<usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:

>Waiving the right to remain silent, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> said:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0600, "'Curly Q. Links'"
>><motsco_@_interbaun.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Drewaffe wrote:
>>><SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
>>>> rather than let the engine do it.
>>>----------------------------
>>>
>>>It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some
>>>juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
>>
>> And prey tell what ARE those reasons.
>
>Much of the speed reduction when going downhill is achieved by taking
>your foot off the gas and letting the engine do the "brake" work. By
>putting the transmisison in neutral, you have to rely entirely on
>your braking system, risking rapid overheating of the brakes.
>Overheated brakes work very poorly, leaving you open to destruction.

Whilst yes, that was the case in the 60s, not since the late 70s at
the latest has this even been an issue. A semi, comming down a
mountain, yes, a car down a hill, no. Keep with the times, and stop
with the decades old misinformation please.

 

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:34:46 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:


>Hello,
>Great post. I just wanted to add that it's a bad habit to get into. I
>doubt that it saves any gasoline. In addition, it adds more "wear" to the
>transmission. In other words, your transmission will wear out quicker if
>you shift into neutral every time you go downhill.
>Jason

We've just had a past that states it saves on carb cars, but not,
generally, fuel injected ones, which you obviously didn't read -
despite the fact that the poster only considered immediate
consumption, and not the increased downhill speeds and its
implications if the coast is continued on the flat or near-flat areas
following the slope.

I'm intrigued though, by your asertation that being in neutral puts
INCREASED wear on a transmission, since it was my understanding that
since it would ahve no load, and not be spun beyond the rated ranges
(in all probability slowly, depending on gearbox design), that it
wouldn't increase wear, but instead decrease it.