Timeline for 2010 Ford Taurus in neutral has higher idle speed
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 4, 2016 at 11:39 | comment | added | rpmerf | @Grasper The whole point of idle is to burn fuel to only spin the engine fast enough to keep running with near 0 load. This is overall inefficient. By leaving it in gear, even applying minimal throttle it runs much more efficiently. Your vacuum is higher and you are in a more efficient RPM range. I know it seems weird, I used to think neutral on the hills would be more fuel efficient until I saw the readout. | |
| May 4, 2016 at 8:51 | comment | added | Bevan | Oh, and don't use neutral down Hills - if you use your brakes too much they will overheat and fail. In a fuel injected car like this, deceleration actually cuts the fuel altogether - you'll use less fuel leaving the car in gear! | |
| May 4, 2016 at 8:50 | comment | added | Bevan | Idle is the least efficient - efficiency is about how much useful action is obtained from how much energy. It may use less fuel to idle than to drive, but driving gets more action from the fuel. Not your actual question, but I felt like adding my 10 cents worth!! | |
| May 3, 2016 at 11:43 | comment | added | Grasper | @rpmerf, that doesn't make any sense. It is inefficient if you sit in one place but not if you drive miles only on idling. | |
| May 2, 2016 at 19:08 | comment | added | rpmerf | Even in old fuel injection systems, it is still more efficient to leave it in gear. Idling an engine is inherently inefficient. I've tested this with my 87 Daytona with a MPG readout on the dash on long hills. | |
| May 2, 2016 at 16:42 | vote | accept | Grasper | ||
| May 2, 2016 at 16:42 | comment | added | Grasper | oh ok, so there is a reason behind it and not some sort of a defect. Thanks. | |
| May 2, 2016 at 15:32 | history | answered | Fred Wilson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |