Cruising in Neutral: Bad?

**kotiko** · July 3rd, 2005 12:36 PM

Tama nga yung pag masyado steep yung downhill it isnt good to go neutral. Pag napapansin kong steep masyado I'd rather stay in 1st gear.

**Alpha_One** · July 3rd, 2005 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Karding

I agree. You have less control over the vehicle. AFAIK, its illegal in CA to cruise in neutral or most states prohibits this. I know, how are they going to know right? They will, when you get into an accident.

It's actually easy to know - your brake lights will be on the entire length of the downgrade.

**quiksie** · July 3rd, 2005 02:34 PM

pag konti nalang ang gas ko, what i do is go neutral. Not at steep inclines pero pag may mga stop lights. What i do is calculate my speed and distance. Pag inclines naman yun hindi naman steep at pag traffic or mabagal ka lang.
One time ginamit ko ang neutral mode kasi paubos na gas ko. Pag dating ko ng house binomba ko ng hose yun sasakyan kasi umuulan nun. Umusok ang disc brakes ko hehe sa sobra gamit at init

**KCboy** · July 3rd, 2005 03:08 PM

i know d bad yung at to cruise in n, just don't step on the gas pedal, but for safety, don't do it.

**Shadetree MKNX** · July 3rd, 2005 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by Alpha_One

It's actually easy to know - your brake lights will be on the entire length of the downgrade.

But that's how an A/T equipped car needs to be driven. Since more cars in CA are A/T's, i doubt that's how they find out about it.

Besides, I don't think the cops over there really bother checking drivers out for that. Not like if you were speeding, caught driving without seatbelts, busted tailight, didn't signal before changing lanes, cracked or broken windshield, etc.

**Shadetree MKNX** · July 3rd, 2005 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by KCboy

i know d bad yung at to cruise in n, just don't step on the gas pedal, but for safety, don't do it.

You're not gonna hurt the a/t if you rev it in neutral. You only hurt it if you let the car roll without the engine running.

**Shadetree MKNX** · July 3rd, 2005 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Karding

I agree. You have less control over the vehicle. AFAIK, its illegal in CA to cruise in neutral or most states prohibits this. I know, how are they going to know right? They will, when you get into an accident.

Whenever I get a chance to drive an automatic, I am in the habit of slapping the shifter into neutral whenever I hit the brakes hard. I've proven it to myself (many times in the past) that it makes the car stop quicker, as opposed to if I leave it in "Drive", especially if the engine rpm was high just before the moment of braking.

Heaven forbid I should get into a fender bender and the cop is going to figure out my tranny was in "Neutral" when my car made contact. I strongly believe that it can be proven how an a/t equiped car can actually stop quicker when shifted into "Neutral" during emergency braking.

**OTEP** · July 3rd, 2005 11:52 PM

SAFETY - This is the primary reason why cruising in neutral is bad and even outlawed in some states (it is also outlawed in Subic). Sure no one will check if you are coasting or not, but then again, it is the safety of you and your passengers that you are compromising. I would not even care if you crash or not so long as you do not crash into me or anyone I know.

The reason for coasting being not good is because you will not have power when you need it (mbt has posted this already). Not all mishaps are avoided by braking. Some will require you to power-out of a given situation. And if the tranny is in neutral, you are losing precious time or you might even forget to re-engage.

Btw, during emergency braking of an A/T equipped car, the brakes will have no problem overpowering the transmission and engine provided you are not stepping on the throttle. Even at full throttle, the brakes will still overpower the drivetrain quite easily so there is really no point in disengaging the transmission. What if you suddenly needed power mid-braking? Slamming back into drive is very unhealthy for transmissions and you may not even have the presence of mind at the time to do so.

**Shadetree MKNX** · July 4th, 2005 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by OTEP

SAFETY - This is the primary reason why cruising in neutral is bad and even outlawed in some states (it is also outlawed in Subic). Sure no one will check if you are coasting or not, but then again, it is the safety of you and your passengers that you are compromising. I would not even care if you crash or not so long as you do not crash into me or anyone I know.

The reason for coasting being not good is because you will not have power when you need it (mbt has posted this already). Not all mishaps are avoided by braking. Some will require you to power-out of a given situation. And if the tranny is in neutral, you are losing precious time or you might even forget to re-engage.

Btw, during emergency braking of an A/T equipped car, the brakes will have no problem overpowering the transmission and engine provided you are not stepping on the throttle. Even at full throttle, the brakes will still overpower the drivetrain quite easily so there is really no point in disengaging the transmission. What if you suddenly needed power mid-braking? Slamming back into drive is very unhealthy for transmissions and you may not even have the presence of mind at the time to do so.

For any given amount of brake pedal pressure, an a/t-equipped car will always stop quicker in "neutral" than it would in "drive". That's an obvious fact that is even so "intuitive" that it doesn't need to be proven to be believed. And if that's not enough, just ask anybody who's good with a stick-shift and ask them what they do in a situation where they need to stop at the quickest possible time, and they will most invariably tell you that they'll stomp on the clutch and the brakes at the same time.

On the matter of applying max braking, then max acceleration the next second, I don't think there's such a real-world situation, nor do I believe in the possibility of the success of such a maneuver. It's either you brake, brake and swerve, or accelerate; never brake and accelerate in such a short amount of time. If you come to think of it, braking and accelerating are both mutually exclusive and would only cancel each other's effects when combined together.

Besides, not even the quick reflexes of a seasoned F1 driver and the handling excellence of his purposely-built F1 car could demonstrate the plausibility of such a scenario in the real world.

**RafRaf** · July 4th, 2005 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by squala

That Jazz was a CVT. If the idea that an A/T gets damaged while cruising in neutral is true, then Ramirez is not being a good example to driving your car. I know they're trying to maximize the fuel, but the whole thing is useless if it will wear out your vehicle more easily.

are you sure mr ramirez cruised at nuetral? as i understand there is a "trick" you can do with the the jazz that will make you save fuel. corect me if i'm wrong but at a certain speed range the jazz's engine wouldn't be using all cylinders and that is where you save fuel.

hmmm... from what I gather here, long cruising on nuetral or doing it downhill is safety hazard.

For a MT you can cruise at nuetral when coming to a stop. I guess you can brake and make sure you are deccelarating first then shift to nuetral and continue deccelerating.

for AT, majority discourage it because the AT mechanisms work differently and safety is compromised.