Does putting automatic car in neutral for long idling periods relieve any engine/transmission stress?

So how does the engine run without fuel?
FROM AN ARTICLE by Mike Allen:

Here's the argument I get: "The engine is idling while coasting, so no less gas is used with the transmission engaged and the accelerator let up."

When coasting in neutral, the engine is idling, consuming just as much gasoline as when it's idling at a traffic light or warming up in your driveway, roughly gallons per hour (gph), depending on your vehicle. Some small cars with roller cams may do slightly better, but a rule of thumb for idling fuel consumption is 1 gph . Let's use 1 gph as a starting point, just to make the math simpler.

Suppose you are coasting down a mile-long hill at an average speed of 30 mph, which will take close to 2 minutes. During this period, you'll consume approximately 0.033 gallons of gasoline, for a consumption of 30 mpg.

I've replicated these conditions with instrumented cars, both with scan tools and with an oscilloscope, measuring the leads leading into the fuel injectors. The signal controlling the injector is a 12-volt square wave. It's pulse-width-modulated, varying from 5 percent or so at idle to around 80 percent or so at full throttle. The higher the percentage of on time to off time, the more fuel. There's one on pulse for every cylinder firing, so the consumption also varies with engine speed (rpm). All vehicles show a short pulse width at idle, regardless of whether they're sitting in traffic at a red light or coasting downhill—at idle—in neutral. (Actually, they use a fraction more fuel sitting in drive at a traffic light, because of the drag in the torque converter, but I digress).

Almost all vehicles show a pulse width of zero when coasting while in gear. Zero, as in there is no fuel injected at all. Yes, the engine is turning over, the pistons are going up and down, the water pump, alternator and a/c compressor are working, so technically you can say the engine is running, sort of. But it's not consuming any fuel. And that goes for automatic or manuals.

Okay, eventually, at the bottom of the hill or as you creep up to the traffic light, the engine finally will slow to idle rpm—at which point the fuel injection will wake up and start adding fuel to keep the engine from stalling. That usually starts at around 1000 rpm, and if you pay attention, you can sense when it's happening as the engine will rev up slightly. And that's when the scan tool or oscilloscope will show injector dwell rise from 0 to 5 to 10 percent. So you're actually wasting gas by putting your car into neutral.

I hear this argument as well: My car-mileage-information computer goes wild with increased mileage while coasting.

The algorithm the trip computer uses is not based on how much fuel is actually consumed, but on some calculated value based on airflow past the mass airflow sensor, manifold vacuum and engine rpm. And it's not accurate under these coasting conditions. That's why when we report fuel economy here at PM, we never just print the numbers we read off the trip computer's display: We use the gallons pumped into the tank divided by the mileage on the odometer—which we check against a handheld GPS.

I use a Scangauge II for a lot of diagnostics and general tinkering. It's a great tool—but I've learned not to trust the economy or gallons-used function too closely. That's why the Scangauge has a function that allows you to tell it what the engine-idle cutoff is for your particular car to get somewhere closer to the truth.

Bottom line: Don't coast in neutral. It's dangerous and won't save fuel. Turning off the key at traffic lights might.
 
You forget the compression braking of the engine slows the vehicle down faster than a neutral coast, causing you to have to accelerate the engine quicker. I can coast down a hill on the way home in neutral, and watch the mpg go up, coast in drive, stays the same. And my foot goes back on the gas much quicker.
 
You forget the compression braking of the engine slows the vehicle down faster than a neutral coast, causing you to have to accelerate the engine quicker. I see it live on my gas mileage meter. I can coast down a hill on the way home in neutral, and watch the mpg go up, coast in drive, stays the same. And my foot goes back on the gas much quicker.
The MPG computer is very easy to fool. Case on point: All of my cars have stellar readout numbers when I drive because I pay close attention to Instant MPG and it's relation to the Average MPG, as well as when I press the gas pedal. No other driver in my family (wife, parents, siblings) ever do that and their MPG readouts suck compared to when I drive the same vehicles. So how does all that reflect in MPG hand calculated at the pump? Well, no effect really. Because while the MPG readouts can show up to 40% higher efficiency with mine VS their driving, the real life fuel consumption (miles driven divided by amount of fuel used) is all within 5%-7%. So yeah. That readout is easy to fool. Calculate by hand and you'll see the true difference, or lack of. But wear on the transmission is higher from shifting an automatic (N-D-N-D-etc.) while coasting, as compared to just leaving it in "D".
 
Last edited:
The MPG computer is very easy to fool. Case on point: All of my cars have stellar readout numbers when I drive because I pay close attention to Instant MPG and it's relation to the Average MPG, as well as when I press the gas pedal. No other driver in my family (wife, parents, siblings) ever do that and their MPG readouts suck compared to when I drive the same vehicles. So how does all that reflect in MPG hand calculated at the pump? Well, no effect really. Because while the MPG readouts can show up to 40% higher efficiency with mine VS their driving, the real life fuel consumption (miles driven divided by amount of fuel used) is all within 5%-7%. So yeah. That readout is easy to fool. Calculate by hand and you'll see the true difference, or lack of. But wear on the transmission is higher from shifting an automatic (N-D-N-D-etc.) while coasting, as compared to just leaving it in "D".
Ok, I can see that, but please explain this: when I’m going down my hill, I can neutral coast for altitle over a mile. If I just let off the gas, I can cast maybe 1/8 of that mile before the car slows lower than 55. Requiring me to apply throttle, and at a higher rpm than just idle. My second question is what exact damage is going to happen from shifting into D from N, especially if RPM matching ?
 
Ok, I can see that, but please explain this: when I’m going down my hill, I can neutral coast for altitle over a mile. If I just let off the gas, I can cast maybe 1/8 of that mile before the car slows lower than 55. Requiring me to apply throttle, and at a higher rpm than just idle. My second question is what exact damage is going to happen from shifting into D from N, especially if RPM matching ?
My post earlier with the video (click link below) is a good reference and source of info. He explains the damage there. Clutch packs and torque converter take a hit.
The slowing down that you're experiencing is not a bad thing. It is your engine basically slowing down the car. Many people who deal with abused vehicles, or vehicles with bad service history, actually use that technique to try to blow the carbon out of the piston rings. They accelerate, lock the car in certain gear, and coast from like 5k-6k rpm down to 2k rpm. Then accelerate WOT and repeat the earlier steps again. This process helps to break up carbon in piston rings and seat-in rings properly, as long as the issue is in its earlier stages. If the car has had bad piston rings for years - only rebuild will help.
(As a side note: if you are rev matching before shifting - then you just wasted whatever gas you tried to save by coasting.)
 
Last edited:
Each transmission for each manufacturer works with almost the same principles (planetary automatics) , but apply their own ways of doing it.

You may be coasting , at least with the 09G, downshifts and then when approaching 1st disengages clutch packs.
 
I might be more lazy than 99% of BITOG, or maybe if a person did this consistently, at every stop, it would become second-nature like driving a stick shift. A lot of hairs have been split in 87 responses, but I can think of two scenarios that make it more trouble than it's worth:

1) The light changes and I hit the gas. The engine revs but the vehicle doesn't move. Flustered now, I slam it into Drive at 1000+ RPM.

2) #1 happens, and the car behind rear-ends me because my brake lights went off but I didn't move. Even if that doesn't happen, I would be contributing to congestion and road rage. I would be just as bad as the people who are finishing a text after the light turns.
 

I agree with this premise. The first gear clutch pack needs to be engaged every time you go from N to D, so it is kinda like adding extra 1st gear shifts in a manual transmission. The car is meant to have forward movement torque to accelerate so why would a fraction of that torque applied be an issue to the drivetrain? I don’t even own Automatics, why am I replying? 😆
 
Before the Prius, when I was in a drive through I’d put my car in N and apply the parking brakes. A bit less idle speed, a bit less pollution and less gas burned at idle.

Some cars - mostly older Audis/BMWs or anything with a ZF 4HP/5HP shouldn’t be idled in N for extended periods of time. The oil pump in those older ZFs don’t spin in any position except R/D. CARB did put out a billeting warning against 2-speed idle tests on older BMWs for that reason alone.
 
I leave mine in drive with my foot on the brake. When ice fishing watching tip ups for hours on end with the engine idling in park and I have never had a transmission or torque converter fail.
 
Constantly re-engaging the first gear clutches seems like a bad idea. And as was mentioned above, there are transmissions (not just those old bmws) that don't spin the oil pump in neutral
 
I once spent several years coasting down hills in neutral, probably 100,000 miles of driving or more. I never realized that it could have been illegal, and quite honestly, I don’t even know if I did actually save fuel. All I know is that the car went much faster and I didn’t have to touch that gas pedal. The transmission didn’t have any issues (sold it with 289,000 miles on it). Fluid replacements once a year.

I have not done this^^since. It’s been probably ten years now and three vehicles later...and I haven’t tried this since. Why am I mentioning this? I have no idea, but I’m eating leftover thanksgiving pie, and the typing is keeping me from stuffing my face to levels that could hurt me. So there’s that.
 
Back
Top