Can driving in neutral damage transmission?

[LeanBurn]

What is the critical point here that seems to be overlooked is have you hooked up a scanguage and tested fuel consumption between coasting in neutral with engine running and leaving it in gear and letting deceleration fuel cut off go to work??

My tests with automatics from the past 10 years or so, have shown DFCO beats coasting in neutral with engine running every time, most times by quite a bit.

If that is your case too, why not let DFCO do its thing and then retain full driving functionality, being able react to any driving situation with all the vehicle power available to you at all times.

[Atheria]

I do have a built-in mpg estimator (that's not totally accurate, but gives you a ballpark number) and pay attention to it. I was surprised to see that my actual mpg didn't change that much between coasting in neutral....and coasting in drive with my foot off the gas. I think it's slightly higher in neutral, but not much. What does happen, though, is that I can coast much further in neutral as there seems to be less engine "drag". I can feel the car being held back when it's in drive, which annoys me to no end. :-)

[LeanBurn]

So to recap, you put it in neutral because you like to coast longer...even though it may be consuming more fuel to do so?

[Atheria]

Nooooo...I get BETTER gas mileage in neutral. It's just not THAT much better that it's probably worth it.

[UltArc]

Originally Posted by Atheria

Nooooo...I get BETTER gas mileage in neutral. It's just not THAT much better that it's probably worth it.

Does you know this to be true, or does it just seem that way? I subscribed to this thread so long ago, I forget the details.

[Atheria]

Between dividing miles driven by gallons of gas and looking at my car's built-in mpg thingy...I do get better mileage in neutral. But, yesterday and today I'm trying that way of driving where you hit the gas and release and hit the gas and release (I'll probably wear out my ankle) and it seems to be bringing my mileage up to comparable to when I was in neutral a lot. I changed my setting from avg. mpg to mpg to see mpg in real time. It's really interesting to see how by pushing on the gas pedal very carefully and in a specific way makes my mpg go up. I'm becoming obsessed. LOL

Atheria

[mcrews]

Originally Posted by LeanBurn

So to recap, you put it in neutral because you like to coast longer...even though it may be consuming more fuel to do so?

didnt know you and Atheria were attached at the hips

Fact: each brand reacts differently to coasting in nuetral w/ the engine on.
Period.
Fact: Your sentence is persumptive.
I find it interesting that the question at hand is "any potential damage to her tranny" and you - 'a self professed tranny expert' proclaim she would get worse mpg.........

FACT: Personal Experience:
I drive a 2002 Infiniti Q45 Sport. It's epa freeway is 22mpg. I have documented (several years ago) a round trip of 5 hours each way from Sacramento to Modoc Country, Ca. (at the corner of the Oregon Nevada borders.) There are two mountian ranges on theat route. Sacramento to Redding then exit on to Cedarville, CA (google Mapguest for details).
I cosistantly got 27+ mpg on the trip going and the trip coming back. There are fairly long stretches of downhill (and up hill). I would use the cruise contrlol on level roads (I don't hypemile).
This was back in 2007-2008 before I joined any 'mpg' forum.
I do drive conservatively.
I credit the improvement in mpg to the ability to coast in neutral/w engine on for long distances (and never below 50mph)
A scangauge will show that gpm(gallons per minute) are being consumed at a greater rate when in engine on in gear coasting and engine on in neutral coasting.

As I have also stated before, I drove a ford taurus for a week that did not respond to engine on neutral coasting.

[LeanBurn]

mcrews:
Go take a nap. I was simply trying to summarize the bits and pieces of details to get a clearer picture. I have no idea what you are referring to "attached at the hips"... it's the internet dude.

Fact: The OP drives a Scion...ie a Toyota derivative with the same engine/transmission as my brothers 07 Corolla with which I am very familiar and have done these same tests. Since it was introduced, the functions of throttle by wire in most Toyota's pretty much all behave the same, in the same token the shared function of deceleration fuel cut off (DFCO) completely cuts the fuel while slowing the car, while coasting in neutral does not. A scan-guage that is connected to a vehicle that has DFCO will clearly show that it does consume less fuel, in comparison to coasting in neutral engine on.

Fact: It is spelled presumptive....and given the facts that were presented with in most cases we all presume some things given the nature of forums and such.

I am not a transmission expert by any means, never claimed to be either. The practice of coasting in neutral causing damage were already addressed, I was simply trying to find the logic in the practice of neutral coasting engine on considering the nature of the vehicle and my experience with a very similar car. A lot has changed since 2002, even with Nissan/Infinity.

[Atheria]

Am I going to have to separate you two? ;-p

Thank you ALL (seriously) for trying to help. I appreciate it. I do believe my 2008 Scion xD has a Corolla engine, from what I've heard.

While driving the car today and watching the "live" mpg, every time I took my foot off the gas, it would jump up to 99.9 mpg...which is what it shows when I'm coasting in neutral. So I do think the only difference is that I can go longer distances in neutral because the car gathers speed better (downhill, obviously) and doesn't have being in gear holding it back slightly.

Toodles,
Atheria

[UltArc]

Originally Posted by mcrews

didnt know you and Atheria were attached at the hips

Fact: each brand reacts differently to coasting in nuetral w/ the engine on.
Period.
Fact: Your sentence is persumptive.
I find it interesting that the question at hand is "any potential damage to her tranny" and you - 'a self professed tranny expert' proclaim she would get worse mpg.........:.

I see both your points here, and I am not getting anymore involved.

But mcrews. When you ended your sentence with a period, then said Period, then added anotherperiod, I literally laughed out loud. Even know I am still chuckling a bit. I think the tension made a comic relief for me, or who knows, but I just had to say. No criticism, just wanted to let you know