Originally Posted by RicerX (Post 3014656)

Don't read this as me being confrontational - I'm genuinely curious, because my line of thinking was different from what you've said. How is rev-matching bad for the clutch?

Reason I ask is because I always felt that rev matching would be better for clutch life because you would have more friction on the clutch without rev matching to get the engine speed to match the drivetrain speed.

The other piece of it is this - the way to save gas driving a manual is clutching into neutral and braking when you need to stop. Coast as much as possible. In the Z, for example, with SRM turned on, if you employ a lot of shifting into neutral, you will use more gas because the car will temporarily hold the revs (using the throttle) until the SRM system recognizes you're leaving the car in neutral. In this case, it's better to leave the system turned off. In any other scenario, it's apples and oranges.

Originally Posted by cooltoy (Post 3014951)

I think you misunderstood. I wanted to say that using the engine revs to slow the car down, instead of the breaks, might be bad for the clutch. Not rev matching.
I used to pull up to a light without using the breaks and just using the engine rpms (and the clutch) to slow me down, down shifting as low the first gear before stopping with the breaks.

Originally Posted by Bking (Post 3015004)

But but but what IF say you're cruising on 5th and prepare to stop at a red light. Instead of downshifting you put it in neutral and just use the brakes to slow down? That would save you gas right?

Originally Posted by cooltoy (Post 3014951)

I think you misunderstood. I wanted to say that using the engine revs to slow the car down, instead of the breaks, might be bad for the clutch. Not rev matching.
I used to pull up to a light without using the breaks and just using the engine rpms (and the clutch) to slow me down, down shifting as low the first gear before stopping with the breaks.

Originally Posted by Bking (Post 3015004)

But but but what IF say you're cruising on 5th and prepare to stop at a red light. Instead of downshifting you put it in neutral and just use the brakes to slow down? That would save you gas right?

Originally Posted by cjwsrt6 (Post 3015339)

This. When driving I pop it in neutral and downshift to whatever gear needed when it comes time to accelerate out, whether it be a turn or a red light turning green, with s mode on it continuously revs to match speed.
I find it strange how yes I admit it may be a little bit, but someone brings up a good topic and people just can't believe that were discussing it, if you don't like the topic or think it's ridiculous in anyway why post a response to begin with?

Originally Posted by cooltoy (Post 3015351)

Sure he has. I am sure he had a mom when he was a baby.

Originally Posted by scorp38 (Post 3015387)

I save maybe 25-30 miles per tank with s mode off. I leave it on because well I bought a sports car don't care about mpg

Originally Posted by sizziano (Post 3015335)

Well this is a car forums and there are definitely dumber conversations to be had.

Originally Posted by axmea? (Post 3015404)

Not sure how you came up with your numbers but using FUELLY data, your 2009 Z reportedly averages 23 mpg. The Z has 19 gallons of fuel (not all is usable). You are saying that S mode off equates to 6% fuel savings? I'm not a numbers guy but I do use them a lot at work. 6% derived from 27 miles saved on a full tank on a car that averages 23 mpg. 6% savings is a big number and hard to achieve using a blip machine on a VQ. Just one of the many opinions in this forum. I'm detailing this too much I guess. Disregard if this does not make sense.

Originally Posted by Bking (Post 3015004)

But but but what IF say you're cruising on 5th and prepare to stop at a red light. Instead of downshifting you put it in neutral and just use the brakes to slow down? That would save you gas right?

Originally Posted by cjwsrt6 (Post 3015339)

This. When driving I pop it in neutral and downshift to whatever gear needed when it comes time to accelerate out, whether it be a turn or a red light turning green, with s mode on it continuously revs to match speed.
I find it strange how yes I admit it may be a little bit, but someone brings up a good topic and people just can't believe that were discussing it, if you don't like the topic or think it's ridiculous in anyway why post a response to begin with?

Originally Posted by scorp38 (Post 3016346)

That's just what I've noticed about not actually calculating or anything but that's about what I noticed take it with a grain of salt

Originally Posted by Push370zzz (Post 3016672)

are you guys nuts?

Originally Posted by Push370zzz (Post 3016672)

NO! When you are off the throttle IN a gear you are using almost no fuel. Coasting actually works the engine like a generator. When you are in neutral and braking the engine will just be idling as if you are stopped.



That's what I do if I know I'm going to have to come to a complete stop, go to Neutral after slowing down to 1500rpm or so in whichever gear I happen to be in. If I won't have to stop just leave it in gear, maybe downshift once or twice. Putting it in Neutral does use MORE gas than leaving it in gear and not braking even if you are at 4000rpm.



Sorry, but your results are going to be almost exclusively from different conditions. You may not realize it but you probably drive more aggressively with it on. S-mode alone is not going to add or remove 25 miles per tank....are you guys nuts?

Originally Posted by mishuko (Post 3016768)

so what if i were to turn off s-mode and my downshifting sucks and i over rev the engine to match the rpm. that technicalyl would be more gas being used to spool it up to the correct speed compared to s-mode matching it automatically.

as others have said... who the f- cares.

IF YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR DAMN FUEL ECONOMY GO BUY AN F-ING CIVIC OR CAROLLA

if you're too cheap to fill up premium, fill when you need gas and are penny pinching for a few more squirts of gas... refer to above and sell the damn car and :gtfo2:

/endthread

Originally Posted by scorp38 (Post 3016777)

Well then sir you need to learn throttle control if your going to rev the piss out a the engine to match speed. I do totally agree with you though go buy a godamn Prius if you care about mpg or maybe a BMW 2m series you'll get 30+ mpg 300+ hp and look like a homosexual while doing it

Originally Posted by JARblue (Post 3016809)

This thread is full of win :drama:

FWIW, I am meticulous about determining my mpg every time I fill up (I don't really care... it's just habit after nearly 20 years). I can honestly say there is no noticeable difference in my mpgs with SRM on vs off. When it is off, I do the rev matching myself.

Originally Posted by Mt Tam I am (Post 3016906)

I have always done the MPG in my head as I drive along. I approximate. 64 miles, 7.5 gallons is 8+ MPG, and alot of driving fun.

Originally Posted by scorp38 (Post 3016911)

I like to coast everywhere I go so that I can conserve as much fuel as possible. Screw actually driving the car as it was intended.

Originally Posted by scorp38 (Post 3016911)

I like to coast everywhere I go so that I can conserve as much fuel as possible. Screw actually driving the car as it was intended.

Originally Posted by Mt Tam I am (Post 3016983)

Thank goodness for fellows like you. Otherwise our insurance would be sky high like BMW M3's.

Originally Posted by scorp38 (Post 3017057)

I was looking at a 2006 alpine white/cinnamon e46 m3 with 25k on it and its insurance cost was like 50 more bucks a year for me. So their not to bad.

Originally Posted by sizziano (Post 3017157)

All homo haha

Originally Posted by scorp38 (Post 3017053)

M3 insurance isn't that bad considering the cost of the car.

Originally Posted by scorp38 (Post 3017057)

I was looking at a 2006 alpine white/cinnamon e46 m3 with 25k on it and its insurance cost was like 50 more bucks a year for me. So their not to bad.