Anybody noticed...

[Roodosutaa]

... that the Polo can coast really far in neutral and takes forever to come to a stop on a flat road if left to its own devices?

On my way home late last night on an empty Pacific Highway between sets of lights I accelerated to 60ish then just put the car into neutral and just let the car roll to a stop, and it just kept going and going and going, had to actually brake at the lights.

But then this is my first FWD car, my last two were RWD and probably had more friction losses down the drive train.

[Coaster]

Putting the transmission in neutral eliminates virtually any loss of speed due to drivetrain friction. In any case, there will be absolutely no difference in the car being FWD or RWD.

The main differences would be the rolling resistance of the tires, the aerodynamics of the body, and the mass of the vehicle.

Since RWD cars are often larger than FWD cars, they have greater frictional loss due to wide tires and a high drag co-efficient. The extra mass of a standard RWD car would only help momentum marginally.

[Roodosutaa]

Since RWD cars are often larger than FWD cars, they have greater frictional loss due to wide tires and a high drag co-efficient. The extra mass of a standard RWD car would only help momentum marginally.

Actually my last two cars were about the same size as a Pog and both were lighter, I had an MGB and an MX5 - both with narrower tyres but yes the drag co-efficient won't be as good as a hatchback particularly the MG (but then I couldn't be bothered greasing the 5 million nipples on the MG every 3000 miles so that might have something to do with it too )

I was thinking there must still have been a bit more friction loss because the parts aft of the gearbox (especially the propshaft) were still moving and they must've been heavier hence more friction. I could be wrong but I think I read somewhere the friction loss in the diff of a RWD car (with LSD on the MX5) is inherently higher than that of a FWD car?

[Ben_GTI]

Yea my Mk3 doesn't roll for anywhere near as far as my Polo.... its actually quite odd.

[JK8]

I remember asking the dealer why the back of the Polo get so dirty compared to other hatchbacks, he said that the slipstream at the back helps propel the car...
Maybe he has a point?

[Roodosutaa]

I remember asking the dealer why the back of the Polo get so dirty compared to other hatchbacks, he said that the slipstream at the back helps propel the car...
Maybe he has a point?

Slipstreaming only works at really high speeds which is why it only works in a race and usually on the straight only, and at max speeds, and then only from the car in front of you creating low pressure sucking your car towards it, you can't get fast from your own slipstream and especially not at road speeds I don't think...

But the dealer was partly right I think, it was indeed the air swirls mixed with rain and dirt, plus the closeness of the rear wheels to the tail kicking muck into the air just behind the car that makes the back so dirty

[Adam]

Slipstreaming only works at really high speeds which is why it only works in a race and usually on the straight only,

Guess I should stop tailgating trucks to save fuel...

[noone]

I've noticed with the car lowered a little that it kicks up a lot of bits off the road. This could just be visibility as I've only had sedans / etc before, but I see quite a lot of leaves and junk kicked up. Back Glass does seem to get dirty quickly.

[But the dealer was partly right I think, it was indeed the air swirls mixed with rain and dirt, plus the closeness of the rear wheels to the tail kicking muck into the air just behind the car that makes the back so dirty[/QUOTE]