is neutral coasting bad?

[footballer]

I always do it and never had any problems but some people tell me its bad?
Anyone know anything?

[bspot]

Yes.

You have less control of your car when neutral coasting. You don't have engine breaking, and if you need to accelerate away from a hazard you need extra time.

If you don't know how to rev match its also adding wear to your transmission when you pop it back to 3000 rpm from idle.

[Bill Cosby]

neutral coasting is putting it into neutral when coming to a stop?

[djayz]

^
yes that exactly what it is or even going into neutral downhill etc.

i for one do it...saves quite a bit of gas. It might put a little extra wear on the engine but im closing in on about 190k and the only unusual sound i hear sounds like a scrape when i shift from reverse - neutral - drive either while rolling very slowly or at a dead stop and only happens when the car is cold.

[Xtrema]

But like bspot said, you are coasting and all of a sudden a car jump lane and coming right at you. The 1/2 s being not in gear vs being in gear would make the difference on your life.

[buh_buh]

Originally posted by djayz
i for one do it...saves quite a bit of gas. Actually, downshifting will save more gas than coasting in neutral. When you coast in neutral, the car still uses gas to keep the car idling, and when you put it in gear and are off throttle, there is no fuel going in at all.

[djayz]

^
well i downshift while slowing down while coming to a complete stop but say im going down a hill and i dont plan on stopping ill throw it in neutral until i need to accelerate or stop.

I know its hard on the brakes if your trying to stop in neutral...also requires a bit more push on the brake pedal hense why i downshift and use the engine to slow me down. But ive tried driving without neutral at all and using neutral while driving and found that using neutral gives me about 20-30km more per tank which is always better than nothing

[footballer]

o see i just use it to coast because in gear the car slows down but in neutral it seems to go forever but when stopping i always dowshift.. but other than safety wise is it bad for the engine or any other mechanical parts?

[TheLegend8]

i always just go from 3rd or 4th into neutral if i see a light turn red or approach a stop sign? this is bad!?

[frostyda9]

It's good to stay in gear because as mentioned above, it gives you more control in an unexpected situation. Something else to think about...if the car stalls while in neutral, you may not notice until you go to brake/steer...and guess what: no power assist. This is a disturbing feeling, trust me ;)

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by djayz

I know its hard on the brakes if your trying to stop in neutral...

Brakes are there to stop your car, not your engine.

Stomp on 'em.

[b_t]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD


Brakes are there to stop your car, not your engine.

Stomp on 'em.

No engine braking down a hill? Just brakes? Holy fuck, fade to the max... that would cut down your pad life by a good bit... and like it has already been said, your engine doesn't get worn at all gearing down and engine braking, uses no gas... if you drive a crappy car like a Civic, and you neutral coast down a hill in the dead of winter, the car will actually cool down so much that your heater will stop working until you climb up another hill.

[lint]

Originally posted by bspot
YIf you don't know how to rev match its also adding wear to your transmission when you pop it back to 3000 rpm from idle.

Most people don't rev match and down shift properly anyways. And if that's the case, brake pads are cheaper to replace than transmissions and clutches.

[WWJAI]

Originally posted by b_t


if you drive a crappy car like a Civic

there's no need to start the hatin.

[b_t]

Originally posted by WWJAI


there's no need to start the hatin.

haha sorry didn't really mean to, but I drove my buddy's Civic this one time in the -30 weather and the heater stopped working in anything but stop and go city traffic

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by buh_buh
Actually, downshifting will save more gas than coasting in neutral. When you coast in neutral, the car still uses gas to keep the car idling, and when you put it in gear and are off throttle, there is no fuel going in at all.

But the throttle blips to repeatedly revmatch uses gas, not to mention that if you're driving this way, you're generally in a more aggressive driving style, which also uses more gas.

Originally posted by footballer
o see i just use it to coast because in gear the car slows down but in neutral it seems to go forever but when stopping i always dowshift.. but other than safety wise is it bad for the engine or any other mechanical parts?

Sure. An engine spinning at 3000rpm is being worn down three times faster than an engine spinning at 1000rpm. This of course, is a simplification and doesn't account for other stuff.

Originally posted by b_t


No engine braking down a hill? Just brakes? Holy fuck, fade to the max... that would cut down your pad life by a good bit... and like it has already been said, your engine doesn't get worn at all gearing down and engine braking, uses no gas... if you drive a crappy car like a Civic, and you neutral coast down a hill in the dead of winter, the car will actually cool down so much that your heater will stop working until you climb up another hill.

Tell your buddy to replace his thermostat. I've had this problem on several cars before - it was always the thermostat.

[theken]

i dont coast at all, gearing down in the winter equals not sliding and dying, gearing down in the the summer, you have the gear that you want it at all the time, like i keep my revs at 3000 when i downshift, like bring it down to 2500 down sit to 3 do it again, then if the light or whatever goes green im all ready to go. i would rahter do that then rely solely on my brakes

[turab16]

but downshifting is always sooo cooollll!!!

BUT

i don't bang on my car either.............

esp with rwd, apraoching a corner, downshift and gas pedal = orgasm

[djayz]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD


Brakes are there to stop your car, not your engine.

Stomp on 'em.

you dont use your engine to brake at all?

k try this go down deerfoot at a safe speed id say about 110km/h by the airport area then stomp your brakes tell me what you come out with...garanteed your going to end up with warped rotors and about a mm of pad gone.

plus ive had my rotors warped from not engine braking down a hill...wasnt very fun to drive after that until i had them machined

[redline_13000]

I would rather wear out my brakes than the transmission, I don't think you are going to need downshifting to slow down if you are driving properly (speed limit, not tailgating). Maybe on a racetrack. I don't think neutral coasting will wreck anything as long as you rev match when you put it back into gear, which will probably defeat the purpose, unless you are planning to stop for a stop sign or red light.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by b_t
[B]

your engine doesn't get worn at all gearing down and engine braking, uses no gas...

If there are parts moving in your engine, it's getting worn. Obviously not much but it is being worn. Also gearing down will say, have the RPM at 3000 instead of an idle of 850, therefore it is wearing more also. VERY VERY minimal wear of course, but it is still wearing.

Engine braking done properly is very good, as petty much everyone in this thread agrees. Except for people who like to use the engine instead of brakes alltogether ( I have seen these people), they will see the light turn yellow, doing about 80km/h or whatever approaching the intersection, pop er into 2nd and scream to a stop from 6000rpm or 7000rpm lol.

Also, as bspot said you should most definately match revs when you downshift, especially if your doing it all the time.

I also heard that when your going down a huge, long, hill you are supposed to every now and then let off the brakes for a second to let them cool a little. Not sure if this is good or not because yes it will cool your brakes, but heating and cooling action causes them to warp....but perhaps not as much as if you let them get SUPER hot then let go at the bottom of the hill? Any thoughts?

Mark

[acura_el]

i have a couple of questions related to this since i haven't been driving standard all that long

1. if i hold the clutch in while the car is in gear at a light or going downhill or whatever, will it wear out the clutch?

2. if i pointlessly rev my engine at a red light (not high tho, about 2-3000rpm), which i happen to do every now and then, while the car is in gear and i have the clutch pushed in, that's not good for the clutch right? should i be doing that in neutral?--don't ask why i'm doing it, it's just for the hell of it

[Weapon_R]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with neutral coasting. Wear on the brakes? Big f'ing deal...thats why they are there.

[teggypimp95]

WTF, i sick of all these stupid questions. There so mindless why do people bother with them. Beyond is at a all time high right now for newbies asking dumb questions, and i just want to thank you for wasting a few minuits of my life, i will never get that back.fuck.:banghead:

[dericer]

Originally posted by Weapon_R
There is absolutely nothing wrong with neutral coasting. Wear on the brakes? Big f'ing deal...thats why they are there.

Exactly. I'd rather wear out a $50 set of pads, than a +500 clutch / engine component.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it, and it does save you gas mileage. The higher revs are not under load, while the lower revs during a downshift are under load. you're engine works harder, and uses more gas.

[A2VR6]

Originally posted by acura_el
i have a couple of questions related to this since i haven't been driving standard all that long

1. if i hold the clutch in while the car is in gear at a light or going downhill or whatever, will it wear out the clutch?


It will wear out the throwout bearing if you keep the clutch pedal depressed while the vehicle is not in motion. When im going downhill, I usually just throw my car into a gear lower, revmatch, and coast, this way my speed does not change very much while going downhill. At a light, I usually downshift and then when im stopped I pop it into neutral so I can get my foot off the clutch pedal.


Originally posted by acura_el
2. if i pointlessly rev my engine at a red light (not high tho, about 2-3000rpm), which i happen to do every now and then, while the car is in gear and i have the clutch pushed in, that's not good for the clutch right? should i be doing that in neutral?--don't ask why i'm doing it, it's just for the hell of it

Again, your wearing out the throwout bearing by depressing the pedal.

Either way, your not going to be wearing out the throwout bearing very much if you keep the clutch pedal down while stopped at a light, however, you are still wearing the throwout bearing.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by acura_el
i have a couple of questions related to this since i haven't been driving standard all that long

1. if i hold the clutch in while the car is in gear at a light or going downhill or whatever, will it wear out the clutch?

2. if i pointlessly rev my engine at a red light (not high tho, about 2-3000rpm), which i happen to do every now and then, while the car is in gear and i have the clutch pushed in, that's not good for the clutch right? should i be doing that in neutral?--don't ask why i'm doing it, it's just for the hell of it

Holding the clutch in while in gear puts unnecessary wear on the throw out bearing and I would not reccomend it. Just sit in neutral until the light is about to go green then shift into 1st.

I have no idea why you would ever want to pointlessly rev an engine, maybe you like the sounds I don't know, but I do not believe when you do this with your clutch is doing much harm, but it will for sure be better for your car to do so in neutral and not with the clutch in.

Mark

[Kennyredline]

Originally posted by teggypimp95
WTF, i sick of all these stupid questions. There so mindless why do people bother with them. Beyond is at a all time high right now for newbies asking dumb questions, and i just want to thank you for wasting a few minuits of my life, i will never get that back.fuck.:banghead:
in the time it took you to type that, you could have been out saving the world. shut up dickhead.

[acura_el]

thanks, i'll keep the comments in mind next time :thumbsup:

[lint]

Originally posted by teggypimp95
WTF, i sick of all these stupid questions. There so mindless why do people bother with them. Beyond is at a all time high right now for newbies asking dumb questions, and i just want to thank you for wasting a few minuits of my life, i will never get that back.fuck.:banghead:

There are no dumb questions. Only dumb people who respond to posts that they claim wasted their time to read, only to waste more time by crafting a response, written with bad grammar, poor spelling and finished off with :banghead:.

[The Cosworth]

Originally posted by buh_buh
Actually, downshifting will save more gas than coasting in neutral. When you coast in neutral, the car still uses gas to keep the car idling, and when you put it in gear and are off throttle, there is no fuel going in at all.

Yup thats true, the engine can have itself run with kinetic energy from the car coasting.... but if you leave it out of gear, the engine still has to fire to not stall.

It also depends if its an auto or a manual.. manual isnt as bad ignoring the gas issue, just looking at tranny and clutch (there is less torque on the clutch so it would spin easier)

In an auto the torque converter has the fluid flowing through it and "CAN" wear out the fins faster

[5.0]

Originally posted by brendankharris


Yup thats true, the engine can have itself run with kinetic energy from the car coasting.... but if you leave it out of gear, the engine still has to fire to not stall.


The engine is still using gas, do you think just because the car is coasting in a lower gear that fuel is not being injected, and the spark plugs arent firing?

Like other people are saying I rather wear down my breaks before my tranny or any other engine components:rolleyes:

[bspot]

nm

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by bspot
Those of you that neutral coast, if you try perform an emergency stop your stopping distance is longer ;)

How do you figure?

First thing you do when stopping quickly is fire the clutch to the floor!

Both feet on the floor to stop the fastest!

[The Cosworth]

Originally posted by 5.0


The engine is still using gas, do you think just because the car is coasting in a lower gear that fuel is not being injected, and the spark plugs arent firing?

Like other people are saying I rather wear down my breaks before my tranny or any other engine components:rolleyes:

I will try to find the thread but its Jeremy Clarkson getting 800 Miles in a V8 diesel.. he even says if its in gear and the throttle plate is closed the injectors stop opening as long as it is high enough speed. I used to work at toyota's and new ones are the same too..... so short answer yes they stop injecting fluid, I dont know about the spark, but who cares?

[The Cosworth]

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/06/12/video-top-gear-attempts-800-miles-on-a-single-tank/

this should be it

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by brendankharris


I will try to find the thread but its Jeremy Clarkson getting 800 Miles in a V8 diesel.. he even says if its in gear and the throttle plate is closed the injectors stop opening as long as it is high enough speed. I used to work at toyota's and new ones are the same too..... so short answer yes they stop injecting fluid, I dont know about the spark, but who cares?

Diesels have neither throttles, nor spark plugs and are irrelevant to a discussion about gasoline engines.

[The Cosworth]

that is true.... i could be wrong.. its still a cool video

[beyondmike]

Originally posted by dericer


Exactly. I'd rather wear out a $50 set of pads, than a +500 clutch / engine component.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it, and it does save you gas mileage. The higher revs are not under load, while the lower revs during a downshift are under load. you're engine works harder, and uses more gas.

My thoughts exactly!!!

[B20EF]

Originally posted by buh_buh
and when you put it in gear and are off throttle, there is no fuel going in at all.

I still don't get how you get this, explain how it's possible for an engine to run with no fuel

[frostyda9]

Originally posted by A2VR6


It will wear out the throwout bearing if you keep the clutch pedal depressed while the vehicle is not in motion. When im going downhill, I usually just throw my car into a gear lower, revmatch, and coast, this way my speed does not change very much while going downhill. At a light, I usually downshift and then when im stopped I pop it into neutral so I can get my foot off the clutch pedal.

/story

On a side note, blipping the throttle makes a downshift smoother, but doesn't save any wear on the synchros unless it's a true double clutch ;)

[iceburns288]

The 'cons' of coasting in neutral are so obscure they're quite insignificant. Go ahead and do it. When I'm on the highway and approaching an exit I sometimes put it in neutral. I don't want to engine brake, I want to coast. Hence "coasting."

However I will say that when I am coming to a stop I use the brakes and then pop the clutch in. Downshifting and rev-matching is proven to save brake pads... so what? Like someone said on page 1, I'd rather pay 100 bucks for new pads more often than spend 1800 dollars on a new clutch. It may be better, I just don't trust myself to do it yet:dunno:

[bspot]

Originally posted by B20EF


I still don't get how you get this, explain how it's possible for an engine to run with no fuel

Car moving means wheels turning, means transmission turning, means engine turning. You don't need fuel because the wheels are driving the engine.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by bspot
Those of you that neutral coast, if you try perform an emergency stop your stopping distance is longer ;) Actually, it's the opposite. Your car can only stop as fast as your tires traction will allow, so putting less load on the tires will result in shorter stopping distances. With me so far? Now consider this:

Scenario A: tires are working to slow down a 3000lb car
Scenario B: tires are working to slow down a 3000lb car AND an entire rotating drivetrain (which is slowly winding down, sure, but nowhere near as fast as the wheels can, so it results in resistance)

[djayz]

^
yah like on an automatic car when you just about to stop and its in drive the car is still wanting to push but while in neutral the car will nice and smoothly come to a stop without adding a little more force on the brakes because there is nothing trying to push it forward

sure at high speeds in drive itll seem like its slowing you down faster but thats only because the engine is downshifting..im talking about automatic tho.

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by bspot


Car moving means wheels turning, means transmission turning, means engine turning. You don't need fuel because the wheels are driving the engine.

Except fuel is still injected and burned in the engine... ;)

[B20EF]

^^^ Exactly what I was thinking, otherwise the engine would shut off, yah it would rotate but it wouldn't be running

[footballer]

ALL RIGHT GUYS THANX i feel so much more informed on a side note in my owners manual it says its illegal to neutral coast in most states(i live in calgary)!! but it doesn't say why dun dun dun......

[JustinL]

Originally posted by djayz

plus ive had my rotors warped from not engine braking down a hill...wasnt very fun to drive after that until i had them machined

What were you driving that was able to warp brakes going down a hill? Your car needed better brakes and new rotors; machined thinned rotors will warp again even more quickly.



Originally posted by bspot
Those of you that neutral coast, if you try perform an emergency stop your stopping distance is longer

GTS Jeff is spot on in his explanation. I'd be afraid of any driver that thinks he needs to use engine braking because his brakes weren't up to task.

[The Cosworth]

Because the energy from the car and the spinning wheels is transfered back through the transmission, through the flywheel/torque converter and then that rotates the engine, just how your starter rotates the engine when it is not firing...

I think " 95EagleAWD" is right though that this may only be diesels, as they are run completly on how much fuel is dumped in, but I had origionally thought that all new vehicals do this

Its the same principle as how the hybrid cars recharge their batteries when you brake.

[dericer]

Originally posted by JustinL


What were you driving that was able to warp brakes going down a hill? Your car needed better brakes and new rotors; machined thinned rotors will warp again even more quickly.



I had my rotors warps aswell from going down hills, mind it was the mile highway from Colorado.

But I think if it warped my rotors, and smoked my brakes. Imagine how it would have stressed my engine / tranny if I had relied heavily on engine braking.

[Ashkente]

Originally posted by bspot
You have less control of your car when neutral coasting. You don't have engine breaking, and if you need to accelerate away from a hazard you need extra time.


If your engine is BREAKING while BRAKING, stop driving. :rolleyes:

Nothing personal bspot, just a pet peeve..

[bspot]

Originally posted by Ashkente


If your engine is BREAKING while BRAKING, stop driving. :rolleyes:

Nothing personal bspot, just a pet peeve..

Dammit, I hate when people do that too :cry:

[bspot]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
Actually, it's the opposite. Your car can only stop as fast as your tires traction will allow, so putting less load on the tires will result in shorter stopping distances. With me so far? Now consider this:

Scenario A: tires are working to slow down a 3000lb car
Scenario B: tires are working to slow down a 3000lb car AND an entire rotating drivetrain (which is slowly winding down, sure, but nowhere near as fast as the wheels can, so it results in resistance)

Thats assuming the ammount of deceleration on the clutch due to the brakes is greater than the ammount of deceleration on the flywheel because of engine friction. In a normal passenger car at normal speeds, this is correct. Very high speeds plus shitty brakes can shift the equation the other way.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by bspot


Thats assuming the ammount of deceleration on the clutch due to the brakes is greater than the ammount of deceleration on the flywheel because of engine friction. In a normal passenger car at normal speeds, this is correct. Very high speeds plus shitty brakes can shift the equation the other way. Engine braking being stronger than brake braking? That'll never happen. If you're going 200km/h, it's possible to lock all 4 wheels by slamming on the brakes, but impossible to do with engine braking.

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by bspot


Thats assuming the ammount of deceleration on the clutch due to the brakes is greater than the ammount of deceleration on the flywheel because of engine friction. In a normal passenger car at normal speeds, this is correct. Very high speeds plus shitty brakes can shift the equation the other way.

I'll reiterate:

TWO FEET ON THE FLOOR! That'll stop you the fastest in any, any situation.

[rage2]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
Except fuel is still injected and burned in the engine... ;)
Depends on the RPM. Most cars when at 0 throttle and over 2000rpm will inject 0 fuel. At 2000rpm it slowly starts feeding in fuel and at 1000rpm it's a stoich mixture (for idle). This is done for smoothness reasons, no fuel at 2000rpm the drivetrain will start bucking.

All standalone ECU's have this option to set rpm where there's fuel cut at 0 throttle down to a preset rpm.

Some cars, like the McLaren SLR and the S65/SL65/CL65 AMG, will inject a lot of fuel at high rpms and 0 throttle. This is used for engine cooling purposes and can create interesting fire shows out the exhaust when you get back on the throttle.

I actually showed this to buh_buh last night tuning his car. Drove to 5000rpm, let off, air fuel shows super lean (no combustion). Once it hits about 2000rpm it starts fueling again and it smoothly hits 14.0 AFR by 1000rpm.

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
Engine braking being stronger than brake braking? That'll never happen. If you're going 200km/h, it's possible to lock all 4 wheels by slamming on the brakes, but impossible to do with engine braking.
With big enough brakes you can lock all 4 (and stall the engine) by slamming on the brakes if you don't declutch and have no ABS. I've done it before haha. First time out on the track with monster 911 twin turbo brakes haha.

[bspot]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
Engine braking being stronger than brake braking? That'll never happen. If you're going 200km/h, it's possible to lock all 4 wheels by slamming on the brakes, but impossible to do with engine braking.

Really? I guess my last car had about the shittiest brakes in the world. Possible, since it was a falling apart beater that was just my temporary car because my new one was built late. I couldn't get that thing to lock up over 60kph. I also didn't take it much faster than that if I could help it because I didn't want to die ;)

[bspot]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD


I'll reiterate:

TWO FEET ON THE FLOOR! That'll stop you the fastest in any, any situation.

I'm not arguing that at all, now that I have a car with decently functioning brakes thats exactly what I had to do last week to avoid an accident. Actually I don't think I could leave the clutch out if something sudden happened because its total instinct to mash the clutch and gas as hard as I can.

[DENZILDON]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
Engine braking being stronger than brake braking? That'll never happen. If you're going 200km/h, it's possible to lock all 4 wheels by slamming on the brakes, but impossible to do with engine braking.

I think what he is trying to imply is something different. He is saying if you keep the clutch engaged and brakes pressed even if the tach is reading way lower than an average idling of around 1000. Then the engine will fight back your breaking because the engine is made to do so.

It is possible to lock all wheels by slamming the breaks if its an old car. If its a new car with abs it will not.

If you guys look at the subject....the question is neutral coasting bad?

It is not bad!!!

Argument going around is why do some people use engine breaking with foot breaking?


Because it helps the car to stop because 2 forces are making the car stop instead of one. Its not bad for the tranny but the clutch will wear out faster. Watch some racing and you will find that they use both engine and wheel breaking.


I use it for saftey reasons....and it saved me from alot of accidents already.

[Khyron]

I think it's even illegal in AB to coast in neutral, but can't swear to it. Will look later...

I used to coast a lot on the BC highways coming down mountains, and a mech explained why it was bad for the car, but maybe someone else can elaborate. Releasing the clutch wasn't bad, but putting the actual gear in neutral and letting out the clutch was, something about the speed variance between the gearbox/wheels and whatever connects from the clutch to the gears. Same reason you're not supposed to tow a car at high speeds.

As for the legality, I thought it has something to do with how the weight gets thrown forward when you put the car back in gear, guess it makes you more prone to fishtailing or something.

I downshift all the time, rarely need to use brakes unless it's a quick stop. Don't use all the gears when coming to a stop sign though, maybe 4-3-2 or 4-3-1 when stopped. Should always be in the correct gear in case you have to accelerate out of the way.

Khyron

[whiskas]

Originally posted by Khyron

I downshift all the time, rarely need to use brakes unless it's a quick stop. Don't use all the gears when coming to a stop sign though, maybe 4-3-2 or 4-3-1 when stopped. Should always be in the correct gear in case you have to accelerate out of the way.

Khyron

If you're downshifting you'll need to be constantly rev matching through each shift, unless you can stand having your head flung at the windshield at each shift. And from your count, you have to downshift at least 3 times everytime you come to a stop :/

Staying in gear while you wait means holding down on the clutch the whole time. You put wear on your throwout bearing doing that.

Bob Saget

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by DENZILDON

Argument going around is why do some people use engine breaking with foot breaking?


Because it helps the car to stop because 2 forces are making the car stop instead of one. Its not bad for the tranny but the clutch will wear out faster. Watch some racing and you will find that they use both engine and wheel breaking.



That's the point we're trying to get across.

Engine braking + foot braking is not the fastest way to stop. Clutch in, and hammer the brakes, let the engine go to idle. That's it. That's all.

The reeason they downshift into corners while racing is so they're in the right gear to accelerate out of them.

That being said, I downshift all the time when I'm driving. I love the sound. :thumbsup:

[DENZILDON]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD


The reeason they downshift into corners while racing is so they're in the right gear to accelerate out of them.

That being said, I downshift all the time when I'm driving. I love the sound. :thumbsup:

Wich is true but if you notice if they are in 5th gear heading to a corner that would need the 2nd gear, they will break and shift from 5th, 4th, 3rd and 2nd then press gas to accelerate rather than break in neutral then shift to 2nd to accelerate.

This is also another reason why I use it, if you are about to hit something you break and start to skid sometimes you can avoid collision but manuvering your car by acceleration rather than breaking. That said when your engine breaking the split second you step on the gas can means life and death.

It does sound good if you have an aftermarket exhaust!!! :thumbsup:

[djayz]

Originally posted by JustinL


What were you driving that was able to warp brakes going down a hill? Your car needed better brakes and new rotors; machined thinned rotors will warp again even more quickly.

As much as its true that my rotors will warp again atleast they are even now so when they warp again i can replace them.

and you know that hill right before you go into cochrane...well that hill totally warpped my rotors even with engine braking! but it was also in a civic carrying about 500 pounds of people

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by bspot


I'm not arguing that at all, now that I have a car with decently functioning brakes thats exactly what I had to do last week to avoid an accident. Actually I don't think I could leave the clutch out if something sudden happened because its total instinct to mash the clutch and gas as hard as I can.

Do you man mash clutch and BRAKES as hard as you can?

Mark

[D. Dub]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD


Brakes are there to stop your car, not your engine.

Stomp on 'em.

Exactly...brakes are much cheaper than engines.

[heavyD]

Originally posted by D. Dub


Exactly...brakes are much cheaper than engines.

Engine braking is good for your engine. Many manufacturers claim that engine braking will prolong the life of your engine. Factor in the extra control you have on your car and its a no-brainer. If you are going downhill, engine brake. End of story.:closed:

[D. Dub]

Originally posted by heavyD

Many manufacturers claim that engine breaking will prolong the life of your engine.


Which manufacturer???

and by what process would that occur??

Thats illogical...increased engine operation = increased wear and tear over a more static engine.


BTW was "engine breaking" a Freudian slip?

[dave101]

someone mind explaining how to match your revs?

[A2VR6]

Originally posted by dave101
someone mind explaining how to match your revs?

Usually, when you downshift without rev matching your RPM's will shoot up after you put the clutch out (after shifting). This is bad for the clutch... when you revmatch you have to blip the throttle when your clutch is in so there wont be a big spike in RPM's when you put the clutch back out.

Basically this is how I atleast revmatch....

clutch in ---> shift down ----> blip throttle ---> clutch out.

How much you blip the throttle is up to you... just make sure it's around where the engine would rev up to if you didnt revmatch so it's a smooth transition.

[rc2002]

I find the shifting is smoother if you double clutch. Clutch in, shift to neutral, rev the engine, clutch in, put the car in the next gear down, then let the clutch out at the right rpm. Your car will like this a lot more than rev matching.

[gp36912]

Originally posted by frostyda9
It's good to stay in gear because as mentioned above, it gives you more control in an unexpected situation. Something else to think about...if the car stalls while in neutral, you may not notice until you go to brake/steer...and guess what: no power assist. This is a disturbing feeling, trust me ;)

um.... a car stalling in neutral??? thats new to me :D i had a old beat up 87 vw golf and that thing never stalled on me.



Originally posted by b_t


No engine braking down a hill? Just brakes? Holy fuck, fade to the max... that would cut down your pad life by a good bit... and like it has already been said, your engine doesn't get worn at all gearing down and engine braking, uses no gas..

:D i would absolutely have to disagree with this statement, ive had my corolla for 5 years, going onto 6, and ive never engine braked with it, ive still got the original pads(i think) and i am still at least a year away from needing to replace them.


Originally posted by djayz

k try this go down deerfoot at a safe speed id say about 110km/h by the airport area then stomp your brakes tell me what you come out with...garanteed your going to end up with warped rotors and about a mm of pad gone.

plus ive had my rotors warped from not engine braking down a hill...wasnt very fun to drive after that until i had them machined
:D tried that, all i did was squeal the wheels on my corolla, and again its should still have the original brake pads it came with.


Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt

I also heard that when your going down a huge, long, hill you are supposed to every now and then let off the brakes for a second to let them cool a little. Not sure if this is good or not because yes it will cool your brakes, but heating and cooling action causes them to warp....but perhaps not as much as if you let them get SUPER hot then let go at the bottom of the hill? Any thoughts?

Mark
hm.... light braking down a hill won't heat up the rotor and pads too much, and if there is any warpage it is so minimal that you wouldn't notice at all.


Originally posted by DENZILDON


Wich is true but if you notice if they are in 5th gear heading to a corner that would need the 2nd gear, they will break and shift from 5th, 4th, 3rd and 2nd then press gas to accelerate rather than break in neutral then shift to 2nd to accelerate.


i always thought they do that to keep the engine momentum going, they do go from 5th gear down to 2nd in almost no time, and on top of that, they are used to downshifting between each gear. either way, most racers end up replacing their clutch, etc after each race.



Originally posted by richardchan2002
I find the shifting is smoother if you double clutch. Clutch in, shift to neutral, rev the engine, clutch in, put the car in the next gear down, then let the clutch out at the right rpm. Your car will like this a lot more than rev matching.

:D its the same as just blipping your throttle except you also are kinder to your layshaft and your synchros, meaning much longer tranny life.



Rage2 :D you and your mercs

[heavyD]

Originally posted by D. Dub
Which manufacturer???

and by what process would that occur??

Thats illogical...increased engine operation = increased wear and tear over a static engine.

I believe even the operating manual of my SRT-4 reccomends it. Rather than doubt me why don't you do a simple google search on the subject in which I just did and the first thing that comes up:

Advantages

The advantage of using the engine to dissipate energy is this immediate ejection of energy. Hot gasses are ejected from the vehicle very quickly and the gasses also transfer much of their heat directly to engine parts. In addition, friction produced within the engine system also adds heat to the engine parts.
This engine heat is taken away by the engine's integrated cooling system: usually a liquid circulation system and a radiator. Disc or drum brakes have no such energy dissipation mechanisms. They must rely on air flow to remove heat and they use their mass to retain heat without producing temperatures that would deform and damage the brakes.
Placing a vehicle in a low gear causes the engine to have more leverage (mechanical advantage) on the road and the road to have less leverage on the engine. This is what allows cars to slow down using their relatively flimsy engine parts. The engine maintains a high rotational speed to dissipate a lot of power without forcing too much strain on the engine.
The jake brake is required in large diesel vehicles because the rate of conversion of mechanical energy into waste thermal energy is low compared to the mechanical returns to kinetic energy from the air-spring effect in the engine.

Instead of being an internet smart ass, maybe you should read and learn.:thumbsup:

[rage2]

I'm glad I drive an automatic :rofl:.

[djayz]

why do you think semi drivers downshift as well?
i doubt they rely entirely on their brakes could you imagine all the accidents if that were the case? and im pretty sure engines for a semi cost a lot more than something in small car.

[D. Dub]

Originally posted by heavyD


I believe even the operating manual of my SRT-4 reccomends it. Rather than doubt me why don't you do a simple google search on the subject in which I just did and the first thing that comes up:

Advantages

The advantage of using the engine to dissipate energy is this immediate ejection of energy. Hot gasses are ejected from the vehicle very quickly and the gasses also transfer much of their heat directly to engine parts. In addition, friction produced within the engine system also adds heat to the engine parts.
This engine heat is taken away by the engine's integrated cooling system: usually a liquid circulation system and a radiator. Disc or drum brakes have no such energy dissipation mechanisms. They must rely on air flow to remove heat and they use their mass to retain heat without producing temperatures that would deform and damage the brakes.
Placing a vehicle in a low gear causes the engine to have more leverage (mechanical advantage) on the road and the road to have less leverage on the engine. This is what allows cars to slow down using their relatively flimsy engine parts. The engine maintains a high rotational speed to dissipate a lot of power without forcing too much strain on the engine.
The jake brake is required in large diesel vehicles because the rate of conversion of mechanical energy into waste thermal energy is low compared to the mechanical returns to kinetic energy from the air-spring effect in the engine.

Instead of being an internet smart ass, maybe you should read and learn.:thumbsup:


and how does that say anything about increasing engine longevity??

In fact it says there is increased friction and heat in the engine dissipated by the cooling system.....the exact opposite of increasing engine longevity

:dunno:

[D. Dub]

Originally posted by djayz
why do you think semi drivers downshift as well?
.

1. Because they can weigh 50 tons!!!! ..cars don't

2. They're bigass diesels using a Jake brake..not simple downshifting with engine compression

[djayz]

^
yes well the brakes on a semi are meant for a 50 ton load thats why the brakes are 10x bigger than a car that weights 1500pounds

this topic has gone on too long

engine braking is bad for the engine sure but i have a 10 year old car that is running fine and ive been engine braking since ive gotten it and there nothing wrong with it.

[D. Dub]

^ I can't argue with that ...

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by D. Dub


1. Because they can weigh 50 tons!!!! ..cars don't

2. They're bigass diesels using a Jake brake..not simple downshifting with engine compression

Without a Jake Brake, diesels get absolutely zero engine braking.

That's why they make so much noise when slowing down. Jake Brake!

[dave101]

Originally posted by A2VR6


Usually, when you downshift without rev matching your RPM's will shoot up after you put the clutch out (after shifting). This is bad for the clutch... when you revmatch you have to blip the throttle when your clutch is in so there wont be a big spike in RPM's when you put the clutch back out.

Basically this is how I atleast revmatch....

clutch in ---> shift down ----> blip throttle ---> clutch out.

How much you blip the throttle is up to you... just make sure it's around where the engine would rev up to if you didnt revmatch so it's a smooth transition.

aahh sweet :D gonna have to try this

[Steve-O 00]

an engine jake brake can almost take the place of the big trucks mechanical brakes as most engine brakes have 1 2 or 3 jake head sets

So ya the trauck can slow down just like cars useing its engine and no jake

ps they also have a spike which applies the trailer brakes only which can help if the driver is not using the jake:thumbsup:

[heavyD]

Originally posted by D. Dub
and how does that say anything about increasing engine longevity??

In fact it says there is increased friction and heat in the engine dissipated by the cooling system.....the exact opposite of increasing engine longevity

:dunno:

Many engine manuals state this. Do I have to take a picture of my onwer operating manual for you to see?

Dude you are arguing for the sake of arguing. It dissipates heat energy without forcing any strain on the engine. Take a look at what vacuum your engine pulls while engine braking. Either read and do research or I'm wasting my time on you.:banghead:

[D. Dub]

Originally posted by heavyD


Many engine manuals state this. Do I have to take a picture of my onwer operating manual for you to see?

Dude you are arguing for the sake of arguing. It dissipates heat energy without forcing any strain on the engine. Take a look at what vacuum your engine pulls while engine braking. Either read and do research or I'm wasting my time on you.:banghead:

and you my friend don't understand simple physics...

increased friction = increased wear

how does increased friction in an engine not result in increased wear?