![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#31
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Dave Null Sr." <lrowoy (AT) ShNotmail (DOT) com> wrote in news:Xns9489B2BF198D9lrowoy (AT) 66 (DOT) 11.168.195: On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 17:21:50 GMT, SkaredShtles elan_mbx1 (AT) NOSPAMyahoo (DOT) com> wrote in snip Downshifting to slow down the car to 'save' the brakes is not a rational thought with today's braking systems. Nevermind that I do it at every stop. ![]() Ahhh... but I live near and drive often in the mountains. I will agree that "speed management" is the goal that I'm working towards. Maybe I don't do any "engine braking" per se at all...... I just use the appropriate gear to manage my speed up & down steep slopes. -S.S.- |
#32
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Daya" <me (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in message news:c01d1a$11gqb8$1 (AT) ID-223567 (DOT) news.uni-berlin.de... I don't know if you guys out there use engine brake so often or not. I found it very useful in Winter. However, I'm afraid doing so may damage the clutch. Arent brakes cheaper than clutches? Why would you want to destroy your clutch? Stop doing that my man, brakes are cheaper. |
#33
| |||
| |||
|
| JonnieBlue wrote: In my own opinion, i live in a town where it is either rainy, or snowy / icy, so engine breaking has been very useful. for instance, i was driving home last night, and rarely had to use the brake pedal. i control my speed mostly with the accelerator and gear im in. there is a stretch at the end of the highway where you go from 55 to 40 to 35, over a bridge, and back to 40, and it just came natural to use engine braking and gear shifting to get through that area than use the brakes going through that area and over the bridge twice a day.. i have always been told that there is no problem 'letting the engine do some work'.. just my opinion JB I, too, use quite a bit of engine braking. But there is one thing that I haven't seen mentioned that I think it worth pointing out: In wintertime, you can find yourself in a situation where your engine braking is too much for the available grip. I'll grant that it doesn't happen often, but it can happen. In such a situation, you won't have anything "automatic" like ABS to prevent the car from going into an uncontrollable 4-wheel slide (for AWD vehicles). The appropriate response when you sense a loss of grip under engine braking is either apply more throttle or depress the clutch. If you're at a relatively high speed and in a higher gear, you can probably get away with the former option. At low speeds and in a low gear you're probably best off depressing the clutch and switching to brakes, as it would be easy to apply *too much* throttle and make the situation worse rather than better. - Greg Reed -- 1976 Cadillac Fleetwood 75 9-Pass sedan (FS: http://www.dataspire.com/caddy) 1989 Audi 200 Turbo Quattro 5-Speed sedan 2000 Oldsmobile Intrigue 2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's) 2005 Subaru Legacy GT Wagon (when available in U.S.) -----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =----- |
#34
| |||
| |||
|
| al gu wrote: Rob Duncan <robduncan (AT) gbronline (DOT) com> wrote in message news:tNadnQeaY5i917ndRVn-jA (AT) gbronline (DOT) com... "Daya" <me (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in message news:c01d1a$11gqb8$1 (AT) ID-223567 (DOT) news.uni-berlin.de... I don't know if you guys out there use engine brake so often or not. I found it very useful in Winter. However, I'm afraid doing so may damage the clutch. Arent brakes cheaper than clutches? Why would you want to destroy your clutch? Stop doing that my man, brakes are cheaper. Rob If you are really good you can upshift through all the gears and downshift through all the gears (after you get going) with NO clutch at all. I have done it in many cars and trucks. the clutch cable broke in my 1972 volvo and i drove all the way home in the city...!! Actually, you can downshift to engine brake - using the clutch - without overtaxing it. Just match engine revs before releasing the clutch, so that the engine is already going the correct speed for your new gear and road speed. Wait until the clutch is fully released before lifting the throttle to provide engine braking and spare your brakes. (Though I'm not sure that sparing the brakes is a good reason to employ engine braking. I prefer to use a lower gear in traffic because it gives me better control over my speed with only the throttle. The trade-off, of course, is increased fuel consumption. But with gasoline cheaper than bottled water here in the 'States...) What destroys a clutch is excessive and prolonged speed differential between the two plates. Raising engine RPM with the throttle to what it will be with the clutch released *then* releasing the clutch doesn't cause any additional wear. OTOH, shifting into a lower gear then letting the clutch force the engine up to the appropriate revs for the new gear will definitely increase clutch wear. As long as the speed differential between the engine and the tranny is minimal, so will be the wear on the clutch. Actually, one should *always* rev match when downshifting, if only to make your driving smoother and thereby reduce neck strain in your passengers :-). And I always try to double-clutch my downshifts to save the synchros as well, but that's probably a bit over-the-top in a modern manual-transmission car. Old habits, you know. I never got very good at using the heel and toe of my right foot to operate the gas and brake pedals at once, so I don't bother with the double-clutching if I'm on the brakes while downshifting. The only time I do the heel-and-toe thing is accelerating from a stop on an incline when some dork pulls right up on my bumper. Though I understand I won't have to do that with my new Subie, since they all have that neat "hill holder" feature. And the only time I've ever shifted sans clutch is on a motorcycle. I've never been brave enough to try it in a car. I can match revs pretty well, but I don't get it perfect every time -- which is what would be required to shift without the clutch. I suppose if I was in a pinch -- like with a broken clutch cable -- I might give it a whirl. But I've fortunately never been in such a pinch. - Greg Reed |
#35
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Dave Null Sr." <lrowoy (AT) ShNotmail (DOT) com> wrote On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:50:43 GMT, j999w (AT) aol (DOT) com (J999w) wrote in news:20040207125043.17130.00001623 (AT) mb-m03 (DOT) aol.com: Engine braking is completely unnecesary in modern cars. Not true. I've smoked the brakes in a couple of medern cars in spirited driving, both automatics. Also, I've seen several cars smoking at the bottom of a popular shortcut heading west from Yosemite. I even saw a full-sized Bronco smoking at the bottom of that hill, and I always expect big trucks to have excess braking capacity for towing. It's that only hill I can think of where I'll engine brake even with an automatic. My first time down, I was driving an automatic, and had almost no brakes left at the bottom, Smoking from at least 3 of 4 corners. The braking didn't come back properly as things cooled down. Pads glazed, calipers leaking, rear brake shoes cracked. I'm happy to have a stick shift now, as I don't think engine braking with an automatic is such a good idea (IIRC I needed a trans fluid change after one descent). |
#36
| |||
| |||
|
#37
| |||
| |||
|
|
solved argument. There are times when you should use the brakes and times when using the engine is the best, most of the time the best is a little of both. I should point out that I live in a mountainous area and you can always tell a flatlander has been around when you smell those brakes cooking! |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
| |