i've downshifted since the day i got my truck 8 years ago and have yet to have any problems with my clutch or synchros. i just rolled 100k miles yesterday evening too. tho, i never downshift to 1st, that's just too hard and way unnecessary. i do see how it is more wear on the gears but it's not as bad as you think.

the way i drive is if i need to slow down i'll downshift but usually only when i reach about 5mph above the beginning of the current gear im in...say i'm in 5th, i'll rev match 4th gear in when i hit 50mph and then begin/continue braking...after that i just use the brake the rest of the way down. tho, i typically use 2nd to slow down a lot too for the appropriate speeds anyhow. downshifting all the way through the gears is too dangerous for me as it's really easy to lock up the rears in my truck.

bleh i've forgotten where i was headed with that, at any rate, my .02 is i'd rather be in the correct gear (just incase) and deal with whatever more wear it comes with since i can't tell the difference in wear. i've just taken apart 2 trannies this past week too btw, both of which were 30+ year old 4 speed saginaws and i honestly could not tell the difference in wear.

 

All the worry warts should just buy a 4-speed V8 instead of a 6-spd low torque car. That way you never have to shift and minimize wear and tear.:D

 

Question about double clutching... I don't really understand why it's supposed to help in a vehicle that has synchros. What does it accomplish, and is it done just like in a vehicle that has no synchros?

 

with the clutch depressed, and the shifter in neutral, there are gears that are now free spinning in the transmission and all the load of bringing the layshaft and the gear you want to get into is put on the synchros. when you double clutch you are using the motor to adjust the lay shaft speed and if you do it right the gear you are trying to get into will be spinning at the correct speed relative to the drive shaft and you will slip right past the synchros.

when you go into gear you know how you feel that notch on the way in? that's the synchros. you won't feel it if you are matched perfectly and you will just slip right into gear.

 

When you use words like "most", I assume you have actually spoken with at least 51% of the worlds manual transmission drivers... Hmmm?

 

Hi guys,

Since we're in the subject of breaking, I too have my own driving habits. Would some advise from you guys if my style/how I drive is bad or ok.

Alright, when I know that I'm coming to a slow traffic either it's slowing down to a stop or slowing down to pick up speed again, I have this habit of shifting the gear to neutral, all I do is use my break to slow the car down. So if the traffic comes to a stop fine, I'm already in neutral. But if the traffic were to pick up speed, I'd just shift to the right gear and go.

What would be the disadvantage of my driving habit?

Cheers

 

Well,M-ster, no problem if youre not rear-ended, no fun to be rear-ended and pushed into a busy road section. As for not using your brakes, well, my oncle had a Nissan Sunny and he was engine braking all the time. So much that got stuck and when he need to panic brake they didnt work too good.
So I advice to use both your brakes and handbrake, since they operate better if theyre used now and then...

 

m-ster...really the only disadvantage of braking in neutral is that you're not in gear...and that split second to rev-match into gear and get going again could make the difference. although the chance of being in said situation is miniscule, it happens.

and about the increased wear on the drive train...i've had my toyota truck for 8 years now, 106k miles on it and i've engine braked/downshifted since i've gotten it. i've done nothing but gas/oil/air filter and one set of tires so far. even still have the original battery in it. sure it's more wear, but given the life span of the car...

there are situations where one would be much better off using engine braking, maybe not so much with the rx-8 but with other cars that do experience much more dramatic brake fade. imagine driving down the mountain back from a ski resort or something and riding the brakes constantly for 2 hours, that gets dangerous

then there are 18 wheelers...but i guess those guys are in a different league of engine braking cause they have some flap or something they can pull that will slow the truck down with engine compression or something to that effect.

 

If you rev match properly there should be no clutch wear whatsoever! Hell, in one of my cars I could go all the way up and back down the box without touching the clutch, grinding the gears or even stressing anything.... I just dropped it into neutral with no load so it slips out of gear easily... then match the revs and grab the new gear... Don't try this at home kids, if you get it wrong you'll grind your gears nicely....

 

Folks, I am new to this forum but have been driving a variety of standard transmission cars for over thirty years. I regularly use downshift to slow the vehicle. I have gotten over 100k out of my clutches on several occasions and have never had any engine damage. I am the son of a truck driver and this is a very common practice for truckers also.

I have seen this type of conversation in other forums and in the end no one has ever provided any documentation that downshifting is anymore stressful than acceleration. If folks are this worried, they need to drive automatics.

 

Hmmm... I think twin8s brought up something interesting. I've never own a automatic car, only driven some occasionally. When you apply break in an automatic car (of course you'll be using the break), does the car automaitcally uses engine break as well, or it just jump to the appropriate gear (either 1st to a stop or speed match to pick up again).

This question will leads to: if it's good to use engine breaks, won't the automobile industries would have made the automatic transmission doing engine breaks when the car is break to a stop/slowdown.
But if there's already engine break in the auto trans, we've got the answer.

 

I think the other question is ... Do you watch your diet? How bout... Do you get enough sleep?

This is a sports car! Drive it, have fun! If you cause an additional 1000 miles of wear in 150,000.... so what.


ZOOM ZOOM

 

Oh... by the by....


I think burnout demo in the video section is far more damaging than downshifting....

 

I had an 86 camaro that went from third to fourth real easy without clutching. Just pulled it gently out of third, waited about 1/2 seconds for the rpm to drop and applied slight pressure into fourth. It would slip right in, no noise, no grinding, no wear that I knew of.

 

In every automatic I've owned, the tranny stays in gear. (e.g., it stays in 4th until you are stopped.)

To those who do use engine braking, I'm having a hard time visualizing what you mean.

What situation are you talking about: e.g.,

* going 60 mph and stopping for a red light?

* going 80 mph on a freeway and slowing down for a 45 mph exit (or for slow traffic ahead?

Personally, I rarely use engine braking and would find it hard to believe that "99%" of manual drivers use it on a daily basis. Especially when the brakes on the RX8 are so effective.

 

Please excuse me if my question sound silly as I am a newbie in driving manual. Let's say I am driving at 40 mph in 4th gear, and I see some traffic ahead where I have to slow down to about 15 mph. What is the proper way to change gear in this scenario? The way I do it now is use the brake to slow down to around 15mph and change to 2nd gear while I am almost done braking....rev match if needed.

 

That's what this whole debate is about. Some (including me) would do exactly what you do, brake then downshift to 2nd. IMO, it is more efficient does less wear to the transmisison, clutch, and engine. And, perhaps most importantly, tells people behind you what you're doing (i.e., your brake lights tell people you're slowing down). Others would down shift to 3rd to slow down the car, then downshift to 2nd. I'll leave it to those drivers to explain why they do that (I tried that earlier today and engine braking just doesn't slow the car that much.)

 

out of some strange habit, i rev my engine up right before I let out on the clutch when I downshift. I guess this way the engine in a sense is what is slowing me down....it doesn't slow me down as much, but it sounds cool......lol.

chad

 

If I understand you correctly, if you want to slow down from 70 to 50 because of traffic, you'll use your brakes. But if you're slowing down from 70 to 0 because of a red light, you'll use the engine because it is "faster".

To me, that is totally counter-intuitive. I can guarantee you that the RX8 will stop faster with the actual brakes than with engine braking. So how is it faster or easier?

And I also don't understand why you hate anti-lock brakes? It seems that you don't like the pulsing. But I almost always drive too fast and brake too late, but I have yet to even activate the ABS. (I've yet to drive it in the rain, one of the joys of living in CA is the lack of rain). If you don't want the ABS to activate, brake a little bit sooner and not quite as hard.

 

I think this engine braking method is really impractical. That is why they invented wheels brakes in the first place. I just clutch, neutral, cruise, step on brake pedals like how the car makers intended.

The only time I'll be doing downshifts is when taking a corner or speeding up fast (dropping 2 gears down) without "engine-braking" the car.

 

I can't believe I read through this thread. Everyone "Engine Breaks", whether they think so or not. It does not matter if it's a manual or an automatic. You let the engine compression do the breaking for you.

Lets say you're going 70mph on a highway. To state the obvious, you press the gas going up the hill. Then, at the crest of the hill you back off. Now, let's say it's a good 5% grade down the other side. You're probably not on the gas right now. And, hopefully, you're probably not riding your breaks down the other side. If you are, and you're pushing any weight (like a car pulling a trailer or a big rig), say goodbye to those brakes... really quick.

So then, since everyone is "engine breaking"... why does anyone think downshifting while coming to a stop is anything worse? It's been said enough here regarding clutch wear. Just rev-sync on the downshifts.

I once took a car in that I had since the day it came off the lot to have it's brakes done. The shop asked me why I thought my brake pads should be replaced. I said... look, the car has 180,000 miles on it and has never had it's brake pads replaced... and it's freaking me out... so I think it's time they just get replaced. They did... and let's just say I never got down to the medal. Oh, and at that time, the clutch still hadn't been replaced. The car was sold at just over 200,000... without ever needing a clutch. Did I downshift at every possible stop... Darn right I did. Did I use the brakes? As little as possible, and usually while doing heal-and-toe action.

BTW - Automatics do downshift - though often more delayed than those of us driving a manual transmission would choose. Brake slowly and watch the tach... you'll see it.

 

I'm not talking about the wear and tear. My concern is practicality. Yes, I let my foot off my gas when I see traffic is slowing down. But why would I down shift, especially if the light is red and I'm going to be at a complete stop anyway? I also fail to see how it is any smoother.

So here's the questions.

*You're 60 mph and the light in front of you turns red. What do you do? What do I do: I take my foot off the gas, then brake at an appropriate moment which will stop me smoothly and safely before the light. I see no reason why I should down shift from 6th to 2nd.

* You're going 80 on the highway and you approach your exit, which you take at 45 mph. What do you do? I would brake to 45 mph, then downshift from 6th to 3rd or 4th and take the corner. Would you not hit your brakes at all and go 6 to 5 to 4 to 3 to take the corner? Wouldn't that take longer than just pushing the brakes a little?

 

I am the only one who reads Road and Track?! Since at least the early 70's, when I began reading R and T, they have insisted, with great justification, that a driver should not use the transmission to slow the car. Use the brakes; that why they are on the car, to slow it. The transmission is there to transmit power to the drive wheels. Brake components are cheaper to replace than transmission components. I hate the sensation of the car being slowed with a non-double clutched down shift - it makes no sense and only the rear wheels are being braked. Why not use all four wheels for braking and save wear on the driveline? Maybe some folks like the feeling of loading up the drivetrain with a shift... I dunno why though.

 

I am glad you enjoy your subscription to Road and Track. I am sure you read their adds in the back for enlargement and augmentation also.

I found the following comments from you interesting.... "I hate the sensation of the car being slowed with a non-double clutched down shift - it makes no sense and only the rear wheels are being braked. Why not use all four wheels for braking and save wear on the driveline? Maybe some folks like the feeling of loading up the drivetrain with a shift... I dunno why though."

The next time a truck comes up behind you at a stop light jump out and tell the driver that you do not like the way he/she is slowing down their vehicle.

In closing, this entire thread is idiotic and now ... boring. People downshift. If you do not want to, DON'T. There is no data showing excessive wear as the direct result of downshifting. Downshifting is an option available to people that drive a standard transmission vehicle and has been used forever. It does take a little skill to use it efficiently and so if you do not like to do it... DON'T. If you are unable to master the technique, DON'T do it.

If it keeps you up at night.... buy an automatic.

 

It's not just Road & Track that says it. Every performance driving book I've ever read (Bondurant, Barber, Prost, Speed Secrets) say that brakes are for slowing the car down, not the engine. The use of the engine to slow the car down is an old technique developed before the advent of disc brakes when it was necessary. It's not necessary anymore.

Downshifting doesn't seem to serve any purpose. It doesn't help braking appreciably. It is less fuel efficient. It requires more work. It is louder. Since you are the expert, what are the benefits of downshifting to slow the car down?