To Engine Brake or Not To Engine Brake

[Daya]

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.

 

[al gu]

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...!!

 

[Rob Duncan]

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

 

[Ron Ginter]

Arent brakes cheaper than clutches? Why would you want to destroy your
clutch? Stop doing that my man, brakes are cheaper.


Rob

I don't understand how engine braking destroys the clutch? In fact, maybe
I don't understand what is meant by engine braking? Please elucidate.

....Ron

 

[Cam Penner]

Arent brakes cheaper than clutches? Why would you want to destroy your
clutch? Stop doing that my man, brakes are cheaper.

It's cheaper to push the car than to use the engine.

Besides, why would downshifting cause significant clutch
wear? It wears a heck of a lot less than starting from a
stop - and we don't even blink about doing that.

 

[SkaredShtles]

I don't understand how engine braking destroys the clutch? In fact,
maybe I don't understand what is meant by engine braking? Please
elucidate.

It doesn't. If the engine & transmission speeds are matched before
releasing the gas pedal there will be virtually NO wear on the clutch.
Engine braking is a great way to prolong brake life. Especially if you
frequent the mountains.

-S.S.-

 

[uglymoney]

It's cheaper to push the car than to use the engine.

Besides, why would downshifting cause significant clutch
wear? It wears a heck of a lot less than starting from a
stop - and we don't even blink about doing that.

Some folks may wear their clutches when they downshift if they don't
match their engine speed by blipping the throttle.

So for folks incapable of doing that, I suppose they shouldn't engine
brake. For the rest of us...

nate

 

[David Betts]

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.

Modern advanced driving teaches 'brakes to slow, gears to go'. This is
fine as far as it goes, but there are certainly instances when
changing down through the gears will improve stability and increase
safety....particularly when descending steep hills. I would also agree
that it is a must on slippery surfaces, where you want to use the
brakes as little as possible and only very gently.

No question of clutch damage if done properly.

David Betts
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Dominic Richens]

Modern advanced driving teaches 'brakes to slow, gears to go'. This is
fine as far as it goes, but there are certainly instances when
changing down through the gears will improve stability and increase
safety....particularly when descending steep hills. I would also agree
that it is a must on slippery surfaces, where you want to use the
brakes as little as possible and only very gently.

Do you realize your post is just a couple of non-sequitors?

IMHO there are no differences between applying the brakes and downshifting
in an AWD car. Both apply stopping force to all four wheels - I would think
the brake pedal allows more control to the amount of braking force.

I think the misconception of the utility of engine braking for cars comes
from people seeing truckers doing it. Truckers downshift on long hills with
heavy loads because they have enough momentum to cause brake-fade by the
time they get to the bottom of the hill.

RWD cars get a bit of "stability" because downshifting only applies braking
to the rear wheels. With big heavy V8 engines over the front wheels,
applying the brakes can cause you to fish-tail.

God help you if you downshift in a FWD going down a slippery hill - spin,
spin, spin!

 

[Mohawk Jake]

For those who know how to double clutch on the downshift, you get the
smoothest connection of drive train and engine. On a snowy downgrade, with
AWD you get smooth engine braking without pitching the vehicle forward, as
happens when you use the brakes.

Unfortunately, my spouse has warned me that my next car must be an
automatic. Ugh!

But even with an automatic, when downshifting, you can gently "feather" the
throttle as you downshift.

 

[Ron Ginter]

It doesn't. If the engine & transmission speeds are matched before
releasing the gas pedal there will be virtually NO wear on the clutch.
Engine braking is a great way to prolong brake life. Especially if you
frequent the mountains.

-S.S.-

Thanks. I have driven standard transmissions all my life, have used engine
braking all my life, and have not had clutch problems. I figured that
either the 'clutch damage' statement was wrong, or there was a new
definition of engine braking.

....Ron

 

[BoB]

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...!!

As a newly licensed driver in '52, I taught myself that trick
in a Studebaker pickup. You had a practical purpose for doing
it, whereas I was just entertaining myself while delivering
items around town.

BoB

 

[J999w]

IMHO there are no differences between applying the brakes and downshifting

in an AWD car. Both apply stopping force to all four wheels - I would think
the brake pedal allows more control to the amount of braking force.

But brakes are biased to the front (60/40?).
You'll tend to slide the front brakes on a slippery stop.

jw
milwaukee

 

[JonnieBlue]

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

 

[Dominic Richens]

But brakes are biased to the front (60/40?).
You'll tend to slide the front brakes on a slippery stop.

The pressure on the disks is even, but the front has more stopping force
because of the weight shift. This happens with engine braking too.

 

[Dave Null Sr.]

But brakes are biased to the front (60/40?).
You'll tend to slide the front brakes on a slippery stop.

Brakes are biased because weight shift under braking puts
more weight on the front wheels even in a car with 50/50
static distribution and because locking only the rear wheels
causes an uncontrollable situation for many drivers.
Making sure the front wheels lock before the rears
is a basic form of stability control.

As for the comment someone made about brakes pitching
the car forward where engine braking doesn't, that
doesn't hold water. The pitching, or weight shift,
happens with either. The only difference may be that
using the brakes creates more stopping force which
will obviously produce more weight shift.

Brakes are alot cheaper than a clutch. For those who do
their own work, very much cheaper. Engine braking is
completely unnecesary in modern cars. Their capacity
to perform is much greater than cars of thirty years
ago.
Downshifting to put the car into the best gear after braking is
a better reason.

 

[Daya]

(e-mail address removed):

Brakes are alot cheaper than a clutch. For those who do
their own work, very much cheaper. Engine braking is
completely unnecesary in modern cars. Their capacity
to perform is much greater than cars of thirty years
ago.
Downshifting to put the car into the best gear after braking is
a better reason.

The Forester manual suggested using engine brake more often.

 

[Greg Reed]

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

--
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.)

 

[Greg Reed]

Some folks may wear their clutches when they downshift if they don't
match their engine speed by blipping the throttle.

So for folks incapable of doing that, I suppose they shouldn't engine
brake.

.... or drive a stick ...

- 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.)

 

[David Betts]

Do you realize your post is just a couple of non-sequitors?

Do you even know what you mean?

David Betts
(e-mail address removed)