When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
What is the consensus here on whether or not to use the engine for braking? Yes, it works to slow the car, but it subjects the clutch to more wear. Should the braking be left to the brakes as to not prematurely wear out the clutch?
If I'm about to come to a complete stop I will shift into neutral and use the brakes only. If I'm just slowing down I will use engine braking. I always try to match revs. The clutch gets abused enough during acceleration no reason for additional abuse slowing down.
I use engine braking most of the time only in slow traffic, I try to always match the revs if I downshift at higher speeds. I also find myself just engaging the clutch downshifting but keeping the clutch engaged in traffic when coming to a stop.
I understand most of the NASCAR stock car drivers went to Ron Fellows or equivalent road racing school and learned to use the brakes for slowing, and then down shift to accelerate through and off the corner.
Downshifting was used in the old days of road racing when brakes tended to fade and engine braking assisted the braking. With modern brakes engine braking is unnecessary and causes unnecessary wear on the engine and drivetrain.
I know this will be totally rejected by some forum racers. I don't race I just listened to the X drivers on the NASCAR telecast when they were at a road track last season, and I stayed at a Holiday Inn.
LJ
With modern brakes engine braking is unnecessary and causes unnecessary wear on the engine and drivetrain.
This is what I thought. I have tried to break myself of this habbit, though. I used to use the clutch to slow my last manual, but don't want to abuse the clutch in the vette.
It makes my car all girgaly and ****, which I likey. I'll happily replace the clutch a thousand miles early in exchange.
+1
I have always downshifted through the gears when coming to a stop, I try to match the RPMs, and in 30 years of driving I have yet to replace a clutch on a car I have owned since new. I think if it's done properly the additional wear by downshifting is minimal....the pleasure is maximal (if that's a word).
Sure does sound good when I have the flaps open and get a down shift going though!!
Hey my 55 Ford with dual glass packs really sounded good when I downshifted. I love the sound no question. Was this post about cool sounds, or how to drive a high performance vehicle on a road course.
LJ
Hey my 55 Ford with dual glass packs really sounded good when I downshifted. I love the sound no question. Was this post about cool sounds, or how to drive a high performance vehicle on a road course.
LJ
Who said anything about road course? I think the OP is asking about daily use. This is also difficult to answer because some may "dump" the clutch out in these circumstances vs. rev-matching and more "clutch-friendly" use. Personally, I do quite a bit of engine braking - the sound of the burble from Corsa Sports is just too good. But I bet if I monitored it I'd see that the majority of time I start that engine braking process my rpm is less than 3000. Hard to imagine any abuse there.
Remember - just being in gear and lifting your foot is "engine braking". Every Vette owner here with an automatic does it every time they stop or slow down unless they shift their car to neutral (which I would not recommend)............
What is the consensus here on whether or not to use the engine for braking? Yes, it works to slow the car, but it subjects the clutch to more wear. Should the braking be left to the brakes as to not prematurely wear out the clutch?
There are times when engine compression braking is OK. I use this technique frequently. Just do not abuse it or over rev the engine.
Remember, brake pads are relatively inexpensive, and easy to replace.
What is the consensus here on whether or not to use the engine for braking? Yes, it works to slow the car, but it subjects the clutch to more wear. Should the braking be left to the brakes as to not prematurely wear out the clutch?
Drive it as you need to... If you match revs properly a downshift can be done very smoothly with no impact the the driveline.
It's also cheaper to replace brake pads than a clutch...
Drive it and sync things up properly.. you can have fun without any penalty. Be one with the car
I understand most of the NASCAR stock car drivers went to Ron Fellows or equivalent road racing school and learned to use the brakes for slowing, and then down shift to accelerate through and off the corner.
Downshifting was used in the old days of road racing when brakes tended to fade and engine braking assisted the braking. With modern brakes engine braking is unnecessary and causes unnecessary wear on the engine and drivetrain.
I know this will be totally rejected by some forum racers. I don't race I just listened to the X drivers on the NASCAR telecast when they were at a road track last season, and I stayed at a Holiday Inn.
LJ
I use the brakes exclusively to slow down, they are a lot less expensive to replace than a clutch. The only thing about using the engine to slow down is the sound and backfires you get through the exhaust.
Hell I have always used the engine with rev matching. Two cars have gone over 180,000 with no clutch problems. They were Japanese makes though. I find it part of what is fun with the manual transmission.