Engine braking kicks SO much ass.

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Migroo
Actually while some of you are closer than others, the best use of engine braking is when you are going down a hill..

If youre going down a steep hill, there is a chance (if the hill is long enough and if you are using your brakes to control the car and prevent it from speeding up) that you will reduce the effectiveness of your brakes.. Brakes can only absorb so much heat - that is how they slow you down.

In the UK the AA and RAC (motoring organisations) suggest you should downshift into a low gear when going downhill. The combination of engine braking and operation at higher than normal revs will help slow the car and prevent speeding up (assuming you use the correct gear) which allows you to save your brakes for actually stopping once you are at the bottom of the hill..

🙂

FInally. Engine braking is nice and all, but it is a waste of gas..and i used to do it ALL THe time.

THer are certain situations where is definitely warrented. AS you stated, when going downhill, it is very effective.


Another situation where Engine braking helps is on demanding roads("twisties")

COming into a very sharp turn, I find that engine braking will give me a LOT more control going into and coming out tof the turn, as the brakes are screwing around with my front driving wheels.The added resistance from the drivetrain yet not directly on the wheel like the brakes, makes more GRAT control, even in a 1990 Honda accord.

 

[fs5]

Originally posted by: Dunbar
I leave the car in whatever gear it's in and allow the engine aid in braking (and then push in the clutch about 1100rpm.) This makes for very good brake wear, saves gas and doesn't require any extra effort to downshift. Your ECU will shut off the injectors in this scenario. Whenever I see a "neutral coaster" I simply laugh at their lack of sophistication. And the only reason to downshift IMO is when going down a long hill.

Off? you're joking right? You mean when you do this your car doesn't idle? 😕

 

[ROcHE]

Engine braking has nothing to do with the clutch. It's fully engaged when you do it.

 

[fs5]

Originally posted by: ROcHE
Engine braking has nothing to do with the clutch. It's fully engaged when you do it.

it has a lot to do w/ the clutch if you downshift.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: jjones
I downshift to brake all the time, sometimes applying the brakes lightly and sometimes not depending upon the conditions. It doesn't cause any undue wear on my clutch; I can't think of more than a few times I've replaced a clutch in my life and I've been driving a manual for about 20+ years. And downshifting is one of the joys of driving a manual. I borrowed my friends car and drove an auto for the first time in about 10 years just last weekend and hated it; I just love going through the gears when I drive.

the thing is you shouldn't have to replace a clutch or flywheel until like 200K miles.

That's highly debatable.

It completely depends on how you drive, and your driving environment.

100k out of a clutch is not unreasonable. 200k would be absolutely exceptional.

 

[Vich]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
All I'll drive is a manual, but that said I hardly ever engine brake. Engines and trannies are much more expensive than new rotors and pads 🙂

Exactly what he said however its more stress on the tranny. Would you rather replace your pads (which are dirt cheap) or replace your tranny that is a couple thousand $$?

 

[CraigRT]

my car sucks at engine braking...

i'd rather just drop into neutral and use the brakes anyways, much easier to replace than a clutch 😛

 

[Shockwave]

Engine braking is fine. Compare engine braking to hard acceleration it terms of parts wear and its nothing. Besides, tractor trailer rigs have been engine braking for YEARS.....

 

[suklee]

Yes

 

[mattgyver]

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge

Originally posted by: mattgyver
I have heard that engine brakes, or Jake Brakes, on a truck (semis) have been known to break crankshafts if they are used inappropriately. But a small car would have much less force on the crankshaft, of course.

Jake brakes are a little different then just downshifting. Some have different settings of strength. BUUUAAAAWWWW!!!! *shift* BUUUAAAAWWWW!!! how to piss off the neighborhood.

That's right; they could be described as an exhaust brake. It does something with the exhaust valves; I'm not sure exactly how it works (I'm no mechanic). The only time Jakes are really loud is when people use straight pipes (no muffler).

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: Dacalo
I heard that engine braking is bad for your engine. Regular braking is better as the pads are cheaper.

Is this true?

No
I am amazed about how often this question is asked. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised in the country of automatic transmissions.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: Dacalo
I heard that engine braking is bad for your engine. Regular braking is better as the pads are cheaper.

Is this true?

Engine braking isn't bad for your engine, you are just wearing out your clutch plate instead of your brakes. The difference is brakes are made to be worn down and are a hell of a lot cheaper to replace.

Clutch replacement cost and trouble will quell the need to Engine Brake at every stop sign.

Another misunderstanding. The clutch is not wearing out because of engine braking. The clutch is not slipping so there is no more wear than normal driving.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: Dacalo
I heard that engine braking is bad for your engine. Regular braking is better as the pads are cheaper.

Is this true?

Engine braking isn't bad for your engine, you are just wearing out your clutch plate instead of your brakes. The difference is brakes are made to be worn down and are a hell of a lot cheaper to replace.

Clutch replacement cost and trouble will quell the need to Engine Brake at every stop sign.

Another misunderstanding. The clutch is not wearing out because of engine braking. The clutch is not slipping so there is no more wear than normal driving.

well of course the engine isn't wearing because of actual engine breaking. But poor downshifting (which is done by most all drivers) is. few actually rev-match and just lay on the brake, clutch, downshift, off clutch (using the transmission to turn the flywheel and putting the entire momentum of the car on the clutch/flywheel)

that's what's bad. If your rpms are matched to the gear when the shift occurs there isn't much wear. but that takes a fair amount of practice.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Just extra wear on your synchros.

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
All I'll drive is a manual, but that said I hardly ever engine brake. Engines and trannies are much more expensive than new rotors and pads 🙂

What he said.

Its not a smart idea to put even more stress on your engine and gears like that.


Oh, and congrats on learning a real driving style 🙂

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: Dacalo
I heard that engine braking is bad for your engine. Regular braking is better as the pads are cheaper.

Is this true?

Engine braking isn't bad for your engine, you are just wearing out your clutch plate instead of your brakes. The difference is brakes are made to be worn down and are a hell of a lot cheaper to replace.

Clutch replacement cost and trouble will quell the need to Engine Brake at every stop sign.

Another misunderstanding. The clutch is not wearing out because of engine braking. The clutch is not slipping so there is no more wear than normal driving.

YEah, there the only effect on the clutch is structural stress, which prolly doesn;t come into play since it'll probably slip before it will brake the crank, drive shaft, or just plain shatter...never hear of that happening in a 4 cylinder 😎

 

[FacelessNobody]

Aaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!

The misinformation! Brake pads certainly are easier to replace, but on most cars, a clutch is damn near indestructible and usually lasts the life of the car. It takes effort to fsck up a clutch.

And for those of you who say it uses more gas? Please learn how a combustion engine functions. If the fuel-air mix was being injected and the plugs were sparking, our mix would ignite and drive the piston down, so my car would deliver power beyond the capabilities of the idle mixture.

Let's say I'm in our 318is going 45mph and I downshift from 3rd to 2nd and my revs peak at 5000rpm. If it was indeed getting fuel, my engine should be making 124hp and 130lb/ft of torque right now (according to my Dinan graph, engine is chipped) and my car would be accelerating. If it were getting lots of fuel but no spark, I'd be cramming a fuel-air mix down out my exhaust valves, into the manifold, and through the rest of the exhaust system. When I step on the accelerator again, I'd send hot exhaust out to chase it and my car would backfire like crazy, or if I'm lucky, shoot flames out the exhaust. But, alas, cars don't have afterburners. Who here spits fire when they step on the gas after engine braking? That doesn't even matter, the exact same thing would happen if you let off the gas and stomped on it in your automatic-trannied car.

I even did a quick little test for y'all. Using my 86 325es, me driving and my brother watching, I did some engine braking while he eyeballed the miles-per-gallon gauge's behavior. The gauge goes from 0 to 40+. EVERY single time I braked using ONLY the engine, the MPG gauge went from about 20 MPG, blew by 30, screamed past 40 and maxed out. It would not do that if gas was being used.

Sorry for the rant, but sometimes ATOT just pisses ya off...

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: FacelessNobody
Aaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!

The misinformation! Brake pads certainly are easier to replace, but on most cars, a clutch is damn near indestructible and usually lasts the life of the car. It takes effort to fsck up a clutch.

And for those of you who say it uses more gas? Please learn how a combustion engine functions. If the fuel-air mix was being injected and the plugs were sparking, our mix would ignite and drive the piston down, so my car would deliver power beyond the capabilities of the idle mixture.

Let's say I'm in our 318is going 45mph and I downshift from 3rd to 2nd and my revs peak at 5000rpm. If it was indeed getting fuel, my engine should be making 124hp and 130lb/ft of torque right now (according to my Dinan graph, engine is chipped) and my car would be accelerating. If it were getting lots of fuel but no spark, I'd be cramming a fuel-air mix down out my exhaust valves, into the manifold, and through the rest of the exhaust system. When I step on the accelerator again, I'd send hot exhaust out to chase it and my car would backfire like crazy, or if I'm lucky, shoot flames out the exhaust. But, alas, cars don't have afterburners. Who here spits fire when they step on the gas after engine braking? That doesn't even matter, the exact same thing would happen if you let off the gas and stomped on it in your automatic-trannied car.

I even did a quick little test for y'all. Using my 86 325es, me driving and my brother watching, I did some engine braking while he eyeballed the miles-per-gallon gauge's behavior. The gauge goes from 0 to 40+. EVERY single time I braked using ONLY the engine, the MPG gauge went from about 20 MPG, blew by 30, screamed past 40 and maxed out. It would not do that if gas was being used.

Sorry for the rant, but sometimes ATOT just pisses ya off...

WOW...that is really interesting.

 

[TwoBills]

Brake hard, double clutch, grab lower gear, hit it. Sure it's fun. It also uses more gas (when you double clutch), puts a lot of undue wear on the connecting rod bearings, clutch, and tranny. Period. BTW, when you come to a full stop, pump the brakes once, then keep your foot on the petal. This cools the pads faster. 269K on the original clutch of a Toyota pickup when it was sold. 100K between brake jobs on my Mitsubishi Sport PU (with an 800lb load).

 

[StageLeft]

Jake Brakes, from what I recall reading on howstuff works, are better than standard engine braking in a car, because the problem with braking in a car is that the valves don't open/close at the right times to maximize compression effectiveness.

I can't believe how many people are saying that engine braking isn't putting additional wear on one's clutch. Of course it is, since unless you engine-brake only in the gear you were already in (something I generally do if a red light is far away, and then eventually I move into neutral and rely more heavily on the brakes), the clutch experiences wear _every time you change gears_. All rev matching does is minimize clutch wear. Unless you rev-match perfectly (like _dead on_), then your clutch still experiences at least a little slippage, and that causes it to wear. Same thing with up shifting. You can be the best manual driver in the world, but your clutch will still eventually wear out, because it does slip at least minutely (not including the obvious slipping as one starts from a stop).

And, even if it's less wear on an engine than accelerating (which it would be), you can't really believe that an engine braking at 3000 rpm is experiencing no more wear than one idling at 600 rpm.