TeigerSX

I recently had this discussion with a friend and I wanted to hear some other opinions (came to the right place for an opinion, huh?)

For those of you who are manual transmission drivers (and AT folks who would also like to participate), which of the following methods do you use to slow down: shift into neutral and use the brake until you come to a rest, or downshift nearly every gear, letting the engine help slow down your car.

This discussion was briefly broached in another thread, but quickly abandoned. The arguments touched on price of new brakes vs. price of new clutch.

For me, I downshift ALL the time. I cycle through the gears tapping the brakes very lightly, and many times use ONLY the downshifts to slow me down to about 5-10 mph. I have never had a problem with this technique, and I feel I have a lot more control using this method.

Thoughts and opinions??

TEIGER

leftride

iTrader: (1)

I "downshift nearly every gear, letting the engine help slow down your car" even doing this I go through brakes pretty quickly, so I would hate to what it would be like if I only used my brakes. I think this is a much more controled way to slow the car down and I dont really think it is excessive wear on the clutch and more a transmission issue, which I think is a non-issue.

captainjack

I'm a braker.
That's what I learned from early on. It's always seemed simpler and easier on the engine, the tranny, and on mileage.

What I do most, especially for red lights, is shift into nuetral and coast a while. Then I brake.

The only time I downshift is to accelerate, especially out of a turn.

larchmont

Having never owned a MT car, the SS on my AT is my first consistent experience with anything like this. I sometimes do my "braking" mainly by downshifting, and it feels so clever. But I've wondered what kind of trade-off it is, in terms of "wear and tear" of transmission vs. wear and tear on brakes. Not that I ever worried about wear and tear on the brakes, it's just part of what happens. But I just don't know what this does to the AT, and I wonder a little.

combustible1

ditto me, larchmont.

JaTe

i usually shift to neutral and brake.

remember...brake pads are cheaper to replace than an engine

sauceman

I always downshift nearly all the gears and try to heel-and-toe through the gears. That way the brakes last much longer, and the up-revving minimises the wear on the clutch.

It is also more fuel-efficient to downshift, because then the throttle is closed, whereas the throttle is open slightly for idle if you brake in neutral, making it use slightly more gas. But that is only minimal.

TeigerSX

If you shift correctly, why in the world would you ever need to replace the engine???

I don't understand. Perhaps, because of increased use, you might see increased wear on the clutch, but knowing the quality of Honda engines, your statement is confusing.

sauceman, I haven't quite got the heel-and-toe down yet. Do you have a link that describes it in depth?

TEIGER

DEVO

i try to rev match when downshifting... but i'm heavy on the brakes when I need to be... otherwise it's engine braking... which I kept to a minimum. Meaning I brake while in gear... then shift to a lower gear without a lot of engine braking... almost as if I were coasting... and when I know that I coming to a complete stop I do coast... helps out the gas mileage.

STC

iTrader: (1)

depends on how fast im going!

vwong

It's so natural to me now that I heel-toe to downshift all the time. No problem whatsoever!

Lung Fu Mo Shi

It depends. If I'm just going around town, I'll shove it in neutral and brake in. But, If I'm coming in "hot" and trying to beat the light around a corner or something I downshift...I need every ounce of braking power without overloading the brakes.

dabuda

depends how fast im going but for majority of the time i just downshift then apply the brake

majormojo

If I'm coming to a stop, I shift to neutral and use the brakes only. If I'm just slowing down temporarily I will downshift and do a little bit of engine braking, keeping the revs up so I'm ready to accelerate again.

In general I like the logic of the "brakes pads are cheaper than clutches" line of reasoning. However, given that Hondas typically have very robust engines & clutches and lousy brake rotors I'm not sure if that is the best strategy in this case.

gi'me

I wouldn't downshift at all. Brakes are less expensive to replace that a gearbox. Continual downshifting will wear your syncho rings out.

gsclifton

iTrader: (2)

I am not an expert. However, I have a good friend who has been a Service Advisor for a Honda dealership in Dallas for 10 years now. He always told me that brakes are much less expensive than tranny work.

I would not risk it personally even though I used the technique in a previous Civic and Accord that I owned.

gcolby03

I recall hearing this discussion on NPR's Car Talk a few years ago, for whatever their opinions are worth. Basically, they concluded that downshifting is better on relatively steep grades, but that braking is better in normal road conditions.

Here's a couple of quick links to their past Q&A discussions on this topic:

http://cartalk.cars.com/Columns/Arch...tember/07.html

http://cartalk.cars.com/Columns/Arch...tember/13.html

mrdoug

I generally downshift within reason. Obviously if you have to slow down fast, you're goint to use the brakes - the situation determines the method. But I do not just throw it in neutral and brake as a matter of routine, except when going from 5 mph to 0 mph, the last few feet before stopping. Downshifting through the gears to an almost-stop is somewhat of an art and takes some practice, but it's fun and rewarding when done correctly, and also gives you the opportunity, if conditions change in front of you (such as the car in front of you changes lanes, exits, gets out of the way) to immediately accelerate and upshift without missing a beat - this is not nearly as seamless if you're in neutral applying the brakes or even coasting, as you then must re-engage in the proper gear for your speed and rpm's. As for the tranny vs. brake pads (i.e., which are cheaper to replace) discussion, that to me is not a factor. Downshifting if done properly shouldn't damage or wear the clutch inordinately any more than regular shifting - that's what it's made to do. And in my experience (with my 1993 Honda Accord), Honda clutches are real troupers - with that car, I sold the car at 240,000 miles with the original clutch.

TeigerSX

Mr Doug, I think I have a very similar driving style as you, but I think we are in the minority. People seem to be nervous about this, and I guess I am surprised, as I learned to downshift all the time. I agree that this shouldn't be an issue for the clutch, if the shifts are executed correctly. Granted that going from 6th to 2nd is not the idea, rather more hitting each gear to gradually slow the car down. I drove my 99 Civic Si for over 100K miles and never had an issue with the clutch, and I'm sure it would go another 100K, like your experience. In fact, by correctly downshifting, that 99 Civic Si still had the original brake pads on too, after 100K miles. They were near the end of their life, but I would say that's pretty good longevity.

Maybe we need a poll on this too, so Larch can tell us how biased it is!

TEIGER

kiteboy

As the AT car slows, the SS will downshift back to 3 automatically if you don't shift it yourself. However, the shift points are at speeds where there isn't much engine breaking anyways. It then pops back to 1 when stopped, so there is no engine breaking in 1 and 2 at all.

Iceman

Actually, it's the clutch and the tranny you are wearing out with engine braking. It won't hurt the engine. A mechanic I respect once told me that brake pads were a lot cheaper to replace than clutch plates.

Soze75

I downshift most of the time. If I'm coming in fast I squezze the firmly brakes at the same time I let the clutch out. I just can't seem for the life of me to pop the car in neutral and let it roll like an AT. I hate that feeling. I need a gear to be engaged. I am stupid I guess, I like to preserve my brakes or hardly use them at all. My brake dust buildup is minimal

I'm not worried about wearing out the clutch, tranny etc. I'm an to it when I drive. Precision, precision.

Iceman

I'm sure Gilbo would tell us you can't wear out a clutch if all you've got is a 4 cyl. egine.

TSXautoXer

heel-toe when going fast. Neutral for around town/city driving.

sauceman

Ok. Here's what a quick search on Honda-tech.com yielded me.

Heel-toe how to

Links to additionnal resources for proper heel-toe driving techniques

Honestly, I had no idea what it was until I finally saw a 30 seconds screenshot of an endurance driver's feet at work in his 911 GT3R Cup. But, like many others it seems, I don't really twist my ankle that much, I just hit the gas with the side of my foot, I found that way was the easiest way for me to rev-match properly.

Good luck.

JaTe

i was thinking too fast...i meant its cheaper than a tranny

jcg878

When I had an MT car, I almost always downshifted, but not usually through every gear. I'd use the engine to slow the car down, then just coast. I never liked the feeling of the car just being in neutral. Maybe when I go back to MT (not if, when!) I'll be more used to that neutral feeling and I'll brake in neutral more.

I can buy into the argument that brakes are cheaper than clutches, but I couldn't ever get used to that feeling of lifelessness that being in neutral gives you.

hjd73

Cost may be a consideration, but I don't think it is the question or the issue. Isn't the first issue "What is the best way to do it - brake or downshift", and then if you really care, look at the cost. One of the reasons I drive a stick is that I want direct control over the gear I am in, and the power to the wheels. I agree with jcg878 and Soze75 on the feeling of being in neutral (in life or in my car). I think one should always be in a gear necessary from which you can quickly accelerate. It does not happen often that you have to accelerate as you come to a stop, but when you need it you don't want to be pulling out of neutral. Besides, isn't one of the reasons we bought the MT beacuse of the joys of shifting.

I purchased a Celica GTS ten years ago over the Acura Integra GS-R, and while for me at the time it was the right decision, I remembered the slick shifting of the GS-R more often than I care to recount as I clunked through the gears on the Toyota.

Brad

When coming to a stop, I downshift part of the way, then depending on the traffic flow, I'll shift the tranny into neutral and brake. I RARELY downshift to 1st gear!

I do tap the brakes a bit when downshifting to let the driver behind me be aware that I'm slowing or coming to a stop.

My brakes, clutches, and trannies have lasted a long time. My previous Accord's factory original brakes lasted 80K miles. That Accord now has 110K miles with original clutch, tranny, and engine--never needed rebuild or overhaul. Two of my previous Accord's clutches lasted over 200K miles. I don't recall much problem with the brakes.

Methinks my approach is a nice, proven balance between downshifting, braking, and durability.

ecsw

Shift down even on my AT. IMO, TSX break is not strong enough hence I use the engine break to assist the break. When I had my Mz6, since the break was so sharp and strong, I hardly swith to manual mode to use the engine break. That's also the reason I drive 80% of my time with sportsshift.

jlukja

When approaching a red traffic light I usually downshift to break. Although I don't heel-n-toe I do tap the accelerator on the downshift to bring up the RPMs slightly (about 1K) to make it easier on the clutch when it re-engages in the lower gear (I think thats what is called rev matching). This keeps the car in gear for the time the light turns green and you just hit the throttle and you're off. I generally don't downshift all the way to 1st. If I'm moving at 5mph when the light turns green, 2nd gear, even at the lower RPMs has enough to let me accelerate out fairly easily. Now, for more spirited driving doing the toe dance on all three pedals may be in order. My 91 Integra 5MT has 112Kmi on the original clutch and I'm on my second set of brake pads.

STL

I'm not so sure about that. If you double-clutch when you down shift then you aren't putting any additional wear on the synchros. Even if you don't, I'm not sure Honda synchros are going to wear out prematurely. My wife downshifts but doesn't double-clutch and the original clutch and synchros in her 1993 Prelude, with over 150,000 miles, were still good when we sold the car earlier this year.

CanyonballRunner

I actually doe both like sauceman said. I heel toe it. Doing both braking and engine braking will reduce stress on both drivetrain and brakes. The pedals are perfectly placed for heel-toing. Takes a while to get used to the gear ratios and blipping the drive-by-wire throttle to rev match the gears.

TeigerSX, just do a quick search on heel-toe and you should find plenty of useful information.

BTW, the brakes and clutch are meant to be worn out, that's what they're there for. Unless you're tracking your car or doing downhill canyon runs, excessive wear isn't an issue w/ a Honda. Plus, if they wear out... UPGRADE TIME!

TeigerSX

Thanks CanyonballRunner. I found some info, and have been messing around recently with it. I've actually been rev-matching rather than heel-toeing, since I'm not THAT agressive when driving. The stuff I found explained it well, but I'm not racing around the streets.

Cannonball Run was a funny movie. Your user name reminded me of Dom DeLuise.

The downshift vs. braking difference seems like it stems from how you were taught, rather than consideration for wear & tear. I trust the Honda engineers.

TEIGER

slats

Glad to hear the words "double-clutch" in these responces (but don't tell DEVO as he strongly disagrees). I usually only downshift at higher speeds and coast the rest of the way in nuetral, but it depends on the mood I'm in. I'm hard on brakes because I live in the mountians, so I try to downshift and use engine braking. Double-clutching while doing the heel-toe works well.

Slats

iamhomin

i only downshifts on hills..

1killercls

type-s

I combine both braking and downshifting as my driving instructor many years ago always told me that you should never coast, always matching revs to the current speed.

going downhill you should especially use your gears as it gives more control over the car.

AT are very rare here in Europe as most of drive MT and most folks I know use this method...

then again if you saw some of the inclines we have to tackle in town you'd want to use all braking resources available !

Ernie

tsxer.ca

For AT, don;t put in to neutral when you try to stop the car.. i read on the news paper. if you put in to neutral .. some thing in the gearbox will be burn or damage...

spc

Really? How so? I try it when cruising around 40-50 mph and put it in neutral for red light ahead then put it back to drive when the light turn green at around 30 mph.