Is it just me or does it seem to some that down shifting provides minimal engine braking? I’ve always enjoyed down shifting to slow down because my first few cars were standards. Even paddle shifting down several gears provides only slight braking even with high rpms. Any ideas?

 

I’ve had the same thought. Not much there.

 

Remember, you are downshifting from 10th gear! It was weird for me at first also.

 

As this car is setup for performance, I doubt it is in 10th gear below 75 to 80 mph. I’m writing more about off ramps and the like, where you can slow down without using any brakes. This car seems to have a problem with that. Perhaps the small displacement of the engine is the cause.

 

Not just you. You hear and see the RPMs rise, but the anchor doesn't seem to drop. I don't use this often, so it's not important to me.

 

Yeah, I need to remember the speed limit here is 75 MPH, so I AM in 10th (in COMFORT Mode) when I exit the Interstate Highway. I think you can see what gear you are in, in the instrument display as you use the paddles.

 

Will engine braking put unnecessary stress on transmission?

 

I’m not a mechanic but engine braking saves your brakes. You’re going to spend far more on brake repairs than transmission repairs in a modern car. Modern automatic transmissions are designed for the life of the car, aren’t they. I could be wrong about this but the current RDX doesn’t even have a transmission fluid dipstick. I’ve also found using engine braking in bad weather (snow, ice) makes the car much safer to slow down gradually.

 

You're not going to have much engine braking with a 2.0 liter engine in a 4,000 lb vehicle. Simple physics.

 

really, transmission repairs are cheaper than brakes? How about $7k to replace transmission!
sure, transmission supposed to handle it, but do I want to find out how it impacts long term reliability? I keep cars 10yr plus, I dont want to find out...

 

Engine braking in my Accord (same engine and transmission, no AWD) works fairly well in some conditions, but expect to do 3 or 4 downshifts to feel much of anything.

8 —> 7 : Barely anything

8 —> 4 : Moderate engine braking

I believe engine braking to be within the car’s operational parameters and as long as you’re conservative with it, I don’t think it’s going to damage the transmission in any way.

Totally anecdotal, but my late grandfather, who drove a MANUAL 2001 Accord until he died at 97, always believed that you could make a car last a really long time and save a ton of maintenance through gentle engine braking. He admittedly drove very gently, but we got over 100k kms on the brakes and tires that came with the car. At 200k, it was still on the first set of replacement brakes and tires when he passed.

(I think the real trick was consistently driving slow and gentle, letting the car shed momentum naturally wherever possible, etc., but I can’t do that so I’ll just credit the engine braking)

 

I stay away from the shifting in general. I came from a prelude tiptronic and still have nightmares about the 3k tranny repair.

 

Mine stays in 10th as long as I'm cruising at about 63 mph or above (~1700 rpm), without accelerating. It will drop out at around 59-62 mph.

 

I’ve owned 3 Acura’s and put over 150,000 miles on each, I’ve never had any transmission repairs, therefore no costs. The only major expense I’ve faced was replacing the radiator in my 2008 RDX. I found theses cars to be very well made and reliable. As a matter of fact, with all 3 the air conditioning was still working when I eventually sold them and none of them required any kind of a/c repairs. Why would there be a down shifting paddle shifter if it was harmful to the transmission. I found brake maintenance and repairs the biggest cost.

 

And I owned Acura 2001 CL that had a bad transmission, design flaw as it turned out. I think engine braking puts extra load on transmission. Yes, it supposed to handle it, but I am staying on a conservative side.

 

This was the opinion of Click & Clack, and it's something I've held true for a long time. If you're going down a very steep hill that might overheat brakes (especially dangerously) then engine braking is fine, but otherwise, engines are for going and brakes are for stopping.

https://www.cartalk.com/blogs/dear-c...kes-whats-best

 

i use the engine to' brake' when entering an exit ramp. Keep the rpms up a little so you are riding the torque curve nicely as you hit the apex.

 

Yeah, I frequently engine brake in the mountains, and practically never otherwise. It's just not very practical with an AT, and pretty minimal wear savings on the brakes during short braking events, IMO. The paddle shifters are more about keeping the engine in its power band for responsiveness during spirited driving.

The 10-speed AT doesn't have a dipstick but it is NOT sealed for life. Expect a fluid change every 45k miles or so. At least the fluid isn't crazy expensive like the stuff for the ZF 9-speed.

But don't compare a manual transmission with a manual clutch to any flavor of AT. With a true manual I would be ( was ) much more inclined to engine brake, and I would have ( had ) absolutely no worries about accelerated wear on the transmission. Of course, I was young and immortal when I drove manuals, and so were my cars. Sigh. Those were the days.

Also, don't compare what the F1 drivers do to what you should do on the street. Unless you expect to completely rebuild your car every season like their teams do.

BTW, this car does hold tall gears by default except in Sport+ IDS mode, or "S" transmission mode. This is for fuel economy. There would be no point to the wide gear spread otherwise; it's not like the thing is gonna top out at 240 mph.

As for the relative lack of compression braking, it's a small displacement engine. The turbocharger doesn't operate in reverse.

 

Long, long time ago when I tried to use engine for braking (stick-shift) my driving instructor said "Don't do it. Brakes are designed for that. Braking with transmission will make somebody rear-ending you" (no brake lights). I tried to use transmission for braking in mountains (Utah) this year, but encountered signs "Engine braking prohibited". On steep grade switching from Comfort to paddles requires changing 4-5 gears down really fast (I learned to do it ahead of time). I found, that setting Sport+ with "S" mode forces engine to operate at higher revolutions (lower gear) providing a little better engine braking on moderate slopes. It works fine with cruise control. In town I just use brakes.
As for overheating brakes - it is really scary. It happened to me once in Colorado - car just kept going and I almost hit the wall. I went to local shop to check brakes and they told me that everything was fine and that overheated metalic pads stopped braking (started melting).

 

"Engine Braking Prohibited" is for noise abatement when entering populated areas. Unless you're driving a diesel 18-wheeler or dump-truck, that's not something you need to worry about.

As you discovered, you DO need to worry about overheating your brakes on long descents. It's very real, and it can really spoil your day.

 

#%&! Them. It's a lifestyle choice.

 

If you are going down a steeper windy mountain road where you need to ride the brakes, put it in Sport +. That is an awesome setup for helping to naturally control the descent with some automatic engine braking. But, yeah, general engine braking doesn't seem to be as dramatic as the old days where you could drop from 5th to 3rd or whatever. I usually have to pop it down a few gears to get the RDX to even know that I'm trying to engine brake. However, I do less of that now since I upgraded the brakes to the Power Stop Z26 Street Warrior rotors and pads. Those brakes are awesome.