engine braking leading to oil consumption?
- Thread starter mjf6866
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
Engine braking is useless and unnecessary wear.
What wear? I've never heard of any "wear" associated with engine braking.
Seriously (it's hard for me to not sound like a wise guy) ..just when has any engine/trans died from normal downshifting and engine braking? It's what you do with a manual trans. It's been in many owners manuals (haven't checked lately).
Your 100% correct Gary. downshifting is normal and is my personal preference,better control/handling of vehicle.Now abusing it is another story( like don't downshift from 5th to 2nd doing 80mph,unless its an emergency).
Also breaking in a new motor or car is best accomplished with a manual tranny( you seat the rings from both sides more evenly).
Quote:
Engine braking is useless and unnecessary wear.
What wear? I've never heard of any "wear" associated with engine braking.
Seriously (it's hard for me to not sound like a wise guy) ..just when has any engine/trans died from normal downshifting and engine braking? It's what you do with a manual trans. It's been in many owners manuals (haven't checked lately).
Your 100% correct Gary. downshifting is normal and is my personal preference,better control/handling of vehicle.Now abusing it is another story( like don't downshift from 5th to 2nd doing 80mph,unless its an emergency).
Also breaking in a new motor or car is best accomplished with a manual tranny( you seat the rings from both sides more evenly).
Yeah, and you would have to look awfully hard to find this extra wear.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: Popinski
seriously.. on common roads.. it's easier to pop in neutral, let it coast and use a little bit of brake to stop. Engine braking is useless and unnecessary wear.
I think people engine brake because:
A. they watch too many race car videos on youtube
B. Watched Fast and the Furious movies.
C. People just think it's cool because of the sound of the engine and exhaust.
Unless of course you are in a very hilly/mountainous roads, then it's understandable.
Oh, really, well last time I checked, the mnual transmission was in use long before video games, TV and movied were invented, and back in those days you had to rev. match on the upshifts and downshifts, so your nice little theory doesn't hold water unless you talk to some 17-year olds. These practices were developed to reduce the wear and tear on the drive train, the invention of synchronizers eliminated the need to rev. match and double clutch to an extent. It is still a good practice to double clutch and rev. match, as it puts less strain on the synchros, especially at higher RPM's.
While downshifting is not necessery, it puts zero wear on the drivtrain compared to power shifting at redline, or simply starting up the hill.
So please get your facts strait.
Maybe it was like that long ago. However, cars now don't need engine braking unless you're in a mountainous area or racing.
Originally Posted By: Popinski
seriously.. on common roads.. it's easier to pop in neutral, let it coast and use a little bit of brake to stop. Engine braking is useless and unnecessary wear.
I think people engine brake because:
A. they watch too many race car videos on youtube
B. Watched Fast and the Furious movies.
C. People just think it's cool because of the sound of the engine and exhaust.
Unless of course you are in a very hilly/mountainous roads, then it's understandable.
Oh, really, well last time I checked, the mnual transmission was in use long before video games, TV and movied were invented, and back in those days you had to rev. match on the upshifts and downshifts, so your nice little theory doesn't hold water unless you talk to some 17-year olds. These practices were developed to reduce the wear and tear on the drive train, the invention of synchronizers eliminated the need to rev. match and double clutch to an extent. It is still a good practice to double clutch and rev. match, as it puts less strain on the synchros, especially at higher RPM's.
While downshifting is not necessery, it puts zero wear on the drivtrain compared to power shifting at redline, or simply starting up the hill.
So please get your facts strait.
Maybe it was like that long ago. However, cars now don't need engine braking unless you're in a mountainous area or racing.
Originally Posted By: Popinski
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: Popinski
seriously.. on common roads.. it's easier to pop in neutral, let it coast and use a little bit of brake to stop. Engine braking is useless and unnecessary wear.
I think people engine brake because:
A. they watch too many race car videos on youtube
B. Watched Fast and the Furious movies.
C. People just think it's cool because of the sound of the engine and exhaust.
Unless of course you are in a very hilly/mountainous roads, then it's understandable.
Oh, really, well last time I checked, the mnual transmission was in use long before video games, TV and movied were invented, and back in those days you had to rev. match on the upshifts and downshifts, so your nice little theory doesn't hold water unless you talk to some 17-year olds. These practices were developed to reduce the wear and tear on the drive train, the invention of synchronizers eliminated the need to rev. match and double clutch to an extent. It is still a good practice to double clutch and rev. match, as it puts less strain on the synchros, especially at higher RPM's.
While downshifting is not necessery, it puts zero wear on the drivtrain compared to power shifting at redline, or simply starting up the hill.
So please get your facts strait.
Maybe it was like that long ago. However, cars now don't need engine braking unless you're in a mountainous area or racing.
Every single car does engine breaking,automatics does this automatically for you(unless you force it)and with manual transmissions , you have 100% control of it.
It all boils down to degree.Now if you drive like a nut,then you have other issues.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: Popinski
seriously.. on common roads.. it's easier to pop in neutral, let it coast and use a little bit of brake to stop. Engine braking is useless and unnecessary wear.
I think people engine brake because:
A. they watch too many race car videos on youtube
B. Watched Fast and the Furious movies.
C. People just think it's cool because of the sound of the engine and exhaust.
Unless of course you are in a very hilly/mountainous roads, then it's understandable.
Oh, really, well last time I checked, the mnual transmission was in use long before video games, TV and movied were invented, and back in those days you had to rev. match on the upshifts and downshifts, so your nice little theory doesn't hold water unless you talk to some 17-year olds. These practices were developed to reduce the wear and tear on the drive train, the invention of synchronizers eliminated the need to rev. match and double clutch to an extent. It is still a good practice to double clutch and rev. match, as it puts less strain on the synchros, especially at higher RPM's.
While downshifting is not necessery, it puts zero wear on the drivtrain compared to power shifting at redline, or simply starting up the hill.
So please get your facts strait.
Maybe it was like that long ago. However, cars now don't need engine braking unless you're in a mountainous area or racing.
Every single car does engine breaking,automatics does this automatically for you(unless you force it)and with manual transmissions , you have 100% control of it.
It all boils down to degree.Now if you drive like a nut,then you have other issues.
If you want to split hairs, and get very technical, every time the clutch is used wear occurs to the clutch, every single time. How much wear? That depends on a lot of things, when properly used the wear is very, very little. As far as engine braking, when done properly there is no more wear than doing a simple upshift at the proper speed.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Anybody who knows how to double clutch and shift without using it. I had a clutch cable snap in Camp Hill, PA and drove over 250 miles without a clutch. I think it would be more difficult now with fuel injection. There I was able to start the thing in gear floored. Shifting was not rocket science.
I've driven Civics and Accord 5 speed tranmissions, and if I didn't have to stop for a light or start driving from a stop I was able to get to where I was going only using the clutch to take off. upshifts and downshifing w/o the clutch was very easy. For some reason I found those 2 cars very easy to drive w/o the clutch. The fact that they were lease returns made it even easier.
YMMV
Anybody who knows how to double clutch and shift without using it. I had a clutch cable snap in Camp Hill, PA and drove over 250 miles without a clutch. I think it would be more difficult now with fuel injection. There I was able to start the thing in gear floored. Shifting was not rocket science.
I've driven Civics and Accord 5 speed tranmissions, and if I didn't have to stop for a light or start driving from a stop I was able to get to where I was going only using the clutch to take off. upshifts and downshifing w/o the clutch was very easy. For some reason I found those 2 cars very easy to drive w/o the clutch. The fact that they were lease returns made it even easier.
YMMV
Originally Posted By: 7777
Originally Posted By: FZ1
False economy. Wasteing your motor to save your brakes. Don't engine brake.
Before you start correcting other people's spelling,try correcting yours first.
(wasteing/wasting)See,nobody is perfect,including you.He got his point across, thats all that matters.
Thanks a lot 7777
.
I guess it's becoming more and more common on this board, when someone can't present logical arguments anymore; they start personal attacks.
Originally Posted By: FZ1
False economy. Wasteing your motor to save your brakes. Don't engine brake.
Before you start correcting other people's spelling,try correcting yours first.
(wasteing/wasting)See,nobody is perfect,including you.He got his point across, thats all that matters.
Thanks a lot 7777
I guess it's becoming more and more common on this board, when someone can't present logical arguments anymore; they start personal attacks.
I can't understand why a different approach to driving a manual transmission envelopes into watching Hollywood movies ? I downshift using the engine to brake the momentum of the vehicle. As said above I have never seen any undue wear on the clutch, the motor, or any other drive component of the vehicle. Now changing gears without using the clutch will damage the synchro gears, I have seen that first hand from a mechanic that was replacing a transmission. The driver was doing this because the slave cylinder was bad, he didn't have the time/money to fix it, so he just drove it, he tried using the clutch, however with a bad slave cylinder you don't have much of a clutch if any. I wanted to explain the entire reason for the damaged synchro gears, it may have been the combination of having a small engagement of clutch that caused the damage to the shnchro gears, I think it will damage the gears if you shift without using the clutch from this situation.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
Engine braking is useless and unnecessary wear.
What wear? I've never heard of any "wear" associated with engine braking.
Seriously (it's hard for me to not sound like a wise guy) ..just when has any engine/trans died from normal downshifting and engine braking? It's what you do with a manual trans. It's been in many owners manuals (haven't checked lately).
Correct, it's in my subaru forester (08) manual. Says not using engine breaking can be dangerous in a 5mt under certain circumstances.
All the "don't engine break or you'll explode your engine" people are probably auto drivers with manual-tranny-envy who never learned how to drive a manual
It simply makes logical sense to leave the car in gear and use the engines compression to slow you down when coming to a stop or red light, or when driving down a steep slope. It shifts the momentum from accel to decel, making the decel a lot safer... especially in a pretty symmetrical awd that has all 4 wheels connected to the ground... and engine breaking on this drivetrain works beautifully in the snow as a result. Bac (over at subaruforester.org) also said coasting in neutral in the subie 5mt is not healthy for this particular drivetrain. Can't remember the details, but he would know better than us... for subies anyway.
Quote:
Engine braking is useless and unnecessary wear.
What wear? I've never heard of any "wear" associated with engine braking.
Seriously (it's hard for me to not sound like a wise guy) ..just when has any engine/trans died from normal downshifting and engine braking? It's what you do with a manual trans. It's been in many owners manuals (haven't checked lately).
Correct, it's in my subaru forester (08) manual. Says not using engine breaking can be dangerous in a 5mt under certain circumstances.
All the "don't engine break or you'll explode your engine" people are probably auto drivers with manual-tranny-envy who never learned how to drive a manual
It simply makes logical sense to leave the car in gear and use the engines compression to slow you down when coming to a stop or red light, or when driving down a steep slope. It shifts the momentum from accel to decel, making the decel a lot safer... especially in a pretty symmetrical awd that has all 4 wheels connected to the ground... and engine breaking on this drivetrain works beautifully in the snow as a result. Bac (over at subaruforester.org) also said coasting in neutral in the subie 5mt is not healthy for this particular drivetrain. Can't remember the details, but he would know better than us... for subies anyway.
Legal CYA and lowest common denominator instructional.
And, Holy Cow, gentlemen, we're talking about reasonable and prudent downshifting. We aren't talking about Boy Racer stuff. Anything taken to extreme is gonna stress something. Tiptoing ginergly on the gears and clutch is hardly gonna make things blow up.
Get reasonable and stop trying to beat people over the head with your scenario as if it is THE ONLY WAY to go through life.
Jeesh.
And, Holy Cow, gentlemen, we're talking about reasonable and prudent downshifting. We aren't talking about Boy Racer stuff. Anything taken to extreme is gonna stress something. Tiptoing ginergly on the gears and clutch is hardly gonna make things blow up.
Get reasonable and stop trying to beat people over the head with your scenario as if it is THE ONLY WAY to go through life.
Jeesh.
Last edited:
In snow and Ice downshifting gently adds alot of control.
Brakes, even antilock brakes can become unresposnsive in situations that could cause loss of traction. If the wheels lock up you can't steer. If the antilock brakes go into indecisive mode (if you have had this happen to you you know how little fun it is)on ice you are not going to slow down...
Compared to when I am crwling my jeep offroad, downshifting wears on the clutch very little.
Don't get me wrong, I like the automatic vehicles I have but a manual tranny is alot easier to maintain. Even if you wear out a clutch or two in its lifetime. Automatics have a tendanciee to die earlier and are much more expensive to repair/replace than a clutch.
Brakes, even antilock brakes can become unresposnsive in situations that could cause loss of traction. If the wheels lock up you can't steer. If the antilock brakes go into indecisive mode (if you have had this happen to you you know how little fun it is)on ice you are not going to slow down...
Compared to when I am crwling my jeep offroad, downshifting wears on the clutch very little.
Don't get me wrong, I like the automatic vehicles I have but a manual tranny is alot easier to maintain. Even if you wear out a clutch or two in its lifetime. Automatics have a tendanciee to die earlier and are much more expensive to repair/replace than a clutch.
Agreed, drive any way you want. Stop the terror and doom and gloom and follow common sense driving practices.
Oh, and on Page 9-13 of my manual it clearly states there are two ways to tow a subie, one on a flatbed (which is the recommended) and the other with all 4 wheels on the ground with a "Caution" that the engine MUST be shut off to avoid engine damage. So, coasting in neutral with the engine running in the subie 5mt is bad joojoo. I'm glad they added that CYA point in my manual, and I don't plan to ignore it.
Back on topic, if you have significantly higher oil consumption as a result of engine breaking get it checked out, or start by checking/replacing your pcv valve.
Bryan, engine breaking in the snow is the business... and I have had anti-lock breaks behave horribly in the snow and just don't trust them as a result.
Oh, and on Page 9-13 of my manual it clearly states there are two ways to tow a subie, one on a flatbed (which is the recommended) and the other with all 4 wheels on the ground with a "Caution" that the engine MUST be shut off to avoid engine damage. So, coasting in neutral with the engine running in the subie 5mt is bad joojoo. I'm glad they added that CYA point in my manual, and I don't plan to ignore it.
Back on topic, if you have significantly higher oil consumption as a result of engine breaking get it checked out, or start by checking/replacing your pcv valve.
Bryan, engine breaking in the snow is the business... and I have had anti-lock breaks behave horribly in the snow and just don't trust them as a result.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
We're really dealing with engine vacuum. Diesels compress many CFM of air ..they don't have a throttle to produce vacuum.
..but that said, I really think the notion of engine braking causing excess wear, outside of something like an older gasoline school bus ..where the mass you're moving can potentially "over wind" the engine ..sending the rods flaying off into the nether world (which would bee termed "damage") is just not apparent.
My comments on vacuum were not intended to imply that there was excess wear, merely to point out that consumption due only to engine braking would be a function of vacuum - so likely bad PCV or worn valve guides - and that engine braking itself isn't responsible for oil consumption in some other mystical way.
We're really dealing with engine vacuum. Diesels compress many CFM of air ..they don't have a throttle to produce vacuum.
..but that said, I really think the notion of engine braking causing excess wear, outside of something like an older gasoline school bus ..where the mass you're moving can potentially "over wind" the engine ..sending the rods flaying off into the nether world (which would bee termed "damage") is just not apparent.
My comments on vacuum were not intended to imply that there was excess wear, merely to point out that consumption due only to engine braking would be a function of vacuum - so likely bad PCV or worn valve guides - and that engine braking itself isn't responsible for oil consumption in some other mystical way.
- Status
Similar threads
