Engine braking - a bad habit?

**Timbuk2**

I'm wondering is using the gears in the car to slow down bad for the car. I'm not talking about in slippery conditions, but rather just in general.

For example, if I was approaching a roundabout in fourth gear, I would shift down into third gear, thus slowing the car down slightly. Is this bad for the car?

Alanstrainor

In normal conditions i'd always live by the rule, gears to go, brakes to slow. A new transmission is a hell of a lot more expensive than some brake pads.

v300

Latest advanced driving techniques don't advocate it,
but many many people do it still.

The car is normally well able for it, as in all manual geraboxes of the last 60 years have a
a bearing specifically for gearing down thrust forces as you describe
and it gives many drivers the illusion of extra control.

Hence the hatred for automatics in Ireland as many drivers
can't get used to doing 100 percent of the braking with the middle pedal.

colm_mcm

So we are to rely on ABS and EBD and VSC and Brake Assist now. Great.

maidhc

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

For example, if I was approaching a roundabout in fourth gear, I would shift down into third gear, thus slowing the car down slightly. Is this bad for the car?

Nope, not in normal driving anyway. Slowing down gradually is much more fuel efficient than hanging onto the gas and pressing the brakes at the last moment.

biko

I use a combination of both in the city and will rely solely on engine braking going down long slopes in the country.

peasant

I think engine braking is a misnomer.

You don't really use the engine to brake but to decelerate.

Nobody in their right mind would hammer in a lower gear at the rev limiter for braking purposes, but it is quite good practice to accompany the deceleration from coming off the gas with a shift down once revs get too low and it is also good practice to select a low gear for going down steep descents instead of just relying on the brakes alone

bigar

I mainly use my engine to control my speed and will gear down to slow down before braking. In a lot of instances I do not even need to brake. I can easily drive many miles across roundabouts, taking turns without braking. I often drive to work from Dunshaughlin to Ballycoolin along the back roads with only needing to brake when I park the car at work.

You just need to keep enough distance and try and foresee traffic. I see it as a mark of good driving as I feel that braking a lot means you have less control over your car.

Scruff

I noticed on the way into lots of towns in New Zealand they have signs saying "No Engine Breaking". I always wondered wtf that was about.... I presume it is aimed at HGVs.

Stephen

Same in the US too, and it is aimed at HGVs.

Abelloid

I'm with bigar ^^ I've always done it, in all my years driving I've only ever needed one clutch change and I've had brake pads and tyres last years.

antodeco

I keep going down to Neutral and slow with the brakes, which I know is bad to do (from a safety point of view). Is going from, say, 5th straight to 3rd, bad for the car?

Heroditas

antodeco wrote: »

Is going from, say, 5th straight to 3rd, bad for the car?

I wouldn't have thought so, not if the revs aren't shooting up dramatically whenever you change down

Abelloid

antodeco wrote: »

I keep going down to Neutral and slow with the brakes, which I know is bad to do (from a safety point of view). Is going from, say, 5th straight to 3rd, bad for the car?

If you've slowed down enough, no.

Braking in neutral is crazy.

P.C.

Scruff wrote: »

I noticed on the way into lots of towns in New Zealand they have signs saying "No Engine Breaking". I always wondered wtf that was about.... I presume it is aimed at HGVs.

Yip -aimed at trucks.
When I was driving trucks, they had exhaust brakes, which slow the truck down, but also
- make a lot of noise
- are not conected to the brake lights.

That is why in some towns they are not popular.

AugustusMaximus

Never use engine braking. I just don't see the point in it.

The brake pedal is designed to slow the car down, the gearbox is not.

Fishtits

Alanstrainor wrote: »

In normal conditions i'd always live by the rule, gears to go, brakes to slow. A new transmission is a hell of a lot more expensive than some brake pads.

Alan, engine braking will not damage a modern (post 1930ish) transmission.

zilog_jones

Alanstrainor wrote: »

In normal conditions i'd always live by the rule, gears to go, brakes to slow. A new transmission is a hell of a lot more expensive than some brake pads.

I've seen this argument before, but do not see what excessive force engine braking is going to put on the transmission. If anything there's less force being applied compared to when accelerating. You're more likely to have to replace the discs/drums at some stage in a car's lifetime than the gearbox, and that will cost a bit for all four wheels. Also, depending on your driving style you'll be using the clutch a lot more if you never use engine braking.

The brake pedal is designed to slow the car down, the gearbox is not.

The gearbox is designed to slow down the car when not accelerating. Engine braking doesn't happen by magic.

dougie-lampkin

maidhc wrote: »

Nope, not in normal driving anyway. Slowing down gradually is much more fuel efficient than hanging onto the gas and pressing the brakes at the last moment.

Slowing down using the gears uses no fuel in 99% of cars. If you have a fuel injected car, it uses no fuel at all. If you have a carb'ed engine, it uses the same amount of fuel used to idle the car. Slowing down gradually without using the brakes until you need to is the most economic way of driving. You'll also find it's easier on the engine. Since there's no combustion, your engine internals are under much less pressure than if you were accelerating.

I'm with bigar and JustinOval on this, there's no need to touch the brakes unless in stop/start traffic in town, or when bringing the car to a rest. Using the brakes means you'll have to burn extra fuel to replace the momentum lost by using an external force to slow the car. By using engine braking, this would have been more or less compensated by anticipating the road ahead and slowing down earlier using the engine's own power.

The transmission can withstand enough force to propel a 2-ton lump of metal from a standstill to motorway speeds in less than 15 seconds, for several hundred thousand miles in the vast majority of cars. What magic undue force is engine braking putting on it that suddenly kills transmissions? You're putting an even bigger force on it whether you realise it or not by braking while in gear. The gearbox then has to withstand the opposite force of matching the engine speed to the road speed. The transmission is just idling along when you're engine braking, compared to when you're accelerating or braking. Even pootling along at a steady speed causes more of a force than engine braking, as external forces try and slow you down they apply an opposing force on the gears to the engine's power.

And that motto "gears to go, brakes to slow" is very misleading. The gears have nothing to do with engine braking or accelerating, other than providing a medium for the engine force to reach the wheels. If you replaced the transmission with one driveshaft from the engine's flywheel to the wheels it would provide the exact same forces (granted, at a much higher road speed, somewhere between 4th and 5th in a normal car). Gears are under no more stress while engine braking than they would be sitting in your garage...

It also annoys me when driving instructors discourage people from using engine braking. It's a valid driving manoeuvre, you won't be penalised for doing it in a driving test. I downshifted through the gears when slowing down or stopping in my test, using the brakes as little as possible unless I needed to show the car behind I was slowing down significantly, and I didn't get marked down for any of the car's controls. This casts a doubt into people's minds about how the car's controls work (like the OP, no offence intended). People should be taught how and why the car works before driving it. But this is a more fitting piece for R&R, not here

Alanstrainor

Fishtits wrote: »

Alan, engine braking will not damage a modern (post 1930ish) transmission.

I have to admit, it's something that i have always been told, however i never looked into the technical side of things, it just seemed to make sense. But that being said, it still wouldn't change my mind on things, in normal driving conditions, i would still rather stop in the gear i'm in rather than shifting down through all the gears to include some gentle engine braking.

AugustusMaximus

I don't think my driving style would accomodate engine braking. Too much hard braking.

Atomic Pineapple

bigar wrote: »

I mainly use my engine to control my speed and will gear down to slow down before braking. In a lot of instances I do not even need to brake. I can easily drive many miles across roundabouts, taking turns without braking. I often drive to work from Dunshaughlin to Ballycoolin along the back roads with only needing to brake when I park the car at work.

You just need to keep enough distance and try and foresee traffic. I see it as a mark of good driving as I feel that braking a lot means you have less control over your car.

My only worry with this is that cars following you would not be aware of your braking as your brake lights would not be lighting up but your car will be slowing down

bog master

dougie-lampkin

Fair play, you beat me to it. Came across this thread an hour ago and googled away till now! Lots of divided opinion on petrol use, wear and tear etc.

But the one that kills me, is supposedly the safety factor, in that you have to "concentrate" on shifting down and hence may be to pre-occupied to see potential road hazards! If one has to think that much about shifting gears, I wonder should they be driving at all?

For the record, was taught it as a learner driver, and in a advanced driving school.

Capt'n Midnight

You should know how to slow down the car with the engine, in case of emergencies.

Abelloid

draffodx wrote: »

My only worry with this is that cars following you would not be aware of your braking as your brake lights would not be lighting up but your car will be slowing down

The slowing down isn't so abrupt it needs a bank of LEDs flashed at the driver behind, I think the drivers that brake late entering a bend are more dangerous.

AugustusMaximus

JustinOval wrote: »

The slowing down isn't so abrupt it needs a bank of LEDs flashed at the driver behind, I think the drivers that brake late entering a bend are more dangerous.

Well you're not going to run into the back of them anyways.

dougie-lampkin

draffodx wrote: »

My only worry with this is that cars following you would not be aware of your braking as your brake lights would not be lighting up but your car will be slowing down

That's a good point, especially with the amount of tailgaters our roads seem to attract. But if you're slowing down it's usually pretty clear as to why, and the car behind should also be able to see that they'll need to slow down. You won't be decelerating fast enough that the driver behind can't react in time, as long as he's paying attention to the road.

In traffic I still use the brakes, just so the guy behind knows when I'm stopping. It's entirely possible to drive in traffic without touching the brake at all though, I've done it to try it out, using the handbrake just to keep the car from rolling when stopped.

bog master wrote: »

dougie-lampkin

Fair play, you beat me to it. Came across this thread an hour ago and googled away till now! Lots of divided opinion on petrol use, wear and tear etc.

But the one that kills me, is supposedly the safety factor, in that you have to "concentrate" on shifting down and hence may be to pre-occupied to see potential road hazards! If one has to think that much about shifting gears, I wonder should they be driving at all?

For the record, was taught it as a learner driver, and in a advanced driving school.

Everyone seems to have a different opinion on which is better, and I suppose it's down to what you're more comfortable with. Both are valid driving techniques (you won't fail a driving test for doing either type, as long as you don't coast), and neither is right or wrong. I'm not sure if there's even proper evidence to support either being better for the car's health in the long run. I'm willing to accept either view, but I just can't see how engine braking can be slated for causing undue wear to any part of the engine or drivetrain though, to the point where it's frowned upon

After driving a car for a while, you'll find changing gears is second nature. Subconsciously you'll know how this particular engine will react if you drop a gear, or change up, or whatever. Every car I've driven reacted slightly differently to how I'd drive another car (maybe because I've never driven two remotely similar cars :pac:). Once you get comfortable with the car, you shouldn't be thinking about changing gears, it should happen automatically. If it doesn't, you shouldn't be driving a manual. You don't have to think about how much you'll need to turn the wheel to take a corner, it just happens. I think this goes back to what I mentioned earlier about learner training. Learner drivers seem to be taught how to pass a test, not how to control a car.

IMO having a good knowledge of what does what is fair handy, especially in our current weather conditions. It's nice to know that if you hit a patch of ice or oil on the road, or some other obstacle, at least you'll instinctively know what to do to try and regain control (whether or not it'll be of any use to you when you hit a patch of black ice on a bend is another matter though). That can't be examined in any driving test.

bigar

bigar wrote: »

I mainly use my engine to control my speed and will gear down to slow down before braking. In a lot of instances I do not even need to brake. I can easily drive many miles across roundabouts, taking turns without braking. I often drive to work from Dunshaughlin to Ballycoolin along the back roads with only needing to brake when I park the car at work.

You just need to keep enough distance and try and foresee traffic. I see it as a mark of good driving as I feel that braking a lot means you have less control over your car.

It's quite the opposite to a mark of good driving, brake lights alert following traffic to the fact you are slowing down. Drive the way you drive in a driving test and see how you get on.

Fishtits

Fishtits wrote: »

Alan, engine braking will not damage a modern (post 1930ish) transmission.

Depends really, engine braking that will not wear the transmission at all would be very very gentle with minimum retardation achieved, to actually slow a car down by dropping gears so the rpms rise above 3000rpm would definitely damage the transmission if done regularly. To use engine braking to a degree that would not damage a transmission the driver would be preparing to stop very much in advance of when the stop is required, in the process being a total nuisance to other road users as they would not be progressing adequately.

I tend to use engine braking in conjuction with the brakes when driving normally about the town, there are so many people who drive too close to other cars and who seem in another world I would not feel comfortable without the brake lights illuminated when I am slowing, many folk would be oblivious to a car in front going from 30mph to 20mph over the course of a hundred yards or so.

The bearings in the gearbox do begin to whine after tens of thousands of miles of engine braking, I had a Celica SS2 a couple of years back and I reckon she was thrown into corners slowed down by gearchanges rather than brakes by a previous owner.

Pdfile

Alanstrainor wrote: »

In normal conditions i'd always live by the rule, gears to go, brakes to slow. A new transmission is a hell of a lot more expensive than some brake pads.

too right, i just freewheel and drive in as much of a passive, most continuis as i can..


rather then waiting till the last second like most and slowing to 10 from 30 then to 0 mph for example, id much rather lose speed less slowly... Earlier.

Taxi drivers hate it so i do it as much as i can

Abelloid

RoverJames wrote: »

It's quite the opposite to a mark of good driving, brake lights alert following traffic to the fact you are slowing down. Drive the way you drive in a driving test and see how you get on.

I passed first time, thanks.

dudara

I'm a fan of a smooth, continuous driving style, which means I do use gear changes to control speeds, but in conjunction with brakes too. I suppose this comes from the fact that I like to keep the car moving smoothly (regardless of the speed I'm doing).

I definitely use brakes less than some people, but I am still aware of the fact that you need to illuminate your actions for other road users. I just think that some drivers don't realise that there are other ways of slowing and controlling your car other than brakes. Maybe the recent icy conditions have taught some people how to actively use gears when driving.

LookBehindYou

For the fans of using brakes only, try it on a fast motorbike, you will end up on the ground.
I use engine braking and brake lightly to keep smooth.
I never wrecked any gearbox or clutch.
If you rely on brakes only, you are not in full control of whatever you drive.

Alanstrainor

LookBehindYou wrote: »

For the fans of using brakes only, try it on a fast motorbike, you will end up on the ground.
I use engine braking and brake lightly to keep smooth.
I never wrecked any gearbox or clutch.
If you rely on brakes only, you are not in full control of whatever you drive.

We're not talking about bikes though, things on a bike are very different. I don't understand your thinking that using brakes only means you're not in full control of your car? Can you elaborate? In a modern car with disk brakes, under normal driving conditions brakes alone are more than enough to bring you to a complete stop. Years ago when drum brakes were used all around the car, it would have been best practise to use engine braking to assist, as prolonged use of brakes could result in brake fade.

KamiKazi

LookBehindYou wrote: »

For the fans of using brakes only, try it on a fast motorbike, you will end up on the ground.
I use engine braking and brake lightly to keep smooth.
I never wrecked any gearbox or clutch.
If you rely on brakes only, you are not in full control of whatever you drive.

Pretty much summed it up.

Alanstrainor wrote: »

We're not talking about bikes though, things on a bike are very different. I don't understand your thinking that using brakes only means you're not in full control of your car? Can you elaborate? In a modern car with disk brakes, under normal driving conditions brakes alone are more than enough to bring you to a complete stop. Years ago when drum brakes were used all around the car, it would have been best practise to use engine braking to assist, as prolonged use of brakes could result in brake fade.

Not really that different, bikes take a bit more driving skill - but it's the same principle in both cases. And it's not so long ago that bikes had drum brakes.

ianobrien

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You should know how to slow down the car with the engine, in case of emergencies.

Yep, very handy to know when the seals in the master cylinder break and all the brake fluid disappears

I had to change the underwear after mind.........

Try drive a 35 year old car, and then you'll learn all about engine braking, the 35 year old brakes are crap, even with modern pads (and are soon to be replaced with modern 4-pots)

rubensni

Can people separate how they were thought to drive in the driving test and how one should actually drive in a 21st century car. Shifting down from 5th to 4th an then to 3rd or even on to 2nd to go through a roundabout is a waste of time and energy (yours).

Letting the car gradually slow down, while lightly applying the brake when necessary (if even just to show the driver behind your intention) is more fuel efficient and causes less wear and tear to the gearbox. Then, when you're ready to accelerate again, select whatever gear you need and drive on. Easy.

This brief article covers the whole issue:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1377/to-slow-a-stick-shift-car-should-you-brake-or-downshift

Alanstrainor

rubensni wrote: »

Can people separate how they were thought to drive in the driving test and how one should actually drive in a 21st century car. Shifting down from 5th to 4th an then to 3rd or even on to 2nd to go through a roundabout is a waste of time and energy (yours).

I agree. Shifting down through all the gears is usually a waste of time and effort. Block shifting down to 2ndis the way to go in that situation, not for engine braking, but to be ready to move off if the roundabout is free.

rubensni wrote: »

Letting the car gradually slow down, while lightly applying the brake when necessary (if even just to show the driver behind your intention) is more fuel efficient and causes less wear and tear to the gearbox. Then, when you're ready to accelerate again, select whatever gear you need and drive on. Easy.

This brief article covers the whole issue:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1377/to-slow-a-stick-shift-car-should-you-brake-or-downshift

That seems daft to me, why don't you use the brakes to stop? Would you mind explaining how using the cars brakes will wear the gearbox?

Perhaps i've misunderstood what you are trying to say, but you appear to contradict what you are saying somewhat. At first you say why bother changing down through all the gears when you can stop in the gear you're in, which i agree with btw, although it depends on the situation. But then you go on to talk about stopping gradually, and only using the brakes "to show the driver behind your intention".

jimmycrackcorm

rubensni wrote: »

Can people separate how they were thought to drive in the driving test and how one should actually drive in a 21st century car. Shifting down from 5th to 4th an then to 3rd or even on to 2nd to go through a roundabout is a waste of time and energy (yours).

Go round a roundabout in 5th gear then?

rubensni

Alanstrainor wrote: »

That seems daft to me, why don't you use the brakes to stop? Would you mind explaining how using the cars brakes will wear the gearbox?

Because you use less fuel by letting the car gradually slow then keeping the revs up and then braking hard at the last minute. Unless you've got regenerative brakes you just end up making heat.


Also, I never said using the brakes would wear the gearbox (that makes no sense) what I meant by the statement was one shift from 5th to 2nd causes less wear than three shifts from 5th>4th>3rd>2nd.

BrianD3

Every time you lift off the throttle with the drive engaged, you're using engine braking. As for engine braking by changing down through the gears, it's possibly the clutch that will experience extra wear rather than the gearbox.

If rev matching is done on downchanges then wear is reduced and you get asmoother change. You get less engine braking from the downchange, but once you're in the lower gear you'll get more engine braking by then lifting off the throttle than you would have had you stayed in the higher gear.

Alanstrainor

rubensni wrote: »

Also, I never said using the brakes would wear the gearbox (that makes no sense) what I meant by the statement was one shift from 5th to 2nd causes less wear than three shifts from 5th>4th>3rd>2nd.

Ah, apologies, i knew i was reading that wrong. I completely agree!

I'm not exactly a "green" driver, so not using brakes to save on petrol really doesn't make sense to me. If i was coming to a stop i'd just brake and stop in what ever gear i was in.

fonecrusher1

rubensni wrote: »

Because you use less fuel by letting the car gradually slow then keeping the revs up and then braking hard at the last minute. Unless you've got regenerative brakes you just end up making heat.

This is what its all about.
The most mechanically stressful events for a car's engine on a daily basis is starting the car in the morning (from cold). And taking off & coming to an abrupt stop.
When you slow down the car to a halt all the time your killing momentum, increasing full consumption & wearing out your brake pads & brake components. Then you have re-accelerate from the halt which means more revs, more wear n tear on engine components & burning more fuel.
Yes i know you obviously have to come to a full stop sometimes but jumping on the brakes 30ft before a stop sign is just dumb.
I would say i use my brakes half of the time & my gears (for slowing down) the other half. Nothing wrong with the latter if done properly. Ive never had to replace a gearbox or clutch in any car ive owned.


Btw.........those of you that ride the clutch for a while before using your brakes, you're playing with fire.

Alanstrainor

BrianD3 wrote: »

Every time you lift off the throttle with the drive engaged, you're using engine braking. As for engine braking by changing down through the gears, it's possibly the clutch that will experience extra wear rather than the gearbox.

If rev matching is done on downchanges then wear is reduced and you get asmoother change. You get less engine braking from the downchange, but once you're in the lower gear you'll get more engine braking by then lifting off the throttle than you would have had you stayed in the higher gear.

All true. But is that actually benefitting you in any way when stopping in normal conditions?

_Kaiser_

I tend to avoid using the brake unless necessary and find it works pretty well.
Maybe that's because I have a DSG auto box, but I find that I can control the speed of the car just fine with just the accelerator and reading the road/car ahead.

Nothing more annoying than the car that is forever hitting the brakes in front of you every few seconds - doubly more annoying when they do it at night whenever they see headlights appear on the opposite side of the road.