stick shift

[dopeless]

Hey all. I was just wondering, for all of you who drive a stick shift or manual car, what do you do when slowing down; downshift through each gear, or just put it in neutral? And what are the advantages and disadvantages of either? Thanks. I'm a new driver, and my first car will likely be my dad's honda accord

[Fri]

Automatic cars are somewhat rare in my place. Anyway I'm not the best driver around. In fact, I'm one of the worst driver around. But practically every driver that I know and seen downshift each gear when they slow down. In fact, I never seen/heard anyone putting the gear into neutral when slowing down.

[Totally Guy]

When decelerating I move down the gears. Not necessarily one at a time. I drop town to the gear appropriate to the speed.

I can't think of a reason why I'd put the car into neutral whilst driving.

[Zeb The Troll]

I downshift most of the time, but sometimes, at low speeds, I just hold the clutch in and coast while braking. But even then, I move the shifter through the gears as I'm doing it, I just don't let up on the clutch.

The only gear I almost never use while decelerating is 1st gear. By the time I'm going that slow, I'm almost at a stop anyway.

Advantages of gearing down: it saves wear on your brakes; if the light turns green before you come to a complete stop, you're already in gear! :smallcool:
Disadvantages: can take some practice as a new driver (I think my daughter still doesn't do this because she's uncomfortable with it and she learned how to drive in a stick)

Advantages of coasting: less work
Disadvantages: you have to be really familiar/comfortable with your vehicle to know which gear you need to be in should you have to put it in gear and start driving again before coming to a complete stop and starting from 0. Many beginners bog down or race the engine by mis-guessing what gear they should be in.

In my view, one method isn't inherently better than the other. It's just a matter of being comfortable with what you're doing.

**Added Recommendation: Learn to shift, up AND down, without a clutch if you know someone who can teach you. Knowing how has literally and figuratively saved my life. This is something that should be shown and not just explained.

[Commander McCoy]

By putting it in neutral, do you just mean engaging the clutch? You shouldn't ever have to actually put the car in neutral while driving. Although, some people I know put it in neutral when stopped at a light, while I just keep it in 1st with my foot on the clutch. Anyways, I downshift when slowing down. I don't shift through every gear, though. For example, if I'm driving 45 MPH (5th gear for me), I'll usually only hit 3rd and 1st while downshifting. This is the way my dad taught me, and it's the way I've always done it. However, after doing a quick bit of googling, I came across this (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1377/to-slow-a-stick-shift-car-should-you-brake-or-downshift). So now I'm not so sure.

[wxdruid]

Had a few stick shift cars. I usually push in the clutch while I slow down and stop and put the car into first while I'm waiting for the light. This habit stems from my first car where it didn't always want to go into first gear when I wanted it to. :smalltongue:

My father used to downshift through each gear instead of using the brakes and then at the last moment he'd pull up on the parking brake (realize this was a late 60's VW beetle and the brakes were bad).

[rakkoon]

Driving school instructor said to always gear down, otherwise you're only using your breaks and they will deteriorate faster which is dangerous.
In practice I put it in neutral when going very slow (less than 40 km/h)

Also, never gear down to the first position (just thought I'd mention that)

[The Rose Dragon]

I can't think of a reason why I'd put the car into neutral whilst driving.

By "whilst driving", do you mean while the car is moving or while you're on the wheel. Putting the car into neutral is a good thing to do while the car is stopped, as it works the engine less and burns less gasoline than being in first gear. I actually drive an automatic, and even I make a habit of putting it on neutral when I'm at a red light.

((This post has been brought to you by the wisdom of my dad, who has been driving a car for longer than some of you are old (not you, Zeb) and is the best non-professional driver anyone he knows has seen.))

[Zeb The Troll]

Putting the car into neutral is a good thing to do while the car is stopped, as it works the engine less and burns less gasoline than being in first gear.This is not true. Having the clutch depressed while you sit at a stop is exactly the same neutral as taking it out of gear. In both cases the engine is completely disengaged from the drivetrain and is at idle.

While it might be slightly more true in an automatic, I think you'll find that the difference is so negligable as to be meaningless. It may have made an actual difference in the early days of automatic transmissions (back when a stick shift was referred to as a "standard" transmission) but engineering has made up the difference long ago.

[The Rose Dragon]

This is not true. Having the clutch depressed while you sit at a stop is exactly the same neutral as taking it out of gear. In both cases the engine is completely disengaged from the drivetrain and is at idle.

I know that, but either way, you're not at first gear anymore. It doesn't quite matter where the shift stick is, only the gear box.

EDIT: Then again, I might not have expressed myself as well as I wanted to, since all my knowledge of engines is in Turkish.

Do other countries have mandatory engine classes for driving licenses as well?

[KuReshtin]

I always downshift, to the point of using my actual breaks very little. Then again, there are other times when I drive my car as if it were an automatic, even if it isn't. Accelerate up to top gear, then stay at top gear until I reach my destination, even if there are roundabouts or 30mph speed limits and such.

Downshifting and using the enginge to break for you actually saves fuel, as if you have the clutch down, or if the engine is in neutral, it requires fuel to keep running, while if you use the engine to break, it requires no fuel at all. A good representation of that is if you have a MPG meter in your car.
If you're driving at 30 mph, and then just take the foot off the accelerator, the mpg meter will show that the car now gets 999.9 Miles to the gallon, since it's not using any fuel at all to keep the engine from turning.

[Zeb The Troll]

I know that, but either way, you're not at first gear anymore. It doesn't quite matter where the shift stick is, only the gear box.

EDIT: Then again, I might not have expressed myself as well as I wanted to, since all my knowledge of engines is in Turkish.I think there may be a misunderstanding of what you meant, then. Because you say to take it out of gear while you're at a stop. In a stick shift, you can't leave the car in gear at a stop. It'll stall. Therefore I presumed that you were only referring to the position of the shifter.


Downshifting and using the enginge to break for you actually saves fuel, as if you have the clutch down, or if the engine is in neutral, it requires fuel to keep running, while if you use the engine to break, it requires no fuel at all. A good representation of that is if you have a MPG meter in your car.
If you're driving at 30 mph, and then just take the foot off the accelerator, the mpg meter will show that the car now gets 999.9 Miles to the gallon, since it's not using any fuel at all to keep the engine from turning.:smallconfused:
Your engine requires fuel to keep running. Period. If you take your foot off of the accelerator at 30MPH and then put it in neutral, your MPG meter will still register its upper limit. If you've got your foot off the accelerator and you run out of gas, your engine will die whether you're in gear or not.

I am not convinced that a decelerating engine at 3000 RPM uses less fuel than idling at 1000 RPM. Can you show me some data that would illustrate this?

[Zar Peter]

When breaking I let the gear in as long as the engine is breaking. Then I put it to neutral and use the breakes.

My father told me: The clutch is more expensive then the breakes, never gear down just to breake.

[kabbes]

You should never, ever let the car coast along in neutral. If no gear is engaged then you do not have control of the vehicle. You should always move down through the gears as you decelerate. And if you aren't having to perform some kind of emergency stop, that deceleration should be slow and in a controlled fashion.

A gradual deceleration through engine braking should not place any kind of undue stress on a modern clutch. I've had one of my cars for 12 years now (from new) without any sign at all of the clutch needing to be replaced.

[Zeb The Troll]

You should never, ever let the car coast along in neutral. If no gear is engaged then you do not have control of the vehicleWhy would this prevent me from having control of the vehicle? I still have power to my steering (if it existed in the first place) as well as fully functional brakes. This does not make sense to me. The only thing it prevents me from doing is power skidding around a traffic circle. :smallcool:

[kabbes]

Why would this prevent me from having control of the vehicle? I still have power to my steering (if it existed in the first place) as well as fully functional brakes. This does not make sense to me. The only thing it prevents me from doing is power skidding around a traffic circle. :smallcool:I certainly wouldn't recommend turning the steering wheel hard without the engine being engaged to turn the wheels. You're asking to understeer or skid at best and flip the car at worst. You will be able to steer in the usual fashion, but not swerve away from an obstacle.

Furthermore, you have completely lost the ability to, you know, actually drive your vehicle. Good luck accelerating away from something that is about to hit you, for example.

[rakkoon]

If you use your brakes at high speed they deteriotate faster so they'll be less effective when you actually need them.

And about control, try taking a long turn in neutral without flying out of your car.

[Zeb The Troll]

I certainly wouldn't recommend turning the steering wheel hard without the engine being engaged to turn the wheels. You're asking to understeer or skid at best and flip the car at worst.Yeah, if you're racing. This should never be a problem on a public roadway. Besides, we're talking about decelerating to a stop, aren't we? Not rolling around downtown testing our driving skills?

A public street is NOT the place to be using the accelerator to affect your steering. Leave that stuff on the track.


You will be able to steer in the usual fashion, but not swerve away from an obstacle.Studies show that the average driver does not have the skill and coordination or presence of mind necessary to do this anyway. Almost all drivers without additional training, when confronted by this type of emergency, merely slam the brakes and hope to stop in time. What gear you're in will not alter the results of this act (and in fact, if you're slamming on the brakes, you SHOULD have your foot on the clutch, else the car will stall, further reducing the amount of control you have, especially if your car has antilock brakes, which would then not function correctly).


Furthermore, you have completely lost the ability to, you know, actually drive your vehicle. Good luck accelerating away from something that is about to hit you, for example.In 25 years of driving a stick, I have never had an issue either a) releasing the clutch or b) finding the correct gear and then releasing the clutch in time to accelerate. I have never, not once, not ever, felt like I was not in complete control of my vehicle while it was in neutral. Not even when it ran out of gas and I lost power steering.

[KuReshtin]

:smallconfused:
Your engine requires fuel to keep running. Period. If you take your foot off of the accelerator at 30MPH and then put it in neutral, your MPG meter will still register its upper limit. If you've got your foot off the accelerator and you run out of gas, your engine will die whether you're in gear or not.

I am not convinced that a decelerating engine at 3000 RPM uses less fuel than idling at 1000 RPM. Can you show me some data that would illustrate this?

If you have the car in gear, and you take your foot off the throttle, the engine will keep turning because it's in gear and the traction of the wheels will keep it turning. (I'm not good at exlaining these car terms).
The term I was referring to is deceleration fuel cut-off (http://www.cardictionary.com/definition/deceleration-fuel-cut-off.html).

I found this bit where someone quoted an actual repair manual (not sure which car, but it's from a Chevy forum and the guy posting it is an admin). Spoilered for length, and relevant points highlighted in bold.

DECELERATION MODE:
When the driver releases the accelerator pedal, air flow into the engine is reduced. The control module monitors the corresponding changes in the throttle position (TP), the mass air flow (MAF), and the manifold absolute pressure (MAP). The control module shuts OFF fuel completely if the deceleration is very rapid, or for long periods, such as long, closed-throttle coast-down. The fuel shuts OFF in order to prevent damage to the catalytic converters.

FUEL CUTOFF:

The control module cuts OFF fuel from the fuel injectors when the following conditions are met in order to protect the powertrain from damage and improve driveability:

• The ignition is OFF. This prevents engine run-on.

• The ignition is ON but there is no ignition reference signal. This prevents flooding or backfiring.

• The engine speed is too high, above red line.

• The vehicle speed is too high, above rated tire speed.

• During an extended, high speed, closed throttle coast down--This reduces emissions and increases engine braking.

• During extended deceleration, in order to prevent damage to the catalytic converters


I certainly wouldn't recommend turning the steering wheel hard without the engine being engaged to turn the wheels. You're asking to understeer or skid at best and flip the car at worst. You will be able to steer in the usual fashion, but not swerve away from an obstacle.

Furthermore, you have completely lost the ability to, you know, actually drive your vehicle. Good luck accelerating away from something that is about to hit you, for example.
This doesn't make sense at all. the engine doesn't turn the wheels, the steering wheel does that, and as long as the engine is turning over, you have power to the power steering, and you will be able to make any swerve or turn as normal (excluding power sliding and the like).

Obviously you won't be able to drive away from anything approaching you from behind at high speed, but that doesn't have anything to do with your ability to turn or swerve. The understeer/oversteer/flip over doesn't have anything to do with whether you're in gear or not, it's got to do with kinetic energy. Turn the wheel hard enough while in gear, and you're just as likely to experience understeer/oversteer/flip over as you are when you're not in gear.


Why would this prevent me from having control of the vehicle? I still have power to my steering (if it existed in the first place) as well as fully functional brakes. This does not make sense to me. The only thing it prevents me from doing is power skidding around a traffic circle. :smallcool:
Agreed.

If you use your brakes at high speed they deteriotate faster so they'll be less effective when you actually need them.

And about control, try taking a long turn in neutral without flying out of your car.

Tried it several times. never had a problem.

[wxdruid]

My father used to coast down our street in neutral and stop at our house. Often he turned the VW Beetle off and coasted down the street. He would also start the car by coasting down the street and popping the clutch at the bottom. He never lost control of the car and he always stopped exactly where he wanted to.

[smellie_hippie]

When breaking I let the gear in as long as the engine is breaking. Then I put it to neutral and use the breakes.

My father told me: The clutch is more expensive then the breakes, never gear down just to breake.

I'm looking for some validity on this. It makes sense to me, but I still downshift while breaking. I only use the clutch to engage from higher to lower gear, so that's just normal wear on the clutch.

I think the biggest wear on the clutch I have is starting from a dead stop on an incline. I have a tendency to put it in first and hover on that threshold of "about ready to go"... rather than leave my feet on the clutch and brake and then having to pop over to the gas...

[KuReshtin]

I hover on the clutch all the time when starting in an incline. The last car I had, I had for about 4 years, and I had no problem at all with the clutch during that time, even though it should wear it out quite a bit.

The car I've got now is bigger than the old one, and I still hover on the clutch, and I've had it for two yers, and have no problem with the clutch.

[factotum]

I don't think there's a simple answer to this question, because it depends what's happening! For example, if I'm slowing down for a left turn (UK, so don't have to cross on-coming traffic to do that), I'll generally shift from fourth to second and stay in that gear for the corner. If I'm slowing to a stop (e.g. coming up to a red light or making a right turn) I'll usually leave the car in whatever gear it happens to be and then drop the clutch for the last bit of the approach; I'll change into first once the car is stationary so I'm ready to pull away. If the lights change while I'm slowing down I'll change directly into whatever gear I think is appropriate for the speed I'm doing and accelerate away again. If I'm on a twisty road and slowing down for bends then the same thing applies--I'll go directly into the appropriate gear.

I really don't buy the argument that not downshifting wears out your brakes, incidentally--the extra deceleration provided by engine braking is pretty negligible most of the time, and it also seems to be ignoring that you're doing a hefty amount of extra wear and tear to your clutch; not to mention making for a very jerky and unpleasant ride for your passengers. I'd rather drive smoothly than try for some unmeasurable improvement in the lifetime of my brake pads.

[Keld Denar]

Also, brakes these days are a TON more resiliant than the old asbestos brakes they used to use. Cars in general are a ton more resiliant (except for the body, which is designed to break apart on impact for safety). If you have a car that wasn't built in the 80s, chances are you aren't gonna experience a huge difference in total wear between whether you use the brakes or the engine to slow yourself. And as long as you are doing regular maintanence, you'll should notice long before your brakes wear to the point where they won't stop you in an emergency. Things have factors of safety built into them, and your brakes can generally wear down 2-4 TIMES further than the normal recommended replacement point, because it would be a huge liability for the manufacturer if they didn't.

tl;dr, unless your car is more than 25-30 years, it shouldn't matter.

[xPANCAKEx]

ITT: pedants

but in answer to the op: always shift down - your breaking distance is much shorter, and you'll be able to react if you need to move in a hurry

[Tirian]

I'm also in the "brakes are less expensive than the clutch" camp. I just got rid of a car that I had had for fourteen years. Replaced the brakes on it twice, and the transmission never, which is a great deal for me (especially if you go with a company that offers a lifetime warranty on parts). I'll also say that I never noticed that my brakes were "shot"; they came up as red flags during the annual inspection process but I never had trouble stopping.

If you want a voice of authority in the debate, Cecil Adams agrees (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1377/to-slow-a-stick-shift-car-should-you-brake-or-downshift) that the body of evidence is that cars have changed faster than the popular wisdom about them has.

[Zar Peter]

I love this sentence:


OK, fine. But let's consider the advantages of downshifting: It's fun. Face it, this is the main reason anybody drives a stick-shift car in the first place, as opposed to an automatic like a normal person.

Automatic cars around here are pretty rare. I had one inherited from my granny, it was quite practical but I'm happy I have a stick shift now like all the other normal people. :smallbiggrin:

[Tirian]

I agree that stick shifts are sexy (and I'm in the United States where they are not common for reasons I've never understood), but there is only so much you can do when you're pulling up to a stop sign that's a tenth of a mile away. Downshifting is only fun when you hit traffic or a steep hill anyway.

[Dragosai]

I think it's all in your habit you get into, and the situation. I know for me I will down shift not always in descending gear order, if just slowing down. If I know I am coming to a stop i.e. a stop sign or light etc, I most always keep the clutch in and once I am like 98% stopped I put in first and get ready to go again. The exception is snow/ice, or one of the main reasons I will always want a stick over an automatic, down shifting on snow/ice is so much better then hitting your breaks. Letting the engine slow the wheels vs. the wheel stopping quickly and going into a slide, it has saved me a fender bender a few times.

As for people talking about rolling a car, with the LARGE variable of what kind of vehicle were are talking about, most all coupe or sedan style cars are extremely hard to roll on pavement. If you are going fast enough into a turn and end up off the payment, then it becomes easier to roll. Having done a lot of autocross in my time I have seen a lot of cars thrown into corners at crazy speeds, I have only seen one car roll and that was one that went wide off a turn hit grass, the rubber rolled and the rim grabbed the grass/dirt and over it went. That was an older VW Jetta forget the year somewhere around a 96 I believe.

[Jimp]

Always shift down through the gears. Don't down shift too early or you'll rev too high. Learn at which speeds to shift down to retain an overall steady momentum, it will only take an hour or less of driving to learn. Stop in second gear, start in first. Steady braking combined with easy down shifting is the way to go. It's the smoothest, easiest and most efficient, both in terms of fuel consumption and component wear, way of slowing to a stop. Don't coast in neutral, it's a very bad idea. Don't skip gears, it doesn't save any time or effort and only causes undue stresses and imbalances. It all sounds kinda daunting at first but you'll pick it up in a few hours and it eventually becomes instinctive.
Of course the rules change if you are driving on a track, but since you're just learning that's no concern right now :smallwink:

[Dragosai]

Always shift down through the gears. Don't down shift too early or you'll rev too high. Learn at which speeds to shift down to retain an overall steady momentum, it will only take an hour or less of driving to learn. Stop in second gear, start in first. Steady braking combined with easy down shifting is the way to go. It's the smoothest, easiest and most efficient, both in terms of fuel consumption and component wear, way of slowing to a stop. Don't coast in neutral, it's a very bad idea. Don't skip gears, it doesn't save any time or effort and only causes undue stresses and imbalances. It all sounds kinda daunting at first but you'll pick it up in a few hours and it eventually becomes instinctive.
Of course the rules change if you are driving on a track, but since you're just learning that's no concern right now :smallwink:

Can you explain why you think skipping gears matters? It in no way adds stress to anything, unless you mean skipping a gear going too fast and over reving the engine?

Also the part about coasting in neutral; its a bad idea why? I am not saying it's good, but I don't follow how it could be a "very bad idea".

[Jack Squat]

I think it's all in your habit you get into, and the situation. I know for me I will down shift not always in descending gear order, if just slowing down. If I know I am coming to a stop i.e. a stop sign or light etc, I most always keep the clutch in and once I am like 98% stopped I put in first and get ready to go again. The exception is snow/ice, or one of the main reasons I will always want a stick over an automatic, down shifting on snow/ice is so much better then hitting your breaks. Letting the engine slow the wheels vs. the wheel stopping quickly and going into a slide, it has saved me a fender bender a few times.

I do it this way too, when I do happen to drive a stick that is. Don't have to worry so much about snow and ice around here though.


As for people talking about rolling a car, with the LARGE variable of what kind of vehicle were are talking about, most all coupe or sedan style cars are extremely hard to roll on pavement. If you are going fast enough into a turn and end up off the payment, then it becomes easier to roll. Having done a lot of autocross in my time I have seen a lot of cars thrown into corners at crazy speeds, I have only seen one car roll and that was one that went wide off a turn hit grass, the rubber rolled and the rim grabbed the grass/dirt and over it went. That was an older VW Jetta forget the year somewhere around a 96 I believe.

I've done a 360 in a lifted Jeep Wrangler and it didn't flip - didn't even feel like it was off balance. I don't recommend it, but it's a lot harder to flip a car on a road than what people make it out to be.

[Jimp]

If you're skipping a gear one of several things will/have happened:
1. Your revs have dropped too low, risk of stalling is the most common problem.
2. Your revs will come back in too high, slightly increased clutch wear isn't much of an issue, the imbalance caused by overshooting in the revs is though. This is true both in terms of car momentum and engine movement. EDIT: unless you are revmatching, which 99% of people don't do when dropping a gear with the intention of increasing the revs.
3. Your clutch will have been engaged for 2-4 times longer than normal for a gear change. It's only seconds but it's a significant increase.
4. Chance of overloading the gear your entering. Not an issue for most people but if your car's service history is poor or you have an already worn gearbox this is the exact kind of sudden loading that can cause failures.
All small things but they add up over time.
While I don't know the exact reasons apart from massively increased gearbox wear, think of it this way. The neutral gear was designed for when the car is parked and stationary. It was never designed for movement. You are moving in neutral. See the problem?

[factotum]

If you're skipping a gear one of several things will/have happened:
1. Your revs have dropped too low, risk of stalling is the most common problem.
2. Your revs will come back in too high

I disagree. My car idles at about 800rpm. In 4th gear, that's about 20mph. If I drop it straight into 2nd, even assuming I'm not also braking at the same time (which I will be), that'll take it up to maybe 2500rpm at most, which is not even close to over-revving it. As for the clutch being in longer, why? It doesn't take me any longer to change gear from 4th to 2nd than it does from 4th to 3rd.

As for the comment on neutral, I never coast unless I'm in first gear and the car would stall otherwise--that has nothing to do with skipping a gear, though.

[Jimp]

Do you rev match to up the 2500 if you shift from 4th to 2nd?

[Keld Denar]

I guess I don't understand the coasting in neutral thing either, and I'm an engineer. If the clutch is depressed, the vehicle is in neutral (defined as: engine is not engaged to the drive train). As such, the motor is just turning over idley.

Is it a problem when you engage or disengage the clutch? Because if thats so, then there shouldn't be a factor between how long the clutch is depressed. Is it the fact that the engine is disengaged from the drive train at a high RPM? This happens every time you change gears, especially from 3rd to 4th to 5th (to 6th if you got it). I guess, looking at it from a mechanical point of view, I don't see any reason WHY this is bad. Is it possible that its just a myth or old wives tail or a style issue?

[Erloas]

but in answer to the op: always shift down - your breaking distance is much shorter, and you'll be able to react if you need to move in a hurry
This isn't true, in virtually every case of braking your limiting factor in stopping distance (with a given starting velocity and mass) is going to be the grip limit of your tires. If you slow down the speed of the tires with the brakes or engine makes no difference, you'll slow down as fast as the grip of your tires on the road will allow. At least slowing down in a controlled, and not skidding manner.

Its been a while since I drove a stick. For the most part I would leave the vehicle in neutral most of the time when slowing down (more then a few mph at least) and put it into whatever gear it needs to be when its time to no longer slow down.

[ForzaFiori]

I coast. When you shift down through the gears, that adds wear and tear to the gearbox, because your shifting more, and your making each gear get hit an extra time. It may not seem like once, but think of all the times you stop. It adds up. Meanwhile, you have the things called breaks, that are MADE to slow you down (An engine is made to speed you up), just sitting around bored, since you don't wanna use them. Why have them if your just gonna engine break?

Coasting in neutral is not a problem for the car. The engine is not "off" or any other nonsense like that. It is idling, just like at a stop. It is disconnected from the drivetrain and the wheels, so that isn't being messed up. The gearbox can easily go to it, since it goes there every time you shift. Your not moving the gearbox, so it isn't being messed up either.

All in all, new breaks cost less than a new gearbox. I'd rather just save my gearbox and use the breaks for what they were made for.

[Erloas]

One other thing to consider about brakes, in an automatic it is not really possible to downshift to use engine braking (well it is, but not practical enough to use on a regular basis). While the engine does downshift automatically, it does very little to slow down the car with the engine. And I haven't heard of any appreciable difference in the lifespan of brakes on a manual compared to an automatic. Under normal usage conditions the brakes on a car will still probably outlast many other major systems.

[blackfox]

If I'm coming to a stop, I put it in neutral and brake. This is harder on the brakes. This is also what an automatic transmission does, automatically, when you step on the brake pedal.

If I'm decelerating, I downshift through the gears, or occasional skip a gear--this usually happens going 4th to 2nd on the highway through my town, which has gratuitous amounts of lights. Downshifting is harder on the transmission.

Don't hold just hold the clutch down with the stick in gear, it wears out the pedal mechanism and IIRC the transmission itself.

Next time you're at a stop, put the car in neutral and look at the tachometer. It'll probably be ~700. This means that the engine is not off, it's just not putting energy through to anything that moves the wheels.

The most dangerous thing about coasting is that you can't accelerate to avoid a hazard. However, 95% of the time that you're coasting, you'll be either on the way to a stop sign or red light, in which case there's not too much of a chance that you'll have to/be able to accelerate to avoid a hazard--if anything you'd have to decelerate.

[Philistine]

I've driven manual transmission vehicles almost exclusively for twen... err, since I was in high school. I can either downshift or coast'n'brake to slow down; which one I use depends on the situation. If I'm just slowing, expecting to maintain or increase speed again without coming to a stop, then I'll run down the gears. If I'm planning to stop, though, I'll generally drop it into neutral and ride the brakes down. Brake work is not only significantly cheaper than replacing a clutch, in my experience brakes also tend to last as long as or longer.


Furthermore, you have completely lost the ability to, you know, actually drive your vehicle. Good luck accelerating away from something that is about to hit you, for example.
See, if I'm coasting and riding the brakes, it means I expect to come to a full stop in the immediate future. And the usual reason for coming to a full stop - at least, my usual reason for coming to a full stop - is that I'm approaching an intersection. "Accelerating away from something" in that situation would thus entail charging right into cross traffic (assuming there's nobody else already stopped in the lane in front of me). Maybe it's just me, but this seems like a really awfully terribly bad idea.

But if need be, I can have the car back in gear very, very quickly. Furthermore, when I do it'll be the correct gear for acceleration - typically one or two positions lower than what I'd be using at the same speed if I were using engine braking to decelerate. Good luck accelerating away from something that's about to hit you if you're mooching along in fourth gear @1200RPM...


The neutral gear was designed for when the car is parked and stationary. It was never designed for movement. You are moving in neutral. See the problem?
There is no "neutral gear." There is no massive increase in gearbox wear from coasting to a stop, because all "neutral" means is that the gearbox is not engaged.

[rakkoon]

OK, fine. But let's consider the advantages of downshifting: It's fun. Face it, this is the main reason anybody drives a stick-shift car in the first place, as opposed to an automatic like a normal person.

What? Shifting up is why you need a stick-shift so that you can control what amount of power to use and not some machine.

Also, what are the percentages in other areas? In America almost everybody uses an automatic (if TV hasn't lied to me and it never will), in Europe almost no one has an automatic ( I had one for a year but it was a free car so no complaints), how about Australia and such?

[factotum]

Do you rev match to up the 2500 if you shift from 4th to 2nd?

No, but why does that matter? The engine being driven up to 2500rpm by the drivetrain is not an issue, because if it was, you'd ALWAYS put the car in neutral whenever you were slowing down.

[Zeb The Troll]

Automatic cars around here are pretty rare. I had one inherited from my granny, it was quite practical but I'm happy I have a stick shift now like all the other normal people. :smallbiggrin:I wish sticks were more normal here. As it is, the majority of people younger than I am don't even know how to drive a stick any more. My daughter was the only person in her Driver's Ed class that knew what a clutch was for. :smallfrown:

[Pyrian]

Stick shifts are quickly becoming a viable anti-theft device. :smallbiggrin:

[Zar Peter]

I wish sticks were more normal here. As it is, the majority of people younger than I am don't even know how to drive a stick any more. My daughter was the only person in her Driver's Ed class that knew what a clutch was for. :smallfrown:

There is a very funny book I read recently, "Playing for Pizza" by John Grisham, about an American third class quarterback who is hired by a Italian Football team. One of the highlights is when the quarterback gets a car from his team and tries to park it... and demolish the cars in front and behind of him because it's a stick shift car. :smallbiggrin:

I want to add something to the theme but everything is written already. Shifting down to brake for a halt (red lights or stop sign) is a no no. Skipping gears down (for instance 4th to 2nd) is when you're drive around and is something I (and everyone I know) make regularly.

I learned in driving school: You use every gear to shift up and you shift down to the gear you need.

[Mando Knight]

I wish sticks were more normal here. As it is, the majority of people younger than I am don't even know how to drive a stick any more. My daughter was the only person in her Driver's Ed class that knew what a clutch was for. :smallfrown:

The closest I've ever gotten to having a chance at driving a stick is driving my grandpa's old lawn tractor around when I was a kid. Putting around on that thing is really cool when you're ten and can't drive on the streets for another six years. The clutch was effectively the brake... or was it vice-versa?

[Philistine]

I wish sticks were more normal here. As it is, the majority of people younger than I am don't even know how to drive a stick any more. My daughter was the only person in her Driver's Ed class that knew what a clutch was for. :smallfrown:

A lot of older drivers can't (or won't) drive a manual either, for that matter.

There are times when it's handy to have an automatic. I injured my right shoulder a few years ago, and for a couple of weeks afterward was unable to use that arm at all. This made shifting a little awkward, as you can probably imagine. Also, stop-and-go traffic is a little less unbearable in an automatic, since all you have to do is ease off the brake for a second to let the engine pull you forward a car length. An hour or two of doing that in a manual is a recipe for tired legs.

[KuReshtin]

Also, stop-and-go traffic is a little less unbearable in an automatic, since all you have to do is ease off the brake for a second to let the engine pull you forward a car length. An hour or two of doing that in a manual is a recipe for tired legs.

I don't see how that wold be any different from a manual, as all you'd have to do is to let up the clutch a bit and let the engine pull you forward that car length you need. The only difference would be that in the automatic, you've got your right foot on the break to keep the car from moving, while in a manual you're using your left foot on the clutch instead. Same result, though.

[Pyrian]

...You've never driven a stick-shift, have you? :smallamused:

It's not like the clutch replaces the brake. You're still going on and off the brake. And clutches are harder to work than brakes or accelerators - you have to get it more-or-less right or the car turns into a bucking bronco. You've got three limbs to work power instead of just one, and that's not such a big deal in normal course of a normal drive, but in heavy traffic when you're constantly changing speed it's a major pain in the neck. And the simple situation described above doesn't even begin to cover it. All around, people are speeding up and slowing down and cutting in and it's important to grab a chance at second or third gear when you get it.

Heavy traffic is my number one reason to prefer automatic over stick, and here in SoCal it's a reasonably frequent experience, too. My last couple of cars have been sticks, though, because they cost less and got better mileage.

[xPANCAKEx]

having learnt on stick (in the UK, if you pass your test on automatic you can only drive automatic, if you do it on manual then you're licensed for both), and driven both i can say that while manual is a bit more work its a FAR more enjoyable driving experiance

first time i drove automatic i litally did not know what to do with my left leg (i took my sisters advice and tucked it behing my right)... it just feels odd not to use my left foot when driving

[KuReshtin]

...You've never driven a stick-shift, have you? :smallamused:

What? Who? Me?
I don't drive anything BUT manual cars, except for when I visit my folks in Sweden, since my dad's car is an automatic.

I never have any problem just letting the clutch up just a bit to let the car pull itself forward if I'm in a traffic jam. Especially if I just need to get a car length or two forward. If I do that, I don't even use the accelerator.

[Pyrian]

If I do that, I don't even use the accelerator.Unless it's uphill, or you need a bit more speed, or, or, or... But you still have to use the brake in between. :smallconfused:

Let up brake - put in brake
vs.
Let up brake, let up clutch - put in clutch, put in brake

Nope. Not equivalent. And that's the simplest case. :smalltongue:

[KuReshtin]

Unless it's uphill, or you need a bit more speed, or, or, or... But you still have to use the brake in between. :smallconfused:

Let up brake - put in brake
vs.
Let up brake, let up clutch - put in clutch, put in brake

Nope. Not equivalent. And that's the simplest case. :smalltongue:

I'll concede there are times where you need to work a little bit more with a manual than in an automatic, but I still don't see how driving a manual car would be a "recipe for tired legs" as Phil stated earlier.
In that respect, there's no difference between the two, since you're no more likely to be tired from using the left foot on the clutch as well as using the right foot for the brake and accelerator.

[Tirian]

If you get tired from tapping your foot, then maybe standards aren't for you. But then you probably would barely be able to walk to and from your car in the first place which is a whole leg workout.

[Obrysii]

Hey all. I was just wondering, for all of you who drive a stick shift or manual car, what do you do when slowing down; downshift through each gear, or just put it in neutral? And what are the advantages and disadvantages of either? Thanks. I'm a new driver, and my first car will likely be my dad's honda accord

I do not know how the rest of the thread has gone, but here's my thoughts.

1.) To slow down while driving a stick shift, it is one of two things.
a) Downshift, but make sure you rev match! By this I mean, rev the engine while the clutch is pushed in to the correct RPM for the gear you are going into.
b) Push in the clutch if it's a short deceleration; it is always better to put it into neutral, however.

2) Downshifting is a good way to maintain a speed; for example, my car is happy in 3rd gear at 25mph, and if I don't allow it to rev much higher, I maintain that speed.

However - it's never good to over-rev your engine. You need to be pretty good at stick before you downshift to engine brake or to maintain a speed.

Not that I support this, but you -can- drive with almost no working brakes if you have a manual. I drove my Jetta for a month with a nearly-dead master cylinder. I did this because I had to - not because I wanted to. Never, ever do that. I was young and stupid.

At least with older cars, if you have sufficient space you can easily get to about 3mph by downshifting alone.

[Obrysii]

I'll concede there are times where you need to work a little bit more with a manual than in an automatic, but I still don't see how driving a manual car would be a "recipe for tired legs" as Phil stated earlier.

I am not sure of the context, but I know that if both of your legs are doing something, they tend not to get that whole "restless leg" thing - they become more energetic by doing something.

Sort of like if you're tired in the middle of the day - if you go for a walk or a brief run you'll come back more energetic than before.

[Force]

I ride a motorcycle, which technically is a "stick" shift (though we have a peg instead of a stick) and I prefer to downshift. If you clutch in and coast to a stop and suddenly have to accelerate, you're going to lug the engine badly, maybe even stall out.

I would take some time getting to know your car and the different speeds you can shift at. For example, on my bike, I upshift at 25, 40, 50, etc. and vice versa. This way, if I want to I can read the speedometer instead of the tac and coast to a stop with the clutch in, downshifting at the appropriate speeds. Your car should a bit easier, as you'll only need to know 4-5 gears (as opposed to the six on my Ninjette). As always, practice is key.

[Obrysii]

I ride a motorcycle, which technically is a "stick" shift (though we have a peg instead of a stick) and I prefer to downshift. If you clutch in and coast to a stop and suddenly have to accelerate, you're going to lug the engine badly, maybe even stall out.

I would take some time getting to know your car and the different speeds you can shift at. For example, on my bike, I upshift at 25, 40, 50, etc. and vice versa. This way, if I want to I can read the speedometer instead of the tac and coast to a stop with the clutch in, downshifting at the appropriate speeds. Your car should a bit easier, as you'll only need to know 4-5 gears (as opposed to the six on my Ninjette). As always, practice is key.

Very good advice. In general, you should make it a habit to always put the car into neutral when you are coming to a stop, unless you intend to downshift.

In general, it will take you a while to "master" your car - it's a little harder since it likely has a hydralic clutch (as opposed to a cable-controlled clutch in older cars); it's a little harder to feel when it grips. After time, though, you'll get a hang of it.

And you'll find different cars have very different shift speeds; my Jetta shifts from 1st to 2nd around 20mph, from 2nd to 3rd around 27mph, and I can stretch 3rd to 45mph; 4th I hardly use; and 5th is 45mph+ in most situations (55mph+ in highway, using 4th to go from 45 to 55). It's a bit scary because at 70mph it sits at about 4700rpm.

[Brother Oni]

I'd like add from a formal point of view (in the UK at least, where stick shift cars are the norm) that skipping gears when you downshift is a demerit when taking your practical driving test.

Coasting to a stop in neutral is also a definite no-no, since the car is technically not in control (the technical reasons were mentioned by Force). You're only supposed to leave the clutch fully depressed just before the vehicle comes to a complete stop to stop it from stalling.

Once you actually have your license, you tend to develop bad habits regardless, but I still like to use a combination of engine braking and actual braking to control my speed when driving.

[Zeb The Troll]

There is a very funny book I read recently, "Playing for Pizza" by John Grisham, about an American third class quarterback who is hired by a Italian Football team. One of the highlights is when the quarterback gets a car from his team and tries to park it... and demolish the cars in front and behind of him because it's a stick shift car. :smallbiggrin:I recently read this book and it is a fantastic read. Highly recommend. Two thumbs up. :smallcool:


Also, stop-and-go traffic is a little less unbearable in an automatic, since all you have to do is ease off the brake for a second to let the engine pull you forward a car length. An hour or two of doing that in a manual is a recipe for tired legs.I have bad knees. Stop and Go on the DC beltway for a 90 minute commute each way each day made them cry. (Note, I still prefer a stick to an automatic, even though the bad knees are not impressed.)


I don't see how that wold be any different from a manual, as all you'd have to do is to let up the clutch a bit and let the engine pull you forward that car length you need. The only difference would be that in the automatic, you've got your right foot on the break to keep the car from moving, while in a manual you're using your left foot on the clutch instead. Same result, though.The difference is the amount of force necessary to engage the clutch vs. that necessary to apply the brake. (Note, it's spelled b-r-a-k-e. B-r-e-a-k is something ceasing to remain whole and intact. :smallsigh:)


first time i drove automatic i litally did not know what to do with my left leg (i took my sisters advice and tucked it behing my right)... it just feels odd not to use my left foot when driving:smallcool: After a long period not driving an automatic, when I first get into one I have a nasty habit of slamming the brakes with my left foot, which is searching for the clutch and hits the oversized brake pedal instead, when I come to a traffic light or stop sign.


make sure you rev match! By this I mean, rev the engine while the clutch is pushed in to the correct RPM for the gear you are going into.No. Not necessary. Modern cars have syncromesh gearboxes which eliminate the need for this unless you are racing. This has been around since the late 1930s.


I ride a motorcycle, which technically is a "stick" shift (though we have a peg instead of a stick) and I prefer to downshift. If you clutch in and coast to a stop and suddenly have to accelerate, you're going to lug the engine badly, maybe even stall out. I'm a biker too, and yeah, that's a whole different ball game there. I felt it was beyond the scope of the original question.

[Force]

Very good advice. In general, you should make it a habit to always put the car into neutral when you are coming to a stop, unless you intend to downshift.



Heck no. If you have to accelerate away from a stop (i.e. someone loses control coming down a hill behind you) you'll waste precious time dropping from neutral to first. Only reason you should be in neutral at a stop is if your feet really need the rest (I do it at long lights, but holding a clutch handle in is a bit more tiring than a clutch pedal).




I'm a biker too, and yeah, that's a whole different ball game there. I felt it was beyond the scope of the original question.

Neat! Whatcha ride?

[Zeb The Troll]

Neat! Whatcha ride?Sportster 883. I went for the Custom since it has a 4.5 gallon gas tank instead of the 2.5 gallon that the normal version has. I might have gone bigger, but this is my first bike. At the time I bought it, the ONLY thing I'd ridden previously was the 500cc Buell Blast for the two road days of the Basic Rider's Course. Big was still scary then. Heck, I was nervous just riding that thing home the first time. :smallcool:

[Philistine]

I don't see how that wold be any different from a manual, as all you'd have to do is to let up the clutch a bit and let the engine pull you forward that car length you need. The only difference would be that in the automatic, you've got your right foot on the break to keep the car from moving, while in a manual you're using your left foot on the clutch instead. Same result, though.

What? Who? Me?
I don't drive anything BUT manual cars, except for when I visit my folks in Sweden, since my dad's car is an automatic.

I never have any problem just letting the clutch up just a bit to let the car pull itself forward if I'm in a traffic jam. Especially if I just need to get a car length or two forward. If I do that, I don't even use the accelerator.
Wait, WHAT? What do you do then, just sit with the shifter in first and hold the clutch in the entire time you're stopped - no matter how long that is?

Never mind the fact that, unless the road you're stopped on is very, very flat, you'll have to have the brake on anyway just to keep from rolling into the vehicle ahead of or behind you.


Heck no. If you have to accelerate away from a stop (i.e. someone loses control coming down a hill behind you) you'll waste precious time dropping from neutral to first. Only reason you should be in neutral at a stop is if your feet really need the rest (I do it at long lights, but holding a clutch handle in is a bit more tiring than a clutch pedal).
First: How often does that actually happen - to you, or even to anyone you know? I myself have never seen it, in two decades of driving. Second: see my earlier reply in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8992748&postcount=41), which specifically addressed the issue of accelerating away from something while slowing down on approaching an intersection; but exactly the same thing applies if you're already stopped at the intersection. I'll much sooner take my chances being rear-ended (by someone who's already trying to stop!) rather than charging out into crossing traffic to get hit from the side. Assuming there's not a car stopped directly in front of me already, that is.

[KuReshtin]

Wait, WHAT? What do you do then, just sit with the shifter in first and hold the clutch in the entire time you're stopped - no matter how long that is?

Never mind the fact that, unless the road you're stopped on is very, very flat, you'll have to have the brake on anyway just to keep from rolling into the vehicle ahead of or behind you.


If I'm in a traffic jam, I don't put my car in neutral, no. If we're in a standstill, only moving a car-length here or there, I leave it in first gear and use the clutch to control when I'm moving forward. If I'm on an incline enough for the car to roll I'll use the brake* to keep it stationary. That's only when the traffic jam is at a total stand-still, though. If it starts moving more than a few car lengths at a time, I'll get into second, if needed.
Obviously, if I realize that nothing'll happen for ages, such as at an accident or something, then I'll put it in neutral.
However, we seldon get traffic jams that last for ages and ages, and you're usually only stationary for a minue or two at a time before you have to move again.

I've never suffered from fatigued legs or knees from sitting in a traffic jam, though. Then again, I think the longest traffic jam I've ever been in was at a crash site where it took about an hour and a half to get about 2 miles.

* yes, I know how to spell it, Zeb, it just gets wrong every now and then, cause I tend to talk more about breaks than brakes. :smallcool:

[Zeb The Troll]

* yes, I know how to spell it, Zeb, it just gets wrong every now and then, cause I tend to talk more about breaks than brakes. :smallcool::smalltongue: That wasn't directed at anyone in particular. If you read back, probably six different people have used the wrong spelling. If it's been just one incident I'd have let it slide as a common typo. One I make myself on occasion.


breaks


breaks ... break ... breaks


break

Names changed to protect the innocent. :smallcool:

[factotum]

I ride a motorcycle, which technically is a "stick" shift (though we have a peg instead of a stick) and I prefer to downshift.

The difference there is that a bike has a sequential gearbox that doesn't ALLOW you to skip gears, doesn't it?


I'd like add from a formal point of view (in the UK at least, where stick shift cars are the norm) that skipping gears when you downshift is a demerit when taking your practical driving test.

That's changed sometime in the last 20 years, then. When I was learning to drive skipping gears on the downshift was perfectly acceptable, and I did it when I successfully passed my test. I honestly can't see why it would be otherwise--it's not actively dangerous to skip a gear going down, which is what they look for on a driving test.

[Zeb The Troll]

The difference there is that a bike has a sequential gearbox that doesn't ALLOW you to skip gears, doesn't it?That kind of depends on what you mean. It is sequential, yes. But if I'm travelling 60mph on the interstate, it is possible for me to clutch, toe down three times, and be 2nd gear before relaxing my clutch hand. I don't have to actively engage 4th, then 3rd, then 2nd.

[Pyrian]

I'll concede there are times where you need to work a little bit more with a manual than in an automatic...Good. Now hold that thought for over three hours a day.


But then you probably would barely be able to walk to and from your car in the first place which is a whole leg workout.How long is your walk to your car? :smallconfused:

[Brother Oni]

That's changed sometime in the last 20 years, then. When I was learning to drive skipping gears on the downshift was perfectly acceptable, and I did it when I successfully passed my test. I honestly can't see why it would be otherwise--it's not actively dangerous to skip a gear going down, which is what they look for on a driving test.

Dredging my memory, it's because if you need to engage the transmission suddenly for some reason, you're likely to be at the wrong speed (usually too high) and I really don't want to know what happens if you're doing 30 and engage the clutch at 1st gear.

Considering I learnt how to drive about 13 years ago, the change was probably a lot less recent than we both think (I think I was one of the first batches of people who had to take the driving theory test).

[Miklus]

Hey all. I was just wondering, for all of you who drive a stick shift or manual car, what do you do when slowing down; downshift through each gear, or just put it in neutral? And what are the advantages and disadvantages of either? Thanks. I'm a new driver, and my first car will likely be my dad's honda accord

I just put it in neutral and use the brakes for braking. I agree that brakes are cheaper than the clutch.

I don't "hover" when starting on an incline, I use the parking brake to hold it while the light is red. There is a steep incline on my daily commute, I would hate to wear on my clutch.

The new non-aspestos brake pads are crap. They wear out about twice as fast as the old ones. I noticed this when I wore through mine and ruined the disks. I use the B-trip counter to keep track of the age of my brakes. Only then did I realise that there was a new kind of pad. The old kind is forbidden by law, so the shop just used the new kind without telling me. The new kind also squeek, which annoys me to no end.

We are not taught much about engines in Denmark, but we do have a fun snow/ice simulating course. It is made with teflon and water spray. I shall never forget the half-wet-half-dry braking exercise. Who knew a car could spin so fast?

[factotum]

Dredging my memory, it's because if you need to engage the transmission suddenly for some reason, you're likely to be at the wrong speed (usually too high) and I really don't want to know what happens if you're doing 30 and engage the clutch at 1st gear.


What you're talking about there is coasting, not skipping a gear. When I change from 4th to 2nd I bring the clutch up right away--I'm not coasting along in the wrong gear for the speed I'm doing with the clutch down.

[Aedilred]

My father told me: The clutch is more expensive then the breakes, never gear down just to breake.
Curious- my father told me exactly the opposite. If you're heading down a long slope and rely on the brakes, rather than the engine, to control your speed, you'll knacker them- you're better off changing down a couple of gears and then only engaging the brakes as appropriate.

Maybe it's worse for the car in the long run (I'm not a mechanic or an engineer, so I don't know) although, again, my dad told me that doing so was actually good for the car- but it's certainly safer, because it means your brakes will be fresher, and you have more control.

[Jack Squat]

Do people never change their brake pads if they have a manual? I don't get how it's safer to use the engine to brake otherwise - save for slippery conditions.

[blackfox]

Dredging my memory, it's because if you need to engage the transmission suddenly for some reason, you're likely to be at the wrong speed (usually too high) and I really don't want to know what happens if you're doing 30 and engage the clutch at 1st gear.Most cars these days (and even cars from 10 years ago...) will put a lock on 1st gear until you're going below 15 mph or so. You physically will not be able to put the car into 1st. This is to avoid people who don't know what they're doing from burning out the engine.

[Zar Peter]

Curious- my father told me exactly the opposite. If you're heading down a long slope and rely on the brakes, rather than the engine, to control your speed, you'll knacker them- you're better off changing down a couple of gears and then only engaging the brakes as appropriate.

Maybe it's worse for the car in the long run (I'm not a mechanic or an engineer, so I don't know) although, again, my dad told me that doing so was actually good for the car- but it's certainly safer, because it means your brakes will be fresher, and you have more control.

Well, the question was that the car is going to a halt. I would never drive downhill with neutral and only brakes (exception: I know the slope very well) but I would never gear down just to stop the car because of red lights or a stop sign.

[Zeb The Troll]

Curious- my father told me exactly the opposite. If you're heading down a long slope and rely on the brakes, rather than the engine, to control your speed, you'll knacker them- you're better off changing down a couple of gears and then only engaging the brakes as appropriate.The long slope exercise is a different thing all together. That's not the same discussion as how best to come to a stop in normal traffic.

For long downhills, it is indeed better to let your engine do some majority of the braking for you. The steeper or longer the hill, the more important this is. If you find yourself having to hold down the brakes to keep from accelerating down a hill, you'll eventually either smooth them from overheating, making them less effective, or you'll catch them on fire.

I grew up in Colorado and my grandfather was a trucker. The former means that's what they teach in driver's ed, as well as have roadside signs on long steep slopes telling you that's what you need to do. Some few roads are so bad that they have a police checkpoint halfway down where you are required to stop and let the officer check the temperature of your brakes. If it's too high, you have to pull off to the side of the road while they cool before you can continue your journey down the mountain. The latter comes from years of experience traversing the Rockies during the course of his job.

[Obrysii]

Heck no. If you have to accelerate away from a stop (i.e. someone loses control coming down a hill behind you) you'll waste precious time dropping from neutral to first. Only reason you should be in neutral at a stop is if your feet really need the rest (I do it at long lights, but holding a clutch handle in is a bit more tiring than a clutch pedal).

No, what I mean is pushing in the clutch and keeping the clutch depressed, but in the process shifting into neutral. That way you can't accidentally lug the engine if you accidentally let go of the clutch.

And if your hand is on the shifter, if you need to shift you can do so immediately.

And you are incorrect. At least partially so - on older cars, it is very bad for the transmission to keep the clutch pedal depressed for a long period of time. The clutch finger mechanism inside the transmission is pretty weak, and cannot handle such abuse for long-term. At any stop light (not stop sign), you should always put the car into neutral and release the clutch.

Holding the clutch in for too long, and the subsequent damage to the clutch fingers, is what broke my transmission twice.

[Obrysii]

Curious- my father told me exactly the opposite. If you're heading down a long slope and rely on the brakes, rather than the engine, to control your speed, you'll knacker them- you're better off changing down a couple of gears and then only engaging the brakes as appropriate.

Maybe it's worse for the car in the long run (I'm not a mechanic or an engineer, so I don't know) although, again, my dad told me that doing so was actually good for the car- but it's certainly safer, because it means your brakes will be fresher, and you have more control.

No, your dad is correct - but for a different reason.

How do you stop a car? You dissipate its energy. How do you do that? Through friction - heat. Brakes change your car's inertia into heat by using pads on rotors. If you're going to use them a lot, they're going to get hot.

Brakes only have a small amount of cooling - either just the rotor spinning or some have fins to help them cool themselves.

Engines, however, have a full cooling system devoted to cooling themselves. So when you engine brake, you use the engine to absorb the inertia - to absorb the heat - which in turn is cooled by its cooling system.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

This is a gargantuan thread for something as inconsequential as a gearbox. I mean really, at least half of these posts are making mountains out of molehills.

If you're good enough to pass a manual test, then you shouldn't have any problems driving with gears. Of course, in America I've learnt that hardly anyone drives a manual car, and as such most Americans seem to think it difficult or problematic, but I give you my maximum possible assurance that it really, really isn't.

[Aedilred]

Ah yeah, fair enough. I will sometimes change down gears in traffic when slowing down to a stop, simply because if conditions change (if that red light turns green, for instance) I can accelerate away more quickly from second than fourth. But generally, yeah, brakes are the way to go there.

[blackfox]

Ah yeah, fair enough. I will sometimes change down gears in traffic when slowing down to a stop, simply because if conditions change (if that red light turns green, for instance) I can accelerate away more quickly from second than fourth. But generally, yeah, brakes are the way to go there.See, I just stay in neutral there, because I'm expecting to come to a stop, the brakes are not going overheat, and if the light turns green I can just put the car in gear.

[Commander McCoy]

I think we can all agree that while it's better to use the engine to slow down while traveling downhill, it doesn't really matter whether you use the brakes or engine to come to a stop at a red light or stop sign. Braking wears out your clutch less, downshifting leaves you in the proper gear. Pretty much even I'd say, so just use whatever you're most comfortable with. But be able to do both.

[Keld Denar]

On a very long hill, engine breaking does help a lot, but just knowing how to brake properly goes a long way to not over heating. Proper braking on a long hill should be short stretches of braking slowing down a little slower than you should be going, then coasting, then more braking, then more coasting. This gives your brakes a decent time to cool between applications. If you "ride" the brakes the whole way down the mountain, you will over heat your brakes, and you will wear them prematurely. And your brakes actually DO have decent cooling built in, because of their placement on the wheel well and the constant air passing across their surface. They are also built to handle a great deal of heat, and their absoption gets better and better as technology advances daily.

For everyday driving though, in most cases, engine braking isn't gonna make hardly any noticable total wear on your vehicle. You might save your transmission an extra thousand miles by using your brakes more, or you might save your brakes a few hundred miles each by engine braking as often as possible, but in the end, everything will wear out, and everything will need to be replaced, and the cost will come out more or less even for just about every type of driver. If you are a performance driver, this might not be true, but for the other 99% of drivers, it won't make any difference.

[Brother Oni]

What you're talking about there is coasting, not skipping a gear. When I change from 4th to 2nd I bring the clutch up right away--I'm not coasting along in the wrong gear for the speed I'm doing with the clutch down.

Ah, sorry, misunderstanding of terms there. Still, when I'm doing 40 and need to slow down to 15 for example, I still move the gears from 4th, 3rd then 2nd, rather than skip from 4th straight to 2nd.


Most cars these days (and even cars from 10 years ago...) will put a lock on 1st gear until you're going below 15 mph or so. You physically will not be able to put the car into 1st. This is to avoid people who don't know what they're doing from burning out the engine.

Really? My car's only about 7 years old and I can still shift the gearstick into 1st even when my speed is high. I admit I've never released the clutch though, so what you say may still be true.


This is a gargantuan thread for something as inconsequential as a gearbox. I mean really, at least half of these posts are making mountains out of molehills.

I thought we were having a discussion of driving habits, rather than over-emphasising minor quibbles over driving styles? :smalltongue:

[blackfox]

Really? My car's only about 7 years old and I can still shift the gearstick into 1st even when my speed is high. I admit I've never released the clutch though, so what you say may still be true.Huh, really? What kind of car is it? My mom's 1998 Honda Accord and my dad's 2001 VW Passat both do this...

[Trog]

*skims half the thread*

I depress the clutch and put 'er in neutral. I only downshift on steep hills where the car requires more power. Been driving a manual car since the early nineties and I have never once worn out my brakes nor damaged the clutch doing so for any vehicle, new or used, that I have owned. Seems like merely a matter of personal preference.

I like manuals because of the control it provides me. Automatics are fine and all but for some models and makes of cars the manual tranny has more oomph. Plus, as mentioned before, they're sexier. :smallcool::smalltongue:

[Keld Denar]

Also, this bugs me:

And you are incorrect. At least partially so - on older cars, it is very bad for the transmission to keep the clutch pedal depressed for a long period of time. The clutch finger mechanism inside the transmission is pretty weak, and cannot handle such abuse for long-term. At any stop light (not stop sign), you should always put the car into neutral and release the clutch.

From a mechanical engineering point of view, this makes absolutely no sense. Metal stresses when it is deformed. Stress makes metal harder, yet more brittle. This embrittlement of the steel is what causes metal fatigue and failure. The thing is, though, is that it is primarily the number of cycles (aka mean time to failure in reliability engineering) and the degree of stress that contribute to failure. Since the degree of stress is relatively constant due to the fact that the clutch finger is stressed to a similar degree each time. Holding metal at a stressed position makes little difference, only the fact that it has reached that position, and then is relaxed. The number of times you engage your clutch has MUCH more to do with its failure than the duration you depress the clutch for each shift. There are some other factors involved, such as temperature, quality of steel used in manufacture, grain structure and pre-stress applied to the steel to give it the desired hardness qualities, and such. Steel doesn't care if it spends most of its time stressed or unstressed (building structural steel is the best example), what causes damage is the transition from stressed to unstressed, or between various degress of stress.

So yea, anything about holding the clutch in for a long period of time causing additional damage to the transmission is a myth. The fact that you've engaged the clutch causes more wear to the transmission than how long you engage the clutch for when you do. Thus, if you engage the clutch to take the transmission out of gear, come to a stop, and then engage the clutch again to shift into 1st, you are actually doing more damage to your transmission that if you simply left it engaged while you decelerate and then shift into 1st when you come to a stop, finally releasing the clutch when you start moving again. This only engages the clutch once, instead of twice, resulting in half of the wear.

[factotum]

There is another factor to consider with clutch wear, though--when you engage the clutch while the car is moving and in gear, then the clutch actuation mechanism is going to have to work with a spinning clutch plate (the one attached to the transmission), and there'll be wear involved there. That's another argument against coasting with the clutch down--you will cause wear and tear to the clutch mechanism by doing that!

[Keld Denar]

There is wear everywhere in your transmission. Thats what happens when you have metal touching metal. The stress put on the clutch from the clutch being engaged while the transmission is turning is no more than the stress you put on the clutch shifting up through gears (unless your timing is right and you can shift clutchlessly). Its designed to take this wear, and hardened to withstand a certain number of stress/destress cycles before the calculated failure point. That wear is inevitable, and the amount you save from being REALLY careful is negligable. If you are REALLY hard on your transmission, you can cause premature failure, but little things like coasting with the clutch in are not gonna do enough in the grand scheme of failure mechanics to justify changing the way you drive.

[blackfox]

*reasons why I have been scared off the MechE program*Am I correct in thinking that holding the clutch down causes stress/wear to the clutch pedal mechanism, and not the transmission?

[Keld Denar]

If so, then that is hardly something worth worrying about. A new clutch petal mechanism will cost you what, $150-200, while a new transmission is easily 10 times that.

I'm not a car guy, so I don't intimately know all of the mechanics. I am a steel guy, though, and steel is steel and stress is stress. Stress on the drive shaft of a pump motor is similar to stress on rotating transmission. What Obrysii said makes absolutely no sense from a strength of materials PoV.

[factotum]

Am I correct in thinking that holding the clutch down causes stress/wear to the clutch pedal mechanism, and not the transmission?

Assuming Keld Denar is correct that it's stressing/destressing which causes most of the issue (I don't know enough to judge), then holding the pedal down would not be as bad as pumping it up and down. The only time I can recall having a clutch pedal failure was in my old Renault 19 (it was a known problem with the car), and in that case it failed as I pushed it down to change gear, not at any point when I was holding it down (although I rarely do that anyway).

[Obrysii]

Perhaps it's simply VWs, because the clutch mechanism is internal to the transmission - and holding down the clutch puts stress on the mechanism that pushes the clutch away from the flywheel.

Keeping it held down adds additionally stress to the "clutch fingers" - and it is a common mode of failure for those transmissions.

Again - in VWs, that is internal to the transmission, and in fact runs the length of it. There's two points of common failure for "clutch fingers" - near the wheel well and near the engine block.

Mine failed first by the wheel well and was replaced in two hours; the other failed second by the clutch and required a transmission replacement.


If so, then that is hardly something worth worrying about. A new clutch petal mechanism will cost you what, $150-200, while a new transmission is easily 10 times that.

Unless the clutch pedal mechanism is internal to the transmission. *bangs head on wall*


I'm not a car guy, so I don't intimately know all of the mechanics. I am a steel guy, though, and steel is steel and stress is stress. Stress on the drive shaft of a pump motor is similar to stress on rotating transmission. What Obrysii said makes absolutely no sense from a strength of materials PoV.

Again - it was simply because I know VW transmissions, not other cars. And in Volkswagens, the clutch mechanism is internal to the transmission. The clutch pedal wire runs to a lever on the side of the transmission, which operates a clutch "finger" which runs through the center of the transmission. This moves in and out, and when you keep it out (clutch depressed) it causes wear-and-tear and additionally stress on the finger.

Do this enough, and it can literally snap. And then your clutch is always engaged and you can't shift gears without being really good at driving.

So in older VWs, you always want to keep the clutch pedal engaged as little as possible to reduce wear-and-tear. Because otherwise it's an expensive replacement if it breaks by the engine.


There is another factor to consider with clutch wear, though--when you engage the clutch while the car is moving and in gear, then the clutch actuation mechanism is going to have to work with a spinning clutch plate (the one attached to the transmission)

This is another factor with VWs. That mechanism is, again, internal to the transmission. So when that fails - transmission will need to be rebuilt.

So all-in-all, it is best for VW transmissions to shift into neutral as you coast to a stop, and to release the clutch pedal.

And plus, if you're even a modestly decent driver, reacting and shifting into a gear in an emergency is nearly instantaneous.

[Jack Squat]

Again - it was simply because I know VW transmissions, not other cars. And in Volkswagens, the clutch mechanism is internal to the transmission. The clutch pedal wire runs to a lever on the side of the transmission, which operates a clutch "finger" which runs through the center of the transmission. This moves in and out, and when you keep it out (clutch depressed) it causes wear-and-tear and additionally stress on the finger.

Do this enough, and it can literally snap. And then your clutch is always engaged and you can't shift gears without being really good at driving.

So in older VWs, you always want to keep the clutch pedal engaged as little as possible to reduce wear-and-tear. Because otherwise it's an expensive replacement if it breaks by the engine.

I think what he was saying is (and what agrees with what physics I've learned) is no, that won't happen. Metal fatigue (wear-and-tear) is caused by frequent repetition of force at a much greater degree than a constant application of force.


(11) Fatigue. When metal is subject to frequent repetitions of a stress, it will ultimately rupture and fail, even though the stress may not be sufficient to produce permanent deformation if applied for a relatively brief time.[...]The definition of fatigue is the failure of metals and alloys that have been subjected to repeated or alternating stresses too small to produce a permanent deformation when applied statically.

http://www.sapiens.itgo.com/documents/doc11.htm

[Obrysii]

I think what he was saying is (and what agrees with what physics I've learned) is no, that won't happen. Metal fatigue (wear-and-tear) is caused by frequent repetition of force at a much greater degree than a constant application of force.

And he's wrong. I'm going to trust personal experience and numerous others in the VW community who say otherwise over someone who has admitted to not being a car guy.

Among other things, the throw-out bearing is what is most often damaged by keeping the clutch pedal depressed. At least in VWs, this is partly due to the stresses involved in keeping the throw-out bearing engaged.

[KuReshtin]

And he's wrong. I'm going to trust personal experience and numerous others in the VW community who say otherwise over someone who has admitted to not being a car guy.

Among other things, the throw-out bearing is what is most often damaged by keeping the clutch pedal depressed. At least in VWs, this is partly due to the stresses involved in keeping the throw-out bearing engaged.

he admitted to not being a car guy, but then countered with saying that he's a steel guy, so he knows how steel and metals work. Since the car components we're talking about here are made of metal, I'd go with the words of the guy that knows metals.

[Obrysii]

he admitted to not being a car guy, but then countered with saying that he's a steel guy, so he knows how steel and metals work. Since the car components we're talking about here are made of metal, I'd go with the words of the guy that knows metals.

What happens to steel when it endures fiction with little to no lubricant for a long period of time?

Yeah. It doesn't last long.

That's what happens with any car with a clutch if you keep the clutch pedal depressed for a long time. The throw-out bearing will wear out.

The clutch finger thing may simply have been a coincidence on my car. But I know 100% that the throw-out bearing wears much faster if you keep the clutch pedal depressed at stops.

[mangosta71]

When I'm slowing down, I usually leave it in gear until my tach drops between 1000 and 1500, then I either shift to whatever gear is appropriate for the speed I'll be going when I finish decelerating (typically second for going around a corner) or hold it in neutral for a stop. For a long deceleration, like exiting the interstate, I'll usually drop the shifter in neutral and let the clutch out. Likewise, I usually leave it in neutral with the clutch out at red lights, though I watch the light on the cross street and put it in gear when it turns red.

[Obrysii]

When I'm slowing down, I usually leave it in gear until my tach drops between 1000 and 1500, then I either shift to whatever gear is appropriate for the speed I'll be going when I finish decelerating (typically second for going around a corner) or hold it in neutral for a stop.

You typically engine brake, then. Which is fine to do - to each one's own.

I typically engine brake when on the highway or going down a steep hill, or if my brakes are acting up.

[Keld Denar]

Your transmission is completely encased in a sealed chamber (gasketed to prevent leaks) that is filled with oil. Where the clutch is coupling with the gears, its all lubricated. In fact, when the clutch is depressed, there is no friction, since it is decoupled with the drive train according to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual_transmission):


When the clutch pedal is fully depressed, the clutch is fully disengaged, and no torque is transferred from the engine to the transmission (and by extension to the drive wheels). In this uncoupled state it is possible to select gears or to stop the car without stopping the engine.
When the clutch pedal is fully released, the clutch is fully engaged, and practically all of the engine's torque is transferred. In this coupled state, the clutch does not slip, but rather acts as rigid coupling, and power is transmitted to the wheels with minimal practical waste heat.
Between these extremes of engagement and disengagement the clutch slips to varying degrees. When the clutch slips it still transmits torque despite the difference in speeds between the engine crankshaft and the transmission input. Because this torque is transmitted by means of friction rather than direct mechanical contact, considerable power is wasted as heat (which is dissipated by the clutch). Properly applied, slip allows the vehicle to be started from a standstill, and when it is already moving, allows the engine rotation to gradually adjust to a newly selected gear ratio.

Since engaging the clutch decouples the transmission, its going from a stressed state (transmitting torque) to an unstressed state (uncoupled). Leaving it in an unstressed state is not going to cause any additional wear on anything inside of the gearbox.

Again, going from my rather limited knowledge of cars and my rather extensive knowledge of steel, nothing you've stated concerning leaving the clutch depressed makes any sense at all. If you have unlubricated friction occuring, its probably because you blew the gasket that seals your gearbox and lost some of the oil that its immersed in. Do you have any mechanical drawings of a VW transmission that I could look at? I have AutoCAD. :smallcool:

[Obrysii]

Look up the phrase "throw out bearing" and learn how a clutch is engaged and disengaged. The throw out bearing is what is damaged by prolonged use.

From Here (http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/techcenter/articles/43837/article.html):


The "throw-out bearing" is the heart of clutch operation. When the clutch pedal is depressed, the throw-out bearing moves toward the flywheel, pushing in the pressure plate's release fingers and moving the pressure plate fingers or levers against pressure plate spring force. This action moves the pressure plate away from the clutch disc, thus interrupting power flow.

The throw-out bearing is what is damaged by prolonged clutch pedal depression. Search out "bad throw-out bearing" and you'll see plenty of forums with folks asking and the answer is always the same.

I am done arguing, by the way.

If you don't care that the TOB will wear out faster, do whatever you want. Nothing I could say would make a difference anyway.

[Brother Oni]

Huh, really? What kind of car is it? My mom's 1998 Honda Accord and my dad's 2001 VW Passat both do this...

It's a '03 VW Polo. Maybe it's a safety feature on more expensive cars?

[Keld Denar]

Huh, that was an interesting read. I had no idea there was a friction linkage within there. I was under the impression that it was mostly due to a mechanical linkage. So, when you depress the clutch, you are moving one plate against another, engaging them with a friction force and pushing the pressure plate away from the motor's fly wheel. Interesting. Yea, I could see where the wear would take place.

That said, googling around, it looks pretty cheap to replace a throw out bearing, provided your vehicle isn't so old that its tough to get parts for. About $10-20 US for a new bearing and maybe $200-300 for labor, provided you can't do it yourself. It also looks like its something you only have to worry about every 100,000 miles or so, based on average wear. I can't see this changing too much if you were to leave the clutch engaged for longer than average. Still, you are looking at a cost increase of maybe $2-3 dolars per thousand miles driven, and thats not enough to make anyone really change their driving habits, if you ask me.

[blackfox]

It's a '03 VW Polo. Maybe it's a safety feature on more expensive cars?I dunno, but I don't think that either of those cars was particularly expensive, at least not any more so than most Hondas or VW's.

[mangosta71]

Yeah, Honda and VW aren't "expensive" vehicles. Both brands made it onto my short list when I was car shopping a couple months ago, and one of my criteria was "under 25k".

[Obrysii]

Yeah, Honda and VW aren't "expensive" vehicles. Both brands made it onto my short list when I was car shopping a couple months ago, and one of my criteria was "under 25k".

Hey, my car was $14000 24 years ago.

[kabbes]

I'm loving the fact that people are using the fact that they won't normally need to depress the accelerator when slowing as a justification for the fact that they will never need to depress the accelerator when slowing.

Also the lack of understanding that "the engine turns the wheels" refers to, well, to the wheels turning. Not the steering mechanism. The wheels. And this is important for the same reason that it is safer to brake before a corner and then accelerate through it rather than to take the foot off the accelerator as you go around the corner.

In the UK, you will be marked down and could even fail your test completely if you coast to a halt. That's because it isn't the safe way of driving. It's not about being a boy-racer. It's about careful and controlled driving.

[mangosta71]

If I'm slowing down, my foot is on the brake. I have to lift my foot off of it and move it over to hit the accelerator. Unless I'm on the highway and can't pass, and then I coast down to match the slowpoke's speed until I can get around him - in that case, my foot is still hovering between the two pedals. Pressing the accelerator while braking causes horrific wear on the brakes, increases stopping distance, and races the engine. Perhaps I'm not entirely catching your meaning, but none of those are generally considered good.

In the US, we're taught that it's preferable to come to a smooth stop. We would get marked down if we kept going until the last possible moment and then slammed on the brakes to bring the car to a screeching halt. That's the kind of driving that leads to skidding out of control. How is coasting to a halt unsafe or uncontrolled?

[factotum]

In the US, we're taught that it's preferable to come to a smooth stop. We would get marked down if we kept going until the last possible moment and then slammed on the brakes to bring the car to a screeching halt. That's the kind of driving that leads to skidding out of control. How is coasting to a halt unsafe or uncontrolled?

"Coasting" in this respect means "rolling with the car in neutral or with the clutch down", not just taking your foot off the accelerator. From what I recall the examiner will let you coast in that way for maybe a car's length--you obviously have to do that in the last couple of seconds before stopping or else you'll stall the engine! They would fail you if you dropped the car into neutral at 30mph and then started braking, though, for definite.