Do you use engine braking?
Discussion
AnotherClarkey said:
LocoCoco said:
A smoother ride, for me anyways, and the convenience of not having to move my right foot as much.
Well that's fair enough, it's just that some people seem to think that engine braking is somehow blessed with mystical powers - like the OP who thinks it is so magical that women can't be expected to understand...LocoCoco said:
After more thought I reckon you're right and that engine braking is less efficient, changing gear is where the fuel loss would happen. I often think that using the brakes shows i've made a mistake in forward planning, thats another reason i engine brake a lot.
Maybe, especially if you are rev-matching on the way down but the difference must be miniscule. My point was really that engine braking is not the panacea that some seem to think. I use it myself much of the time, mainly because a I like the noise, not because I think it makes me a driving god or saves me money though.[
As someone who engine brakes, I have owned cars for 60k, that are still on their first clutch at over 100k.
So, no mystical' self-wearing clutch on that car then??
It did need new disks and two set of pads and two sets of tyres whilst I owned it over that time though.
So they obviously do wear out even if you do engine break?? (that WAS scarcasm).
This is all from real life experience remember.
None of this is from conversations down the pub near closing time, or from an article I once read in the Guardian. (Between the article that toothpaste causes cancer and the one about Stalin being alive and living in Cuba on benefits).
As someone who engine brakes, I have owned cars for 60k, that are still on their first clutch at over 100k.
So, no mystical' self-wearing clutch on that car then??
It did need new disks and two set of pads and two sets of tyres whilst I owned it over that time though.
So they obviously do wear out even if you do engine break?? (that WAS scarcasm).
This is all from real life experience remember.
None of this is from conversations down the pub near closing time, or from an article I once read in the Guardian. (Between the article that toothpaste causes cancer and the one about Stalin being alive and living in Cuba on benefits).
Edited by Hol on Monday 23 December 08:22
I passed my test just over six years ago but immediately ditched the "brakes to stop, gears to go" mantra. Both my cars I have fitted a complete set of discs/pads to, I will never need to change them again. I could easily get 100,000 miles out of a set of discs and pads.
On my 8 mile commute to the train station each morning I use the brakes maybe 1-2 times and very lightly at that. Admittedly its 90% B-road and a short section through a quiet town. Even moderate braking I would generally only use in a semi-emergency if another roads user did something erratic.
Not routinely braking makes you a better driver, your anticipation is 10x better than your typical driver who brakes for every corner on a B-road. Braking is also a heinous waste of fuel which so many people lack the intelligence to realise.
On my 8 mile commute to the train station each morning I use the brakes maybe 1-2 times and very lightly at that. Admittedly its 90% B-road and a short section through a quiet town. Even moderate braking I would generally only use in a semi-emergency if another roads user did something erratic.
Not routinely braking makes you a better driver, your anticipation is 10x better than your typical driver who brakes for every corner on a B-road. Braking is also a heinous waste of fuel which so many people lack the intelligence to realise.
Just to echo others, I rev match and engine brake all the time. In normal driving I try to avoid using the brakes wherever possible, as to me that means I've made a mistake in looking ahead and planning.
It also does save an appreciable amount of fuel given I don't have a very economical car. And yes, braking whilst in gear would also mean the car is using no fuel, but you're shortening the amount of time you spend using no fuel, and adding wear to the brakes.
Also suggesting that rev-matching and engine braking wears out the gearbox/clutch, how? If you're rev matching, the clutch hardly gets any wear, certainly far less than dragging it up slowly to bring the engine up to the right speed. As for gearbox wear, again, if your engine speed and road speed are matched for the next gear when you select it, the synchro is having to do less, surely reducing wear (as you can then change gear without using the clutch if necessary...)
EDIT:
I also don't get the argument of how 'modern cars are designed to use the brakes to slow down' and 'the driving test says this' etc. Modern cars are designed to be as easy to drive as possible for the average numpty. The driving test is designed to be just about passable for the average numpty so that they hopefully don't bang in to stuff too much. Hardly the first place to look for efficiency.
Also, and far more importantly given why I drive, rev matching on down shifts and using the engine to slow down sounds fantastic and is both more satisfying and more fun. So
It also does save an appreciable amount of fuel given I don't have a very economical car. And yes, braking whilst in gear would also mean the car is using no fuel, but you're shortening the amount of time you spend using no fuel, and adding wear to the brakes.
Also suggesting that rev-matching and engine braking wears out the gearbox/clutch, how? If you're rev matching, the clutch hardly gets any wear, certainly far less than dragging it up slowly to bring the engine up to the right speed. As for gearbox wear, again, if your engine speed and road speed are matched for the next gear when you select it, the synchro is having to do less, surely reducing wear (as you can then change gear without using the clutch if necessary...)
EDIT:
I also don't get the argument of how 'modern cars are designed to use the brakes to slow down' and 'the driving test says this' etc. Modern cars are designed to be as easy to drive as possible for the average numpty. The driving test is designed to be just about passable for the average numpty so that they hopefully don't bang in to stuff too much. Hardly the first place to look for efficiency.
Also, and far more importantly given why I drive, rev matching on down shifts and using the engine to slow down sounds fantastic and is both more satisfying and more fun. So
Edited by SturdyHSV on Monday 23 December 11:06
Firm believer in avoiding engine braking where possible. I used to use engine braking when I drove a simple rwd car with a solid flywheel and clutch. Now that I drive a much more complicated fwd diesel with drive shafts, cv's and a dual mass flywheel, I avoid excessive engine braking and will use the brakes as a primary method of slowing down, with a little assistance from engine braking as needed. The goal being a smooth a ride and as less strain on the drive-train as possible. Brakes are a lot cheaper to replace than a dual mass flywheel or other parts of the drive train. Using engine braking stresses the dmf with all the built in springs, in the reverse direction to normal drive, and probably adds to reducing its life. Have done 110k miles in my Mondeo using this method without issue. It's now on it's second set of discs and pads, and it only cost £125 to replace them all round, a lot cheaper than a dmf.
Yes you may get slightly better fuel economy when using engine braking on a petrol but diesels don't fully cut off the fuel like petrols do. You might as well just dip the clutch and coast. If you've ever had a diesel cut out on you whilst driving you will know that the engine braking effect is massive. Mine cut out on me once at relatively low speed and it felt like the front wheels were about to lock up.
Of course when I'm in my Monaro which has a solid flywheel, the reverse applies and engine braking is always used particularly coming off the throttle and going down hill
Yes you may get slightly better fuel economy when using engine braking on a petrol but diesels don't fully cut off the fuel like petrols do. You might as well just dip the clutch and coast. If you've ever had a diesel cut out on you whilst driving you will know that the engine braking effect is massive. Mine cut out on me once at relatively low speed and it felt like the front wheels were about to lock up.
Of course when I'm in my Monaro which has a solid flywheel, the reverse applies and engine braking is always used particularly coming off the throttle and going down hill
Edited by GSE on Monday 23 December 11:24
No one is suggesting not using anticipation, no one is suggesting braking for every bend. The principle of brakes to slow gears to go simply means that if additional retardation is required even after lifting off the throttle, you use the pedal designed for such situations rather than change down.
Dr Jekyll said:
No one is suggesting not using anticipation, no one is suggesting braking for every bend. The principle of brakes to slow gears to go simply means that if additional retardation is required even after lifting off the throttle, you use the pedal designed for such situations rather than change down.
Can you explain WHY this "principle" is correct? A moderate degree of engine braking (not bouncing off the limiter) with mechanically sympathetic rev matching can often provide adequate retardation without the need for the middle pedal, unless coming to a complete stop of course. Furthermore, the car is under greater control using engine braking IMO and is in the right gear to accelerate given a change in circumstances. I fail to see the counter argument.HonestIago said:
Can you explain WHY this "principle" is correct? A moderate degree of engine braking (not bouncing off the limiter) with mechanically sympathetic rev matching can often provide adequate retardation without the need for the middle pedal, unless coming to a complete stop of course. Furthermore, the car is under greater control using engine braking IMO and is in the right gear to accelerate given a change in circumstances. I fail to see the counter argument.
It's because Brake sorry the IAM don't think it's a skill the average joe can master
So it's easier to teach people to drag the brakes instead of getting into the right gear to
Check unwanted speed and be ready to get going again...
AnotherClarkey said:
Clearly, anticipation and avoiding harsh deceleration saves fuel - can you explain why going down through the gears saves more fuel than using the brakes to achieve exactly the same rate of deceleration?
I Can, thanks for asking 
It's all to do with how people use their brakes. You find when people use their brakes to stop they will approach say some traffic lights at 30 mph then apply the brakes firmly to bring the vehicle to a halt quite rapidly. When you see the lights in the distance as being red by letting off the acelerator, changing down and letting the engine reduce your speed the car slows down much more gradually and the quantity of fuel being delivered to the engine is negligble. The reduced speed over the distance also gives the lights an oppertuinity to change and therefore the vehicle never comes to a standstill and all that momentum is not lost, this again saves a lot of fuel. Work out how many times you may do this in a city or town centre in one trip and the saving in fuel can be quite high. You also get a smoother and safer drive too!
Road2Ruin said:
AnotherClarkey said:
Clearly, anticipation and avoiding harsh deceleration saves fuel - can you explain why going down through the gears saves more fuel than using the brakes to achieve exactly the same rate of deceleration?
I Can, thanks for asking It's all to do with how people use their brakes. You find when people use their brakes to stop they will approach say some traffic lights at 30 mph then apply the brakes firmly to bring the vehicle to a halt quite rapidly. When you see the lights in the distance as being red by letting off the acelerator, changing down and letting the engine reduce your speed the car slows down much more gradually and the quantity of fuel being delivered to the engine is negligble. The reduced speed over the distance also gives the lights an oppertuinity to change and therefore the vehicle never comes to a standstill and all that momentum is not lost, this again saves a lot of fuel. Work out how many times you may do this in a city or town centre in one trip and the saving in fuel can be quite high. You also get a smoother and safer drive too!
GSE said:
Firm believer in avoiding engine braking where possible. I used to use engine braking when I drove a simple rwd car with a solid flywheel and clutch. Now that I drive a much more complicated fwd diesel with drive shafts, cv's and a dual mass flywheel, I avoid excessive engine braking and will use the brakes as a primary method of slowing down, with a little assistance from engine braking as needed. The goal being a smooth a ride and as less strain on the drive-train as possible. Brakes are a lot cheaper to replace than a dual mass flywheel or other parts of the drive train. Using engine braking stresses the dmf with all the built in springs, in the reverse direction to normal drive, and probably adds to reducing its life. Have done 110k miles in my Mondeo using this method without issue. It's now on it's second set of discs and pads, and it only cost £125 to replace them all round, a lot cheaper than a dmf.
Yes you may get slightly better fuel economy when using engine braking on a petrol but diesels don't fully cut off the fuel like petrols do. You might as well just dip the clutch and coast. If you've ever had a diesel cut out on you whilst driving you will know that the engine braking effect is massive. Mine cut out on me once at relatively low speed and it felt like the front wheels were about to lock up.
Of course when I'm in my Monaro which has a solid flywheel, the reverse applies and engine braking is always used particularly coming off the throttle and going down hill
I hate to break it to you, but your "simple rwd" car had driveshafts, probably CVs as well.Yes you may get slightly better fuel economy when using engine braking on a petrol but diesels don't fully cut off the fuel like petrols do. You might as well just dip the clutch and coast. If you've ever had a diesel cut out on you whilst driving you will know that the engine braking effect is massive. Mine cut out on me once at relatively low speed and it felt like the front wheels were about to lock up.
Of course when I'm in my Monaro which has a solid flywheel, the reverse applies and engine braking is always used particularly coming off the throttle and going down hill
Edited by GSE on Monday 23 December 11:24
Care to expand on the concept of the flywheel being used "in the reverse direction of normal drive" please? The flywheel only ever turns one way and I dont see how it would differentiate between being spun up by the engine or the wheels.
emicen said:
I hate to break it to you, but your "simple rwd" car had driveshafts, probably CVs as well.
Care to expand on the concept of the flywheel being used "in the reverse direction of normal drive" please? The flywheel only ever turns one way and I dont see how it would differentiate between being spun up by the engine or the wheels.
I stand corrected and doff my hat to you. For some reason I had assumed that the loading (or twisting of the two parts within the dmf) would reverse depending on whether the engine was accelerating the car, or the wheels were being used to provide a load to decelerate the car. But the force is in the same direction regardless of the load. I still would rather use the brakes to decelerate the car in preference to a somewhat fragile dmf. Excessive backlash take up or shunting in the transmission is what I'm trying to avoid. Care to expand on the concept of the flywheel being used "in the reverse direction of normal drive" please? The flywheel only ever turns one way and I dont see how it would differentiate between being spun up by the engine or the wheels.
Edited by GSE on Monday 23 December 13:16
I found going back through the gears was slower in a racing car, than braking with maximum efficiency, than making one quick change to the gear you wanted. You can't brake with maximum efficiency while mucking around with all that heal & toe stuff. It might be fun, & sound good, but it is merely a hangover from the days when brakes weren't up to the job.
I also found, at least on the track, it was the drivers going back through the gears who blew their engines. It is all too easy, when concentrating on the upcoming corner, to over rev, way past your red line when changing back, pulling revs you would never pull under throttle.
High revs on the overrun is much worse for your rods & big ends, than the same revs under power. You don't have the compression or exhaust of fuel/air charge to cushion the inertia of the reciprocating gear, when the throttle is shut. That inertia at top dead center is a killer.
I convinced a few people who were having bearing troubles in racing cars to fit telltale rev counters. They were horrified to find the revs they had been pulling into corners. It is harder to race avoiding this, but very much cheaper.
Having said all this, I did the last 13 laps of the 68 Bathurst 500 in my Monaro, using only engine braking. The front brake reservoir had run empty following up the very worn pads. With no front resistance, just touching the pedal instantly locked the rears.
I was going straight back to third at top speed at the bottom of conrod. God knows what revs the thing was doing, I didn't care or look. By thrashing the poor thing that way, I managed to hold onto second, where a stop for fluid would have put us right out of the front bunch. It worked that once, but I wouldn't recommend it with anything else. Those old 327 Chevy engines were tough things.
I also found, at least on the track, it was the drivers going back through the gears who blew their engines. It is all too easy, when concentrating on the upcoming corner, to over rev, way past your red line when changing back, pulling revs you would never pull under throttle.
High revs on the overrun is much worse for your rods & big ends, than the same revs under power. You don't have the compression or exhaust of fuel/air charge to cushion the inertia of the reciprocating gear, when the throttle is shut. That inertia at top dead center is a killer.
I convinced a few people who were having bearing troubles in racing cars to fit telltale rev counters. They were horrified to find the revs they had been pulling into corners. It is harder to race avoiding this, but very much cheaper.
Having said all this, I did the last 13 laps of the 68 Bathurst 500 in my Monaro, using only engine braking. The front brake reservoir had run empty following up the very worn pads. With no front resistance, just touching the pedal instantly locked the rears.
I was going straight back to third at top speed at the bottom of conrod. God knows what revs the thing was doing, I didn't care or look. By thrashing the poor thing that way, I managed to hold onto second, where a stop for fluid would have put us right out of the front bunch. It worked that once, but I wouldn't recommend it with anything else. Those old 327 Chevy engines were tough things.
I have always used engine braking and still do in the 5-speed Switch-Tronic (switchable tweaked automatic gearboxes for those who didn't know) Alpina's I have; I only really use auto on the motorway or slow-moving traffic as it suggests in the Alpina owners manual.
We also have an Audi S4 6-speed Tiptronic and for a time had an F10 530d with the ZF 8 speed sports auto box. The difference between driving them and the Alpina's is chalk and cheese; the 530d has just too many gears to make changing down for engine braking worthwhile - you have to change down 3, 4 sometimes 5 gears sometimes to get the tiniest sense of braking and car control - simply not worth it and takes far too long. Likewise the gear changes in the Audi, a 2004 model, are far slower than my 1995 E34 with Switch-Tronic so a greater time period must be allowed for in the Audi and increased planning to ensure the car is the correct gear, at the correct time and in the correct place in the road.
I know that many people think the Alpina Switch-Tronic is just an automatic but I still say, get in and drive one, even an old one and see and feel the difference a well sorted driver's gearbox can make to a car.
The more modern automatic gearboxes now change gear very quickly but have skipped past the period where they could have been at their most useful as a driver's gearbox because they now have too many gears to permit easy, quick, correct gear selection.
We also have an Audi S4 6-speed Tiptronic and for a time had an F10 530d with the ZF 8 speed sports auto box. The difference between driving them and the Alpina's is chalk and cheese; the 530d has just too many gears to make changing down for engine braking worthwhile - you have to change down 3, 4 sometimes 5 gears sometimes to get the tiniest sense of braking and car control - simply not worth it and takes far too long. Likewise the gear changes in the Audi, a 2004 model, are far slower than my 1995 E34 with Switch-Tronic so a greater time period must be allowed for in the Audi and increased planning to ensure the car is the correct gear, at the correct time and in the correct place in the road.
I know that many people think the Alpina Switch-Tronic is just an automatic but I still say, get in and drive one, even an old one and see and feel the difference a well sorted driver's gearbox can make to a car.
The more modern automatic gearboxes now change gear very quickly but have skipped past the period where they could have been at their most useful as a driver's gearbox because they now have too many gears to permit easy, quick, correct gear selection.
Hasbeen said:
I found going back through the gears was slower in a racing car, than braking with maximum efficiency, than making one quick change to the gear you wanted. You can't brake with maximum efficiency while mucking around with all that heal & toe stuff. It might be fun, & sound good, but it is merely a hangover from the days when brakes weren't up to the job.
I also found, at least on the track, it was the drivers going back through the gears who blew their engines. It is all too easy, when concentrating on the upcoming corner, to over rev, way past your red line when changing back, pulling revs you would never pull under throttle.
High revs on the overrun is much worse for your rods & big ends, than the same revs under power. You don't have the compression or exhaust of fuel/air charge to cushion the inertia of the reciprocating gear, when the throttle is shut. That inertia at top dead center is a killer.
I convinced a few people who were having bearing troubles in racing cars to fit telltale rev counters. They were horrified to find the revs they had been pulling into corners. It is harder to race avoiding this, but very much cheaper.
Having said all this, I did the last 13 laps of the 68 Bathurst 500 in my Monaro, using only engine braking. The front brake reservoir had run empty following up the very worn pads. With no front resistance, just touching the pedal instantly locked the rears.
I was going straight back to third at top speed at the bottom of conrod. God knows what revs the thing was doing, I didn't care or look. By thrashing the poor thing that way, I managed to hold onto second, where a stop for fluid would have put us right out of the front bunch. It worked that once, but I wouldn't recommend it with anything else. Those old 327 Chevy engines were tough things.
Very cool post I also found, at least on the track, it was the drivers going back through the gears who blew their engines. It is all too easy, when concentrating on the upcoming corner, to over rev, way past your red line when changing back, pulling revs you would never pull under throttle.
High revs on the overrun is much worse for your rods & big ends, than the same revs under power. You don't have the compression or exhaust of fuel/air charge to cushion the inertia of the reciprocating gear, when the throttle is shut. That inertia at top dead center is a killer.
I convinced a few people who were having bearing troubles in racing cars to fit telltale rev counters. They were horrified to find the revs they had been pulling into corners. It is harder to race avoiding this, but very much cheaper.
Having said all this, I did the last 13 laps of the 68 Bathurst 500 in my Monaro, using only engine braking. The front brake reservoir had run empty following up the very worn pads. With no front resistance, just touching the pedal instantly locked the rears.
I was going straight back to third at top speed at the bottom of conrod. God knows what revs the thing was doing, I didn't care or look. By thrashing the poor thing that way, I managed to hold onto second, where a stop for fluid would have put us right out of the front bunch. It worked that once, but I wouldn't recommend it with anything else. Those old 327 Chevy engines were tough things.
I highlighted the most important bit to me, but then I don't race so hopefully won't have to worry too much about blowing my engine up for a little while at least. Any pics of the Monaro?
vrooom said:
I don't use engine braking in my car. mr2 mk3.. can cause rear tyres to lock up.
I spun my old Monaro engine braking. Thankfully never hit anything.As someone else has mentioned, engine braking is a throw back to the days when brakes were inadequate.
With modern vehicles, especially performance ones, there is no need.
It can however be fun to do, and in the right car sound great.
SturdyHSV said:
Very cool post
I highlighted the most important bit to me, but then I don't race so hopefully won't have to worry too much about blowing my engine up for a little while at least. Any pics of the Monaro?
No sorry.I highlighted the most important bit to me, but then I don't race so hopefully won't have to worry too much about blowing my engine up for a little while at least. Any pics of the Monaro?
Someone found one & put it up recently in the HSV section, in a thread about Fords.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff