Rev matching is good.

Engine braking isn't terrible, but I still say it wears out your parts.

Here's what I normally do when I'm slowing down. I'm a slightly aggressive driver, so if you're looking for the way to turn and slow down your car, then stick it in neutral or clutch while slowing down, but then, why did you get an S2k then?

Say, I'm driving around and I want to slow down for some reason or another.

I brake. When revs get to around 2k, I clutch, and heel-toe to the next gear down. If I want to get on the gas right away, I'm already in a gear I can accelerate in. If I still want to slow down some more, I keep the clutch in. If the revs drop too low again, I'll heel-toe to the next gear down again.

I really don't know if my technique is correct, but my comments on engine braking should be accurate as thats what I've read on other forums and magazine articles.

 

No guys, if you are using the engine to slow down there is no gas consumption during that period of engine braking - only when you blip the throttle to rev match. The injectors go to a 0% duty cycle while engine braking because there is no need for fuel in the combustion chamber because the wheels are turning the engine and slowing the car. Fuel is then reintroduced once engine speeds near idle.

 

if so, how does the throttle respond so fast when u reapply it. and is there gas being wasted when coasting at neutral?

while we're on topic, what exactly is the source of the sound when the engine revs? is it the pistons?

 

so you guys are telling me that when im comming to a set of lights in 4th gear, i should put it in to neutral and use my brakes....

in this case you are telling me (this is more or less the same as down shifting but without the shift is bad for a car) :

if im in 2nd and i floor the car to redline THEN ease off the throttle i am putting huge strain on the clutch, because the engine is doing the breaking for me ??? what a load of

i have taken so many advanced driver sessions, and they all say that downshifting is good in a car because as long as you get the shift right, you put little to no stress on the clutch and you dont use the brakes as this saves fuel, it also keeps the car in good balance and also it sounds nice

 

For those who think that engine braking causes damage to the clutch/engine/drivetrain:

Going from 75mph to 35mph (offramp) in say, 6 seconds, by using engine braking and down shifting... Aren't you putting roughly the same amount of stress going from 35mph to 75mph in 6 seconds?

Just like a bicycle rolling backwards, the force of acceleration is in a different direction, but the pedals still push on the bottom of your feet as if you were pedaling.


P.S. feel free to flame broil me if I'm all ed up

 

If you rev-match correctly, there is no strain on the clutch or tranny. I'm not sure if anyone suggested this.

The whole point is that rev-matching does use more gas than slowing down either in neutral or with the clutch in.

Besides those two methods, the only alternative would be downshifting without rev-matching. This WILL hurt your clutch/tranny.

I personally slow down with the clutch in and the car in neutral, if it's safe to do so. If there is some reason (or if I just want to have fun), I rev-match.

 

Which set of parts is going to last longer?

You take a car and stress its tranny during accelration and deceleration

OR

you take another car and split the acceleration stress on its transmission and its deceleration forces on the braking system.

Each system was designed to do something. Engine/transmission = make car go. Braking system = make car stop.

Yes this is a generalization, but I still think it's correct saying that the cars parts are going to last longer by letting them do the jobs they were designed to do.

Thats like saying you can turn a car by shifting its weight and then roasting the tires. You can do it, but the tires aren't going to last as long as if you simply used steering input.

 

Correct rev-matching while downshifting won't stress the tranny.

It will, however, subtract some time from the engine life.

Everyone measures engine life in miles driven. What about RPMs turned? Over 100,000 miles, think about how many more RPMs the engine has to turn if you're engine braking.

It might be marginal, but I'll stick with replacing brake pads more often.

 

why are you heel-toeing for downshifts at such low RPM's (and on the street no less?).

 

Meth, thank you for finding my earlier quote and posting it here. That'll save me some time now.
There certainly is a lot of misconception going on here. Using engine braking to CONTROL the car has been around since the manual transmission has been around. You rev-match to reduce the wear and tear on the driveline components. This is absolutely NO DIFFERENT from rev-matching when you are accelerating. YES, you should be REV MATCHING when you change gears UP. Most of you do this instinctively by letting the rpm drop to an appropriate level. Those who are jerking like crazy when you upshift are ................ you guessed it ............... NOT rev matching.
Yes, brakes are for slowing down the car and stopping the car, BUT this whole thing about "brakes are cheaper than driveline components to replace" really have no concept of what's going on in the real world. In the "real" world of daily street driving (and even track driving, depending upon the exact circumstances involved), you use engine braking in conjunction with the "service" brakes. You use each one according to need. In the normal state of things, you downshift into each successive gear as the road speed decreases. You use your brakes if engine braking under those particular conditions is not enough. Downshfiting as your road speed decreases is good driving habit. It places the gearbox into the proper gear for that road speed so that you can be ready to move off if you need to or HAVE to. It also keeps the drive wheels connected to the driveline. This is CONTROL. We should all go down the road with as much CONTROL as possible.
Oh and this "extra wear on the engine" philosophy? Motivating the car using the engine's power takes much more power and torque. "Decelerating" when no combustion is taking place is nowhere near as much wear and tear on the driveline parts. So, you're using up, what? Maybe shortening the life of the driveline by ............................. a few thousand miles over a lifespan of 100,000 miles? I think the car can take it. Usually, those who don't downshift/rev match are those who could never master it well and go through life without till they develop driving skills to somewhat compensate for it and then call themselves good drivers because they've never "needed" it.
Those of you who go down the road with clutch to the floor while you are coming to a stop or slowing down, I truly hope you drive as far away from me as poosible. The fact that you don't understand this basic and simple concept means that you most likely don't have an understanding for other driving concepts either.

And to address the "how do we know that there is no gas useage during engine breaking?" What's the proof that the injectors shut down? Not only has Honda techs on this board told you so, but those of you who have air/fuel gauges can confirm this easily. When you engine brake, the a/f number instantly sky-rockets (rise) till they are off the range of the gauge. It reads "-----", meaning the exhaust is pretty much all air and no fuel. You cannot display a number when the fuel is ZERO (ie, you divide by ZERO).
I'm sure there will still be those who can't understand what's been discussed here or don't want to believe it. That's your choice. Just stay away from the rest of the motoring public, mostly for their safety. Your safety? Well, I'm sure Darwin' law will prevail.