abroke1

Is it harmful to kick trnsmission out of gear and coast to a stop as opposed to downshifting to a stop? I would rather wear out my brakes before my clutch. Brakes are easy and inexpensive but do not know if there are other considerations.
Thanks

zeroptzero

I don't like downshifting as I approach a stop using engine braking. I pretty much keep it in gear as long as I can and as I slowly approach the stop I will kick it out gear. You are right about it being easier to service the brakes. I pretty much take it out of gear within the last 20 feet of approaching the stop, not like hundreds of feet, and obviously before the engine starts lugging. It does depend on what gear you are in as you approach the stop.

In terms of fuel economy your injectors are closed under 4,000 rpms with the throttle closed, they re-open as you get into lower rpms and during idle. Generally speaking you save more fuel costing in gear as compared to idling in neutral. But we are a talking about a miniscule amount of fuel and probably not worth worrying about either way IMO.

DogBiscuit

I don't think you're going to noticeably save much life. When your clutch is depressed you're using the throwout bearing and applying the wear to a different area, when it's fully engaged (let off the clutch in neutral or let off the clutch in gear) it's not taking on any more wear. The wear on a clutch happens in that in-between time where it's still slipping on the flywheel. If you want to try and save life on it rev matching is your best friend between gears.

The clutch is just a huge brake in a lot of ways.

however this is all just a never ending debate and people will argue it for years until we all drive electric cars without transmissions.

I think the bigger argument is that you may be worried about extra engine wear with engine braking vs using the brakes.

coasting to a stop in neutral or clutch depressed uses fuel to keep the engine running

coasting to a stop in gear will shut off injector and save fuel as JFusion has stated


I've tried testing all of this over and over and over again throughout the years on my cars and well I can never get any definitive evidence that it really saves you in fuel since i had to go WOT to get around someone and threw my fuel economy off.





so to fully answer your question of whether neutral coasting/stopping vs engine breaking will prolong the life of your clutch. these two words I think work the best "Maybe" and "It Depends"

you're still going to put that clutch to use to get it back into gear from your coasting state. I guess if you do a steady progression of multiple engages/disengages down through the gears yes you are adding more wear than engine breaking in one gear or neutral or clutch depressed.

Aurex

I've heard both sides to the argument. Personally, I downshift.

The extra wear on the clutch is negligible when coasting to slow down, it's not like you are power shifting it during acceleration. Heat and slipping (creates heat) kills clutches. If you have a proper shifting technique, likely, you will never notice the extra wear that some claim or if you rev-match or heel-toe, wear can be minimized if not completely eliminated.

darcyw

I downshift to hear the engine because race car. but...that being said, i've seen posts to still put the shifter through each successive gear and do not skip gears.

Rev matched downshifts make you a rock star.

darcy

zeroptzero

^ Darcy, you can skip gears downshifting without issues, you should not skip gears upshifting.

Slowcrash_101

I always run through every gear, force of habit. If I'm in 3rd and pulling up to a light or stop sign I'll clutch in, go to second then neutral. I don't go to first because that's the next gear I'm going to grab anyway. If I have time I'll rev match.

abroke1

Interesting about the injectors closing. I would not worry about the fuel anyway because it is just recreational driving. And it is fun.
Thanks for the info

abroke1

abroke1

Interesting about the injectors closing.
Thanks for the info