downshifting?

Does down shifting cause any problems to engine? In other words, can it
mess thing up internally?

thanks,

Mel

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 23:29:04 +0200, Mel P. > wrote:

> Does down shifting cause any problems to engine? In other words, can it
> mess thing up internally?
>
> thanks,
>
> Mel
>
>

That depends on what speed(revs) you downshift from..

In my youthfull days I deliberately abused a 1200 from forth into third,
never made it blow up though. So unless you try hard, you are not hurting
anything by downshifting, infact you are suposed to downshift, it saves
the brakes and is standard procedeure in the learning process of any
decent drivers ed. school.
It also lets you controll the car better in slippery conditions as you can
go "On" the throttle again, not for firsttimers...

J.



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

> anything by downshifting, infact you are suposed to downshift, it saves
> the brakes and is standard procedeure in the learning process of any
> decent drivers ed. school.
> It also lets you controll the car better in slippery conditions as you can
> go "On" the throttle again, not for firsttimers...

I have always held the opinion that brakes are cheaper than
transaxles. And given the way the availability of parts is going,
finding a properly overhauled transaxle is only going to get more
difficult as time goes on, if you can find one at all.

Personally, I'd rather reline my brakes. If nothing else, it is less
work than yanking the transaxle out... ;-)

Chris

And why would the transaxle be damaged?
Or the clutch if the driver knows how to drive?


> wrote in message
...
>> anything by downshifting, infact you are suposed to downshift, it saves
>> the brakes and is standard procedeure in the learning process of any
>> decent drivers ed. school.
>> It also lets you controll the car better in slippery conditions as you
>> can
>> go "On" the throttle again, not for firsttimers...
>
> I have always held the opinion that brakes are cheaper than
> transaxles. And given the way the availability of parts is going,
> finding a properly overhauled transaxle is only going to get more
> difficult as time goes on, if you can find one at all.
>
> Personally, I'd rather reline my brakes. If nothing else, it is less
> work than yanking the transaxle out... ;-)
>
> Chris

On Sep 21, 11:45 am, "dave AKA vwdoc1"
> wrote:
> And why would the transaxle be damaged?
> Or the clutch if the driver knows how to drive?
>

I did not say downshifting would -damage- the transaxle or the
clutch.

Which brings me to what my original point was: I can do a lot of brake
jobs for the cost of a transaxle overhaul in terms of both parts and
labor. Given the choice between more frequent relining of my brakes
versus dragging the entire ass-end of my car onto the garage floor to
replace a major assembly, I'd much rather consume and change my brakes
than use up a transaxle and clutch by shifting twice as many times as
necessary.

As always, your mileage may vary.

Chris

wrote:
>> anything by downshifting, infact you are suposed to downshift, it saves
>> the brakes and is standard procedeure in the learning process of any
>> decent drivers ed. school.
>> It also lets you controll the car better in slippery conditions as you can
>> go "On" the throttle again, not for firsttimers...
>
> I have always held the opinion that brakes are cheaper than
> transaxles. And given the way the availability of parts is going,
> finding a properly overhauled transaxle is only going to get more
> difficult as time goes on, if you can find one at all.
>
> Personally, I'd rather reline my brakes. If nothing else, it is less
> work than yanking the transaxle out... ;-)
>
> Chris


Engine braking, which I guess what the subject is here, is critically
important for proper break-in for a new engine (or just new pistons,
rings and cylinders. ) It is in no way harmful to the engine or
transmission itself. Just don't go crazy with it. In extreme cases the
rear tires may lose traction and skid...

Jan

On Sep 21, 5:41*pm, Jan Andersson >
wrote:

>
> Engine braking, which I guess what the subject is here, is critically
> important for proper break-in for a new engine (or just new pistons,
> rings and cylinders. ) It is in no way harmful to the engine or
> transmission itself. Just don't go crazy with it. In extreme cases the
> rear tires may lose traction and skid...
>
> Jan-

So you wouldn't recommend a 4th to 1st downshift doing around 40 or
so ?

Randy

> wrote in message
...
On Sep 21, 5:41 pm, Jan Andersson >
wrote:

>
> Engine braking, which I guess what the subject is here, is critically
> important for proper break-in for a new engine (or just new pistons,
> rings and cylinders. ) It is in no way harmful to the engine or
> transmission itself. Just don't go crazy with it. In extreme cases the
> rear tires may lose traction and skid...
>
> Jan-

>So you wouldn't recommend a 4th to 1st downshift doing around 40 or
>so ?

>Randy

around here we call that a redneck compression test....

On Sep 21, 6:29*pm, "Joey Tribiani" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Sep 21, 5:41 pm, Jan Andersson >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Engine braking, which I guess what the subject is here, is critically
> > important for proper break-in for a new engine (or just new pistons,
> > rings and cylinders. ) It is in no way harmful to the engine or
> > transmission itself. Just don't go crazy with it. In extreme cases the
> > rear tires may lose traction and skid...
>
> > Jan-
> >So you wouldn't recommend a 4th to 1st downshift doing around 40 or
> >so ?
> >Randy
>
> around here we call that a redneck compression test....

You have compression ?
Dang it.

Randy

True.... you can do many brake jobs for the cost of a transaxle overhaul in
terms of both parts and labor!
Although I just don't know why it is being compared like this!
I would rather roller-skate than replace a transmission! <g>
AND actually you did say "use up a transaxle and clutch by shifting twice as
many times"!

I installed a used clutch in my '83 Audi 4000S back in 1991 at 85K miles.
The Odometer now reads 241K miles on that same used clutch. I think I have
replaced the front and rear brakes twice. It is still on the second
replacement!
I also need a new clutch since the pressure plate is so rusty and stiff that
it is killing my left leg! lol
Trans is fine though and I can still burn some rubber in first and second
gear so the clutch grabs well too.

I do mostly city driving and downshift (AKA engine braking). I love this
car even after 17 years of ownership!
I can also shift without using the clutch pedal and that is upshifting or
downshifting. ;-)

Now if I get some education on how to drive for economy I can probably up my
mpg and save other components from normal wear like the clutch and brakes.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...permilers.html

Mileage will vary! ;-)
BTW I don't remember the mileage I had on my 1967 Beetle Convertible after
only 9 years of ownership, but I only replaced the transmission once after
it was stolen and recovered. This was over 28 years ago so I just don't
remember all of the details but my driving habits remain the same. ;-)
--
later,
(One out of many daves)


> wrote in message
...
> On Sep 21, 11:45 am, "dave AKA vwdoc1"
> > wrote:
>> And why would the transaxle be damaged?
>> Or the clutch if the driver knows how to drive?
>>
>
> I did not say downshifting would -damage- the transaxle or the
> clutch.
>
> Which brings me to what my original point was: I can do a lot of brake
> jobs for the cost of a transaxle overhaul in terms of both parts and
> labor. Given the choice between more frequent relining of my brakes
> versus dragging the entire ass-end of my car onto the garage floor to
> replace a major assembly, I'd much rather consume and change my brakes
> than use up a transaxle and clutch by shifting twice as many times as
> necessary.
>
> As always, your mileage may vary.
>
> Chris