 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Acura Cars / July 2007shifting too soon in Type-S deadly?
Hello All, Tried looking to see if this question was every asked before but couldn't find an answer, so I'll ask it now. A friend of mine (and self-proclaimed manual-speed know it all) constantly criticizes my shifting habits telling me I'm killing my transmission...which I find dubious since my old car (94 Probe GT) is still on original clutch with over 160K and never had a speck of transmission problems throughout its still-continuing life. Have an '06 Type S with approx. 25K on it. Love it...and so much so, I try not to "beat on" the engine (wish I had another Type S so I could really put it through its paces). To do this I don't push the engine all that much when I shift, and therefore often skip gears proceeding through to 6th. Sometimes I'll shift 1 to 3 to 5 to 6. Other times from a stop sign (if slightly rolling through it...shhh, don't tell any one) I'll go 2 to 4 to 6 sometimes. I'll occasionally downshift to slow car down (mixed with braking), and usually coast into turns adjusting shift afterwards for putting less torque-stress on the engine as well. In general I'll also try and always cruise in 6th even at 30 to 35 mph...as long there's nowhere near the too -low-rpm -sputtering that would make the engine die. Rarely do my RPM ever exceed 5000! Occasionaly but not all that much. According to my friend, I'm ruining the transmission by not following the when-to-shift speeds according to the manual. I'm having a hard time agreeing with him. Is he correct? Or are my conservative shifting habits guaranteeing my beloved Type-S's transmission a slow death? Appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Bob You sure are NOT helping your car any......there is a reason for all those gears. > Hello All, > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Bob > You sure are NOT helping your car any......there is a reason for all > those gears. Yeah, power and acceleration. Has nothing to do with tranny life.  SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >> You sure are NOT helping your car any......there is a reason for all >> those gears. > > Yeah, power and acceleration. Has nothing to do with tranny life. Skipping gears does wear the synchros more. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in news:Xns992AEB839FA9jyanikkuanet@ 64.209.0.84: >>> You sure are NOT helping your car any......there is a reason for all >>> those gears. >> >> Yeah, power and acceleration. Has nothing to do with tranny life. > > Skipping gears does wear the synchros more. Sure does. Even Honda said so in a recent issue of Honda Service News. Earlier I meant to say that the number of gears has to do with power and acceleration, not tranny life. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in news:Xns992AEB839FA9jyanikkuanet@ > 64.209.0.84: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQwww.tegger.com/hondafaq/ Someone should pass this vital information to GM, whose Corvette comes standard with a device that FORCES the driver to shift from 1st to 4th under slow acceleration situations. Skipping gears when accelerating slowly and done smoothly can't be that harmful. Just about everyone I know who has a 5 or 6 speed skips gears on a routine basis. If you pay attention to your car, it generally lets you know when you are doing something it doesn't like. If the shift quality while skipping gears is worse than when not skipping gears, stop skipping gears. On the other hand, what's the point of buying a Type S is you're afraid to run up the RPM? I could purchase a device to defeat that 1st to 4th shift feature but it never interferes with the way I drive my 'Vette, if you get my drift. So long as the engine is well maintained (esp. clean oil) running it up to red line (once it's fully warmed up) is not going to hurt the engine one little bit. You will find the shift quality gets better as you let that engine breathe. Replace those crappy OEM tires and stand on it! Or trade it in for a Prius. No worries about skipping gears. > Someone should pass this vital information to GM, whose Corvette comes > standard with a device that FORCES the driver to shift from 1st to 4th > under slow acceleration situations. Have you considered that GM might have explicitly designed the transmission to survive that? Honda did not. > Skipping gears when accelerating slowly and done smoothly can't be > that harmful. > Just about everyone I know who has a 5 or 6 speed skips > gears on a routine basis. The Honda Service News issue I mentioned warns mechanics to check for skip-shifting if a car comes in with shifting problems. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >> Someone should pass this vital information to GM, whose Corvette comes >> standard with a device that FORCES the driver to shift from 1st to 4th >> under slow acceleration situations. > >Have you considered that GM might have explicitly designed the >transmission to survive that? Honda did not. I believe that the GM forced shift of which you speak is done only when the engine is below operating temperature, and is a trick to get it past emissions regulations under such conditions. Whether or not the transmission is designed to handle it is kind of moot. IMHFO anyone who 'gets on' an engine and transmission before its oil is up to operating temperature deserves all he/she gets. SignatureDan. > >> Someone should pass this vital information to GM, whose Corvette comes > >> standard with a device that FORCES the driver to shift from 1st to 4th [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > when the engine is below operating temperature, and is a trick to get > it past emissions regulations under such conditions. Nope, it is not temperature dependent. > Whether or not the transmission is designed to handle it is kind of > moot. IMHFO anyone who 'gets on' an engine and transmission before > its oil is up to operating temperature deserves all he/she gets. The Corvette prevents this, as do other high performance cars. > -- > Dan. >> >> Someone should pass this vital information to GM, whose Corvette comes >> >> standard with a device that FORCES the driver to shift from 1st to 4th >> >> under slow acceleration situations. >> I believe that the GM forced shift of which you speak is done only >> when the engine is below operating temperature, and is a trick to get >> it past emissions regulations under such conditions. > >Nope, it is not temperature dependent. OK, I see now that it's not temperature dependent. But it *is* done for emissions purposes. And there's a straightforward chip mod. to defeat it. >> Whether or not the transmission is designed to handle it is kind of >> moot. IMHFO anyone who 'gets on' an engine and transmission before >> its oil is up to operating temperature deserves all he/she gets. > >The Corvette prevents this, as do other high performance cars. Only up to a point. I can still abuse a cold engine. SignatureDan. > >Nope, it is not temperature dependent. > > OK, I see now that it's not temperature dependent. But it *is* done > for emissions purposes. And there's a straightforward chip mod. to > defeat it. The point being that GM designed the Corvette to skip gears under light throttle. No trans. damage. And the 1st to 4th feature doesn't interfere with routine driving. > >> Whether or not the transmission is designed to handle it is kind of > >> moot. IMHFO anyone who 'gets on' an engine and transmission before [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Only up to a point. I can still abuse a cold engine. Fine. Maybe the OP can figure out your point. If you are implying that you need heavy throttle to defeat the Corvette's 1st to 4th skip shift feature you are incorrect. You don't actually own a Corvette, do you? > -- > Dan. >> >Nope, it is not temperature dependent. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >light throttle. No trans. damage. And the 1st to 4th feature doesn't >interfere with routine driving. So you think that GM though that a *design* that would force people to skip gears would be a neat feature that Corvette drivers would *really* like? Hmmmm... In fact, it's a kludge they had to make late in the game to meet regulations. They don't put it that way in the glossy brochure of course, they spin it to look like a brilliant design feature that they intended all along. And you believed them... >> >The Corvette prevents this, as do other high performance cars. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >you need heavy throttle to defeat the Corvette's 1st to 4th skip shift >feature you are incorrect. You don't actually own a Corvette, do you? I never said I owned a Corvette. They're OK but they're not my cup of tea. What I actually said, if you read for comprehension, is that there's an aftermarket chip mod. to defeat the forced shift. It's simple and inexpensive, and all self-respecting Corvette owners have installed it. SignatureDan. > >> >Nope, it is not temperature dependent. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > skip gears would be a neat feature that Corvette drivers would > *really* like? Hmmmm... Yeah, that's exactly what I said. > In fact, it's a kludge they had to make late in the game to meet > regulations. They don't put it that way in the glossy brochure of > course, they spin it to look like a brilliant design feature that they > intended all along. And you believed them... Yeah, that's exactly what I said. What I said was the skip shift feature does not harm the Corvette transmission. Nothing more. How you care to spin this, well, who knows... But thanks for the insight re. the skip shift. And it's to avoid the gas guzzler tax, which is not exactly the same as meeting regulations. > >> >The Corvette prevents this, as do other high performance cars. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > inexpensive, and all self-respecting Corvette owners have installed > it. Sure, they have. You spend quite a bit of time reading catalogs, don't you? Yes, I admit, I almost bought the aftermarket part when I first got the 'Vette but after a short while I discovered that it really wasn't necessary. However, if I drove it in urban traffic (lots of slow acceleration) then I'd install it. Happily, that's not my situation. >> What I actually said, if you read for comprehension, is that there's >> an aftermarket chip mod. to defeat the forced shift. It's simple and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Sure, they have. >You spend quite a bit of time reading catalogs, don't you? Not catalogs, good quality automotive magazines. Unlike you, the car maker's glossy brochures and the gee-whiz Chevy bling and hot rod magazines do nothing for me. SignatureDan. >>> What I actually said, if you read for comprehension, is that there's >>> an aftermarket chip mod. to defeat the forced shift. It's simple and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > maker's glossy brochures and the gee-whiz Chevy bling and hot rod > magazines do nothing for me. As I recall (from reading those same good quality automotive magazines)... Back in the '80s, the Corvette's forced "skip shift" was originally designed to help GM meet CAFE requirements, not EPA mandates. GM implemented the skip shift for the first time around 1985. Maybe it's done for emissions now, but wasn't at the beginning. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >Back in the '80s, the Corvette's forced "skip shift" was originally >designed to help GM meet CAFE requirements, not EPA mandates. GM >implemented the skip shift for the first time around 1985. > >Maybe it's done for emissions now, but wasn't at the beginning. Whatever reason it's done for then and now, it sure as hell isn't because the customers demand it. SignatureDan. >>Back in the '80s, the Corvette's forced "skip shift" was originally >>designed to help GM meet CAFE requirements, not EPA mandates. GM [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Whatever reason it's done for then and now, it sure as hell isn't > because the customers demand it. That I believe!!! SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > Whatever reason it's done for then and now, it sure as hell isn't > because the customers demand it. But Corvette customers did demand a transmission that wouldn't break if you skip shifted it. Maybe Honda customers should do the same. >> Whatever reason it's done for then and now, it sure as hell isn't >> because the customers demand it. > >But Corvette customers did demand a transmission that wouldn't break >if you skip shifted it. Maybe Honda customers should do the same. I don't understand why Corvette customers are happy to drive a car that *forces* them to skip gears, regardless of whether they "demanded a transmission that is up to it" or not. It all smells like a kludge and marketing bullshit/spin to me. I can't imagine the upmarket performance car makers doing it, or their buyers tolerating it. SignatureDan. >>> Whatever reason it's done for then and now, it sure as hell isn't >>> because the customers demand it. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I can't imagine the upmarket performance car makers doing it, or their > buyers tolerating it. I can't see that there's any demand for "skip-shifting" durability. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>> Whatever reason it's done for then and now, it sure as hell isn't >>>> because the customers demand it. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >I can't see that there's any demand for "skip-shifting" durability. Not from me, that's for sure. I think that the majority of Corvettes sold have automatic transmissions. Maybe GM just doesn't care enough about the relatively few buyers of their product who don't want a torque converter transmission. SignatureDan. >>>>> Whatever reason it's done for then and now, it sure as hell isn't >>>>> because the customers demand it. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > few buyers of their product who don't want a torque converter > transmission. these days,very few standard transmissions are sold,less than 1 in 10,IIRC,for all models of cars. I'm worried they may do away with them altogether,or charge a "premium" for them,make THEM the "option" rather than the automatic. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > these days,very few standard transmissions are sold,less than 1 in > 10,IIRC,for all models of cars. ...in North America. Manuals are quite popular in the rest of the world due to government tax policies. > I'm worried they may do away with them > altogether,or charge a "premium" for them,make THEM the "option" > rather than the automatic. I don't think that's likely to happen. Automatics are a LOT more expensive to install than manuals, and the automakers already have the manuals on the shelf. The only cars where manuals are entirely off the menu are those where sales would be virtually nil (minivans and SUV's for instance). SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > The only cars where manuals are entirely off the menu are those where > sales would be virtually nil (minivans and SUV's for instance). CRV manual...gone (for USA anyway). >>> Whatever reason it's done for then and now, it sure as hell isn't >>> because the customers demand it. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I can't imagine the upmarket performance car makers doing it, or their > buyers tolerating it. We're talking about a manual transmission, right? How does the driver know they can't use 2nd and 3rd...lights on the dash or trial-and-error? > Not catalogs, good quality automotive magazines. Oh, so you consider those "good quality auto mags" something other than the same marketing BS as in the glossy brochures? Unlike you, the car > maker's glossy brochures and the gee-whiz Chevy bling and hot rod > magazines do nothing for me. Don't forget about the full, frontal 2-page spreads! I'd rather drive my car than read about someone else's car. Maybe that's why I know how to shift thru its gears. >>> >Nope, it is not temperature dependent. >>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > inexpensive, and all self-respecting Corvette owners have installed > it. Car and Driver magazine said that was the reason for the skip-gear;to meet emissions on the EPA tests. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > >>> >Nope, it is not temperature dependent. > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Car and Driver magazine said that was the reason for the skip-gear;to meet > emissions on the EPA tests. those EPA tests wouldn't be related to the gas guzzler tax, would they? > -- > Jim Yanik > jyanik > at > kua.net > > Someone should pass this vital information to GM, whose Corvette comes > > standard with a device that FORCES the driver to shift from 1st to 4th > > under slow acceleration situations. > > Have you considered that GM might have explicitly designed the > transmission to survive that? Honda did not. Do I believe the Corvette trans. is built to withstand more abuse than a Honda manual trans.? Yup, esp. 1st and 2nd gear. > > Skipping gears when accelerating slowly and done smoothly can't be > > that harmful. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The Honda Service News issue I mentioned warns mechanics to check for > skip-shifting if a car comes in with shifting problems. While I believe what you are saying, I often skip gears in my '89 Legend with over 210K miles and have had zero trans. problems. Other owners I know report similar experiences. Oh yeah, I used to skip shift my '72 Porsche, my old Audi and Integra, too. No trans. problem with any of these. Having driven with other, shall we say less mechanically inclined drivers, may I say that Honda is probably on the right track but they've taken a wrong turn. LOTS of Honda manual trans. drivers DOWNSHIFT without attempting to blip the throttle via heel/toe or double clutching. There's the wear, they're using the clutch and trans. for braking. I have a hard time buying into the Honda line that skipping gears while gently accelerating is causing any damage. Sure, if you force the gear change, you're gonna cause damage. But for the most part, Honda is blowing smoke to cover up a weak trans. design, IMHO. > -- > Tegger > > The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQwww.tegger.com/hondafaq/ In case anybody's still interested, here is Honda's official word, from the Jan '06 issue of Honda Service News: Skip Shifting Is Brutal on Synchronizers Gear ratios in 6-speed manual trannies are spaced close together so you can keep the engine speed in its optimum range for max power and acceleration. Shifting to the next higher or lower gear in a close-ratio tranny causes small changes in engine speed. Shifting a close-ratio tranny through its gears by the numbers puts a very small load on the synchronizers since they only have to make small changes to the speed of the mainshaft and the clutch disc. Some drivers, though, like to skip shift so they don’t have to work the clutch pedal and shift lever as much. They like to accelerate in 1st gear, then pop it into 3rd gear, then into 5th or 6th. Skip shifting, though, is really brutal on synchronizers; it puts a higher demand on them than they were designed to take. Skip shifting can cause premature synchronizer wear that can cause the gears to grind when you shift up or down. If you’ve got a vehicle in your shop for repeated damage to the synchronizers, go for a test-drive with your service client to see if he or she is guilty of skip shifting. Skip shifting can be an expensive habit to break. Any repairs due to skip shifting may be reviewed and debited by your DPSM. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >In case anybody's still interested, here is Honda's official word, from the >Jan '06 issue of Honda Service News: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >break. Any repairs due to skip shifting may be reviewed and debited by your >DPSM. Thanks for doing the research, Tegger. The moral of the story: if you must skip shift, double clutch. Or maybe: double clutch it now or double clutch it later. ACAR <dimndsonmywndshld@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1178740512.816592.228130 @y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com: > Skipping gears when accelerating slowly and done smoothly can't be > that harmful. Just about everyone I know who has a 5 or 6 speed skips > gears on a routine basis. When in sixth, does everyone go down all 5 gears? I never did in my RSX. > Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in news:Xns992AEB839FA9jyanikkuanet@ > 64.209.0.84: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > - Show quoted text - All these points from all responses are well taken...thanks. Think I'm going to start drive my Type S more aggressively and more to the manual's speed specifications for when to shift. Love driving hard and fast...but also love having a car for a very long life. Where I live (northern Midwest region) lots of roads are in pretty crappy condition; pot holes, cracks, bad repairs...the works. So fast driving has the backlash of tires, shocks and alignment abuse. Why did I buy a manual? Really like the experience of shifting. As I'm sure you know, keeps you more involved in the ride. Besides...for me, automatics are boring. About the awareness of knowing what one's engine doesn't like? Have always liked to think I had a good sense of that. In my RSX, I rarely ever (may just once or twice) have experienced any even slight lugging when letting clutch out in lower gears as I shift to higher ones. Have never noticed any lack of "shift quality" when gear skipping either. Overwhelming majority of them are smooth and precise with no excess revs higher or lower as clutch lets out completely...which is why I've never thought I've been doing damage to synchros. But like it's been pointed out, Honda knows best. Who am I to argue? Again, thanks for the input. > About the awareness of knowing what one's engine doesn't like? Have > always liked to think I had a good sense of that. In my RSX, I rarely > ever (may just once or twice) have experienced any even slight lugging > when letting clutch out in lower gears as I shift to higher ones. Don't let the engine go below 2K rpm after shifting and you're fine. > Have > never noticed any lack of "shift quality" when gear skipping either. You won't notice until the damage is done. And once it's done, the fix is expensive. Damage takes time; it doesn't happen in a few months. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ write2here@hotmail.com wrote in news:1178663696.155572.256540 @u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com: > Hello All, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > still on original clutch with over 160K and never had a speck of > transmission problems throughout its still-continuing life. Cool. But 160K isn't very much these days, and how do you know there's no damage? Can you tell what bearing noise sounds like? > Have an '06 Type S with approx. 25K on it. Love it...and so much so, I > try not to "beat on" the engine (wish I had another Type S so I could > really put it through its paces). To do this I don't push the engine > all that much when I shift, and therefore often skip gears proceeding > through to 6th. Sometimes I'll shift 1 to 3 to 5 to 6. Bad. This tears up the synchros. Go through the gears properly. If you don't like shifting, you should have bought an automatic. > Other times > from a stop sign (if slightly rolling through it...shhh, don't tell > any one) I'll go 2 to 4 to 6 sometimes. I'll occasionally downshift to > slow car down (mixed with braking), Proper "downshifting" does not involve the brakes, and does not cause any sort of jerks or bumps as you let the clutch out. > and usually coast into turns > adjusting shift afterwards for putting less torque-stress on the > engine as well. But adding side-load on the tranny bearings, plus hammering the engine crank and connecting rod bearings. Why did you buy a manual again? > In general I'll also try and always cruise in 6th even at 30 to 35 > mph...as long there's nowhere near the too -low-rpm -sputtering that > would make the engine die. Not good. This is called "lugging". Major long-term engine bearing damage. Why did you buy a manual in the first place? > Rarely do my RPM ever exceed 5000! > Occasionaly but not all that much. It ought to, at least once in a while. If you putter around like an old man all the time, soft carbon deposits can accumulate, holding valves open, causing driveability problems and valve burning. And that's quite expensive. > According to my friend, I'm ruining the transmission by not following > the when-to-shift speeds according to the manual. I'm having a hard > time agreeing with him. *He* isn't right, *HONDA* is right. Do you think Honda put those specifications in the manual for fun? Or just for something to fill up pages with? > Is he correct? Or are my conservative shifting habits guaranteeing my > beloved Type-S's transmission a slow death? Yep. You want 300K out of your tranny? Observe the manual's directives. And change the tranny oil every 30K miles, with Honda MTF. Manual transmissions are for people who like shifting and exploring the interaction of man and machine. If you want the shifter to be as unobtrusive as possible, you should have got an automatic. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.