 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Volkswagen / Air Cooled Volkswagen Cars / September 2008downshifting?
Does down shifting cause any problems to engine? In other words, can it mess thing up internally? thanks, Mel > 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.  SignatureUsing 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? >> anything by downshifting, infact you are suposed to downshift, it saves >> the brakes and is standard procedeure in the learning process of any [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Chris On Sep 21, 11:45 am, "dave AKA vwdoc1" <vwdoc1nos...@pleasehotmail.com> 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 a.s-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 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/feature/2007/01/king_of_the_hypermilers.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. ;-) Signaturelater, (One out of many daves) > On Sep 21, 11:45 am, "dave AKA vwdoc1" > <vwdoc1nos...@pleasehotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Chris > 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> From a cost of ownership standpoint, it is cheaper(and easier in my opinion) to use the brakes to slow the car and replace the brakes when they wear out, and spare the extra shifting and clutching....but to each their own. > 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 All I can say is..wow. I've never put that many miles on a car. However, on the longevity standpoint, I did note that when I pulled the Mazda G5M out of my daily driver(no, it's NOT a ford thank you) that despite the fact that the pressure plate and flywheel were burned, the clutch disc itself still had plenty of meat on it. I could have re-used it, but since I had the kit I did the whole thing. The reason I took the car apart is I did manage to destroy the 2nd gear synchronizer on that gearbox after only 100,000 miles of chirping 2nd and 3rd on a daily basis. Damn japanese gearboxes... ;-) > I can also shift without using the clutch pedal and that is upshifting or > downshifting. ;-) Indeed this is a good skill to have in the event you have to get home WITHOUT a clutch. I learned how to do it, albeit poorly, a while back. However, I'd rather swap the clutch cable on the side of the road than drive home without a clutch. > 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/feature/2007/01/king_of_the_hypermile... Screw it. Fuel costs are a pittance compared to the total cost of ownership of a vehicle. People smarter than me have said as much in past years, which after reading statements like that I immediately concluded said folks were full of it. But I started doing the math and found out that they were right. Fuel costs alone are only about 20% of the cost of operating a vehicle. The REAL money comes in when you look at the payment on your box on wheels. Not having a car payment at all and keeping your car forever is the best way to keep your cost per mile to a minimum. And uhh...pump up your damn tires and keep that asshat Obama happy. Anyway, John Muir was right when he proposed the forever car concept. I'll spare you the long drawn out version of the spreadsheet here, but if you want to download my work you can and tweak as needed. Bottom line: In 2006 a brand new Honda Civic would have set you back $7,000+ a year to drive 15,000 miles. I know, I know...can't possibly be can it. Well, see for yourself: Shoot holes in it if you like, personally, I think I lo-balled it. You can ignore the airplane stuff at the top. http://digitalpics00.no-ip.org/~halatos/airplane.xls Chris >. And uhh...pump up your damn tires and keep that > asshat Obama happy. <snicker> >> anything by downshifting, infact you are suposed to downshift, it saves >> the brakes and is standard procedeure in the learning process of any [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > 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 <bugf...@spamtrap.rocketmail.com> 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, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jan- So you wouldn't recommend a 4th to 1st downshift doing around 40 or so ? Randy On Sep 21, 5:41 pm, Jan Andersson <bugf...@spamtrap.rocketmail.com> 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, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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.... > <rjmac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > around here we call that a redneck compression test.... You have compression ? Dang it. Randy > On Sep 21, 5:41 pm, Jan Andersson <bugf...@spamtrap.rocketmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > around here we call that a redneck compression test.... On a serious note, you would not be able to go from 4th to 1srt. Sync speed way to high for the design. J. SignatureUsing Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > On a serious note, you would not be able to go from 4th to 1srt. > Sync speed way to high for the design. > > J. Double clutch. Randy > On Sep 21, 5:41 pm, Jan Andersson <bugf...@spamtrap.rocketmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Randy No, never more than to the next smaller gear. On Sep 21, 9:00 pm, Jan Andersson <bugf...@spamtrap.rocketmail.com> wrote: > rjmac...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On Sep 21, 5:41 pm, Jan Andersson <bugf...@spamtrap.rocketmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > No, never more than to the next smaller gear.- Hide quoted text - Try it. Randy |
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
|
©2010 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.