downshifting?

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 01:29:37 +0200, 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....
>
>

On a serious note, you would not be able to go from 4th to 1srt.
Sync speed way to high for the design.

J.


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

wrote:
> 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


No, never more than to the next smaller gear.

On Sep 21, 8:37*pm, "P.J.Berg" > wrote:
>
> 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, 9:00*pm, Jan Andersson >
wrote:
> wrote:
> > 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
>
> No, never more than to the next smaller gear.- Hide quoted text -
>

Try 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>

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/feat..._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

> wrote in message
...
>. And uhh...pump up your damn tires and keep that
> asshat Obama happy.
>

<snicker>