That is the correct way to use the tranny. This has been discussed before in great length. Anyone who downshifts all the time to slow the vehicle (Auto or Stick) is a fool. Going down long grades is another story. Brakes are cheap, clutches and trannys are not.I use 'em for going down grades. Not so much for general stopping. Brake pads have got to be cheaper than the wear items inside the trannie. Plus, you can just lift off the gas sooner, save gas, as well as brake pads. But that is just me.......
I'd like to see some of the researchers tackle CVTs as well. These are built to shift a bit more often than your normal geared transmission, lack a clutch in many cases, and in general wear differently than a geared transmission. While I agree that any shift will provide wear, I don't think we can blindly apply geared transmission logic to belted/disc transmissions.That is the correct way to use the tranny. This has been discussed before in great length. Anyone who downshifts all the time to slow the vehicle (Auto or Stick) is a fool. Going down long grades is another story. Brakes are cheap, clutches and trannys are not.
A CVT transmission is constantly "shifting" anyway.That is the correct way to use the tranny. This has been discussed before in great length. Anyone who downshifts all the time to slow the vehicle (Auto or Stick) is a fool.
Exactly. FWIW, Most people don't keep their cars for the long haul anymore so they typically do not care.Down hill speed check down shift is actually a good idea especially with the CVT given its pretty slippery and the car will just rocket down hill unchecked.
Driving around town and down shifting as you approach stoplights? Brakes are a better idea cost less to service than a CVT and even the MT folks say down shifting past 3rd for regular use around town stuff is just shocking the running gear hard and adding wear to the transmission - and drive lines which really isn't worth the value add going below 3rd.
All transmissions are designed to deliver power in one direction.......Slowing the vehicle is a secondary provision. With the CVT, it may not make a lot of difference which way the strain is going. But it very well could be that it is much more rugged in the power on direction.I'd like to see some of the researchers tackle CVTs as well. These are built to shift a bit more often than your normal geared transmission, lack a clutch in many cases, and in general wear differently than a geared transmission. While I agree that any shift will provide wear, I don't think we can blindly apply geared transmission logic to belted/disc transmissions.
For example: I can't tell someone to not do this because it will burn out the clutch, since in the case of the Subaru CVT, it uses a torque convertor which is going to see the same wear regardless of what the transmission is doing (in the general case, anyways).
Don't get me wrong, I don't actually do a lot of engine braking, just on long hills, and I'm pretty gentle on the brakes when I can be (traffic sometimes decides otherwise). I'm just wary of applying "common wisdom" on a fundamentally different transmission design without some data to back it up. I'd agree that in the absence of such data, that caution is probably due, but that's different from assuming the same rules apply, and using that as the reason for doing it that way.All transmissions are designed to deliver power in one direction.......Slowing the vehicle is a secondary provision. With the CVT, it may not make a lot of difference which way the strain is going. But it very well could be that it is much more rugged in the power on direction.
Also, torque convertors are directional as well. Many auto trannie failures actually start as torque convertor failures. (When bits start to break loose, they go all through the transmission. In general, any major work on a trannie includes a torque convertor replacement.) Driving the motor with the car is not what they are designed to do. Just sayin'.
Again, brake pads are relatively cheap, and easily replaced. If you want to save your brakes, plan ahead, just take your foot off the gas sooner. Try it. You will be suprized how little you will need your brakes.
I did not put brake pads/shoes on my 4runner until it had 180k on it. Manual trannie, but I don't downshift it to slow, either.
Anytime you drive your car there is wear and fatigue occurring in the drivetrain. It is hard to dispute that downshifting will increase that wear and fatigue. The question is weather it will cause a problem in your ownership period. Maybe, maybe not. It is still not a good practice unless necessary.Don't get me wrong, I don't actually do a lot of engine braking, just on long hills, and I'm pretty gentle on the brakes when I can be (traffic sometimes decides otherwise). I'm just wary of applying "common wisdom" on a fundamentally different transmission design without some data to back it up. I'd agree that in the absence of such data, that caution is probably due, but that's different from assuming the same rules apply, and using that as the reason for doing it that way.
Torque being applied in the "wrong direction" leading to additional wear makes some sense, depending on the design of the components. While it only needs to work in one direction, that doesn't mean that the design will wear out faster in the other, but it could. But the downshift itself shouldn't be the reason for the additional wear in a CVT design, not when the torque convertor should still be locked up through the whole engine braking maneuver.
Again, this is why I'd wish there was better data on it to research.