engine brake

[gaoo]

ride with a friend in his 997 C4 tip today. he uses quite a lot 'engine brake' and was saying 'i'm gonna look after this baby...'

my question:

is engine brake good for the car? bad for the car or doesnt really matter?

apart from that, i do know it's fun doing that way. ;)

gaoo

[Chris_in_NH]

ride with a friend in his 997 C4 tip today. he uses quite a lot 'engine brake' and was saying 'i'm gonna look after this baby...'

my question:

is engine brake good for the car? bad for the car or doesnt really matter?

apart from that, i do know it's fun doing that way. ;)

gaoo

while it's not *bad* - as long as he doesn't downshift into the red zone (and there is no limiter to prevent him from doing this, so it is possible to completely destroy your engine if this happens) and as long as he is 'rev-matching' (blipping the throttle in between switching gears to get the engine RPMs up to the point where they 'will be' when he switches to the lower gear) - this still results in increased clutch wear, no matter how you rationalize it. and if he is not rev-matching, then he is causing even MORE clutch wear when downshifting/engine braking. the thing to remember is that clutches have a certain number of 'shifts' in them. every time you use the clutch, you shorten its life. the method of shifting determines how much 'wear' the clutch experiences on each shift. if he downshifts without rev-matching, he is causing considerably more clutch wear than if he rev-matched, as the clutch has to spin-up (slip) to mate with the flywheel, abrading away the clutch disc's friction material.

brake pads are much cheaper and much easier to replace than a clutch, so while engine braking may be fun and sound cool, he will need a new clutch sooner than he normally would if he just used the brakes. the best balance of brake and clutch wear is, when slowing down, keep the car in the same gear that it's in until the RPMs are so low that the car *almost* stalls in that gear. keep in mind, the car should not 'shudder' like it's 'going' to stall, but you want to change gears (or put in it neutral) before the RPMs get to that stalling point. after you drive a stick for a while, you instinctively know where this point is. also, if he is just coasting in that gear and applying no gas, then there is no load on the transmission/engine, so he will not be 'lugging' the engine unless he applies gas while in that gear.

so let's say you were in 5th gear getting off the highway. i would leave it in 5th until the car reaches 1000-1200 RPMs (not pressing the gas pedal) and then go from 5th to neutral using the brakes to slow the car to a stop. this method will save his clutch and his brakes.

using his current method, he is not 'taking care of this baby'. ;)

Edited August 11, 2007 by Chris_in_NH

[gaoo]

very helpful & detailed explanation. better than wut i've expected.

many thanks!

gaoo

[Chris_in_NH]

very helpful & detailed explanation. better than wut i've expected.

many thanks!

gaoo

i just realized that you said 'TIP' transmission!! my whole response was based on a manual transmission. sorry!

but i still think that the result is the same. in the case of the Tiptronic transmission, he is making the transmission work more than it normally would if he just used the brakes to slow down. again, brakes are cheaper (much much cheaper) than an automatic transmission.

i know there is a 'Sport Mode' to the Tiptronic transmission, but i'm not sure exactly how it works. i'm sure someone else here does.

[insite]

blip throttle downshifts are a non-issue in a fuel injected car. they CAN pose issues with street exhaust systems in carburated cars. it is VERY important to match the revs in a manual trans. the clutch material is designed to be strong in one direction; reverse torque on a clutch disk will wear it very quickly. reverse torque occurs when you downshift to a lower gear and let the clutch slow the car down rather than matching revs and allowing the engine to do it.

[Chris_in_NH]

blip throttle downshifts are a non-issue in a fuel injected car. they CAN pose issues with street exhaust systems in carburated cars. it is VERY important to match the revs in a manual trans. the clutch material is designed to be strong in one direction; reverse torque on a clutch disk will wear it very quickly. reverse torque occurs when you downshift to a lower gear and let the clutch slow the car down rather than matching revs and allowing the engine to do it.

he's talking about downshifting in a TIP, though. are you saying that if he blips the throttle before the TIP downshift then everything is ok? i can only imagine that even this provides extra wear on the transmission compared to using the brakes to slow down.

[insite]

blip throttle downshifts are a non-issue in a fuel injected car. they CAN pose issues with street exhaust systems in carburated cars. it is VERY important to match the revs in a manual trans. the clutch material is designed to be strong in one direction; reverse torque on a clutch disk will wear it very quickly. reverse torque occurs when you downshift to a lower gear and let the clutch slow the car down rather than matching revs and allowing the engine to do it.

he's talking about downshifting in a TIP, though. are you saying that if he blips the throttle before the TIP downshift then everything is ok? i can only imagine that even this provides extra wear on the transmission compared to using the brakes to slow down.

i was talking about manual trans. engine braking w/ boxster tiptronic should pose no problems at all.

[gaoo]

so, apart from all things mentioned here, is there any positive side of engine braking? why people do it?

gaoo :rolleyes:

[986Jim]

Because using a 10,000 dollar engine and 5,000 dollar transmissions to slow down a car to save a set of 500 dollar brakes just makes sense!

[Glyn]

I cant believe all this bollocks, downshifting and using the engines natural braking is so normal, unless you are all used to automatics.The gearbox has baulk rings (small rings of brass that are cone shaped that slow down two shafts running at different speeds and match them up) two shafts are running in the gearbox at different speeds as you drive, when you select a gear the baulk rings are activated by the selection of the gear and do their job The downshift in a manual car or a tip is designed to do this, i cant see why this seems such a Wow factor.Using engine braking saves the brakes, does no damage to the car and whilst the engine is on the overrun no fuel is being squirted by the injectors.

On an auto it wont select the gear if the speed is exceeding the max revs in the gear below it, it will wait before engagement, in a manual it is a different story, if you drop it into first at 50 mph the engine will overrev and you are likely to do damage,

Drive your car - you know what the top speed is in each gear and dont drop it into that gear above that speed.

Those that advise speed matching (blipping the throttle whilst double declutching) was great in the days of the crash gearbox - no syncromesh in those days (syncromesh is the addition of the baulk rings)

The clutch plate is not any stronger in one dirrection than the other, its a disk with a friction material on it - it doesnt care which direction it spins in or which direction load gets placed on it.

Quote "slowing down, keep the car in the same gear that it's in until the RPMs are so low that the car *almost* stalls in that gear" - not wishing to sound rude but that is complete rubbish, suppose someone shoots out of a junction and you need to accelerste and there you are in 5th at 25mph - where is your power - surely when being trained to drive the instructor always told you to be in a gear that can provide acceleration and engine brake? You should always be in a gear wherby you have a choice of either, doing as suggested is absolutly wrong.

As for load on the transmission and extra wear on the clutch - this is true - but all vehicle manufactures factor this into their design- do you really think a clutch size is determined by what size plate they can get their hands on cheaply - All parts for all cars are made specifically to do the job for the car they are in, The transmission can cope with this easilly - You can spin the wheels and do a donut- then you think that engine braking could snap the shaft or the CV joints fail-

The clutch wear is insignificant, nobody wore a clutch out downshifting.

Quote "Because using a 10,000 dollar engine and 5,000 dollar transmissions to slow down a car to save a set of 500 dollar brakes just makes sense" - Oh no it doesnt, its doing what it was designed to do

Hope ive not pi**ed too many of you off with my comments, but talk to a few engineers and see who is right

Edited August 16, 2007 by Glyn

[Lyn]

Thx Glyn for the injection of a little common sense out of the UK. I put over 150K miles on my 356B downshifting as a practice on the original clutch and 70+K on my 911T driving in the same fashion. I expect the cluth in my 03 Boxster S to be just as reliable. Most folks do far more damage slipping the clutch on uphill starts, or by riding the clutch with their left foot than will ever be done by dowshifting to slow down.

Lyn

[Glyn]

Thx Glyn for the injection of a little common sense out of the UK. I put over 150K miles on my 356B downshifting as a practice on the original clutch and 70+K on my 911T driving in the same fashion. I expect the cluth in my 03 Boxster S to be just as reliable. Most folks do far more damage slipping the clutch on uphill starts, or by riding the clutch with their left foot than will ever be done by dowshifting to slow down.

Lyn

Lyn, you are spot on, i thought my comments would just antagonise people- not that i set out to do that but each post compounded the previous.

everybody, Lyn is correct and backs that up with personal experience

now there two of us to take the flack

[986Jim]

Quote "Because using a 10,000 dollar engine and 5,000 dollar transmissions to slow down a car to save a set of 500 dollar brakes just makes sense" - Oh no it doesnt, its doing what it was designed to do

Hope ive not pi**ed too many of you off with my comments, but talk to a few engineers and see who is right

Bunk... The engine is designed to rev to redline so should you rev it to redline with each shift because it was designed to do so? No obviously not. The car is designed to down shift but engine braking is retarded. Use the brakes thats what they are designed to do, not the engine. Just because it does do that and the tranny does down shift doesn't mean it is ment to do that but thanks for coming out.

The brakes are designed to be easily changed, you don't even have to pull off the caliper. Rotors are cheap. Use them up, use them all the time, press them hard on purpose, thats what their designed for. You can say the engine and tranny is designed to do that all you want, but guess what, the brakes were designed MORE to do that than the engine is, ask any engineer that and see who is right. There is simply NO REASON AT ALL to engine brake. You can not justify it no matter how long your post on RENNTECH is... :o

Edited August 17, 2007 by 986Jim

[Glyn]

Quote "Because using a 10,000 dollar engine and 5,000 dollar transmissions to slow down a car to save a set of 500 dollar brakes just makes sense" - Oh no it doesnt, its doing what it was designed to do

Hope ive not pi**ed too many of you off with my comments, but talk to a few engineers and see who is right

Bunk... The engine is designed to rev to redline so should you rev it to redline with each shift because it was designed to do so? No obviously not. The car is designed to down shift but engine braking is retarded. Use the brakes thats what they are designed to do, not the engine. Just because it does do that and the tranny does down shift doesn't mean it is ment to do that but thanks for coming out.

The brakes are designed to be easily changed, you don't even have to pull off the caliper. Rotors are cheap. Use them up, use them all the time, press them hard on purpose, thats what their designed for. You can say the engine and tranny is designed to do that all you want, but guess what, the brakes were designed MORE to do that than the engine is, ask any engineer that and see who is right. There is simply NO REASON AT ALL to engine brake. You can not justify it no matter how long your post on RENNTECH is... :o

986Jim. I just dont understand your post?

I was not trying to say i am more right because my post was long - i was just providing a full explanation for my assertion.

As you slow the car down you should be downchanging so you are in the correct gear at all times, on the overrun (engine braking) the injectors are turned off - no fuel used- wonder why this was designed this way if the engineers didnt expect people to use the engines natural braking to slow a car down without using the brakes.

Of course brakes are designed soley to stop the car - but why would anyone drive up to a junction knowing they had to stop race up to it then apply the brakes, surely anticipation, off the throttle, allow the engine to slow the car down and apply the brakes gently as you get on the final approach to the junction is the correct way of driving.

Better finish off now otherwise i will be even more right with an even longer post

[Chris_in_NH]

Those that advise speed matching (blipping the throttle whilst double declutching) was great in the days of the crash gearbox - no syncromesh in those days (syncromesh is the addition of the baulk rings)

are you trying to say that rev-matching creates the same amount of wear as 'slipping' the clutch into the next lowest gear? i would have to disagree.

Quote "slowing down, keep the car in the same gear that it's in until the RPMs are so low that the car *almost* stalls in that gear" - not wishing to sound rude but that is complete rubbish, suppose someone shoots out of a junction and you need to accelerste and there you are in 5th at 25mph - where is your power - surely when being trained to drive the instructor always told you to be in a gear that can provide acceleration and engine brake? You should always be in a gear wherby you have a choice of either, doing as suggested is absolutly wrong.

the example given was of getting off the highway onto an 'offramp' (where there are no intersections or oncoming traffic) and was made to illustrate a point. the engine and transmission components will experience much more wear over a lifetime of 'engine braking' compared to actual braking.

As for load on the transmission and extra wear on the clutch - this is true

while we're agreeing, let's add the engine in there too.

you certainly have a way with words.

engine=go. brakes=stop.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Chris_in_NH

[Glyn]

Those that advise speed matching (blipping the throttle whilst double declutching) was great in the days of the crash gearbox - no syncromesh in those days (syncromesh is the addition of the baulk rings)

are you trying to say that rev-matching creates the same amount of wear as 'slipping' the clutch into the next lowest gear? i would have to disagree.

Quote "slowing down, keep the car in the same gear that it's in until the RPMs are so low that the car *almost* stalls in that gear" - not wishing to sound rude but that is complete rubbish, suppose someone shoots out of a junction and you need to accelerste and there you are in 5th at 25mph - where is your power - surely when being trained to drive the instructor always told you to be in a gear that can provide acceleration and engine brake? You should always be in a gear wherby you have a choice of either, doing as suggested is absolutly wrong.

the example given was of getting off the highway onto an 'offramp' (where there are no intersections or oncoming traffic) and was made to illustrate a point. the engine and transmission components will experience much more wear over a lifetime of 'engine braking' compared to actual braking.

As for load on the transmission and extra wear on the clutch - this is true

while we're agreeing, let's add the engine in there too.

you certainly have a way with words.

engine=go. brakes=stop.

Rev matching does minimise wear, no one could disagree with that, the less time the clutch is slipping the less chance of wear, Not sure if you are all trying to be obtuse, but, The clutch, engine, transmission is all designed to take that extra wear without it being a significant wear factor - an analogy - lighting a match in a room will warm up the room - yes it will, but the actual effect is so small that specialist equipment would be needed to spot the difference - therefore the real effect is no increase in temperature.

In an absolute theoretical aspect clutch wear will increase with slipping it in on the overrun, in the real world the change down and the amount of time the clutch would slip is so small the wear is insignificant - anything that creates friction introduces wear, so should we all let our cars get dirty because polishing shaves a nats of a micron from the thickness of the paint?

Lets get real - engine braking and downchanging is the correct way to drive.

The throttle blip matching scenario is from the bygone age of crash gearboxes, people had to do it that way otherwise the gear wouldnt go in,Its a very old way of driving which was necessary because of the technology available at the time, the advent of syncromesh did away with all that, sure some may do it - but the gearbox is designed to engage two shafts running at different speeds by a system of Baulk rings - why did anyone bother doing this if everyone is to match speed and revs?

Have you ever driven a truck? Most trucks have an exhaust brake, it assists the brakes by increasing the engine braking by semi blocking the exhaust gasses going out of the exhaust, the back pressure slows the pistons as they rise, This increases the load on the clutch, gearbox and transmission - but it was factored into the design of the truck and is within tollerances set by the manufacturer - or do manufacturers all guess what standards are required or the loads imposed by doing this - of course not.

And yes, lets add the engine in here as well, if an engine rotates say clockwise as viewed from the front of the car looking to the rear, each time the compressed gases are ignited the push down the bore is on the same side of the bore every time, the left hand side, the wear therefore is exagerated on that side of the bore (this too is factored into engine design) on the overrun (engine braking) the forces are transfered to the other side of the bore, likewise the crankshaft big end - the forces are always towards the crankshaft when accelerating, on the overrun they are the opposite side of the big end - the big end shells therefore are getting a more even wear pattern.

It doesnt matter if the example was given as comming of the highway or not - you should always go down the box so that you are in a gear in which you can accelerate if needed, to allow the revs to drop to almost stalling point is just a lazy style of driving - sure a lot of people do this but that does not make it right.

Engine braking also shares the wear on the tyres, when braking 60 to 70% of the retardation is provided by the front brakes, by using engine braking you actually assist the slowing process by forcing the driven wheels to brake too, this provides a very stable braking platform (assuming we are talking about a rear wheel drive car here obviously)

[azzar0]

Interesting debate. While I agree with both sides (I drive both ways for different reasons on different occasions), I would like to add that I prefer to use engine brake under wet conditions. I feel that I have more control when I apply less pressure on the brakes and use the engine to assist with slowing down. Perhaps it is only a perception, but it works for me :)

Another reason to use engine brake is when you're speeding and you pass a highway entrance ramp and a police car enters the highway. Your radar detector doesn't beep, but you know they can turn it on any second. You don't want to attract attention by slamming on the brakes - drop from 5th to 4th and you will slow down while giving the impression that you are a speed-obeying Porsche owner :D I am not talking going from 120 MPH to 65 MPH, more like from 80 to 70..

[Chris_in_NH]

Interesting debate. While I agree with both sides (I drive both ways for different reasons on different occasions), I would like to add that I prefer to use engine brake under wet conditions. I feel that I have more control when I apply less pressure on the brakes and use the engine to assist with slowing down. Perhaps it is only a perception, but it works for me :)

Another reason to use engine brake is when you're speeding and you pass a highway entrance ramp and a police car enters the highway. Your radar detector doesn't beep, but you know they can turn it on any second. You don't want to attract attention by slamming on the brakes - drop from 5th to 4th and you will slow down while giving the impression that you are a speed-obeying Porsche owner :D I am not talking going from 120 MPH to 65 MPH, more like from 80 to 70..

i prefer NOT to engine brake in the wet as the abrupt speed change can cause the wheels to lose traction, and then it's all over.

i agree about downshifting when the police enter the highway so you don't have to use your brakes and alert them to your car. ;)

Rev matching does minimise wear, no one could disagree with that, the less time the clutch is slipping the less chance of wear, Not sure if you are all trying to be obtuse, but, The clutch, engine, transmission is all designed to take that extra wear without it being a significant wear factor

OK. so you AGREE that rev-matching minimizes wear on the clutch, engine and transmission.

but, as you state - these parts are 'designed' to take the extra wear of not rev-matching - but for HOW LONG? rotation=wear. more rotation=more wear. if the idea is to minimize wear to extend the life of the engine/minimize repair costs/drive the car as long as possible, then engine braking is opposed to that idea as it creates MORE wear. now who is being 'obtuse'? you can't agree with this concept in one sentence, but then disagree in the next! if there is more wear then there is more wear. period.

it also comes down to the fact that brakes and rotors are far less expensive to replace that clutches and engines. you seem to be fairly knowledgeable about this subject, but the real question is 'does engine braking cause more wear on the clutch, engine and transmission?' and you have admitted that it does. so what is left to argue about? whether the increased wear is 'significant'? by your reasoning, clutches, transmissions and engines should last forever. if you disagree with this statement then you admit that at some point the wear becomes significant.

[Glyn]

Interesting debate. While I agree with both sides (I drive both ways for different reasons on different occasions), I would like to add that I prefer to use engine brake under wet conditions. I feel that I have more control when I apply less pressure on the brakes and use the engine to assist with slowing down. Perhaps it is only a perception, but it works for me :)

Another reason to use engine brake is when you're speeding and you pass a highway entrance ramp and a police car enters the highway. Your radar detector doesn't beep, but you know they can turn it on any second. You don't want to attract attention by slamming on the brakes - drop from 5th to 4th and you will slow down while giving the impression that you are a speed-obeying Porsche owner :D I am not talking going from 120 MPH to 65 MPH, more like from 80 to 70..

i prefer NOT to engine brake in the wet as the abrupt speed change can cause the wheels to lose traction, and then it's all over.

i agree about downshifting when the police enter the highway so you don't have to use your brakes and alert them to your car. ;)

Rev matching does minimise wear, no one could disagree with that, the less time the clutch is slipping the less chance of wear, Not sure if you are all trying to be obtuse, but, The clutch, engine, transmission is all designed to take that extra wear without it being a significant wear factor

OK. so you AGREE that rev-matching minimizes wear on the clutch, engine and transmission.

but, as you state - these parts are 'designed' to take the extra wear of not rev-matching - but for HOW LONG? rotation=wear. more rotation=more wear. if the idea is to minimize wear to extend the life of the engine/minimize repair costs/drive the car as long as possible, then engine braking is opposed to that idea as it creates MORE wear. now who is being 'obtuse'? you can't agree with this concept in one sentence, but then disagree in the next! if there is more wear then there is more wear. period.

it also comes down to the fact that brakes and rotors are far less expensive to replace that clutches and engines. you seem to be fairly knowledgeable about this subject, but the real question is 'does engine braking cause more wear on the clutch, engine and transmission?' and you have admitted that it does. so what is left to argue about? whether the increased wear is 'significant'? by your reasoning, clutches, transmissions and engines should last forever. if you disagree with this statement then you admit that at some point the wear becomes significant.

OK, here we go.

I have said in previous posts that there is wear, however the important aspect is whether or not that wear is significant, and also whether or not the components are designed to do it.

I note you are very selective about what you lift from my posts to use as a quote and therefore take what i say out of context.

Lets get into the theoretical world, your world:-

When you get out of your car to pop into a local shop - leave the engine running because the starter will wear out if you keep using it.

Never drive at night, lights will wear out and there are only so many opperations of the light switch before that fails

Also night driving puts extra strain on the alternator - so save that too, oh yes lights on at night also place extra wear on the engine as it has to work a little harder to turn the alternator because of the additional load.

Leave the top down and jump in and out of the car without opening the doors - to minimise wear on the hinges

Never use the heater or air con, wears the fan out and the compressor - oh yes and saves on a re-gas or indeed having condensors

Dont indicate, do hand signals and save the stalk and bulbs

In fact leave the car in the garage and eliminate all wear.

Now come on, all the above is true but so insignificant that no one would follow those lines and in reality is so insignificant that it doesnt matter - but someone could argue that in theory it is a fact, which is pretty much where we are with this topic.

It is silly driving a car and letting the engine get to almost stalling before moving it out of gear, engine braking is predictable and correct driving, no driving instructor would have taught you otherwise.

Loosing traction on a wet road when downchanging?, on snow or ice yes, but if you get this on a wet road try putting some decent tyres on the car, and if you prefer not to engine brake on a wet road because it causes you to skid, then it must mean you do it - to know you develop a skid

Nothing last forever, and that is my point, the thing will wear itself out anyway, but engine braking will not advance that condition by anything significant, at a guess, if your car could last 1oo years then it may be worn out a year earlier by engine braking - but you will have had loads more disks and pads replaced in that time. :rolleyes:

[Chris_in_NH]

OK, here we go.

here we go is right!

I have said in previous posts that there is wear, however the important aspect is whether or not that wear is significant, and also whether or not the components are designed to do it.

I note you are very selective about what you lift from my posts to use as a quote and therefore take what i say out of context.

as are you. i have left your entire text this time.

Lets get into the theoretical world, your world:-

When you get out of your car to pop into a local shop - leave the engine running because the starter will wear out if you keep using it.

Never drive at night, lights will wear out and there are only so many opperations of the light switch before that fails

Also night driving puts extra strain on the alternator - so save that too, oh yes lights on at night also place extra wear on the engine as it has to work a little harder to turn the alternator because of the additional load.

Leave the top down and jump in and out of the car without opening the doors - to minimise wear on the hinges

Never use the heater or air con, wears the fan out and the compressor - oh yes and saves on a re-gas or indeed having condensors

Dont indicate, do hand signals and save the stalk and bulbs

In fact leave the car in the garage and eliminate all wear.

Now come on, all the above is true but so insignificant that no one would follow those lines and in reality is so insignificant that it doesnt matter - but someone could argue that in theory it is a fact, which is pretty much where we are with this topic.

yes, all the above is true. and they are all cheaper than engines, clutches and transmissions. not to mention 'necessary'.

It is silly driving a car and letting the engine get to almost stalling before moving it out of gear, engine braking is predictable and correct driving, no driving instructor would have taught you otherwise.

you are correct. but i did not say that. what i said was

the best balance of brake and clutch wear is, when slowing down, keep the car in the same gear that it's in until the RPMs are so low that the car *almost* stalls in that gear. keep in mind, the car should not 'shudder' like it's 'going' to stall, but you want to change gears (or put in it neutral) before the RPMs get to that stalling point. after you drive a stick for a while, you instinctively know where this point is.

now who is taking whom out of context?

Loosing traction on a wet road when downchanging?, on snow or ice yes, but if you get this on a wet road try putting some decent tyres on the car, and if you prefer not to engine brake on a wet road because it causes you to skid, then it must mean you do it - to know you develop a skid

what about in a turn? with a mid engine/rear wheel drive car?

and for the record, i never said that i don't engine brake or downshift. i do. but i am aware that it causes more wear to the components we're discussing. AND i rev-match EVERY time.

Nothing last forever, and that is my point, the thing will wear itself out anyway, but engine braking will not advance that condition by anything significant, at a guess, if your car could last 1oo years then it may be worn out a year earlier by engine braking - but you will have had loads more disks and pads replaced in that time. :rolleyes:

oh, i didn't realize you were guessing the whole time. your posts seemed very authoritative. you would also need to change your brake pads/rotors 25 times before it equaled the cost of an engine.

look, we're not going to agree on this subject and i am tired of this 'battle of wits' with you. let's agree to disagree. you are a worthy opponent. but for the record, i did not resort to personal insults or ad hominem attacks. as i mentioned before, you have a way with words.

please drive safely. ^_^

[gandrade1]

Guys,

I am not a driving instructor, but in my modest opinion driving is about keeping the car balanced and under control, which can only be achieved through smoothness.

How smooth can it be to slow down a car by downshifting without the appropriate use of the breaks? How does it feel when you do so as oposed to applying appropriate pressure to the brake and then downshifting? In the same lines, how balanced would your car be if you only usedthe brakes and didn't downshift for appropriate revs and acceleration / can any car in 5th gear at 1200 rpms honestly be considered balanced or under control in any situation?

As for me, based on Porsche's heritage and reputation, I would find it unnaceptable that they would build anything or add any parts to their cars that would prevent a perfectly balanced drive by a resonably skilled driver - which inevitably include efficient, smooth braking...

Just some humble (not so technical) thoughts,

Best,

Gustavo

[Glyn]

look, we're not going to agree on this subject and i am tired of this 'battle of wits' with you. let's agree to disagree. you are a worthy opponent. but for the record, i did not resort to personal insults or ad hominem attacks. as i mentioned before, you have a way with words.

please drive safely. ^_^

Chris, I agree we agree to disagree on this subject but i am sincerly sorry if you feel i have personally insulted you in my posts, I did say "Your world" as a tongue in cheek comment - i assume this is where you may feel insulted.

You may have guessed, i do like lively debate but i do appologise for any offence taken - i will be more careful in future.

Glyn

[Loren]

This thread is now closed.