I have 2001 Acura Integra GSR Stick shift, is it safe to just coast in
neutral down hill or will it prematurely wear out my transmission? I
have read about some people who practice hypermiling and alternate
between neutral and drive. What do you guys think?

 

"googamooga" <googamooga@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:22174bc9-b9ce-46cb-86cf-47b71bb4687e@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>I have 2001 Acura Integra GSR Stick shift, is it safe to just coast in
> neutral down hill or will it prematurely wear out my transmission? I
> have read about some people who practice hypermiling and alternate
> between neutral and drive. What do you guys think?

I know that practice is illegal and reduces the amount of control you
have with the vehicle.

 

In article
<22174bc9-b9ce-46cb-86cf-47b71bb4687e@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
googamooga <googamooga@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have 2001 Acura Integra GSR Stick shift, is it safe to just coast in
> neutral down hill or will it prematurely wear out my transmission?

Define "downhill".

It won't wear out your transmission, but in general it's not safe to
coast for much of any distance. The issue is being ready to accelerate
the car. You have to be in gear to drive it, and if you're not in gear
when you suddenly need to be, you're in trouble.

Also, for long downhills you want engine braking so you want to be in an
appropriate gear that keeps you from using your brakes excessively.
Coasting just gives you a runaway car, and constant braking just wears
out your brakes and possibly overheats them.

 

googamooga wrote:
> I have 2001 Acura Integra GSR Stick shift, is it safe to just coast in
> neutral down hill or will it prematurely wear out my transmission? I
> have read about some people who practice hypermiling and alternate
> between neutral and drive. What do you guys think?

see what others wrote on legal and wear.

regarding fuel consumption, injection systems cut off fuel delivery
entirely on over-run, i.e. when revs are above say 1,600rpm and there is
no throttle. if the engine is idling, then it's still delivering fuel.
translation: idling uses more gas than engine braking so don't do it.

lots of things you can do to improve mileage. good quality plugs and
ignition system. ensure timing is correct. air filter is good. etc.
and one little thing that i switched onto recently, making sure the tw
sensor works ok. i had a couple in my civic that "tested" ok, but both
were aged, and among other things, caused the computer to think the
motor was colder than it really was, and thus inject more gas. my
mileage has improved about 10% since i replaced it. your car is
reaching a similar age. new ones cost ~$25 from online honda parts dealers.

a new oem honda thermostat is a good idea too, but just for reliability
reasons.

 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:7oudnfp0Fo1DH_bVnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> googamooga wrote:
>> I have 2001 Acura Integra GSR Stick shift, is it safe to just coast in
>> neutral down hill or will it prematurely wear out my transmission? I
>> have read about some people who practice hypermiling and alternate
>> between neutral and drive. What do you guys think?
>
> see what others wrote on legal and wear.
>
> regarding fuel consumption, injection systems cut off fuel delivery
> entirely on over-run, i.e. when revs are above say 1,600rpm and there is
> no throttle. if the engine is idling, then it's still delivering fuel.
> translation: idling uses more gas than engine braking so don't do it.
>
> lots of things you can do to improve mileage. good quality plugs and
> ignition system. ensure timing is correct. air filter is good. etc. and
> one little thing that i switched onto recently, making sure the tw sensor
> works ok. i had a couple in my civic that "tested" ok, but both were
> aged, and among other things, caused the computer to think the motor was
> colder than it really was, and thus inject more gas. my mileage has
> improved about 10% since i replaced it. your car is reaching a similar
> age. new ones cost ~$25 from online honda parts dealers.
>
> a new oem honda thermostat is a good idea too, but just for reliability
> reasons.
This brings up a similar question that I have. My son took over driving my
'97 Civic and when he's rolling down hills, he engages the clutch to "roll
in neutral". I have told him that I didn't think this was a good practice
but can't explain why it might be bad for the clutch. Can someone explain
for me: 1-is this bad for the clutch? and 2-exactly why?
Thanks,
Rosscoe

 

Just Me wrote:
>
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:7oudnfp0Fo1DH_bVnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> googamooga wrote:
>>> I have 2001 Acura Integra GSR Stick shift, is it safe to just coast in
>>> neutral down hill or will it prematurely wear out my transmission? I
>>> have read about some people who practice hypermiling and alternate
>>> between neutral and drive. What do you guys think?
>>
>> see what others wrote on legal and wear.
>>
>> regarding fuel consumption, injection systems cut off fuel delivery
>> entirely on over-run, i.e. when revs are above say 1,600rpm and there
>> is no throttle. if the engine is idling, then it's still delivering
>> fuel. translation: idling uses more gas than engine braking so don't
>> do it.
>>
>> lots of things you can do to improve mileage. good quality plugs and
>> ignition system. ensure timing is correct. air filter is good. etc.
>> and one little thing that i switched onto recently, making sure the tw
>> sensor works ok. i had a couple in my civic that "tested" ok, but
>> both were aged, and among other things, caused the computer to think
>> the motor was colder than it really was, and thus inject more gas. my
>> mileage has improved about 10% since i replaced it. your car is
>> reaching a similar age. new ones cost ~$25 from online honda parts
>> dealers.
>>
>> a new oem honda thermostat is a good idea too, but just for
>> reliability reasons.
> This brings up a similar question that I have. My son took over driving
> my '97 Civic and when he's rolling down hills, he engages the clutch to
> "roll in neutral". I have told him that I didn't think this was a good
> practice but can't explain why it might be bad for the clutch. Can
> someone explain for me: 1-is this bad for the clutch? and 2-exactly why?
> Thanks,
> Rosscoe
Besides causing premature wear of the throwout bearing from the clutch
being held open for extended periods of time, I can not think of
anything. He will learn to stop doing that when you make him pay for
the rattling throwout bearing!

 

On Jul 2, 9:51 am, ChrisB <Chr...@somewhere.someplace.com> wrote:

> > This brings up a similar question that I have. My son took over driving
> > my '97 Civic and when he's rolling down hills, he engages the clutch to
> > "roll in neutral". I have told him that I didn't think this was a good
> > practice but can't explain why it might be bad for the clutch. Can
> > someone explain for me: 1-is this bad for the clutch? and 2-exactly why?
> > Thanks,
> > Rosscoe
>
> Besides causing premature wear of the throwout bearing from the clutch
> being held open for extended periods of time, I can not think of
> anything. He will learn to stop doing that when you make him pay for
> the rattling throwout bearing!

Exactly, premature wear. The same reason it isn't a bad idea to shift
into neutral at a stop light and release the clutch pedal, versus
sitting there in gear holding the clutch pedal to the floor.

And I agree with the comment on coasting in neutral versus remaining
in gear. I typically roll up to a light in the highest gear I can, for
as long as I can until the engine starts to lug, before I disengage
the clutch and allow the car to go into idle. As noted, no fuel is
delivered while you're
coasting in gear, but some is when you're coasting in neutral (i.e.,
engine is idling).

Dan D
'07 Ody EX
Central NJ USA

 

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:11:34 -0700, Dano58 wrote:

> And I agree with the comment on coasting in neutral versus remaining in
> gear. I typically roll up to a light in the highest gear I can, for as
> long as I can until the engine starts to lug, before I disengage the
> clutch and allow the car to go into idle. As noted, no fuel is delivered
> while you're coasting in gear, but some is when you're coasting in
> neutral (i.e., engine is idling).

Of course there is fuel being used while coasting in gear. The engine is
still running, is it not? Therefore it's using fuel. No different than
idling in neutral in that respect.


--
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he stepped into the acceleration chamber.

 

Ok what if I am going down a slight hill (not mountain hills) at 40
mpg, then shift to neutral...ride it out for a few seconds then back
in gear so I can go up the next hill? I would stay in gear but that
slows me down so I can't take full advantage of the hill and the
momentum.

How would being in neutral while riding would wear anything out? Can
someone explain that to me in full detail please.

Thanks

 

googamooga <googamooga@gmail.com> wrote in news:871cad1c-4e6b-43ee-a73c-
275fcb96e225@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> Ok what if I am going down a slight hill (not mountain hills) at 40
> mpg, then shift to neutral...ride it out for a few seconds then back
> in gear so I can go up the next hill? I would stay in gear but that
> slows me down so I can't take full advantage of the hill and the
> momentum.
>
> How would being in neutral while riding would wear anything out? Can
> someone explain that to me in full detail please.
>


It's not the neutral part that wears things out, it's the getting back into
gear afterwards that does.

Ever notice how it takes a bit of pushing before the lever will drop back
into gear again? That's your synchros grinding themselves into powder.

If you push the clutch, rev the engine up to where it will ultimately be
and hold it, lift the clutch, push it again, quickly drop the lever into
gear and lift the clutch again, and get all this juuuust right, then there
will be little wear to the synchros.

It's called "double-clutching". Look it up. It adds a lot of fun to driving
a manual transmission.


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

Tegger wrote:
> googamooga <googamooga@gmail.com> wrote in news:871cad1c-4e6b-43ee-a73c-
> 275fcb96e225@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Ok what if I am going down a slight hill (not mountain hills) at 40
>> mpg, then shift to neutral...ride it out for a few seconds then back
>> in gear so I can go up the next hill? I would stay in gear but that
>> slows me down so I can't take full advantage of the hill and the
>> momentum.
>>
>> How would being in neutral while riding would wear anything out? Can
>> someone explain that to me in full detail please.
>>
>
>
> It's not the neutral part that wears things out, it's the getting back into
> gear afterwards that does.
>
> Ever notice how it takes a bit of pushing before the lever will drop back
> into gear again? That's your synchros grinding themselves into powder.
>
> If you push the clutch, rev the engine up to where it will ultimately be
> and hold it, lift the clutch, push it again, quickly drop the lever into
> gear and lift the clutch again, and get all this juuuust right, then there
> will be little wear to the synchros.
>
> It's called "double-clutching". Look it up. It adds a lot of fun to driving
> a manual transmission.
>
>
Hmmm,
I thought doulbe-clutching was before the days of synchros. Heck I shift
without cluching, LOL. Those days are over for me too. My concern for
coasting is safety.

 

Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in
news:nEVak.73472$gc5.41373@pd7urf2no:

> Tegger wrote:

>>
>> It's called "double-clutching". Look it up. It adds a lot of fun to
>> driving a manual transmission.
>>
>>
> Hmmm,
> I thought doulbe-clutching was before the days of synchros.



You think wrongly.

Double-clutching is as relevant today as it was in 1920, and for the same
reasons. But synchros now mask what failure to effectively double-clutch
would have loudly and embarrassingly revealed in 1920.

Part of the reason I got 255,000 miles out of my last clutch is because I
double-clutch every downshift. And after 305,000 miles my synchros work
almost as well now as they did when new.



--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

Tegger wrote:
> googamooga <googamooga@gmail.com> wrote in news:871cad1c-4e6b-43ee-a73c-
> 275fcb96e225@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Ok what if I am going down a slight hill (not mountain hills) at 40
>> mpg, then shift to neutral...ride it out for a few seconds then back
>> in gear so I can go up the next hill? I would stay in gear but that
>> slows me down so I can't take full advantage of the hill and the
>> momentum.
>>
>> How would being in neutral while riding would wear anything out? Can
>> someone explain that to me in full detail please.
>>
>
>
> It's not the neutral part that wears things out, it's the getting back into
> gear afterwards that does.
>
> Ever notice how it takes a bit of pushing before the lever will drop back
> into gear again? That's your synchros grinding themselves into powder.

no dude, it's a cone clutch - cone clutches lock solid in next to no
time, incur /very/ little wear, and are incredibly reliable. if you had
a porsche-type baulk ring synchro, you'd be a little more correct
because the wear rate is higher, but again, they last a /long/ time when
everything is working right.

>
> If you push the clutch, rev the engine up to where it will ultimately be
> and hold it, lift the clutch, push it again, quickly drop the lever into
> gear and lift the clutch again, and get all this juuuust right, then there
> will be little wear to the synchros.
>
> It's called "double-clutching". Look it up. It adds a lot of fun to driving
> a manual transmission.

it's entirely unnecessary unless there's something wrong. and that
"something" is usually an uncoordinated driver, or a clutch plate
sticking to the flywheel. uncoordinated drivers chew up transmissions
just as fast, single or double clutching.

 

Tegger wrote:
> Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in
> news:nEVak.73472$gc5.41373@pd7urf2no:
>
>> Tegger wrote:
>
>>> It's called "double-clutching". Look it up. It adds a lot of fun to
>>> driving a manual transmission.
>>>
>>>
>> Hmmm,
>> I thought doulbe-clutching was before the days of synchros.
>
>
>
> You think wrongly.
>
> Double-clutching is as relevant today as it was in 1920, and for the same
> reasons. But synchros now mask what failure to effectively double-clutch
> would have loudly and embarrassingly revealed in 1920.
>
> Part of the reason I got 255,000 miles out of my last clutch is because I
> double-clutch every downshift.

that bit's not true - it's because you don't slip the clutch. if
anything, operating the springs/bearing twice as often as you need to
/reduces/ life of the mechanical parts.


> And after 305,000 miles my synchros work
> almost as well now as they did when new.

that may be true, but it's much more likely that it's because you shift
more slowly as a function of the above. synchros are very effective,
and provided the clutch is disengaging properly, have very little load
on shifting. unless raced and slammed prematurely, synchros last as
long as the rest of the transmission.

 

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:34:44 -0700, googamooga wrote:

> Ok what if I am going down a slight hill (not mountain hills) at 40
> mpg, then shift to neutral...ride it out for a few seconds then back
> in gear so I can go up the next hill? I would stay in gear but that
> slows me down so I can't take full advantage of the hill and the
> momentum.
>
> How would being in neutral while riding would wear anything out? Can
> someone explain that to me in full detail please.

Others have explained the wearing out stuff... Bottom line is, coasting
is a waste of time, won't really give you any benefit, and might actually
cause harm. Just drive along like the rest of us.


--
"Bother!" said Pooh, as Rabbit pushed him off the speeding train.