This is more a general automotive question, but I do own a Honda, so I
thought I'd try it here.

Growing up, my father always told me to engage the parking brake on a car
with an automatic transmission while the car was still in drive or reverse
(or even neutral) before shifting into park (of course, the car should be
stopped). This was somehow supposed to "reduce the strain" on the
transmission. So, is there really any good reason to do this?

 

NO!.. If you are going to engage the parking brake then it should be done
before removing your foot from the regular brake. The procedure would be to
come to a stop, put in park (keeping foot on brake) and then engage the
parking brake. The last thing that should be done is to remove foot from
brake.

Although not as important on a flat surface it is an excellent idea on any
unlevel surface and a good practice to utilize at all times while parking.
This reduces the stress on the parking pawl of the transmission. It is
called a parking break for a reason.



CaptainKrunch



"Tim Evans" <time@megagate.com> wrote in message
news:c9gqhh02f40@enews1.newsguy.com...
> This is more a general automotive question, but I do own a Honda, so I
> thought I'd try it here.
>
> Growing up, my father always told me to engage the parking brake on a car
> with an automatic transmission while the car was still in drive or reverse
> (or even neutral) before shifting into park (of course, the car should be
> stopped). This was somehow supposed to "reduce the strain" on the
> transmission. So, is there really any good reason to do this?
>
>

 

"Tim Evans" <time@megagate.com> wrote in message
news:c9gqhh02f40@enews1.newsguy.com...
> This is more a general automotive question, but I do own a Honda, so I
> thought I'd try it here.
>
> Growing up, my father always told me to engage the parking brake on a car
> with an automatic transmission while the car was still in drive or reverse
> (or even neutral) before shifting into park (of course, the car should be
> stopped). This was somehow supposed to "reduce the strain" on the
> transmission. So, is there really any good reason to do this?

In my opinion, it does reduce the strain put on the transmission. I have
always placed the transmission in neutral, then applied the parking brake.
Then put the transmission into the Park position, and finally, removed my
foot from the service brake. That eliminates any movement of the vehicle
when the service brake is released.

--
Brian

How old would you be, if you didn't know how old you are?

 

In article <c9gqhh02f40@enews1.newsguy.com>,
"Tim Evans" <time@megagate.com> wrote:

> Growing up, my father always told me to engage the parking brake on a car
> with an automatic transmission while the car was still in drive or reverse
> (or even neutral) before shifting into park (of course, the car should be
> stopped). This was somehow supposed to "reduce the strain" on the
> transmission. So, is there really any good reason to do this?

Yes.

Put the car into neutral, engage the parking brake, take your foot off
the brake, and let the car settle into being held by the parking brake.

THEN put it into park.

The parking brake should be the primary method of holding the stress of
the car. The transmission parking pawl should be only a backup to that.

 

I think I mis-stated the procedure in my original post. The procedure you
describe is what I meant to describe.

"CaptainKrunch" <nobody@nothing.com> wrote in message
news:yr6dnamoup4qaybdRVn-ug@comcast.com...
> NO!.. If you are going to engage the parking brake then it should be done
> before removing your foot from the regular brake. The procedure would be
to
> come to a stop, put in park (keeping foot on brake) and then engage the
> parking brake. The last thing that should be done is to remove foot from
> brake.
>
> Although not as important on a flat surface it is an excellent idea on any
> unlevel surface and a good practice to utilize at all times while parking.
> This reduces the stress on the parking pawl of the transmission. It is
> called a parking break for a reason.
>
>
>
> CaptainKrunch
>
>
>
> "Tim Evans" <time@megagate.com> wrote in message
> news:c9gqhh02f40@enews1.newsguy.com...
> > This is more a general automotive question, but I do own a Honda, so I
> > thought I'd try it here.
> >
> > Growing up, my father always told me to engage the parking brake on a
car
> > with an automatic transmission while the car was still in drive or
reverse
> > (or even neutral) before shifting into park (of course, the car should
be
> > stopped). This was somehow supposed to "reduce the strain" on the
> > transmission. So, is there really any good reason to do this?
> >
> >
>
>

 

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 06:22:26 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>Put the car into neutral, engage the parking brake, take your foot off
>the brake, and let the car settle into being held by the parking brake.

Somewhere in here, we expect the car will come to a full stop?

>
>THEN put it into park.
>
>The parking brake should be the primary method of holding the stress of
>the car. The transmission parking pawl should be only a backup to that.

 

In article <duhqb0du59d2dp5o1c93trnmf8os9r2uu6@4ax.com>,
JXStern <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote:

> >Put the car into neutral, engage the parking brake, take your foot off
> >the brake, and let the car settle into being held by the parking brake.
>
> Somewhere in here, we expect the car will come to a full stop?

I said to put the car into neutral, engage the parking brake, then take
your foot off the brake. The car is in neutral, so the engine isn't
driving it; the only thing driving it would be gravity.

The mass of the car will settle into the parking brake, such that the
parking brake takes up the strain--as it is designed to do.

With the parking brake taking up the strain of the mass of the car, then
take the transmission out of neutral and into park.

This way, the parking pawl is not taking the strain of the mass of the
car being pulled by gravity. The parking pawl becomes a backup, should
the parking brake fail.

So where in there didn't you read that the car comes to a stop? What
part of "let the car settle into being held by the parking brake" didn't
you understand?

 

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 23:58:21 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>> >Put the car into neutral, engage the parking brake, take your foot off
>> >the brake, and let the car settle into being held by the parking brake.
>>
>> Somewhere in here, we expect the car will come to a full stop?
>
>I said to put the car into neutral, engage the parking brake, then take
>your foot off the brake. The car is in neutral, so the engine isn't
>driving it; the only thing driving it would be gravity.
>
>The mass of the car will settle into the parking brake, such that the
>parking brake takes up the strain--as it is designed to do.
>
>With the parking brake taking up the strain of the mass of the car, then
>take the transmission out of neutral and into park.
>
>This way, the parking pawl is not taking the strain of the mass of the
>car being pulled by gravity. The parking pawl becomes a backup, should
>the parking brake fail.
>
>So where in there didn't you read that the car comes to a stop? What
>part of "let the car settle into being held by the parking brake" didn't
>you understand?

Just wondering if I should begin the sequence with the car moving over
55mph.

J.