Does down shifting put extra wear on the engine and interlaced components?

Surely it makes your brakes last longer, but is the cost on your engine worth it?

http://tinyurl.com/22ors5

When downshifting you must press the accelerator to match the revs at the target gear. For example if you're driving in 4th at 2500 RPM and shift down to 3rd, the engine will natuarally go to something like 3000 RPM. When you press the clutch, the revs will first drop even more to something like 2000 RPM and then when you release it, they will go up to 3000. This will put stress on both the clutch and the engine. But if you press the accelerator while the clutch is down so that the revs will go up from 2500 to 3000 (instead of down to 2000), when you release the clutch, the shift will be supper smooth.

Of course when you're downshifting, you're ususally also braking, which means it's kind of difficult to press three pedals when you only have two feet. The solution is to use one foot to press both the brake and accelerator pedal. How you do this (or even if you can do it) depends on the actual geometry of the pedals in your car and the size of your feet. Traditionally this is done so that you brake with the big toe of the right foot and accelerate with the heel of the same foot, hence the term "heel&toe shifting". It takes a lot of practice to master but it's worth it. Downshifting will be a lot smoother, more efficient and you will stress the engine a lot less. Race drivers do it all the time, but most normal people don't...

EDIT: Duh, I didn't even see your link when I wrote my reply...

Hm, but if your only concern was making your car last longer is it a wise choice?

Of course it is. You want to put minimum amount of stress on the brakes, the clutch, the gearbox and other stuff. And driving at 2000 RPM is actually far worse for the engine than driving at 4000 RPM. The only advantage of driving at low RPM is lower fuel consumption. The point is to use the right gear for the situation. If you're going down a steep hill, go in 2nd or even 1st if it's really steep, instead of using the brakes too much. And when you shift down, always try to be as smooth as possible. As I said, most people put unnecessary stress on the clutch and engine when they downshift because they can't do heel&toe...

Lets say you used it to stop at stoplights. Is that more strain then you should really be putting on your engine?

I really don't understand you. How do you stop at stoplights?

Let's say you're driving 90km/h in 5th and you need to stop. How do you do it? You should shift to 4th, then 3rd, brake a little as necessary, shift to 2nd and finally use the brakes to completely stop. All the downshifts should be as smooth as possible. Between downshifts you brake just as much as it's necessary to keep the revs in the lower gear within a reasonable range, that's all...

What you shouldn't do is step on the brakes, stop and shift directly from 5th to 1st. Use engine braking as much as possible, keep the downshifts smooth and use the brakes only to slow down a little and then make the final stop...

Right, this is what I usually do. I had an argument with a friend recently where he said he didn't do this because it puts a big strain on the engine. Thats what I want to explore.

Hm, interesting, that "Heel toe" thing. Thanks for the pointers, this is something I will add to my driving

I have enormous feet. Any attempt at fancy triple pedal work will result in my feet jamming under the pedals and bad consequences.

I can shift without using the clutch, both up and down. I'm not talking about driving an automatic either.

What mr. Dettmer referes to here is called engine braking. It means using the engine's compression stroke instead of the brakes to lower the vehicle's velocity. Works only with manual or sequential transmission and 4-stroke or diesel engine.

A few points:

1. Using a modern synchronised (i.e. post-50's) gearbox you don't have to manually match shaft speeds in the box, though greater speed differences cause slightly more wear on the synchromeshes (devices inside the gearbox that perform the synchonising for each gear). Those generally have a life span of 400 000 km and more so...::) It's not possible to even try to engage a gear if the speeds are far too mistmatched, it will simply not engage if your synchromeshes are ok. If you really really need to, you can use double clutching.

2. Double clutching is a way to match the shaft speeds in the box. It's tricky to learn how to do and when to do and it's only useful rarely. An example would be under extremely slippery conditions when it would be safer to force in a much lower gear than is generally sane and use engine braking instead of brakes in order to prevent loss of control (ABS tends to prevent you from actually braking under extremely slippery conditions). It's a last measure way to slow down the vehicle before a stop when you notice you'll overshoot with regular braking but it needs to be done early enough to actually manage to slow down enough.

3. Heel and toe is a racing technique. Pointless in street driving and your gearbox will not take kindly to your practising. It's most useful with sequential racing gearboxes that are usually made to sustain much more abuse than regular manual boxes can handle.

4. Engine braking saves fuel on fuel injected and diesel vehicles because when the injection ECU (elecronic control unit) notices the driver wants to engine brake it'll lower the fuel supply amounts to very minimal, or even fully cut off. It's a fuel saving technique first and a braking techique second. In fact, if you do engine braking all the time like I do you'll end up with glazed, squealing brake pads like I did. Brakes need to be roughed up periodically to be in good working order.

Engine braking however doesn't give your gearbox, clutch or engine any trouble they weren't made to handle. Except if you've double clutched into first from a higher speed, then you need to slip the clutch quite a lot.

I usually come to an intersection rolling at 4th gear near idle speed, then shift down to third, as i gently release the clutch, the rpm rises to something like 2k. Then i shift to second and release the clutch (rpm rises much higher this time), and as the rpm drops I prepare to press on the brakes. When the engine coming to near idle rpm's I press the clutch and maybe brake a little and when i'm real close to my intended stopping line I press much harder on the brakes.

If someone can find a program that converts nokia .3gp videos to more sensible format i can record a video demonstration.

Uhm... What???

My mother's dirt bike had a 2-stroke engine and engine braking still worked, not to mention our automatics also have working engine braking(when the tranny isn't missing a check ball ). Though, if you have an automatic transmission, the engine braking may be hardly noticeable if you have a gas engine, as opposed to a diesel.

Matching RPM's to eliminate shock when the clutch is engaged (regardless of double clutching, I mean at time of releasing clutch pedal) will help stuff last longer. Sudden RPM changes are especially hard on timing belts.

A bad habit I see a lot of people do is to constantly rest their hand on the floor shifter, which wears out the stuff that actually slides the gears around.

And I'd venture to say that a modern engine in good shape with regular (quality) oil and filter changes won't suffer from 2000 rpm, or even 1600 rpm while cruising.

OTOH, brakes are cheaper to overhaul than engines, the problem with excessive braking would be heat buildup in the calipers and disk, the disk could warp, causing pulsating pedal and "locking" the wheels at the high spots (while overall braking effect is still low), the piston(s) in the calipers could build up varnish (from the overheated brake fluid) causing them to stick (applying the brakes all the time) and the fluid itself would deteriorate. Get your brake fluid changed/flushed every couple years, helps even to get rid of accumulated water. If you were VERY extreme, the fluid could boil, causing very mushy or no brakes at all because vapor compresses quite easily.

[EDIT]
Years ago I drove a cab for a congenitally cheap owner, I told him the brakes were "chirping" (a little warning tab that squeals before the brakes are totally gone) two weeks before the actual rivets scored the rotors, I downshifted the automatic to make them last longer before it wore the rotors down to the cooling vanes.

I do engine braking all the time. My Toyota Carina, 1991, has seen 300.000 km. Terrible rust problems etc, but the engine is good. You have to be extremely stupid to break a Toyota engine. I might have driven nearly 15000 km since last oil change, which is stupid but not extremely stupid. Actually I would like to pay for a car, the engine of which breaks somewhere at 300.000, when the rust kills the rest of the car. Feels like paying for too much now.

[edit]

I've no experience with automatic transmission (they are for sissies), but doesn't the engine kind of brake, when you release the gas pedal? Or does the car just roll freely, like most of the 2 stroke engine cars (Wartburg and Saab 95 had it, maybe Trabant, too)?

Well, our van's diesel engine made it 400k miles before it needed an overhaul.. Which is pretty good. Diesels are generally built heavier, I think.. So if you were looking for something to run a long time, that's what I'd go for.

Most modern automatics will "freewheel" in drive when you release the gas, I think it's supposed to help milage ratings.

Big diesel rigs have a "jake brake" that releases engine compression so the same pressure won't help push the piston back down. That's the loud "BR-RR-RR" noise you often hear when they approach a red light.

Did I forget to mention I'm driving vehicles that are 21+ years old?

I guess maybe it depends on the vehicle, but our automatics engine brake when you let off the pedal(unless they're not working properly).

And saying automatics are for sissies isn't ENTIRELY true... I mean, you're going to spend more time working on them and getting headaches...

Must... resist... diss'ing Winduhs...

edit:

I'd be surprised if they did. My former Peugeot 205 GTi had 3000 rpm on the dial when "cruising" at 100km/h.

2-strokes don't have much of an engine brake characteristics. They do some, but not in any usable degree in road going applications. God knows i've driven my fair share of mopeds and 125cc two-stroke street bikes and none of them had any usable engine brake power. Dirtbikes can do it because the drive ratios are much tighter.

They do some, but they have this nasty habit of constantly applying some torque. Heavy diesels with automatics might have more aggressive lockup mechanics in the torque converter, that's why they do engine brake better.

The attached .mp4 video displays the engine braking. I pulled from an offramp and simply didn't touch the accelerator, only shifting to smaller gears until almost near idle at second when i did tap a bit on the throttle when shifting to first to make the transition from rolling back to engine braking a bit smoother. The car is a 1989 Peugeot 405 1.9 SRi (XU9J2 engine with Bosch L3.1 Jetronic injection and BE3 gearbox).

(you can barely hear the engine, the studded tires make an awful noise).

i think it is ok aslong as you down shift with in the right RPMs. break or range until your rpms go to the about 2 or 3 then down shift. difrent for each car.

Hey, that's a little harsh don't you think? I had a toyota pick up truck with about 160,000 miles (250k km?) and the timing chain broke on it, trashed the head and bent some valves. Costed me $600 to get it fixed and back then (when I was poor) it took me 3 months to save up the money...

I have a 1990 Toyota Celica. Those things last forever. I got it for $1 from a friend who needed to get rid of it (he got a new car), and it just needed a new CV joint and an oil change. It only has 140k miles on it, but it's running strong, no serious issues (just need some new struts someday, one is sheared off). I'm hoping to get at least 250 out of it.

me too toyota celica 1990. mines has way more miles on it though. i wish i was in my home contry with it. i wouls spray it and fix every thing on it. its a good car. very fast and powerful.
edit: 181318

I can't do heel toe. But I do the next best thing and downshift before the turn. My conceptual feel for braking points and such is odd though, unlike others. I tend to brake too early on some turns and kick arse on other turns (though usually I just brake too early ).

My car is not capable of down shifting like that. You would get a headache from the forward G forces in about 2 minutes.

What I typically do depends on the type of stopping needed. For intersections (say I was going 40mph) I'll: clutch, gas to ~2.3 and release the clutch at about 2.2 to catch the falling RPMs which soften the whole experience. Then I repeat for second gear but with a gas to ~3.5 RPMs and clutch out by ~3.35

Coming off the freeway I'll get my RPMs up as high as 6. My red-line starts at 6.5 so I make sure not to go over that.

A lot of you sound like you are much more experienced than me so my opinion is probably uneducated and novice.

It seems like brakes are made for braking and if you're not hard on them they won't disintegrate. You shouldn't need to 'heel toe' or double-clutch to preserve your brakes. As I think somebody said, engine and transmission repairs are more expensive than brakes.

I used to watch the automotive TV shows on the weekend (we used to get them, most of which were about high performance muscle/sports cars) and I remember them saying that in terms of racing it is beneficial to use these techniques: speed equals win. Serious racers do constant repairs anyway because their cars are meant to go fast; the cars are only preserved if the owner can't afford to race hard.

I would say most people wouldn't use these techniques correctly and would likely cause more harm than good. Experts recommend you practice because it does require learning the car and/or learning to actually heal-toe or double-clutch, which usually requires the pedals to be closer together as well as some flexability and coordination. Also, a Honda won't be designed for it from the factory and you will probably slip off the brake and wreck trying to do it. In other words, if you're not speeding in second gear your car is likely not configured for it and might need customization to do it correctly (the pedal mechanics, not the drivetrain).

That doesn't speak for those of you who know what you're doing (assuming you do), but for those that are cheap and see this as a way to save money I'd recommend you stop trying to cheat the economy.

Personally, I have a heavy foot, but even so I always prepare to stop early and usually coast towards traffic lights (an object in motion... stuff). I never have to put much pressure on the brakes because of this. The majority of drivers come into a traffic light at cruising speed and stop hard. I don't understand the point of putting extra stress on brakes (or drivetrain, in your cases) when you know you're gonna have to stop.

I don't live in a large city so I can't say how I would drive in extremely busy streets. The population where I live is around 80,000 - 100,000.

In terms of downshifting and revving the engine to match the RPMs this has always seemed a natural thing to do. Unfortunately I haven't had much experience with a manual transmission so I can't say that I've had a lot of experience with it. The few times that I did drive a manual transmission I would just disengage the clutch, move the shifter into neutral, and brake smoothly to a stop. When completely stopped I would shift to first in preparation for take-off (with the clutch still disengaged).

When I have the money I will buy my own car (I still drive a 3rd of my parents since I'm only 20 and in college) and I'm planning on getting a manual transmission. I'd like to look into the new Dodge Challengers (Hemi'd, of course), so we will see how long it takes me to afford one...

No offense, but European cars suck. It's all about American muscle and Japanese tuners. How many have seen Chrysler's super car concept, the ME 4-12? It was planned for production, but I'm not sure on the status - I think it was cancelled, but forget why...

I'd still love one. The name comes from the Mid-Engine 4-turbo charger fed 12-cylinder engine. Apparently it was breaking records before production and was supposed to be a strong competitor for the Italian super cars. Especially considering the Chrysler ME 4-12 was estimated to cost only $125,000 USD (as I remember).

I'm also a huge fan of Dodge Viper, although I probably prefer the rounded nose of the late 90s to the newer models. Dodge, why did you change the Viper!? Change it back!

One thing they didn't break is the Dodge Viper Competition Coupe, which had a concept sibling street version that was actually pretty much identical, inside and out.

I don't have time to get to that now but when i come back from school i will.

And this post is here just to make sure of that. In case no one else posts...

I have a Renault Clio and it has served me well in its two years of life. Of course, Renault and Nissan are now a single company, but so far I have no complaints.

On topic: I never knew how to do the engine braking. I just recently started to practice, and when it comes out right, it doesn't sound like the engine is overstressed. At least, I don't think it's something it can't handle.

The last car I owned needed its brakes repaired, which would have cost me more than the car was worth. So naturally, I sold the stupid thing.

Let's assume the thing lasts 10 years. That's 12500 $ per year, about five to six times my personal total mobility budget (including rental cars, train tickets, bicycle repairs and walking shoes). But yeah, definitely a useful thing to have, that car.

I'm curious how much this was. The brakes shouldn't be overly expensive to replace (nor is it pennies). Was it for a garage to do it or just the replacement parts? Keep in mind that simple transmission work can often reach into the 4-digits and engine trouble is often very expensive as well.

Ummm, I wasn't comparing it to your Civic, Celica, or even your SL500. I compared it to Ferrari. I'd love to compare Ferrari prices with the ME 4-12, but products in the millions generally have individual pricing. In the 5 minutes Googling from work I found no mention of prices for new Ferraris on any site. I did however find that used Ferarri's with V8s expect about a third more than the ME 4-12 was supposed to cost new... Again, American vs. European.

The people who can afford them buy them: they are worth a lot for a reason. They aren't useless; they just aren't necessary.

These are cars that can, in the right hands, turn corners at speeds many of our cars would struggle to reach. I know from experience that my '89 Camry tops out around 107 MPH (175 KM/H or so).

You wouldn't buy an ME 4-12 to get you to work everyday or for grocery runs. You'd get one if you were able to make 6 figures in a year and were serious about performance cars.

That's the point. I had prepred a long post but school's IE ate it. American engineers don't know how to create a vehicle that is both practical and fun to drive at the same time. They go overboard with one (Minivans) or the other (Viper and the like) or none (Dodge Caliber, a SUV that's too small for the U, too slow the S and looks horrible to boot). The japanese car makers are great at creating vehicles that are involving and fun to drive hard but are uncomfortable when you just need to commute. Or, like in case of the ever favourite vehicle of extremely average people, the Toyota Corolla, the dullest cars of all time.

Thank god European car makers know what the reasonable yet fun-loving driver needs. His prayers have been answered numerous times: First in 1976 by Volkswagen with the Golf GTI (it took them 30 years to come up with another Golf GTI that wasn't slower than the predecessor), then in 1983 by Peugeot with the 205 GTi, in 1990 by Renault with the Clio 1.8 16v and in 2001 by Ford Europe with the Focus RS and lately, by Volkswagen again with the Polo GTI.

What do these cars have in common? They're called Hot Hatchbacks. At their respective time frames, they were fast, cheap to buy, economical, massively fun to drive and could be used to move a filing cabinet. These days they're still cheap to buy, economical and fun to drive. They're just not up to spec with modern day safety regulations.

All my driving experiences with american-made cars have been either A: masked in a fluffy layer of power-assisted everything making them unnervingly numb in terms of driving feel or B: uncomfortable yet dull. Yes. Even the Firebird Trans Am with factory chassis kit was dull. I'd rather take a 205 GTi any day. Sure it had the muscle but the weight (a 2300kg "sports car"? more like a road ferry) is such a strain that the controls had to be power-assisted too far. Plus, you can't see out from that thing.

I don't want a car that accelerates with 400 horsepower, then having to slow down toa crawl to navigate a bend that a Focus can manage without slowing down. And what if I need to move that filing cabinet?

I can fit a filing cabinet in my Toyota Celica with the back seats down. I just help me coz move into his new apartment the other day.

edit: my back seats are very roomy for a two door car. theres is enough room for
two sizable people to lay down on top of each other and move around.

No, I still prefer raw power. Plus, 60's American muscle just looks badass.

SUVs? We have an 85 diesel suburban.. Sport? Ok, maybe not. But the engine sure sounds mean. I love the diesel. Does it have lots of room in the back? Yes, it has room for several file cabinets! All at the same time!

Get an old cop car from the county auction, rebuild as necessary. Blues Brothers all the way!

Raw powet is good only for as long as you don't have to turn. I personally like to turn my car also, preferrably not stopping while doing it

It impresses you that they were unable to match their car's speed performance in 30 years? That's nothing to be proud of. I guarantee the '76 Golf GTI was NEVER the fastest car in the world. More than likely they weren't trying to improve its performance, especially since the 70s brought raised insurance rates and higher gas prices. Also, Volkswagen isn't known as a high performance brand.

The fact is that fuel economy is not a naturally desireable quality; rather, it is circumstancially desirable. If gasoline was in infinite supply and inexpensive to process there would probably be no such thing as fuel economic cars. Also note that insurance rates influence car production, as demonstrated in the 70s, so if there still were fuel economic cars, insurance rates would be why.

I hope that we can find a renewable resource with harnessable power like that of gasoline, or better. Muscle cars aren't going away until their fuel sources do. Hopefully the opposite happens and fuel economic cars go away.

Weight is a side effect of features. Every feature weighs something and they all add up. European cars tend to lack many features which results in a much lighter, less functional car. We used to own a Volkswagen Rabit (an '86, I think) and the doors were paper thin... If a larger vehicle hits you it doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict the outcome. You might also be surprised by the weight of some European/Japanese cars.

Also, in the right hands, weight can be used to help you through a corner (by shifting it outside and having it recover towards the inside) or help to do advanced manuevers that required weight transfer. Friction is often the enemy and weight can in some cases be used to muscle against it (obviously having the opposite effect in other situations - hense, power/torque). Besides, 2300 Kg isn't unbareable. I prefer a mid-sized car with power to a car that weighs nothing.

Visibility is sometimes sacrificed for other characteristics. For example, aerodynamics and styling. The truth is that properly configured mirrors should show you most of what is behind the perpendicular line crossing through your body, meaning you should only ever have to look 90 degrees in either direction. Anything which isn't directly visible would have crossed through your line of sight to get there so you should have already seen it. In terms of backing up, some cars are better than others, but you should still be able to see if the car is adjusted right. You should know what is behind you for stationary objects before trying to back up anyway. Non-stationary objects will generally notice you are backing up and hopefully try to yield to you.

You don't accelerate with horsepower rather you accelerate with torque, although they are directly related. Horsepower is better described in terms of top speed or towing capacity or it's ability to power up a hill. For example, do you have to down-shift going up hill or can you up-shift and keep accelerating?

I rank Ford at the bottom of my list, along side Hyundai and Kia; the top being the best auto makers. And if a company isn't well known in North America then it's not even on my list.

Just because a car has 400 horsepower (or pound-feet [lb. ft.] of torque, for that matter) doesn't mean your Focus can out corner it. Perhaps the muscle car will have to slow down to make the corner, but at least it can go fast in the first place. That's not to say that it can't handle the corner at a similar (possibly higher) speed as your Focus.

The power/torque output of an engine has relatively little to do with it's cornering ability. Also, in the right hands, power and torque can be harnessed in a corner such as in drifting.

Speaking of cornering, when automotive reviewers got their hands on the 2002 Dodge Ram, they were amazed at it's cornering capacity. They described its handling like that of a sports car. This was derived by road, track, and G-force tests.

For those of you that don't know, the Dodge Ram is a full-sized pickup truck.

giggles

Filing cabinet!? CALL THE FIRE DEPARTMENT!

Or you park the Charger or Challenger and load the filing cabinet onto your Ram. Not because you couldn't fit the filing cabinet into the cars, but why bother when you don't have to?

Not to mention, the majority of American made cars are not 400 horse muscle cars with imaginary trunk space. Most of them are economical, practical, 4-doors for the family. It's just that some of them, like the Charger, are available with as much as 425 horsepower or more as well.

And most American cars don't neglect safety features. Many of them have extremely high safety standards. And others are Fords... I pretty much ignore that alliance of companies.

It doesn't impress me. I just wanted to point out that Golfs GTI's from mark 2 to 4 got progressively heavier and duller and slower.

You're trying to troll now or just being incredibly ignorant. I would still like to point out that GM was manufacturing pushrod I4 engines well in the 90's.

Who cares? For that money then, it was definitely the most fun vehicle you could get.

The mark 2 golf is probably the dullest example of european motoring i've ever driven so your example is not very good one.

So you wouldn't mind refuelling a 100 litre fuel tank 3 times to commute 3 km? I would, even if fuel was cheap.

And they build rally cars halfway out of carbon fibre just for fun?

The difference is that drifiting not only consumes massively fuel, tires and the road, it also looks incredibly stupid.

... are paid by the advertisers. Obviously it's worthwhile to laud the features of a vehicle whose advertising pays your bills. I wouldn't trust a magazine reviewer to do a test drive for me.

It's a well known fact that americans and europeans like their cars different. That's why american-style models don't simply sell in europe, and vice versa. Since you've been showing off with the greatest what detroit has to offer, i can show you what i would buy if i had the €€€:
{"name":"peugeot_407coupe.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/6\/f6832460c25905575ba1d5908a120ee3.jpg","w":800,"h":503,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/6\/f6832460c25905575ba1d5908a120ee3"}
Peugeot 407 Coupe 2.7 V6 HDi biturbo Pack. Unfortunately, since the americans hate the french for no apparent reason, you can't get this diesel baby even if you wanted.

{"name":"591606","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/2\/9239d9dd05c36a710df8db1014f42c6d.jpg","w":716,"h":418,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/2\/9239d9dd05c36a710df8db1014f42c6d"}

... and is slower than proper turning

Strike that.
I just today found out about the Peugeot 207 HDi Sport (the D stands for Diesel by the way) that can be had for less than half of the price of the 407 coupe.
http://www.peugeot.fi/Liitetiedostot/Pics/att16d4..jpg

One monster European car would be Bugatti Veyron 16.4. Though it costs way more than your average car and at top speed takes 115L per 100km (2.1mpg). 8 liter 16 cylinder engine with quad turbos and ten radiators cooling it all will surely make you a winner in most "who has bigger" contests

A nice video of how Top Gear achieved 407km/h with that car: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=179330

If I would ever want to get a big car for myself I'd probably just get some €20k thingie and add another €20k for upgrades. I'm not that interested in dragracing but I do like driving on ice and curved roads. That 1k hp Veyron wouldn't probably suite that well for those conditions, not to mention it would cost >30x more

Yeah, but 12.5 minutes for fuel isn't too bad, because the tires only last something like 16 minutes at that speed.

Ah, that's why I can't find the cup holder in my Fiesta.

"I've got the biggest ding in my wing!"

{"name":"_42647261_bugattifront2_416.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/a\/2a828d55fe68731eb9d81e530671df2f.jpg","w":416,"h":300,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/a\/2a828d55fe68731eb9d81e530671df2f"}

Although I am a fan of some GM products (i.e. GTOs, Trans Ams, Camaros, Corvettes,........... Probably a few others, but meh... ), I am not generally a fan of GM. Another example of poor quality from GM: I was taught that their solution to fuel injection for years (maybe still? ) was to place a single fuel injector where the carburetor normally sat and feed fuel into the engine like that. The right way is to have a fuel injector for each cylinder. Still, they were able to inexpensively advertise fuel injected.

If you haven't picked up the subtleties I'm into Daimler-Chrysler. Dodge, specifically, though I also support the entire alliance and appreciate every other company.

Everything is proportional. What if fuel was free and service was instantaneous? Obviously as you move from one extreme to the other the result will change accordingly. If you didn't like my last example, what if money was no object and fuel was renewable? Obviously the limiting factor in today's market is money and the dwindling fuel reserves. Eliminate those limitations and you have to admit that a powerful, fast car is desirable.

If you don't agree you may be a chick.

The more you weigh the more power/torque is required to go fast (which is desirable in a fastest-time event) and you can only squeeze so much power/torque out of the engine compartment found in most rally cars. Also, rally teams live in the real world where fuel is expensive and racing is even more expensive and being able to compete means making due with what you can afford.

Also, rally cars are not designed for slick maneuvers. They are designed for going from point A to B as quickly as possible on a variety of courses ranging in climate and terrain.

Contrary to ignorant belief, there are more than Americans in North America (though it depends on your definition of American). Canada is largely French and even has a generally French province (Quebec). Ontario also has a number of French dominant communities. Personally, I'm not a fan of French, but I don't hate the people; only the language.

Why are you so excited about diesel?

"By design, gas engines rev faster and are able to reach higher rpm peaks than diesels. This allows them to attain greater horsepower numbers and quicker 0-60-mph times." Source

There's a reason the majority (a vast majority) of racing cars run on gasoline (a more expensive fuel) instead of diesel.

The world agrees that drifting looks beautiful and attractive and that's why it's becoming more popular world-wide. I've heard it's extremely popular in Japan, where it originated as a sport, but it's spreading all over the world on road and track. It's obviously a lot funner to drift around a corner than to slow down. It also has a number of benefits, inherent from speed and style.

I also wouldn't say it's fair to say the fuel consumption is 'massive' compared to not drifting and the road (depending on it's composition and construction) shouldn't disintegrate.

Why do you insist on arguing with me?

A simple contradiction to that argument is that the reviewers often pick a variety of competitors' cars in different classes. If they were merely being bought you would expect them to favor a company or alliance of companies.

Which is obviously why rally racers brake coming into a corner and accelerate at the apex like road racers do. In case you didn't catch that, rally racers drift around corners because it is the fastest way around a corner.

However, drifting does wear down tires and burn fuel faster than if you were cornering like a road racer does. Road races are often an endurance sport and that's why they don't drift: pit stops are very expensive (time [money] and money).

At least F1 cars use some extremely purified (and expensive) gasoline. My car would probably run with that gas quite well, but there would be no difference. F1 cars are so extremely tuned, that they need the pure gas.

I believe Diesel is more of a junk fuel by definition. If one would tune a diesel engine in a similar manner, so that one would have to purifiy the fuel, one would simply have to take away essential components from the fuel and it wouldn't like be the same fuel.

What world? Drifting may look 'cool' for the first two times and then it becomes a silly pastime for juveniles with a deathwish or complete disregard for their own/others' road safety.

Is anyone else seeing bamccaig as more and more immature every post he makes?

The free world outside of Europe, I guess.

Drifting isn't silly. Thinking something so dynamic and expressive only peaks interest twice is silly. It's also silly to call drifters juveniles with a deathwish because ages range from 15 - 50, most of them appear to be more mature than most posters on this thread (a feat in itself, I'm sure), and they aren't killing themselves. They're expressing themselves with a beautiful and incredibly fun use of automobiles; enjoying life. If they had no regard for their own safety or others' safety they wouldn't last long: they'd either be in jail or dead.

Well, I'm pretty sure it is illegal. But the whole idea to doing illegal things is not to get sent to jail.

Which is why you generally don't do such loud, exciting things in the public eye. You do it on empty streets, in empty parking lots, or on race tracks. And those that are really careful have spotters watching for other drivers/pedestrians.

I'm not sure on the exact law that says you can't drift, but I'm sure it's more inherited from other laws. I'd have to check on that though.

You are funny! Can you twist your face and do somersaults, too?

I think thats a bit uncalled for Inphernic. So far most of points have been valid arguments that everyone seems to mutually disagree with.

The drifting thing seems silly and pointless to me, but I've never been into cars and stuff. Some people do enjoy it alot, there was a movie about this not too long ago... "Something or other Tokyo Drift" ... I never saw it, but once again, I could care less about cars.

Top Gear seems to dislike Peugeot's. Could you explain that? Except for the whole "Brits hate France" thing.

edit:

See http://www.allegro.cc/forums/thread/590571/658707#target

It's definitely illegal. It's called reckless operation of a motor vehicle.

Reckless endangerment. Thats another one.

See http://www.allegro.cc/forums/thread/590571/658783#target

"Reckless driving is a mental state in which the driver of an automobile behaves recklessly; the driver often misjudges common driving procedures, intentionally causing accidents and other damages." - Source

A drifter's mental state isn't reckless. Drifters neither intentionally wreck or cause damage. In fact, if they do it's probably unintentional and an embarassment. Enthusiasts often spend 10s of thousands of American dollars on their cars, and most aren't millionaires, so many baby their cars.

"A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person." - Source

As I said, most street drifting is done on empty or low traffic roads, often at very late hours when the majority of people are at home asleep. Therefore, there is no substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person.

I'd need to discuss it with a lawyer before I was convinced of your argument. I don't really doubt that drifting is, or at least can be, illegal. However, I also believe it can be done responsibly and safely, both on road and race track. It might even be legal when done in a reserved, safe manner...

Keep in mind that rally racers drift as well. In fact, they drift on thin roads at excessive speeds with spectators standing on the sides of the roads, usually unprotected. This is common all over the world, including Europe and Asia. Accidents happen, but the 'roads' that rallying is done on are a lot thinner, less predictable, and the intent is to go as fast as possible on unfamiliar courses. The spectators don't seem worried because they're always there in vast numbers.

Drifting on the street is more of a control and style thing and often is done on very large paved roads at late hours where the roads are otherwise empty. And again, some use spotters and communication devices to warn of other vehicles and pedestrians (and cops ).

Before you disrespect or discredit drifting you should read about it first. It can be done responsibly and isn't inherently reckless. A very important factor in drifing is control. If the driver isn't in control he's not drifting: he's skidding out of control.

Drifting is also considered behaving in a reckless manner. Not many people intentionally wreck or cause damage to anything, but shit happens. And rally racers often drive at excessive speeds, which isn't street legal either. Rally racing and... basically any other form of racing has nothing to do with street laws.

You're contradicting yourself again. If drifting isn't illegal, then why do you have to be on the look out for cops?

There is a fine line between a drift and an out of control skid, and a line that is very easy to cross. Drifting should never be done on any road, regardless of time, people around, or anything. If you want to drift, do it on private property someplace. I'm not dissing drifting at all, just pointing out that it is more than stupid to drift on the road.

I like you bamccaig.

In any case, how do you all like participating in the Special Olympics?

He knows it's illegal, all he's trying to say is that is possible to drift without blowing stuff up

Maybe Exhibition of speed or Reckless driving?

Mm, so now we're talking about drifting eh? Around where I live people like to go to "Skyline" when the feel like drifting. Heres a picture of the typical way up to Skyline.

{"name":"591622","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/4\/f4fde7af0b8962907794a978b77928d6.jpg","w":431,"h":450,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/4\/f4fde7af0b8962907794a978b77928d6"} *

The red circle is a parking lot with a really nice view of the area. If you go there during the summer you're guaranteed to meet mountain racers.

I went up to skyline regularly for a long time (and never meet anybody who could beat me on that course ) until the accident I had. Heres a close up of the turn it was on:

{"name":"591623","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/2\/d2a526621ef8b770334a0730257e0f5f.jpg","w":571,"h":321,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/2\/d2a526621ef8b770334a0730257e0f5f"}

There was a sharp decrease in elevation in the middle of the turn I hadn't accounted for. I lost control and was heading straight into the mountain. In a desperate attempt to save myself and my car I did the only thing I could think of: slam the crap out of the gas.

I managed to power slide my car to face the right direction and push the momentum as much as possible the right direction but it still wasn't enough. The left tires went off the rode and up onto the incline (which was about 90% grade) and the car was effectively doing a pop-a-wheelie on its right side.

I can't figure out how it happened exactly, but the car managed to get off the mountain and back onto the road. The car actually drove away. Ever since then I'm too scared to go full speed on skyline, although I will still go drifting at about 60% my ability uphill as I am comfortable doing this safely. I never drift downhill.

The total cost of repairs was around $1700 replacing a wheel, two tires, and all the junk for the right-front wheel that holds it on (it got bent in from supporting the weight of the car).

Its the same reason you ride a roller coaster, to be close to death. Just a lot closer.

_{* the course}

You should know how much fun it is, you sure are the king at it. If you need help recalling why, think about recent occurances on IRC.

I didn't say it wasn't possible. But he did say it was legal or quasi-legal on several occurances. I misread what he said, unless he edited some posts. I guess he doesn't think it's legal, he just blatantly disrespects the illegality of it.

Anyway, I'm done harping on him for a little while, I think I've at least made my point.

Let's see:
*Diesel engines have higher thermal efficiency (i remember Bosch & Volkswagen setting the record for serial production road cars to 46% with TDi engines and pump nozzle injection systems) which equals more power per litre of fuel.
*...The limits of which haven't been reached, unlike gasoline engines.
*Diesel fuel is 20% cheaper per litre in europe
*Diesel fuel can be made from organic materials. Renewing fuel, BABYY!
*In regular calm driving, a diesel engine consumes 30% less fuel than a gasoline engine of similar performance.
*Modern diesel technology is so ecological that the total environmental impact, if modern emission equipment is used throughout the organic production and usage chain, is almost zero.

Go check out the monte carlo rally (100% asphalt) and then tell me how much did they drift on the stages. They do slip some but that's due to the tires they need to use because the road can be frozen anytime anywhere in the mountains.

There is technology to make tires that would last till world's end and be perfect for drifting.

Btw: The correct term is oversteering. Drifting refers to the "sport" where people drive around karting tracks in 200sx's trying to oversteer to get some kudos from the judges.

You're right there partially though. On loose and slippery surfaces you don't really turn and acclerate like you do on asphalt but instead sort of rotate the vehicle and apply thrust, like playing asteroids. Peugeot 206 WRC was dominant in the WRC back in its day due to its massive grip. By the numbers it was in no category better than the other cars, but it had so much grip on loose surfaces too that it wasn't necessary to oversteer the vehicle, instead using all power for forward momentum instead of controlling the width of the oversteer.

In drifting one intentionally loses the ample grip and insted send the back of the car wide (losing some stored momentum in the process, as it is used to fling the back of the car instead of propelling the vehicle forward).

They didn't until PSA-Peugeot-Citroën closed down a car manufacturing plant in Ryton-on-Dunsmore, England due to quality and cost issues. Something like 6000 jobs down the drain. Also, Clarckson is Clarckson. His stuff should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Try something like gross endangerment of traffic (under finnish law this alone means you're going to lose your license on the spot and go to court) and/or gross neglect of traffic safety.

BTW: Once you've ridden a motorcycle (a GSX-R, not a Harley ) you realise just how oxymoronic the term 'sports car' really is.

I'm not a diesel expert so I'm not going to bother arguing too much about this with you. Diesel is a great fuel source, and someday might become a better fuel source, but in terms of best performance (acceleration and speed) gasoline engines today outperform the diesel equivalents; at least from what I have read. If you can direct me to a factual contradiction I would be happy to read it.

Diesel combustion also results in increased levels of soot which, if not filtered, can have a drastic effect on air quality in highly concentrated areas (i.e. smog). It's also generally dirtier than gas and generally is associated with an unpleasant odor. Diesel vehicles generally cost more to buy and maintain as well.

There are concerns about biodiesel's economic viability. For example, will the world be able to produce enough biodiesel fuel to satisfy demand? Also environmentalists are presenting fears about the impact of it's use. Apparently some countries are clear-cutting forests to make room for oil-producing plant crops, and in turn threatening the survival of plants and animals. It's a lot more complicated than just it's potential. Again, I'm no expert.

There is no rule that rally racers have to drift. They do what's best for the stage. Perhaps if they slip during normal cornering they would slide right off the corners if they tried to drift?

"Drifting refers to a driving technique and to a sport based on the technique; this article deals primarily with the sport." - Source

Oversteering and drifting are not the same thing. You can be oversteering without actually drifting. I'm not going to try to explain oversteer and understeer because I don't know the formal definitions or the technical physics behind them. If you want to clear it up, check out the Wikipedia articles.

The reason that drifting is generally faster (compared to not drifting) is that you don't need to dump speed (at least not as much) before the corner. If you don't understand why, read the Wikipedia article, the How Stuff Works article, and whatever other materials you can find. If I'm not mistaken, I seem to recall there even being related information in the Gran Turismo (video game) user manuals.

With normal (high speed) cornering you dump speed before a corner and accelerate at the apex (usually about the mid-point, but it depends on the dimensions of the corner). If you didn't slow down to an appropriate speed you wouldn't be able to turn the corner with the car tracking normally and understeer would occur, forcing you off the road/track. That's why drifting can be faster. It depends on long-term circumstances because drifting does wear tires and fuel faster.

Also, your definition of the sport of drifting is too restrictive. They're not all driving 200sx's and all the competitions I've watched were done on sections of race track. In fact, Dodge Vipers work very well in drifting competitions.

A properly adjusted diesel doesn't engine generate soot. If the fuel mixture gets too rich (and it won't unless the engine is under a stress it wasn't made to endure in the first place), then it'll make soot, but it won't under normal conditions. The generated soot would anyway be caught by the particulate filter (see below).

Guess what? It's been dealt with. Modern production diesel engines are as clean as, if not cleaner than, gasoline engines. European car manufacturers have been installing (well, Peugeot has, anyway) particulate filters as standard equipment since the turn of the millennium. Those filters reduce particle emissions with efficiency of over 90%, and with the development that has taken place in engine technology in the past 10 years, modern diesel exhaust is, to put it bluntly, ecologically almost neglible.

In north america, maybe. European diesel fuel is very clean in comparison.

My friend's brother took a brand new Audi A6 1.9 TDi (common rail piezo injector turbodiesel) with him to the US for a year's commission (why he did it is a taxation issue, and out of the scope of this discussion). Upon returning he had it serviced and the mechanic said he couldn't believe the amount of shit in the fuel filter. He had driven 15k km and the filter looked like it had done 60k. So I kind of understand why you might think that way. But your claim is simply untrue in countries where there is a higher diesel penetration in vehicles and diesel fuel is produced according to the requirements of modern diesel technology.

Common rail or pump nozzle diesel injection + particulate filter = No distinctive diesel exhaust smell. Well... When the temperature outside gets close to -30, then you can smell the distinctive sweet (not pleasant, sickly sweet) smell of particle filtered diesel exhaust. But who wants to be outside on a day like that, anyway?

I grant you, diesel fuel smells quite unpleasant, but it also vaporises more slowly than gasoline so you don't get a headache when filling up.

Not really significantly. With current price of things, to use Finland for an example, a diesel powered car with an annual mileage of 15k-20k km will have paid the increase in price off by the end of warranty period, even with the annual 400+ euros of specific diesel tax. And if you take the used car's resale value into account the diesel keeps looking better by the minute.

That is simply not true. There's no significant difference in amount of work or cost of parts in maintenance.

Biodiesel can be made from pretty much anything organic. Animal fats, tree stumps, corn stems, potato peels, you name it. It's a matter of properly and efficiently recycling the organic by-products. Obviously pure biodiesel is going to be more expensive than mineral based diesel but least we'll have an option until hydrogen cell technology can be perfected for mass consupmtion.

They use oversteering as usual in mountaneous gravel rallies like Sardinia. They aren't afraid of the ridges, they're skilled drivers. It's simply slower when there's enough traction available.

I'm pretty well in the know what oversteering and understeering are. If I wasn't, I'd be dead now. They actually taught us some basic 'drifting' techniques in driving school to keep in mind for winter.

Back when my driver's license was brand new I was a reckless driver myself. Once I came to this tight bend on a gravel road way too fast and my car (Peugeot 205 GTi) started to understeer. somehow instead of panicking I managed to clear the bend by turning the steering wheel all the way to the lock, flooring it and pulling the handbrake. What happened was that the front wheels started to pull the front towards the bend, the body started yawing and as the rear wheels were locked the back flung nicely back into proper orientation. Had it been an asphalt road the car would've probably rolled over if I had tried that.

This story is to point out that there's a curious thing about lateral grip and traction that most drifting fans forget: If you lose one, you lose the other. If your driving wheels start sliding sideways, you'll lose acceleration as well. If you accelerate too hard and get wheelspin, you'll also lose lateral grip and your driving wheels can start slipping sideways. That's why racing drivers don't 'drift': Any excess sideways motion of the driving tires takes from the grip needed for acceleration. On loose surfaces a difting-esque driving technique is preferred by rally pilots because there's very little grip to begin with so one must try to keep the nose pointed in the direction where one wants to accelerate while keeping in mind the current velocity and it's direction.

It is easy to experiment if you can get a car anywhwere where there's enough smooth (flat) ice. Get a rear wheel drive car, fit studded winter tires on the car so you have at least some braking ability. Now have a friend around, and start the car, add throttle and press the brake so the car stands still but the rear wheels start to spin wildly. Now have your friend nudge the the rear of the car from the side. Guess what happens? Yes, it moves easily to the side with minimal effort. Next try the same without the rear wheels spinning - a lot more effort is needed to move the rear sideways.

Perhaps you missed the if not filtered part. As I understand, there are still a number of automotive manufacturers in the world that haven't made these filters standard equipment. Also, some filters are single-use, disposable filters. Cheap and ignorant people are likely to get as much life out of them as possible so the filters are likely to be in use even after they've stopped being effective.

My only fear is that hydrogen cell technology will never provide power and torque comparable to muscle cars of today. Hydrogen combustion, maybe?

I don't know what rally racing you've been watching, but I've seen their share of bad wrecks. Rally racing is very unpredictable. You don't know what the 'road' conditions are because you're basically racing on back roads, often in rural communities. For example, livestock walk onto the track in some regions. Many of the drivers, if not all, don't have the course memorized and rely on their co-driver to prepare them for what's coming ahead. It's not uncommon for them to make a wrong turn, go off course, or over-shoot a turn and end up off the course. I'm not sure what ridges you're referring to, but if there is reason to be afraid of them it sounds like you don't want to go over them. If that's true then they'd have to be insane not to be afraid of the ridges.

Driving school doesn't teach drifting; at least not in Canada. The extent of driving school topics [loosely] related to drifting are recovering from a skid by releasing all pedals and "steering into the skid". If that's what you think drifting is than you obviously don't understand it.

What drifting techniques were covered in your driving school?

Let's see... lateral grip and traction. Well lateral is really just another word for to the side or sideways. Traction happens to be another way of saying friction between the tires and the road, also commonly referred to as grip. Matter of fact, a thesaurus will tell you they're antonyms synonyms.

And drifters wouldn't forget that they are directly related. Drifting relies on this principle. Without it they would most certainly roll over instead of slide.

Right
First, hydrogen is just a fancy way of doing rechargeable batteries that weigh less than usual ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzero
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliica

You can't feel 0.8G in a 2.3 ton car that often
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster

Performance wise electric cars can be way better than internal combustion ones. Only thing missing is the noise of the muscle cars
Also as most people don't need insane acceleration and top speed main research is to increase efficiency and travelling distance.

Not in europe there aren't. You're viewing this issue from a north american perspective and diesel technology in north america is... should i say behind the curve?

I really don't care. Like I said, after riding a motorcycle the term 'sports car' is an oxymoron.

A brand new GSX-R1000 costs USD12000, to match its performance a car would need to be well in the $500 000 range, and nothing on 4 wheels can give the same feeling.

They also taught us how to recover from an understeer condition with a 4wd vehicle by initiating a powerslide. As i understand that is supposed to be a 'drifting' technique.

Haven't seen that since the safari rally was eliminated from the WRC schedule. Though the spectators at this years rally mexico did place big stones on the course.

Those are pretty serious accusations and apart from the latter, untrue since the stages are closed off at intersections. To go off course or make a wrong turn would mean plowing through a fence of variable strength.

WRC pilots don't just make a wrong turn.

At the top category of the sport you can't afford to be afraid.

Nitpicking aside you'll probably understood what i meant.

I didn't say 'drifters'. I said drifting fans.

Didn't one of the top drivers do it in Mexico just the other day? I wasn't paying close attention, but I think I remember hearing on Eurosport that one guy lost a lot of time when he missed a turn and went down the wrong road and then had to make a U turn...

As for drifting, I've always thought that comparing it with real motorsports drifting is like comparing figure skating with ice hockey...

woudln't know. Didn't watch the broadcasts. I tried googling for it but couldn't find anything.

That's pretty much the definition.

You all have played too much NeedForSpeed series :p

Take a bike !

Yeah, bikes are better. Try this with a car:

Nah. I'm thinking of getting a GSX-R750 this summer. 1998-1999 vintage should be nice and reasonably priced...

http://www.autokulma.fi/upload/ajoneuvot/big/12-49-suzukisrad99.jpg

Seems to me I read (20 years ago) a car magazine that raced cars against motorcycles, the cars could beat the bikes on twisty roads because the bikes couldn't lean far enough to negotiate the turns as fast. The bikes easily beat the cars on straights though.

That's true if you don't take the $$$ into consideration. A USD12k bike can outperform any car from the same price range you can throw at it.

Besides. Cars just aren't as fun.

Crotch-rockets are also very cool. I'm not a fan of Suzuki, but Yamaha is awesome.

However, crotch-rockets are not at all the same thing as muscle cars or sports cars. They go fast and usually handle relatively well, but they are very different machines.

It makes sense that something much smaller and lighter would cost less and can potentially go faster that something larger and heavier, such as a car. You get what you pay for and, in terms of a motorcycle, you have a lot less than if you had a sports or muscle car.

Also, in my opinion, motorcycle styling doesn't begin to compare to the styling ques found on muscle cars and sports cars. Crotch-rockets generally look very much alike and are very similar in proportion. At least, if you compare the difference between different makes and models of crotch-rockets with the difference between different makes and models of sports or muscle cars.

I'm not at all against motorcycles. I love crotch-rockets (and custom American choppers) and would love a Yamaha YZF-R1 someday. I just think it's unfair to compare a crotch-rocket to a sports/muscle car.