2018 Mustang Manual vs. Auto--MotorTrend

[nastang87xx]

That's some unique trivia knowledge you have there, Nick. :lol:

If you can believe it I actually had a phone interview with the parent company for a data job. I didn't quite put it all together until...yeah, started looking up more about the company and their "products." :lol:

Sponsored

 

[TexasRebel]

I assume you are trying to be facetious.

Hmm, no. That input shaft w/synchro ring really is on my desk.

The point you are trying to make, is moot. It is a matter of using those gear's backside, instead of braking. So what again is the point of causing additional wearing the backside of those gears, instead of using the brakes..?

Which is the "backside" on those teeth? The side that puts axial forces into the tapered roller bearing separating it from the output shaft, or the side that puts axial forces into the ball bearing in the case? (remember, Newton's Third Law still applies. The countershaft is forced an equal and opposite direction against one of two thrust washers between it and the case)

Additional [sic], what about all the components that are effected when you are running negative rpms.. [sic]? Ring & pinions...?

There is no such thing as "Negative RPM". I'll assume you're talking about overrun; the condition where the normally driven shaft becomes the driving shaft. Well... that's the part you're not getting. Nothing exciting happens. They operate normally, but in the case of helical gears, the axial forces are reversed.

To further my argument, gears are not a end-user wear item, brakes are. You can do a brake job in 45minutes. I understand if you lease and you really don't care about the car, or it's components longevity... then it is easy to commit to not caring.

Again, the options are to use the brakes and have to do that "45 minute" brake job sooner, or use the engine and save the wear on the pads. Your drivetrain will still outlast a few sets of pads. There isn't much wear going on in that air pump when there is no combustion.

 

[TexasRebel]

That is a truck engine specifically designed for trucking environment… which helps control the stopping of heavy TRUCKS.

Trucking environment... you mean a highway? ...not a racetrack? :lol:

I know how, what engine braking does and is. But a SEMI TRUCK has how many front brakes..? the same as any car... so it needs a controllable engine braking system.

normally 6 "front" brakes on a semi if you're considering the "front" to be forward of the center of gravity of the vehicle.

...Not that the front brakes on a RWD mustang have much to do with engine braking in the first place. Oh, by the way, there's another thing. You're reducing wear on your steering tires by not using your front brakes.

 

[Norm Peterson]

I engine brake too... specially when on the track.

Though I do not engine brake will driving in public, because there is zero need to slow my car down in such a manner, because in those situation I have zero need to be back on the throttle instantly,

'Instantly' or not isn't the point, nor is 'in public'. It's more about looking far enough down the road to see situations develop where you can predict that you'll be using a lower gear. Get your downshift done while you've got plenty of time and not much pressure.

Or in traffic where just getting off the throttle - not downshifting at all - slows you down at least as rapidly as traffic in front of you, there isn't any immediate need to use the service brake.

It's the AT-in-Drive mindset to downshift for desired acceleration AFTER recognizing the need for such. IOW, reactively. If your car doesn't have AT, or it does and you're using the paddles, why should you want to drive it the same mindless way you would if it was an AT and in Drive?


Norm

 

[Angry50]

Please read back through this whole thread. You will see you are changing stories and scenarios to win an argument with me. Thus trolling.

I have remained steadfast on a specific scenario to illustrate a few points (How one can use a manual differently than an auto & how manual driver differ in their style). If you want to change the situation and point, then a different set of variables come into play.

As such, given how you are responding, you are not asking such questions in earnest, you are changing the goal posts because you think this discussion is a joke, thus giggles.

If you want to change a given scenario, then state why and also why someone would do what they are doing in that situation, then ask me and others YOUR question. Otherwise you are just trolling.


I engine brake too... specially when on the track.

Though I do not engine brake will driving in public, because there is zero need to slow my car down in such a manner, because in those situation I have zero need to be back on the throttle instantly, or need to have the engine engaged. Also, there is no need to keep the car's "balance" mid corner using engine braking either, because that is nth degree stuff, that norm can talk your legs off about... or anyone who drive the Nurb.

None of that stuff comes into play on American roads, that is racing. If you want to learn about such things, or why they are done/beneficial, this sub-forum is not the place, it takes years to learn how to back-off the throttle and use your engine to brake the car without unsettling it on the track.


Again, not a point within this discussion, because nobody drives like that in public...




Secondly, nobody here is talking about EXCESSIVE WEAR. Not one time have I mentioned excessive wear, I sad additional wear. If your engine is off, it suffers zero wear, while if it is running... it is not suffering excessive wear, only more/additional wear than being off. Again, more than..

Understand..? More wear, or additional wear doesn't mean excessive, it just mean more than...

Hence, when a Driver forces a car to engine brake, (instead of just using the brakes), you are inducing additional wear on all driverline components, when it is unnecessary.

You are arguing with yourself, using rhetorical questions that nobody has provided. Which is a form of trolling.




Thirdly, brakes are a wear item.

And why the A10 doesn't have full lock up (dragging the engine along) when you are coasting or coming to a stop. The A10 engine brakes at a certain threshold, because engineers know how to protect an engine and the car's driverline components.

The A10 "free wheels" and makes the drivers use their brakes, unless you are using paddle shifters... even then, the A10's torque converter eats up most of that, not the engine. Because once again, brakes are a wear item and Manufacturers expect you to use them when slowing your car down... not the engine.

Which one of my scenarios is not real world?

you made the comparison of wearing out your pads and not your engine. this would lead people in the direction of believing that you think engine braking will reduce your engine and transmission life by some noticeable amount.

everyone except you was referring to engine braking in a general sense, you suddenly created the engine braking to a dead stop with the use of 0 brakes.

the a10 never "free wheels".. it doesnt arbitrarily go to neutral. the engine braking is fairly aggressive just being in S which every mustang comes with. in D there is still engine braking happening it will slow down much faster than a manual in neutral. due to engine drag.

do what now?

Should we get into how a torque converter works, the two shafts it couples, and Newton's Third Law?

please do.

 

[bluebeastsrt]

You learn so much more about cars than just. Autos are faster. Or manuals are more fulfilling. In these weekly auto vs manual threads.

 

[TexasRebel]

please do.

Okay, quick & dirty...

so the housing is attached directly to the flywheel and spins at engine speed. The housing contains the pump (impeller) which is directly connected to the housing, the turbine which drives the input shaft of the transmission, and the stator which is fixed to the case by a 1-way clutch.

While the engine is running, the pump constantly forces transmission fluid into the turbine, even in neutral. The fluid is forced to change directions against the fins of the turbine (remember Newton's Third Law?) which induces a spin on the input shaft. The stator contains fins that redirect fluid exiting the turbine before flowing back into the pump. Without this redirection fluid would begin to spin with (instead of against) the housing & pump which drastically decreases efficiency.

The torque converter is nothing more than a type of fluid coupling between the crankshaft and the input shaft of the transmission.

Modern automatic transmissions have an extra clutch in there that lock the turbine to the pump. Before this design, the turbine could not spin quite as fast as the pump which meant the input shaft of the transmission was not spinning at the same speed as the engine.

In overrun conditions, the turbine will become a pump and force fluid through the pump... which becomes a turbine. The stator, however, doesn't work both directions because of the 1-way clutch. Still, any torque generated at the input shaft of the transmission by the wheels is reacted by the engine (that guy Newton really new his stuff!).

 

[w3rkn]

Trucking environment... you mean a highway? ...not a racetrack? :lol:


normally 6 "front" brakes on a semi if you're considering the "front" to be forward of the center of gravity of the vehicle.

...Not that the front brakes on a RWD mustang have much to do with engine braking in the first place. Oh, by the way, there's another thing. You're reducing wear on your steering tires by not using your front brakes.

I think you are trying too hard.

You know enough about the internet, to be dangerous. But fail to take a step back from what I am saying, to what you are trying to suggest. I fail to see any point you are making, other than touting facts... that have zero to do with what I am discussing. You are not refuting anything I've said.

You are assuming someone is saying engine braking is bad.. I am not.

I am saying it is unnecessary to downshift and purposely engine brake your car, when you could just apply the brakes.

And added, that excessively downshifting (all the time, every time) to STOP or significantly slow you car, is not a good idea (like some here admit to doing as their driving style). Because it does cause additional wear on those components. IF you otherwise would not have done so.

These are irrefutable facts and you do not have to be an engine builder or an engineer to understand this. Real simple... does an engine wear more at 3,100rpms - 4, 500 rpms..? Or at 900 rpms while in neutral..?

It is also quite sad you are unfamiliar with, or don't understand what the meaning behind dragging your engine along, or negative rpms.



As for the other driverline components, it is also real simple if you look at how the A10 deals with coasting or excessive amounts of engine braking, you will see that the A10 isn't in full lock up, when doing so.

I wonder why those engineers programmed it that way... (no illustrations needed. Only logic)



Secondly, Semi-Truck/Commercial Vehicles driver are professionals and rely on engine braking all the time, because they are carrying heavy loads and only have 2 real front brakes... the same as a measly 3,500 lbs car. So they RELY on additional ways to maintain a steady deceleration. (Or these Commercial Vehicles would be in for brake job once a month, and many brake failures.)

Which brings me to the second simple question...

Why does Jacobs Vehicle System market their jake brake technology..? The answer has nothing to do with cars... which happen to have front brakes that can control the car.



Not sure why you keep posting rhetoricals, unrelated to the argument at hand, then posting videos answering your own questions... Congrats, you win at answering your own questions. Now answer mine. Anyone can post irrelevant videos of known facts, or technology... but they mean nothing if you do not explain how they apply to another's argument.

I can show you tons of videos too. Of why downshifting with a manual and slipping the clutch into gear & VROOOOoooming, thus engine braking the car to slow down instead of applying the brakes is a bad idea. But to me it is unneeded, because it logical why a Driver would never constantly do this.

Jason is a highly respected video blogger at Engineering Explained, and in his video if engine braking, at 25 seconds in... he doesn't even entertain the idea of downshifting to clutch brake, or engine brake in a lower gear! And simply rolls over that idea and continues on explaining what engine braking is, and how it benefits a driver. There is nothing to argue with in his videos and he explains what, why and how extremely well. I agree with everything he says in his video.

But once again, he is not talking about what I am discussion. He skipped right over it because there is no point in stabbing lower gear to come to a stop. Or to reduce a car's speed quickly. (ie: not coasting)




Again, nobody here is saying engine braking doesn't work... or isn't allowed, etc.. like you are errantly trying to suggest.

So that begs the question, what is your argument with me...? What are you trying to say..? That people should not use their brakes..? And downshift more..? :shrug:

 

[w3rkn]

Which one of my scenarios is not real world?

you made the comparison of wearing out your pads and not your engine. this would lead people in the direction of believing that you think engine braking will reduce your engine and transmission life by some noticeable amount.

everyone except you was referring to engine braking in a general sense, you suddenly created the engine braking to a dead stop with the use of 0 brakes.

the a10 never "free wheels".. it doesnt arbitrarily go to neutral. the engine braking is fairly aggressive just being in S which every mustang comes with. in D there is still engine braking happening it will slow down much faster than a manual in neutral. due to engine drag.


please do.

Not sure if you have comprehension issues or not. Once again, in one of my first posts with you, I mentioned how I drive and why I would want a manual (over an auto), because I am in control of my clutch and gears.

And when you got all combative and didn't understand how/why someone would need such control I gave a simple scenario of how I would use my Manual (off ramp 80mph to zero).

It was another who suggested, they would rather engine brake their car from 80mphs to zero... I didn't suggest that, someone else did.


In that situation, nobody is talking about coasting & engine braking, they are talking about downshifting several times using their clutch, & engine braking. They were not talking about letting off the throttle and coasting... They were talking about downshifting..

You, yourself have even taken up that person's torch and discussed downshifting (w/clutch) and engine braking... slowing the car down instead of actually braking. Instead of holding firm to your original assumption that manual offer no greater control than a manual to the driver.

You are essentially arguing with yourself and using me as an excuse to do so. Though, I do find it rather entertaining, since you already stated early on you don't know why people like the freedom of a manual, or understand the freedom a manual allows. Yet, now you are an expect on the subject... lulz



Driving styles aside, doesn't really matter whether it is good for the engine or not (sperate argument), but having a manual allows a driver more modulation & control over an automatic. Which you were refuting earlier in this thread. You are not holding firm to you own statements on automatics & are here just to argue with people. (ie: troll)

 

[Angry50]

Not sure if you have comprehension issues or not. Once again, in one of my first posts with you, I mentioned how I drive and why I would want a manual (over an auto), because I am in control of my clutch and gears.

And when you got all combative and didn't understand how/why someone would need such control I gave a simple scenario of how I would use my Manual (off ramp 80mph to zero).

It was another who suggested, they would rather engine brake their car from 80mphs to zero... I didn't suggest that, someone else did.


In that situation, nobody is talking about coasting & engine braking, they are talking about downshifting several times using their clutch, & engine braking. They were not talking about letting off the throttle and coasting... They were talking about downshifting..

You, yourself have even taken up that person's torch and discussed downshifting (w/clutch) and engine braking... slowing the car down instead of actually braking. Instead of holding firm to your original assumption that manual offer no greater control than a manual to the driver.

You are essentially arguing with yourself and using me as an excuse to do so. Though, I do find it rather entertaining, since you already stated early on you don't know why people like the freedom of a manual, or understand the freedom a manual allows. Yet, now you are an expect on the subject... lulz



Driving styles aside, doesn't really matter whether it is good for the engine or not (sperate argument), but having a manual allows a driver more modulation & control over an automatic. Which you were refuting earlier in this thread. You are not holding firm to you own statements on automatics & are here just to argue with people. (ie: troll)

i never questioned anyone why they want a manual over an auto.

please point out the post where someone said engine brake from 80 down to 0 using no brakes and only engine braking.. i missed it..

i believe your argument was you would coast in Neutral(not sure) but most people argued against coasting in neutral.

i took up no ones torch other than to discuss topics that were brought up.

all i ever stated was there is little to nothing you can do in a manual that cant be done in the auto. Then there was statement made that engine braking increased wear on engine and drive train.

please indicate where i said "i dont know why people like the freedom of a manual" this is a flat out lie and youre just making stuff up.
I fully understand the enticement and enjoyment of a manual. 100 times i said manual is more fun and auto is faster. i have owned more manuals for longer periods of time in my life than autos.

i ask again... what can you do in a manual that cant be done in a auto?
i believe it was you that even indicated someone is more likely to get into accidents in an auto.

to reiterate my standings on these matters so i can refresh your memory my views

1. auto faster than manual, manual more fun for some/most
2. engine braking is not bad for the car. (no more so than accelerating at least)
3. coasting in neutral is bad practice
4. engine braking is mostly accompanied with standard braking unless only needing to slow enough that doesnt require brakes, this is often done more so as a practice for skills than a necessity
5. trying to engine brake to a complete stop with use of zero braking is silly and not done in any practical application

 

[Norm Peterson]

Jason is a highly respected video blogger at Engineering Explained, and in his video if engine braking, at 25 seconds in... he doesn't even entertain the idea of downshifting to clutch brake, or engine brake in a lower gear! And simply rolls over that idea and continues on explaining what engine braking is, and how it benefits a driver. There is nothing to argue with in his videos and he explains what, why and how extremely well. I agree with everything he says in his video.

But once again, he is not talking about what I am discussion. He skipped right over it because there is no point in stabbing lower gear to come to a stop. Or to reduce a car's speed quickly. (ie: not coasting)

It's only a 5 minute video, so there isn't enough time to go into that much depth for a tangential thought.

I am going to take slight issue with Jason's implication that reducing brake pad and rotor wear through engine braking are good things in and of themselves. They're fortunate side effects, nothing more. Nobody should ever worry about having to replace pads and rotors on a performance car. Or on any car that's being driven to higher levels of performance than average-driver mild to moderate daily driving, for that matter. It's not like you're trying to coax a couple hundred more miles use out of pads that are down to min thickness from brand-new inside of a thousand miles.


If all this time you've been thinking in terms of gradually engaging the clutch with the transmission in some lower gear so that engine rpms are gradually dragged up while the car slows somewhat (and everything comes back into sync somewhere in the middle), or rapidly engaging the clutch in that same lower gear where you might even chirp the rear tires . . . those are cases of doing it wrong and/or downshifting for the wrong reason. With the sole exception being situations where there is brake system failure (which would include brake fade).



Norm

 

[CNCLester]

opcorn:

 

[Ebm]

I like visual aids...

Here is a video of how to make a Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwich!

[ame]

 

[nastang87xx]

I farted this morning. It was loud.

 

[w3rkn]

:threadjacked:



Look, every thread has the potential to go off in nearly any tangential direction.

But chronology matters, and as many of you may disagree with me, you'll see that I at least accept the logic of what you/others a saying & then give rebuttal. I don't attack the person. I am either questioning or agreeing with their points.

Norm, & many others within this thread AGREE that manuals offer more intimate feel and closeness to the tarmac, that no auto can really touch (several companies are working it!). But in the meantime, any and all the reasons given or sighted for why Manual Transmissions are better (for road & track), are absolute truths.

They are all citing reasons why no Automatic Transmission, can (one again) match the feel/experience/control of a manual gearbox, clutch & pedal...!




& as such, in arguing that^ point, I personally laid out a single instance of my daily commute in which I would rather have a manual than an auto... (in response to Another's post), then I got attacked for my reason's.

I was even mocked & ridiculed but it bounced off me, because many were applying false pretenses to my words. I am not here to quibble, my argument holds quite well. And if you look back (read through) you will see that I have responded in depth to each and at least acknowledge your argument.

Yet none of you will concede a for a single moment?, in saying. "Well yeah, in that instance I wouldn't mind doing that..!" "Or see myself doing that.."

Just blatant trolling and responses... as if coasting in neutral is bazzairro, or insane...!

Those ad hominem types of responses/people are just here to fuel the fire but not offering up rebuttals. And in good faith, there are others who are offering technical data on their behalf, but missing the mark, because (again) false pretenses were applied.

Obviously, I don't have to defend my driving style, no matter how much technical data your throw at me. As a good bit of logic applies to using your brakes or being in neutral. The Ones arguing against that, are people who want to win some technical debate, no matter the topic at hand (2018 Mustang Manual vs. Auto--MotorTrend).




Understand, We got to this whole point of "engine wear, diagrams, charts, videos, story telling, name calling, etc...." all because some of you are unable to concede: that coasting in neutral and using your brakes to come to a stop, is somewhat logical and useful in it's own sense.

And additionally: a Car's brakes & pads & rotors are much more easy to replace/maintain (wear item) then POTENTIALLY most things within the engine or driveline, etc.


Honestly, look back at this thread. It is ridiculous and not because of me, as my post always remained germane to the topic. And I hold all of you to the same standard I hold myself. Give people respect..!

BTW, this isn't enjoyable.



:ford: :cheers:

Sponsored