I recently bought a 2011 Fit Auto Sport. I have not used paddle shifters before but they do seem to make engine braking much easier. So my question is, am I going to damage my transmission or engine by using engine braking routinely when I'm just driving around town. It would save my brakes, but I don't know if I might cause more damage elsewhere.

 

every time you make a shift there is wear being placed on the transmission… of course it is minimal when you do upshifts but down shifts are more stress on the engine… altogether its not a lot of stress but over a 100k+ miles it will add up.

If you plan on doing a lot of downshifting etc then I would advise you to change your transmission fluid every 15-20k miles instead of 30k as Honda says.


I have a 12' MT sport so I cant say from experience, but I would err on the side of caution and avoid using the paddle shifts too much for engine braking and downshifting constantly.

If you like to downshift and upshift why didn't you get the MT?

 

Well, the AT gets better mileage in general and is less effort to drive in stop and go driving (and even on hilly interstates). But as far as engine braking goes, the clutch is one more thing to wear out.

The paddle shifters are easier to use than MT if you are just going up or down one gear. At least that's my opinion so far, but I'm new at this.

 

You will be fine. I have had my Fit from Oct 07 and I am still on the stock brakes and pads. Granted I was not using the engine to brake at every stop, every day. The Fit, at least the 08 Auto, slow down pretty good by them self with just coasting. Between smart coasting/ driving and downshifting with the paddles every now and then You should get some good life out of the brakes.

 

Agree with what everyone says.

You should be aware the Fit's auto includes "grade sensing" technology. It knows when you're going downhill and/or apply the brakes and will downshift mildly to aid in avoiding overheating the brakes.

Whether you enhance this by forcing a downshift with the paddles (or just the shift selector on the Base) is a trade-off between overheating/wearing the brakes and added wear and tear on the transmission.

Personally I choose to let the brakes do their job with the mild downshifting the auto does on its own. Brakes are meant to be replaced.

If I were coming down the mountain (when she comes!) where the grade is extreme and long (miles long at more than 7% requiring constant braking) I'd downshift to save the brakes from burning up. This isn't going to happen in GA, but in the Rockies it might.

I don't have the manual in front of me, but it probably says this (in fewer words).

 

My wife also has a Fit AT. She says it always downshifts on a particular highway entrance ramp. She is trying to accelerate slowly to save gas but since it's downhill the Fit downshifts to brake. Which makes her use more gas to accelerate.
I always use engine braking on I40 coming east from Asheville. There is a very long steep grade... maybe 5 miles long and engine braking helps alot there.

 

i downshift on the AT all the time on my 09 Fit. reason being the brakes are weak.

i hit the downshift button and blip throttle just a little to make the downshift very smooth.

 

Well yes, the brakes wear out and I have to pay to replace them. On the other hand, the engine and transmission are under warranty so if they break down I don't have to pay for them. So it might make sense to use the part that I don't have to pay for.... unless the damage to the engine and transmission would be severe and rapid.

So that was my original question. I really don't have a feel for how much wear I would be causing by using the engine to break routinely.

 

With a few exceptions, why not let the brakes do what they were designed, built, and tested to perform.......BRAKING, and let the engine and transmission do what they were designed, built, and tested to do.......DRIVE, GO, MOVE, ACCELERATE?

It's a lot cheaper to replace brakes than engines and transmissions.



Flea

 

The way it will probably work out, is that your engine/transmission will start to show the effects of the added wear and tear caused by your excessive and premature downshifting just after your warranty expires, at which point you will wish that you had spent some money on brakes instead.


Flea

 

Relying on warranty coverage really isn't in your best long term interests. conscientious use of downshifting to control your car will result in minimal tranny stress and is acceptable practice for many. Brakes are what is designed to bring your car to a stop - not the drive train.

 

i didnt read any of the above, but the way i see it is brake service is a lot cheaper/easier to work on than transmission parts/service.

 

Ok, I'm listening. So exactly what uses of downshifting would be conscientious and cause minimal stress?

Should downshifting only be done at a certain RPM level for each gear? My thought was that if the rpm level is out of range, clicking the paddle will have no effect. The transmission will only engage at a lower gear if it is safe to do so. Am I wrong about that?

Ok, the drive train is not designed to bring the car to a stop... so I should not downshift to first gear? Shifting from 4th to 3rd is not going to bring the car to a stop. I'm trying to get a feel for what is 'minimal stress" and what is going to cause damage.

 

Why bother? Just use the brakes as recommended by several others here and let the transmission downshift as it sees fit. Brakes are cheap, trannys not so much. Why do you insist on engine braking? I see no advantage and only the possible risk of shortened transmission lifespan by doing so. Why take that chance?

 

FRAMEshift I'll have to admit that I do not drive an AT Fit, so I'm not familiar with it's down shifting characteristics.
On a MT car each gear has an RPM range.
Down shifting to a gear when the car is going too fast for that gear will result in over-revving. Knowledge of the ratios dictates the shifting pattern.

Perhaps others who do drive AT's will chime in, however, I would venture to guess that you are understanding the AT correctly.

A common rule of thumb is not to downshift into first while moving forward at any appreciable speed.

Downshifting to gain torque is one reason to do it. Common when driving fast and entering a corner. It's brake first then downshift, however. Another reason is to gain speed so it's no brakes, downshift and get on the gas.

Downshifting to reach a gear that will hold the car back on a downhill grade is also another reason to do it.
Oklahoma is rather flat, but take you Fit down Pikes Peak and you'll get the idea.
It will save your brakes and signs are posted to remind you of that.

Downshifting when approaching a stop sign or red light is the most common situation for the daily driver.
It's certainly acceptable but most often accompanied by a deceleration prior to the down shift.
Necessary, no.

Until paddles were put on consumer AT's I would say that 99% of the drivers never down shifted them.

The brakes are designed to slow down and stop the car. Using them you can't go wrong.

K_C_

 

I'm not insisting on anything. I'm trying to understand what the best practice is overall. I'm interested to know if downshifing really does cause undue stress on the transmission/engine or if the built-in safeguards in the paddle mechanism are sufficient to protect the drivetrain.

It seems possible to me that downshifting may cause less overall wear on the car than braking. Do you actually know if that is the case or not?

 

I read the manual. While it does warn/suggest applying the parking brake before returning the shift lever to P (avoiding stress on the automatic transmission's lock mechanism), it says nothing about avoiding the use of engine braking by downshifting, and even describes it.

I'd go with whatever feels right.

On the manual transmission cars I've owned over the years, I didn't downshift, except as needed to accelerate, in an effort to save the clutch (it's cheaper to replace brakes). A set of front pads is about $40 and is a good DIY job with minimal tools/experience needed.

 

I suspect its really hard to know at this point. Paddle shifters are relatively new, especially mated to an econobox transmission. The excess energy dissipated could be doing nothing more than slightly degrading the ATF slightly faster. On the other hand, it might be causing extra damage to all parts of the system.

On the flip side, its an econobox. If the transmission dies early at 100k, can you afford a repair/replacement? Will you still be driving the car then?

 

OP, here's an older thread regarding the same question you have.
https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/gene...ml#post1035167

 

I have a 120k warranty. I will sell the car before the warranty expires. That doesn't mean I want to destroy the transmission, but it does mean I don't have to be unnecessarily cautious.