Is engine braking bad for a CVT?

[benttable]

I'm wondering whether it's bad to use engine braking? Around town sometimes I like to slow down a bit instead of braking when I know I don't need to come to a complete stop by shifting from D to S mode. My RPMs go from 1500 to maybe 2500-3000 rpm. I realize it's pushing the engine more but 3000 rpm is anyways common for regular driving, so is this really wearing out the engine significantly more than usual?

Sponsored

 

[dick w]

Not bad to use engine braking. Yeah, it's 3,000 rpm. It's also no load.

 

[david1pro]

The manual specifies that S is for the purpose of increased engine braking. You should be fine. Your brakes may even enjoy the assistance with their job.

 

[camhabib]

It isn't bad to engine brake, but it isn't good, for the drivetrain or fuel economy. Is there a reason why you rather not use the brakes?

 

[NorthernEX-T]

I find it nice to use it when coming down a hill and you see a red light or stop sign,, you need to stop anyway to I say may as well save the brakes if I'm going to press the pedal down really hard. Flat roads never.. I would say it would put a little bit more wear on your cvt overtime for sure. On the other hand I believe that "excercising" a drivetrain is key for the longevity of a car. Kick it down, use sport more every now and then as opposed to never going over 3000rpm

 

[hondabuildquality]

It isn't bad to engine brake, but it isn't good, for the drivetrain or fuel economy. Is there a reason why you rather not use the brakes?

Yes, exactly.

The only time you really should be engine braking is when you risk heating up your rotors to a point of causing brake fading, leading to rotor warping, or worse, brake failure.

Say you're coming down the other side of a mountain pass, you can use engine braking to give your brakes a rest to keep them from heating up excessively.

Other than that it's not really detrimental to your engine to use it for braking to a stop light or stop sign, it's just going to cause some minor additional wear.

Remember brake pads are pretty cheap compared to everything else in the car, and they are a part that is made by design to wear and be replaced over time. I don't know why anyone would place heavy emphasis on this part.

 

[themzlab]

I'd use the brakes. They are cheap compared to the CVT. If there is a feature for extra engine braking it is probably for use in the mountains where you are in danger of overheating the brakes.

 

[benttable]

It isn't bad to engine brake, but it isn't good, for the drivetrain or fuel economy. Is there a reason why you rather not use the brakes?

It's not something I do a lot, but mainly to allow the brake pads to last longer. On my 2003 accord, I didn't use engine braking until the car got to 80,000 miles. Was able to stretch the the brake pads to 90,000 miles. Actually it probably could have gotten to 110,000 miles but the brake squeal was getting annoying. If I can get my civic's brake pads to last 100,000 miles, I'll probably trade the car in without having to ever have brake service done.

 

[dick w]

it isn't good, for … fuel economy.

Since all Hondas since who knows when have DFCO, why does it have any impact on fuel economy?

 

[regularguy]

Since all Hondas since who knows when have DFCO, why does it have any impact on fuel economy?

On this note, I'm wondering if it's better for fuel economy to keep the car in gear or shift to neutral when coasting. I've noticed a small subjective increase in gas mileage when I shift to neutral when coasting for more than 10 seconds or so (eg, coming off a highway exit). If the car indeed has DFCO, theoretically it should be more efficient to leave it in gear than to shift to N, no? I tend to try things in the first few minutes after resetting the trip when the MPG meter is sensitive to changes in driving. Not sure if it's good for the car to continually shift from N to D while driving, but I haven't heard any good reason it would hurt.

 

[dick w]

On this note, I'm wondering if it's better for fuel economy to keep the car in gear or shift to neutral when coasting. I've noticed a small subjective increase in gas mileage when I shift to neutral when coasting for more than 10 seconds or so (eg, coming off a highway exit).

I'm guessing it depends on the RPM/amount of engine braking involved. If the engine is close to idle, it probably has to start feeding it fuel so it doesn't stall. I suspect as well that if the choice is N or D at idle, N takes less gas to hold the same idle RPM vs. having to pull the torque converter. But the difference is going to be minuscule--to the point of impossible to measure/test without getting the OBD data or similar--in both cases.

As long as the car is rolling, you can also watch the instantaneous fuel economy gauge. On deceleration in gear it should be pegged.

 

[Rook3300]

Since all Hondas since who knows when have DFCO, why does it have any impact on fuel economy?

Yes this. Pretty much all modern fuel-injected cars have DFCO and gas mileage will absolutely increase once you let off the accelerator. Even when you use the brakes, you take your foot off the gas pedal and the engine goes into fuel cutoff mode because the transmission is engaged (this example is for automatics only) and is turning the engine. If you use S instead of the brakes, it can wear a bit on your CVT only because the torque converter is basically dragging the crankshaft along and turning the engine over even though there is no fuel being put into the cylinder but in my experience, this tiny amount of wear can be ignored as cars and components are designed for this sort of use.

 

[hondabuildquality]

On this note, I'm wondering if it's better for fuel economy to keep the car in gear or shift to neutral when coasting. I've noticed a small subjective increase in gas mileage when I shift to neutral when coasting for more than 10 seconds or so (eg, coming off a highway exit). If the car indeed has DFCO, theoretically it should be more efficient to leave it in gear than to shift to N, no? I tend to try things in the first few minutes after resetting the trip when the MPG meter is sensitive to changes in driving. Not sure if it's good for the car to continually shift from N to D while driving, but I haven't heard any good reason it would hurt.

It would depend on two factors. 1) fuel consumption required to maintain idle, and 2) energy lost due to engine braking

Sounds like engine breaking will increase fuel economy while intending to brake, while putting the car in neutral will increase fuel economy while intending to caost.

This is in agreement with the popular "pulse and glide" strategy to maximize fuel economy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-efficient_driving#Pulse_and_Glide

Edit for clearer wording.

 

[Rook3300]

From my experience in the few days of commuting I did this past week (52 miles one-way), my Civic Touring has excellent coasting ability. Far better than any other car I've driven. If I take my foot off the gas pedal, it can take 5-15 seconds for it to actually go down 1 mph (depending on small topographical changes). For a manual car, I'd say Pulse and Glide would work great, but for the CVT just easing off the Go Pedal frequently would help tremendously.

 

[camhabib]

Most cars I've driven, when the kickdown or "Sport" mode is activated, fuel-cutoff features are disabled. Leaving them enabled would be somewhat counterproductive to producing an actual engine brake.

Sponsored