Tremelune

I'm not so sure that engine braking is super bad for your engine, or even particularly bad for your transmission. I don't think you put more wear on your car decelerating @ 4500 rpm than accelerating @ 4500 rpm, but why put any wear if you don't have to? Wearing out breakpads is a negligible expense, not to mention the fact that they are designed to be worn out and replaced regularly. Not so with transmissions, engines, motor mounts, clutches and what not...

I don't think you need to push in your clutch every time you want to slow down a little bit to avoid engine braking, but I wouldn't seek it out as a method of deceleration when something far cheaper and competant is already installed on your car (on all four tires, no less).

Just to round everything off, if you match revs when you shift, then let off the gas, the wear to your clutch remains negligible (but everything above still applies).

Also, is that true about big rig engines? They were designed with braking in mind as well? That doesn't seem to make sense to me, as their engine vs. brake component cost is the same as in regular cars...Is there some other reason bigass trucks need to not use brakes? Like maybe the brakes can't stop the combined weight of the truck and the trailer sometimes?

Holy digression of topic...

bs

my understanding of engine braking on big rigs is that there is no brake material known to man that can sustain energy absorption on a long downhill without fading. eventually the brakes will just get too hot. hence the neccesity for engine braking. this is what i read in my bosch automotive handbook.

Tremelune

Word.