driving an automatic trans
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
From: Cupertino, CA
2003 e320 wagon (210 chassis NOT a 211))
driving an automatic trans
So my e320 wagon is the first automatic transmission car I've owned. I learned to drive on a manual '84 volvo, then owned a manual 1980 Plymouth Sapporo (anyone remember that one?) a manual '82 Toyota pickup, '85 Audi 5000S (5spd manual), an '89 Ford Ranger (5spd manual), and my 2000 Dodge Dakota (5spd manual) which I just sold.
1. while it's nice to have the auto-trans in L.A. traffic, I find it kind of boring.
2. It is ingraned in my soul to double-clutch shift & use engine braking when possible.
I had 130,000 miles on my Dakota when I sold it & it had the original clutch (still strong, no fade/slip) original trans, & original brakes, and 2 of it's 10 years were done in San Francisco (notorious for wearing out trans, clutches, & brakes).
So my question: is it hard on my e320's transmission to use the manual shift feature A LOT, and use engine braking in lieu of the normal brakes when engine braking will suffice? With a manual clutch I can double-clutch & match rpms with shifting, & thus prolong the life of the clutch by minimizing clutch slip when shifting. With the manu-matic shifting, I have no control over how the shift happens & therefore am concerned that I should avoid a lot of manual shifting of the e320 trans at risk of wearing it out prematurely. After all, while I hate using brakes excessively, they are less expensive to replace than the trans (or engine, for that matter).
But I sure prefer to downshift going into turns, rather than braking (for example).
1. while it's nice to have the auto-trans in L.A. traffic, I find it kind of boring.
2. It is ingraned in my soul to double-clutch shift & use engine braking when possible.
I had 130,000 miles on my Dakota when I sold it & it had the original clutch (still strong, no fade/slip) original trans, & original brakes, and 2 of it's 10 years were done in San Francisco (notorious for wearing out trans, clutches, & brakes).
So my question: is it hard on my e320's transmission to use the manual shift feature A LOT, and use engine braking in lieu of the normal brakes when engine braking will suffice? With a manual clutch I can double-clutch & match rpms with shifting, & thus prolong the life of the clutch by minimizing clutch slip when shifting. With the manu-matic shifting, I have no control over how the shift happens & therefore am concerned that I should avoid a lot of manual shifting of the e320 trans at risk of wearing it out prematurely. After all, while I hate using brakes excessively, they are less expensive to replace than the trans (or engine, for that matter).
But I sure prefer to downshift going into turns, rather than braking (for example).
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,803
Likes: 12
From: Charleston, SC
GL450
Like you pointed out, your transmissions costs $5,000, while your brakes cost $500. Use the brakes to slow the car. Once you've slowed the car with the brakes, it is fine to downshift and use engine braking to hold the car at speed. That won't damage the transmission. But using the downshift to slow the car will.
Going down a hill, your best bet is to use the brakes to reduce your speed and then downshift to hold the speed. Likewise, preparing for a turn, hit the brakes to reduce speed and then downshift to get into the right powerband.
Going down a hill, your best bet is to use the brakes to reduce your speed and then downshift to hold the speed. Likewise, preparing for a turn, hit the brakes to reduce speed and then downshift to get into the right powerband.
