GS - Jerk starting from Neutral

I have driven automatics that way forever (right or wrong)... shifting into neutral whenever it seems fit. I notice the same thing with my 90 LS400, so I don't that it is all that unusual. Making sure you have your foot completely off the gas, or your foot on the brake when shifting from neutral to drive alleviates that condition. "I" find it is best to coast in neutral, into the stop, and to shift into drive with my foot on the brake from a dead stop...

I just started shifting this way in my ES300. I've never done it before with any other car I've owned. Maybe I'm going through withdrawals from the

5-speed I owned for 9 years up until a couple of months ago, but I'm also under the illusion that dropping it into neutral when possible (when approaching intersections or going down hills) might help with mileage a bit. Anyone else feel this way, or am I delusional?

delusional?? maybe, ... me too! My goal is never need to replace the brakes ... well maybe NOT never, but you know what I mean. My LS400 has well over 200K so I don't think I am wearing out anything prematurely. Manual are more fun when you "own the road", but equally as much of a pain sitting in traffic.

If your goal is saving the brakes by shifting to neutral as you are coming to a stop, then why not use the compression of the engine to help you stop, ie keep it in gear? By shifting to neutral, you are wearing the brakes out faster. Try this as an experiment: Go 40 mph past a certain point on the street, let up on the gas and note your speed past a second point on the street. Do the same thing only shift into neutral at the first point in the street. I bet your speed will be higher at the second point on the street when you have shifted into neutral. If it is, then you are having to stop your vehicle from a higher speed when you shift into neutral, and that of course is harder on the brakes.

Also, brakes are cheaper than transmissions, and I would think you are placing unnecessary wear on the transmission (although I do note you have

200k on the transmission, so my last point may not be that valid).

SF

Yes, don't do it, it is bad practise and will wear the transmission prematurely. Sitting with your foot on the brake does not wear the brakes at all, only slowing down does that.

mrcheerful

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 11:01:06 GMT, "Jerohm" graced this newsgroup with:

this just seems to me *totally* contrary to what a torque converter is designed to do. By shifting in out of neutral, you're putting undue stress on the bands in the transmission. The major part of wear in a transmission isn't in the *use* of the clutch, but in the

*engagement* of the clutch. There's a tremendous amount of force when the clutch is engaged out of, or into neutral. If your transmission has survived this long by disengaging neutral, one can only imagine how much longer it would last if you *didn't* engage into neutral.

You're going against the very concept of what an automatic transmission is designed to do. If you think you're saving gas, you're not. The raise in rpm in neutral, then the sudden load when shifting into Drive, totally negates any gas saved compared to if you just kept it in Drive in the first place.

If you doubt what I'm saying, go to any reputable transmission shop and ask their opinion.