Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:2baKh.3149$Oc.173548@news1.epix.net...
>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>>> Consider yourself lucky. Downshifting without RPM matching does wear the
>>> synchros and engine braking wears the gears. Whether it's enough to
>>> cause a problem over the typical life of a given transmission is
>>> debatable. FWIW, I used to drive my cars hard, heel and toe downshifting
>>> all the time and it never caused a problem (sadly, Hyundai pedal
>>> placement is lousy for this). However, Hyundai transmissions are prone
>>> to synchronizer wear (as I learned with my first one), so I don't
>>> downshift/engine brake in the Elantra.
>> Sure it causes some wear, but if you change your oil regularly this wear
>> is almost imperceptible. And the wear on the gears is on the other side
>> of the teeth which are seldom used so you are wearing a part that
>> otherwise sees no wear and in any event gets far less wear than the
>> drive side of the gear teeth.
>>
>>
>> If Hyundai's are prone to synchro wear, it is due to poor materials or
>> design.
>>
>
> Those were pretty much my thoughts Matt. There is really no "consider
> yourself lucky" about it - transmissions in general have no problems with
> upshifts or downshifts. It causes no premature, or excess wear and tear.

While gear wear may be small enough not to pose a problem over the life
of a transmission, that's not true of synchronizers, which do wear if a
transmission is shifted without matching rpms. The sloppier the shifts,
the more wear and tear.

> Transmissions and engines are always out of synch in terms of rpm's whenever
> a shift occurs - whether that is upshifting or downshifting.

I beg to differ, Mike. If you match RPMs, there is no significant
difference, which is why you can shift without using the clutch if you
match revs accurately. Granted, not many people do it or can, but like
any other skill, you can develop it with practice.

> That's the
> whole purpose and reason behind a synchro. I wondered about the Hyundai
> transmissions based on what had been posted. If indeed, they do not suffer
> shifting well, then that's a design issue. Brian's historical comments seem
> to suggest this as well.

That may well be true, but it's irrelevant to whether one should go easy
on the synchros or not, since the empirical evidence suggests that they
are prone to wear. We can complain about it - and we should - but it
won't change the need to adjust our driving styles to suit.

Some of the reported problems are undoubtedly due to people changing the
oil and using the wrong type. Hyundai transmissions require GL-4 oil,
which is not commonly available at auto parts chain stores and
department stores. Using the commonly available GL-5 oils or those
labled "universal" will cause premature synchro wear in a Hyundai tranny.

Older Hyundai transmissions were also prone to bearing wear, but I don't
know if that's true for the current ones.

 

Vic Garcia wrote:
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> "Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> For that matter, if you match RPMs well, you don't even need the clutch
>>> for upshifts OR downshifts. Again, this is not something I do any longer,
>>> but I experimented with it years ago, so I know it's possible. When you
>>> get it right, it's pretty amazing, when you don't it sounds horrible!
>>>
>>
>> You don't practice on your own car. Yo do that stuff on rentals or cars at
>> work. When I was 17, I used to deliver groceries in a '58 Chevy Sedan
>> Delivery (windowless station wagon) and got to practice all sorts of
>> shifting techniques, braking in snow and ice, other things I'd never want to
>> do in my own vehicle.
>>
>>>> I have not double clutched a
>>>> manual in so long that I don't remember the last vehicle that I had to do
>>>> it
>>>> in - other than a fire truck.
>>>>
>>
>> I wonder how many people under about 50 know what you are talking about.
>> Ed
>>
>>
> At least one in the USA, I teach my son how to drive in my truck,
> against his will he preferred her mon's auto, after he learned it
> completely, including how to shift without using the clutch, he never
> went back to auto, all his cars (4) had been manual.

Clutchless shifting is really is pretty cool once you get the technique
down. I haven't tried it in the Elantra and probably won't, but I used
to have a lot of fun doing it back in my more aggressive driving days.

 

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3qRKh.1778$FS5.1711@trndny09...
>
>> While gear wear may be small enough not to pose a problem over the life
>> of a transmission, that's not true of synchronizers, which do wear if a
>> transmission is shifted without matching rpms. The sloppier the shifts,
>> the more wear and tear.
>
> True, but only to a point. Wear is going to occur in any tranny, but when
> the wear does not affect the tranny over its useful life, then that amount
> of wear is neglible. That's what I'm talking about. Upshifting and
> downshifting just don't wear out syncros prematurely. I've consistently
> driven vehicles over 200,000 without having to replace syncros. I'm sure
> they were worn, but who cares? They were no more worn than anything else on
> the vehicle at that point.

I agree. Using engine braking to help save brake wear makes a
measurable savings on brake pads and shoes while incurring an
immeasurable amount of wear on the clutch and transmission. I've never,
ever worn out either a clutch or a transmission and I've driven standard
shift for 30 years up to and including OTR rigs.

My standard shift cars get nearly double the brake pad life of my
automatic vehicles so I know the savings there are real. Since I've
never replaced either a clutch or a transmission, the cost there is zero
for downshifting and using engine braking.

Matt

 

"Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3qRKh.1778$FS5.1711@trndny09...

> While gear wear may be small enough not to pose a problem over the life
> of a transmission, that's not true of synchronizers, which do wear if a
> transmission is shifted without matching rpms. The sloppier the shifts,
> the more wear and tear.

True, but only to a point. Wear is going to occur in any tranny, but when
the wear does not affect the tranny over its useful life, then that amount
of wear is neglible. That's what I'm talking about. Upshifting and
downshifting just don't wear out syncros prematurely. I've consistently
driven vehicles over 200,000 without having to replace syncros. I'm sure
they were worn, but who cares? They were no more worn than anything else on
the vehicle at that point.

>
> > Transmissions and engines are always out of synch in terms of rpm's
whenever
> > a shift occurs - whether that is upshifting or downshifting.
>
> I beg to differ, Mike. If you match RPMs, there is no significant
> difference, which is why you can shift without using the clutch if you
> match revs accurately. Granted, not many people do it or can, but like
> any other skill, you can develop it with practice.

Consider the normal shift process. Accelerate, simultaneously take your
foot off the gas and press in the clutch. From that point on the engine
rpm's do not match the speed of the tranny. That's why we have syncros.
Agreed, you can match them and I've done that millions of times, but in
normal driving, 99% of the population just does not do that, and the manual
tranny is no worse off for it.

>
> > That's the
> > whole purpose and reason behind a synchro. I wondered about the Hyundai
> > transmissions based on what had been posted. If indeed, they do not
suffer
> > shifting well, then that's a design issue. Brian's historical comments
seem
> > to suggest this as well.
>
> That may well be true, but it's irrelevant to whether one should go easy
> on the synchros or not, since the empirical evidence suggests that they
> are prone to wear. We can complain about it - and we should - but it
> won't change the need to adjust our driving styles to suit.

This is the only point I would strenuously challenge Brian. I disagree that
there is empiracal evidence of excessive wear to the syncros. I do agree
they are a wear item, but that's life. They don't wear out in tens of
thousands of miles. Like I said, I've driven them hundreds of thousands of
miles. There does come a point where worrying about wear just isn't worth
the worry. The rest of the car is going to be junk at the point where you
do enough damage to the syncros simply by downshifting.


--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3qRKh.1778$FS5.1711@trndny09...
>
>> While gear wear may be small enough not to pose a problem over the life
>> of a transmission, that's not true of synchronizers, which do wear if a
>> transmission is shifted without matching rpms. The sloppier the shifts,
>> the more wear and tear.
>
> True, but only to a point. Wear is going to occur in any tranny, but when
> the wear does not affect the tranny over its useful life, then that amount
> of wear is neglible. That's what I'm talking about. Upshifting and
> downshifting just don't wear out syncros prematurely. I've consistently
> driven vehicles over 200,000 without having to replace syncros. I'm sure
> they were worn, but who cares? They were no more worn than anything else on
> the vehicle at that point.
>
>>> Transmissions and engines are always out of synch in terms of rpm's
> whenever
>>> a shift occurs - whether that is upshifting or downshifting.
>> I beg to differ, Mike. If you match RPMs, there is no significant
>> difference, which is why you can shift without using the clutch if you
>> match revs accurately. Granted, not many people do it or can, but like
>> any other skill, you can develop it with practice.
>
> Consider the normal shift process. Accelerate, simultaneously take your
> foot off the gas and press in the clutch. From that point on the engine
> rpm's do not match the speed of the tranny. That's why we have syncros.
> Agreed, you can match them and I've done that millions of times, but in
> normal driving, 99% of the population just does not do that, and the manual
> tranny is no worse off for it.
>
>>> That's the
>>> whole purpose and reason behind a synchro. I wondered about the Hyundai
>>> transmissions based on what had been posted. If indeed, they do not
> suffer
>>> shifting well, then that's a design issue. Brian's historical comments
> seem
>>> to suggest this as well.
>> That may well be true, but it's irrelevant to whether one should go easy
>> on the synchros or not, since the empirical evidence suggests that they
>> are prone to wear. We can complain about it - and we should - but it
>> won't change the need to adjust our driving styles to suit.
>
> This is the only point I would strenuously challenge Brian. I disagree that
> there is empiracal evidence of excessive wear to the syncros. I do agree
> they are a wear item, but that's life. They don't wear out in tens of
> thousands of miles. Like I said, I've driven them hundreds of thousands of
> miles. There does come a point where worrying about wear just isn't worth
> the worry. The rest of the car is going to be junk at the point where you
> do enough damage to the syncros simply by downshifting.

How many Hyundais have you owned? Hyundai transmissions ARE prone to
synchro wear. The sychros in my Excel's transmission only lasted about
30K miles before grinding in 1>2 and 2>3 shifts became common. The
rebuilt transmission suffered the same fate, so it wasn't a fluke. I've
been driving standard transmissions for over 30 years and this was the
first car I ever had a synchro problem with. If you follow the any of
the Elantra sites, you'll hear plenty of tales of worn out clutches and
synchros. Do whatever you want with your car, but you may not like the
end result.

 

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:CJnLh.7109$dG.6392@trndny08...
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>>> This is the only point I would strenuously challenge Brian. I disagree
> that
>>> there is empiracal evidence of excessive wear to the syncros. I do
> agree
>>> they are a wear item, but that's life. They don't wear out in tens of
>>> thousands of miles. Like I said, I've driven them hundreds of thousands
> of
>>> miles. There does come a point where worrying about wear just isn't
> worth
>>> the worry. The rest of the car is going to be junk at the point where
> you
>>> do enough damage to the syncros simply by downshifting.
>> How many Hyundais have you owned? Hyundai transmissions ARE prone to
>> synchro wear. The sychros in my Excel's transmission only lasted about
>> 30K miles before grinding in 1>2 and 2>3 shifts became common. The
>> rebuilt transmission suffered the same fate, so it wasn't a fluke. I've
>> been driving standard transmissions for over 30 years and this was the
>> first car I ever had a synchro problem with. If you follow the any of
>> the Elantra sites, you'll hear plenty of tales of worn out clutches and
>> synchros. Do whatever you want with your car, but you may not like the
>> end result.
>>
>
> My mistake Brian - I had lost track of the fact that you were talking
> specifically about Hyundai synchros and thought you were talking about
> manual tranny's in general.

No, not at all. In general, you're correct, synchro wear is not a big
issue. It does seem to be with Hyundai transmissions. FWIW, I was also
told this by the guy who rebuilt mine.

 

"Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:CJnLh.7109$dG.6392@trndny08...
> Mike Marlow wrote:

> >
> > This is the only point I would strenuously challenge Brian. I disagree
that
> > there is empiracal evidence of excessive wear to the syncros. I do
agree
> > they are a wear item, but that's life. They don't wear out in tens of
> > thousands of miles. Like I said, I've driven them hundreds of thousands
of
> > miles. There does come a point where worrying about wear just isn't
worth
> > the worry. The rest of the car is going to be junk at the point where
you
> > do enough damage to the syncros simply by downshifting.
>
> How many Hyundais have you owned? Hyundai transmissions ARE prone to
> synchro wear. The sychros in my Excel's transmission only lasted about
> 30K miles before grinding in 1>2 and 2>3 shifts became common. The
> rebuilt transmission suffered the same fate, so it wasn't a fluke. I've
> been driving standard transmissions for over 30 years and this was the
> first car I ever had a synchro problem with. If you follow the any of
> the Elantra sites, you'll hear plenty of tales of worn out clutches and
> synchros. Do whatever you want with your car, but you may not like the
> end result.
>

My mistake Brian - I had lost track of the fact that you were talking
specifically about Hyundai synchros and thought you were talking about
manual tranny's in general.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

I enjoyed this thread. I haven't shifted a manual transmission, or
double clutched, in many years, if you don't count the paddle on the
Shiftronic on my 07 SF, which I have played with a couple of times just
to see what it did. (Does that count as shifting without using the
clutch?) We used to have manual steering, manual brakes, carburetors,
vacuum operated windshield wipers, etc., but no more. Thank God.


Ed MacArthur

 

"Edgar MacArthur" <edgarmac@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4605DD71.4010607@verizon.net...
> I enjoyed this thread. I haven't shifted a manual transmission, or
> double clutched, in many years, if you don't count the paddle on the
> Shiftronic on my 07 SF, which I have played with a couple of times just
> to see what it did. (Does that count as shifting without using the
> clutch?) We used to have manual steering, manual brakes, carburetors,
> vacuum operated windshield wipers, etc., but no more. Thank God.
>
>

Good lord Ed - you had to go and bring up those cursed vacuum operated
wipers didn't you? There was nothing worse than those things.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

Edgar MacArthur wrote:
> I enjoyed this thread. I haven't shifted a manual transmission, or
> double clutched, in many years, if you don't count the paddle on the
> Shiftronic on my 07 SF, which I have played with a couple of times just
> to see what it did. (Does that count as shifting without using the
> clutch?) We used to have manual steering, manual brakes, carburetors,
> vacuum operated windshield wipers, etc., but no more. Thank God.

Frankly, I wish the Elantra had manual rack and pinion steering, as the
over-boosted power steering has very little feel to it. It sucks, IMO.