Skipping gears on downshifts

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: LS21

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Most people aren't trying to speed-shift. Hell, a 5-3 downshift on my old 951 (160,000 miles) doesn't even strain the synchros. There's no undue resistance, and there's certainly no grinding/groaning sound.
ZV

theres no resistance if you do it slowly...thats because youre doing it casually, allowing the syncros to do their job. when you want to drive spiritedly, not casually, then there becomes a need. its analogous to saying "theres no need to rev-match, just let the clutch up slowly and let it do its job in mating to the flywheel".

I have never, not once, encountered a situation on public roads where you need to rush a shift that much. This isn't the SCCA runoffs we're talking about here.

And your analogy does not stand. Failing to rev match and simply taking the clutch up slowly causes excessive wear on the clutch lining. Synchros are sufficiently durable that one needn't worry about wearing them from shifting too slowly. In fact, you put less strain on the synchros from shifting slowly, whereas in the case of the clutch, wear is increased by slower operation.

Yes, on a racetrack, these techniques have a place. But they are beyond superfluous on public roads. You just plain never need them with modern cars on public roads. You may enjoy them, you may want to use them. That's all well and good. But they are decidedly not "needed".

ZV

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: LS21

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Most people aren't trying to speed-shift. Hell, a 5-3 downshift on my old 951 (160,000 miles) doesn't even strain the synchros. There's no undue resistance, and there's certainly no grinding/groaning sound.
ZV

theres no resistance if you do it slowly...thats because youre doing it casually, allowing the syncros to do their job. when you want to drive spiritedly, not casually, then there becomes a need. its analogous to saying "theres no need to rev-match, just let the clutch up slowly and let it do its job in mating to the flywheel".

I guess everyone here just has differences of "slowly" and "fast." See, I can be going around town or on the highway and shift to a lower gear anytime I want without difficulty. If I try to shift into 1st (tops out at 49mph) at 35mph+ or 2nd (tops out at 70mph) at 50mph+, there is SOME resistance trying to shift into those gears. But considering how high the revs would be at that point, that is a good thing.

If you're boy-racer power-shifting into every gear, THAT is your problem. You should not have to double-clutch to shift smoothly, unless you're driving like an idiot or there is something wrong with your transmission.

Now if you want to, feel free! Nothing wrong with that. But the rest of the world can continue with our "granny shifting, not double clutching like you should."

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I have never, not once, encountered a situation on public roads where you need to rush a shift that much. This isn't the SCCA runoffs we're talking about here.

And your analogy does not stand. Failing to rev match and simply taking the clutch up slowly causes excessive wear on the clutch lining. Synchros are sufficiently durable that one needn't worry about wearing them from shifting too slowly. In fact, you put less strain on the synchros from shifting slowly, whereas in the case of the clutch, wear is increased by slower operation.

Yes, on a racetrack, these techniques have a place. But they are beyond superfluous on public roads. You just plain never need them with modern cars on public roads. You may enjoy them, you may want to use them. That's all well and good. But they are decidedly not "needed".

ZV

I'm not sure people double-clutch even on the racetrack. I'm not a racer, but I find that when I'm really driving spiritedly, I can still get away with heel-toe revmatching into second around a curve, even up near redline. It seems that the only point where you'd have the time to double-clutch on a racetrack would be during a long braking section before a tight corner, and I still say that revmatching ought to be enough to prevent excessive wear. Not that racers care a whole lot about synchro wear.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
You do not need to double-clutch with a modern transmission. For explanation see ZV.

OP - you're doing fine. Just rev match and as long as you aren't jerky and you aren't forcing the shifter into gear, you're fine.

And you need a little something called torque to skip gears going up Although my wife does go from 3rd to 5th in her Accord four-banger.

Thank god someone posted this.

 

[Nyati13]

Originally posted by: amdhunter

Originally posted by: Nyati13
I skip gears up and down all the time, just shift correctly (ie clutch and revmatch, and with new syncros you don't even have to revmatch perfectly) and there's no problem.

Also, engine braking causes no damage unless you slip the clutch too much or over-rev.

I don't think I've ever skipped gears up...I couldn't really imagine any scenario where I'd do it either...lol

I frequently skip a gear when I hit the speed limit on city streets, which gear depends on what the speed limit is. On the freeways I'll skip 4th gear alot.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Vic
And most importantly, you brake with the brakes, not the engine. Saving the life of your sub-$100 brakes pad with your expensive drivetrain is the stupidest idea ever, not to mention poor driving skill. The purpose of downshifting as you brake is so that you are in the appropriate gear at all times.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one Vic. I downshift all the time to slow the car. It saves fuel and allows for a much smoother control over the car's speed. Done right, I don't need the brakes at all while I'm on the freeway.

Engine braking is one of the best ways to control speed if you do not need to stop. If you need to stop, yes, that's what the brakes are there for, but if you just want to scrub off 10 mph, then dropping into 4th and engine braking is just fine. As you say though, when coming to a stop, just use the brakes.

ZV

Here I would argue that there is a difference between braking and downshifting to control minor variations in speed while at mid/range rpm. I do the latter all the time. Perhaps I should have been clearer. What I meant is that you shouldn't be using the engine to brake the car when you should be using the brakes. I don't drive autos, so I forget that you have to use the brakes all the time just to control small variations in your speed in those...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: LS21

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Most people aren't trying to speed-shift. Hell, a 5-3 downshift on my old 951 (160,000 miles) doesn't even strain the synchros. There's no undue resistance, and there's certainly no grinding/groaning sound.
ZV

theres no resistance if you do it slowly...thats because youre doing it casually, allowing the syncros to do their job. when you want to drive spiritedly, not casually, then there becomes a need. its analogous to saying "theres no need to rev-match, just let the clutch up slowly and let it do its job in mating to the flywheel".

Originally posted by: spidey07

You need practice then. Rev-match. It should be smooth as butter, the shifter will literally move itself into gear.

youre mistaken. youre blending the 2 independent/exclusive processes of the actual gear shift, and the clutch engagement. double-clutching help ease the gear change. rev-matching help eases the engagement.

You're correct on that last part, but if your synchros are that slow, or if you're that genuinely concerned about damaging them, there's something wrong with your transmission. The only time I double-clutch on the street is while doing a rolling downshift into 1st, and that only because I have one of the infamous "glass tranny" WRX's that lack a proper synchro on 1st gear.

 

[PeeluckyDuckee]

I engine brake to slow down the vehicle all the time. Going 70km/h on a straight road and notice you're approaching a tight turn ramp that will merge onto the highway, in my car I'll simply downshift from 4th to 3rd and hold it at 3rd and my speed will be under control. Under the same situation in an automatic I've seen many people apply their brakes prior to the turn, let go, and then reapply the brakes during the turn until they've hit the straight aways. The difference here is that in the automatic vehicle his car's speed is continually increasing and increasing unless he applies the brakes. In my manual I'll just throw it in one gear, let go of the gas, and the speed is well under control.

 

[LS21]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I have never, not once, encountered a situation on public roads where you need to rush a shift that much. This isn't the SCCA runoffs we're talking about here.

And your analogy does not stand. Failing to rev match and simply taking the clutch up slowly causes excessive wear on the clutch lining. Synchros are sufficiently durable that one needn't worry about wearing them from shifting too slowly. In fact, you put less strain on the synchros from shifting slowly, whereas in the case of the clutch, wear is increased by slower operation.

Yes, on a racetrack, these techniques have a place. But they are beyond superfluous on public roads. You just plain never need them with modern cars on public roads. You may enjoy them, you may want to use them. That's all well and good. But they are decidedly not "needed".
ZV

the clutch is constructed to wear to perform its job; there are people on 100k-m+ cars on original clutch - because they're "sufficiently durable". your action of rev-matching then is easily construed as superfluous.

your argument is the generalization that one part is more durable than the other. there are cars where synchronizers are more prone to failing. some older nissans are known for difficult shifting into lower gears. these are part of the impetus for modern cars with double- and triple-cone synchronizers on the lower gears.

to continue your first sentence, there are many things not needed "on public roads".... 150hp+, more than 4 forward gears, stability control, etc. by extension, nothing higher capacity than a 1995 camry is needed on the road. well thats you applying your myopic view to a broad generalization in an absolute manner. when anything serves a purpose, there is a need.

 

[exdeath]

Gears aren't exactly a wear item. I've never seen transmission gears stocked next to oil filters and brake pads

And there is no more wear on the synchros or clutch than there is when you upshift normally. You'll put more wear on your clutch slipping it on purpose that one time up a steep driveway from a stop than you will in years of normal driving.

Just don't over rev it on a down shift. There is no protection against forced mechanical over revving.

I skip gears shifting up and down on occasion. Down is obvious, when I'm cruising around town in 6 gear turning 1200 RPM and down shift to second when I want to get on it. If that is bad for the car, then every automatic transmission ever made needs to be recalled.

And again accelerating up an empty on ramp I'll burn through first second and second, then coast a bit and go straight into 6th when I'm at the right speed, after waiting a little longer to shift.

What do you do when you are in 5th and you have to hit the brakes hard for a moment? Do you stay in 5th gear or work your way down 4th and try to accelerate or do you go straight to 2nd? Again, think of what an automatic does.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: amdhunter

Originally posted by: LS21

Originally posted by: amdhunter

meshed? <-- n00b, but trying to learn.

a common misconception is that when someone is changing gears, theyre bringing gear teeth together.. but theyre always fully linked.

what theyre linking together is the dog collar to the gears.. (dog collar splined to the driveshaft... ie spin dog collar = spin wheels) what the synchronizers do is ease this engagement between dog collar and gear

Don't they disengage to go to the alternate gear for that set? For example, when they change from 1-2 or 3-4 or 5-6? Or is the synchronizer what moves?

The gears rotate freely on their shafts, but they are always meshed. Only the gear selector is forced to rotate with the shaft via splines, and it slides along the shaft via a shift fork when you move the lever. When you shift into gear, it locks that particular gear set to the shaft. The synchronizers sit between the gears and the gear selector and match the input and output speeds via frictional resistances so that they can lock in place smoothly.

You can feel the synchros working when you try to shift into a low gear at too high a speed. If you ever down shifted too early (say, tried to move into first from a roll after going into second) and had to hold the shifter trying to force it into gear and it wont quite go and you hear a whirring noise and felt a rubbing and vibration in the shifter as it progressively moves a little more and a little more until it finally clunks into place, thats the synchro at work. If you do this a lot though you are wearing the synchros and the fork bushings that make contact with the gear select collar.

The only time double clutching is necessary on modern cars is when you shift wrong and realize you are either about to bog or over rev the engine as you let out on the clutch part way, and have to stop mid release and slip it a little before letting it out fully or re-engage it and try again. Effectively using the clutch itself as the synchro. Anybody doing this needs to learn to drive manual, unless the have a reason for doing it on purpose.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: LS21

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I have never, not once, encountered a situation on public roads where you need to rush a shift that much. This isn't the SCCA runoffs we're talking about here.

And your analogy does not stand. Failing to rev match and simply taking the clutch up slowly causes excessive wear on the clutch lining. Synchros are sufficiently durable that one needn't worry about wearing them from shifting too slowly. In fact, you put less strain on the synchros from shifting slowly, whereas in the case of the clutch, wear is increased by slower operation.

Yes, on a racetrack, these techniques have a place. But they are beyond superfluous on public roads. You just plain never need them with modern cars on public roads. You may enjoy them, you may want to use them. That's all well and good. But they are decidedly not "needed".
ZV

the clutch is constructed to wear to perform its job; there are people on 100k-m+ cars on original clutch - because they're "sufficiently durable". your action of rev-matching then is easily construed as superfluous.

your argument is the generalization that one part is more durable than the other. there are cars where synchronizers are more prone to failing. some older nissans are known for difficult shifting into lower gears. these are part of the impetus for modern cars with double- and triple-cone synchronizers on the lower gears.

to continue your first sentence, there are many things not needed "on public roads".... 150hp+, more than 4 forward gears, stability control, etc. by extension, nothing higher capacity than a 1995 camry is needed on the road. well thats you applying your myopic view to a broad generalization in an absolute manner. when anything serves a purpose, there is a need.

More than 150 hp allows towing trailers, etc, but yes, it's not "needed". More than 4 forward gears save fuel (to a significant amount), but yes, they're not "needed". Stability control is a crutch for people who have no business driving and you're damn right that it's not needed.

You seem to be completely ignoring the part where I said, "You may enjoy them, you may want to use them. That's all well and good." Just because you have zero reading comprehension doesn't mean that I'm actually saying never to do it. Just because it's not necessary doesn't mean it's not fun. For 99% of modern cars in 100% of legal on-road situations, double-clutching is superfluous. It's not bad. It's not stupid. It's just not necessary. John Doe in his basic family car or Joe Student in his economy car don't ever need to worry about double-clutching.

As for the clutch being sufficiently durable, the people with 100,000 miles or more on their clutch (historically I get about 150,000 miles on mine) are people who don't slip the clutch between shifts like you suggested as an alternative to rev-matching. Slipping the clutch between shifts like that is a great way to limit its life to 60,000 to 80,000 miles. But yes, unless you're taking a 5 to 3 downshift (or other shift with a large gap in engine speed), in most cases rev-matching is indeed superfluous.

In any case, you have missed my point each time. You're all theory and no practical application.

ZV

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: Ragnarok2

EDIT: Also, a friend of mines swears that slowing the car down with gears is the best way to slow it down. I think that's retarded...doesn't it cause more wear to the gears if you do that, even if it's done properly?

Actually, engine braking doesn't harm your car at all. If anything, it prolongs the life of your brake pads.

Brake pads are WAY cheaper than a new clutch. What makes sense, double the wear and tear on a $1000+ part by downshifting through every gear every time you slow down, or slightly increasing the wear and tear on a $100 set of parts?

That said, there is a valid argument for downshifting through the gears in order to insure you have adequate power available if you need it.

OP, what you are doing will cause absolutely no harm to your car, especially if you are rev-matching before engaging the gear. You can also skip gears when upshifting. You would do this when accelerating quickly to a steady speed, like around town. 1-2-4, or 1-2-3-5, for instance. You don't need to go through the extra gears once you've already stopped accelerating.

 

[LS21]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
You seem to be completely ignoring the part where I said, "You may enjoy them, you may want to use them. That's all well and good." Just because you have zero reading comprehension doesn't mean that I'm actually saying never to do it. Just because it's not necessary doesn't mean it's not fun. For 99% of modern cars in 100% of legal on-road situations, double-clutching is superfluous. It's not bad. It's not stupid. It's just not necessary. John Doe in his basic family car or Joe Student in his economy car don't ever need to worry about double-clutching.

In any case, you have missed my point each time. You're all theory and no practical application.

ZV

Good for you, John Doe, and Joe Student. There are people who like to drive spiritedly (while still legally, and separate from being reckless). Nudging the shift lever and waiting for the synchronizers to work is in discord to this spirit. There are cars with known poor synchronizers like the bug-eyed WRX as mentioned above. ie.. pull into a parking lot, you'd rather be in 1st at 8mph, rather then luggg the 2.0L turbo'ed motor in 2nd or slip the clutch excessively

You ignore the counterpoints and want to represent the millions of drivers and cars on the road when that clearly isnt the situation

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: LS21

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
You seem to be completely ignoring the part where I said, "You may enjoy them, you may want to use them. That's all well and good." Just because you have zero reading comprehension doesn't mean that I'm actually saying never to do it. Just because it's not necessary doesn't mean it's not fun. For 99% of modern cars in 100% of legal on-road situations, double-clutching is superfluous. It's not bad. It's not stupid. It's just not necessary. John Doe in his basic family car or Joe Student in his economy car don't ever need to worry about double-clutching.

In any case, you have missed my point each time. You're all theory and no practical application.

ZV

Good for you, John Doe, and Joe Student. There are people who like to drive spiritedly (while still legally, and separate from being reckless). Nudging the shift lever and waiting for the synchronizers to work is in discord to this spirit. There are cars with known poor synchronizers like the bug-eyed WRX as mentioned above. ie.. pull into a parking lot, you'd rather be in 1st at 8mph, rather then luggg the 2.0L turbo'ed motor in 2nd or slip the clutch excessively

You ignore the counterpoints and want to represent the millions of drivers and cars on the road when that clearly isnt the situation

I drive a 3800 lb RWD car with a 400HP/400TQ V8 and rather universal manual transmission. I drive spiritedly, and not always legally. I never, ever have to "slow down" my shifts for the synchronizers. If you have a poor transmission, as you described, that is one thing. But your boy-racer shift techniques are entirely another.

What blessed vehicle is so lucky to have you as its owner exactly?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: LS21
You ignore the counterpoints and want to represent the millions of drivers and cars on the road when that clearly isnt the situation

I simply have the basic intellect necessary to understand that the "counterpoints" you offer have, at best, limited validity.

You are extrapolating very specific instances (e.g. specific cars with known abnormal synchro issues) into universals. I have consistently stated that my recommendations are non-universal (that would be why I keep using that phrase, "most modern cars"), but that they apply to the situations that are being discussed in this thread by everyone other than you.

I say again, aside from very specific vehicles that have abnormally-delicate transmissions, there is no need to double-clutch. There's nothing wrong with doing so, but it's simply not necessary for 99% of modern consumer vehicles.

ZV

 

[LS21]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I simply have the basic intellect

thats a good start

You are extrapolating very specific instances ... into universals. I have consistently stated that my recommendations are non-universal (that would be why I keep using that phrase, "most modern cars")

wrong. find the last place you said "most". this is as absolutist as speech can be:

Unless you're trying to turn a fast lap at Buttonwillow, there's absolutely no need to double-clutch a modern transmission. None.

There's nothing wrong with doing so, but it's simply not necessary for 99% of modern consumer vehicles.

more appropriate

 

[exdeath]

My car sounds like an auto sometimes when I short shift from first through forth at 1500 RPM before I cross the intersection.

Sometimes if I don't n00b it up and jam the shifter when it's in between forks, I can do the same thing at 6000 RPM.

And the T-56 just begs for more.

 

[LS21]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak

I drive a 3800 lb RWD car with a 400HP/400TQ V8 and rather universal manual transmission. I drive spiritedly, and not always legally. I never, ever have to "slow down" my shifts for the synchronizers. If you have a poor transmission, as you described, that is one thing. But your boy-racer shift techniques are entirely another.

What blessed vehicle is so lucky to have you as its owner exactly?

kudos and 5 cookies for you. cruise in your tallest gear, and go into 2nd at 40mph. tell me, does it shift in as smoothly OR as quickly as it does into 4th? can you pound it straight into 2nd? if you can, i feel sorry for YOUR car.

what i drive is not germane to the discussion, but i once owned a 93 sentra and it (along with other b13 se-r) would absolutely refuse to go into 1st unless virtually at a stop. also, its i4 motor is not as happy running at 1300rpm as a v8 would be.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: LS21
wrong. find the last place you said "most". this is as absolutist as speech can be:

Unless you're trying to turn a fast lap at Buttonwillow, there's absolutely no need to double-clutch a modern transmission. None.

You conveniently leave off the part of that same goddamn post where I said "Most people aren't trying to speed-shift."

ZV

 

[Umberger]

Originally posted by: amdhunter

Originally posted by: Nyati13
I skip gears up and down all the time, just shift correctly (ie clutch and revmatch, and with new syncros you don't even have to revmatch perfectly) and there's no problem.

Also, engine braking causes no damage unless you slip the clutch too much or over-rev.

I don't think I've ever skipped gears up...I couldn't really imagine any scenario where I'd do it either...lol

The Corvette actually forces you to shift from 1st to 4th if you are below a certain RPM. It's part of their emissions control. You can buy a chip to disable it, though...

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: LS21

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak

I drive a 3800 lb RWD car with a 400HP/400TQ V8 and rather universal manual transmission. I drive spiritedly, and not always legally. I never, ever have to "slow down" my shifts for the synchronizers. If you have a poor transmission, as you described, that is one thing. But your boy-racer shift techniques are entirely another.

What blessed vehicle is so lucky to have you as its owner exactly?

kudos and 5 cookies for you. cruise in your tallest gear, and go into 2nd at 40mph. tell me, does it shift in as smoothly OR as quickly as it does into 4th? can you pound it straight into 2nd? if you can, i feel sorry for YOUR car.

I do it all the time. It's followed by lots of noise and g-force and sometimes a lot of smoke.

There is also a thing commonly referred to as a close ratio transmission.

No manual I have ever driven has ever had any problems shifting from 4th or 5th out of a light cruise and going into 2nd to pass. The car will buck or bog, depending on power band, due to the upsetting of the drive train, but there isn't a problem with the shift lever moving smoothly from 5th to 2nd with the clutch depressed. Just once and not twice even.

Heh 40 mph? Hell I go from 4th to 2nd at anything under 60 mph.

 

[amdhunter]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: Ragnarok2

EDIT: Also, a friend of mines swears that slowing the car down with gears is the best way to slow it down. I think that's retarded...doesn't it cause more wear to the gears if you do that, even if it's done properly?

Actually, engine braking doesn't harm your car at all. If anything, it prolongs the life of your brake pads.

Brake pads are WAY cheaper than a new clutch. What makes sense, double the wear and tear on a $1000+ part by downshifting through every gear every time you slow down, or slightly increasing the wear and tear on a $100 set of parts?

That said, there is a valid argument for downshifting through the gears in order to insure you have adequate power available if you need it.

OP, what you are doing will cause absolutely no harm to your car, especially if you are rev-matching before engaging the gear. You can also skip gears when upshifting. You would do this when accelerating quickly to a steady speed, like around town. 1-2-4, or 1-2-3-5, for instance. You don't need to go through the extra gears once you've already stopped accelerating.

There have been times when I felt like doing that, like gunning into a on-ramp, or just trying to push in front of someone from a red light (just an example.) It never occurred to me that I could just go straight into a cruising gear after gunning it sorta hard.

 

[amdhunter]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: LS21

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak

I drive a 3800 lb RWD car with a 400HP/400TQ V8 and rather universal manual transmission. I drive spiritedly, and not always legally. I never, ever have to "slow down" my shifts for the synchronizers. If you have a poor transmission, as you described, that is one thing. But your boy-racer shift techniques are entirely another.

What blessed vehicle is so lucky to have you as its owner exactly?

kudos and 5 cookies for you. cruise in your tallest gear, and go into 2nd at 40mph. tell me, does it shift in as smoothly OR as quickly as it does into 4th? can you pound it straight into 2nd? if you can, i feel sorry for YOUR car.

I do it all the time. It's followed by lots of noise and g-force and sometimes a lot of smoke.

There is also a thing commonly referred to as a close ratio transmission.

No manual I have ever driven has ever had any problems shifting from 4th or 5th out of a light cruise and going into 2nd to pass. The car will buck or bog, depending on power band, due to the upsetting of the drive train, but there isn't a problem with the shift lever moving smoothly from 5th to 2nd with the clutch depressed. Just once and not twice even.

Heh 40 mph? Hell I go from 4th to 2nd at anything under 60 mph.

THAT is exactly what I feel like doing sometimes. I know that the engine can take it, and that I can shift it somewhat smoothly if I really tried. (It might buck a bit, but I know it won't overrev.)

There are times that I want to get more power than 4th or 3rd, and I'll be in 5th doing 50. Sometimes I just wanna bring the car into 2nd, and work my way back up. I just wasn't sure if I had to go 5th-4th-3rd, then 2nd.

I tend to get up to 5th and 6th gear rather quickly to save gas on longer trips, and I just want that extra punch sometimes. (Like when that kid we all know with the Honda pulls up next to me...lol)

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: LS21

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak

I drive a 3800 lb RWD car with a 400HP/400TQ V8 and rather universal manual transmission. I drive spiritedly, and not always legally. I never, ever have to "slow down" my shifts for the synchronizers. If you have a poor transmission, as you described, that is one thing. But your boy-racer shift techniques are entirely another.

What blessed vehicle is so lucky to have you as its owner exactly?

kudos and 5 cookies for you. cruise in your tallest gear, and go into 2nd at 40mph. tell me, does it shift in as smoothly OR as quickly as it does into 4th? can you pound it straight into 2nd? if you can, i feel sorry for YOUR car.

what i drive is not germane to the discussion, but i once owned a 93 sentra and it (along with other b13 se-r) would absolutely refuse to go into 1st unless virtually at a stop. also, its i4 motor is not as happy running at 1300rpm as a v8 would be.

I say AGAIN! You need to learn how to drive a manual if you having these difficulties. You should NOT be downshifting into first unless your creeping or starting from a dead stop.

I don't mean to be offensive, but go practice some.