Engine braking or using Neutral and Brakes?
 

Which is best practice to save wear and tear on the car (thus repair bills):
slowing down by down shifting, using engine braking and brakes or
slowing down by putting the car in neutral and braking? Reasons?

I learned to drive a manual in a couple afternoons, and picked up some
details from this video series which recommends the neutral+brakes
method due to the "extra stress put on engine and drive line" by
downshifting and that it's cheaper to replace brake pads than an engine
or a transmission.

video produced by "Capital Dream Cars— Washington, DC’s
premier exotic car rental company as featured in The Washington Post,
Goss’ Garage, and SpeedTV.com."

With syncro rev its not much stress on tranny to downshift and engine brake. Because its effectively matching road speed to motor speed, the clutch wear should be minimal. This will also save the brake pads considerably. I had to get my rotors turned not too long ago, and the pads looked basically new after almost a year of driving.


edit: in the end, pads are cheaper than a clutch, but this is just my $0.02

Besides trying to look/sound cool, there is no legitimate reason to downshift while coming to a stop. You can leave the car in gear and just apply the brakes for the best fuel mileage, pushing the clutch just before the stop, or put it in neutral as soon as you brake. Whatever floats your boat, but downshifting is just a waste for DD. Unless you anticipate having to accelerate...

That is 1 of 2 reasons I rev-match/downshift when coming to a stop. If something happens and I need to get on the gas quick...I will already be in gear to do so. 2nd reason is rev-matching practice.

Right, but there is no need to row through the gears, even when anticipating acceleration. Just downshift to the appropriate gear when necessary. Practice is good. The OP summed it up perfectly already though, brakes are cheaper than a clutch.

That's what I usually do.

Everyone hit the nail on the head with this one, but I wanted to add my input. In normal stop and go driving, it is better to drop it into neutral and apply your brakes to slow down. By downshifting or even engine braking, you are putting added stress to the engine and specifically the transmission components. Will engine braking mess up your transmission or motor? Not likely. But you might get more life out of your main components by not using it as a normal means of braking.

Bingo. You also save a little gas as there is a 100% fuel cut while in gear.

is it bad to just brake and keep it in gear until your about to stop, clutch in and put it in neutral? thats what i do

That's not bad at all.

Brakes are for braking. I never shift into neutral though -- I like to be either braking or under power at all times. I definitely don't row throught the gears when I stop. Typically how often I downshift depends on the gear I started with and the length of the deceleration. In low speed stops -- say from stop light to stop light @ 35 mph -- I'll downshift once from 4th into 2nd once the rpms drop enough that accelerating from 4th would cause the engine to lug out. In long high speed slow downs like from 65-70 off a highway off ramp I might shift down twice ... once to 4th to achieve the correct access road or off ramp speed and then once again once the rpms have dropped sufficiently. There's not much engine braking going on since the RPMs are appropriate to the speed.

Exactly. I pick the appropriate gear to downshift to, and then use a mix of brake/downshift to come to the stop. I'm not sure I've ever seen or heard of someone "rowing through all the gears" when downshifting.

3rd gear is my usual downshift-to-stop gear.

Brake pads are cheaper than clutches and synchros. .02

the ultimate point right there.

True, but not very relevant. Anything mechanical is going to wear faster the more you use it, but the difference between changing the clutch at 40k miles and 130k miles is not going to be the difference between down shifting while slowing to a stop and coasting to a stop in neutral.