Brake pad life

[Hogq]

Yes, there are lots of factors. I use tow/haul mode full time, so engine braking helps reduce the need for brakes. Also, I am not pulling a toad, or trailer. My coach is under the max weight by about 700 lbs, and I drive around 60mph.

[cfo111]

Originally Posted by Hogq

Yes, there are lots of factors. I use tow/haul mode full time, so engine braking helps reduce the need for brakes. Also, I am not pulling a toad, or trailer. My coach is under the max weight by about 700 lbs, and I drive around 60mph.

Question you would rather you transmission slow you down which is wear and tear on the tranny then you brakes. Also poorer fuel MPG.

[bubbles]

Originally Posted by cfo111

Question you would rather you transmission slow you down which is wear and tear on the tranny then you brakes. Also poorer fuel MPG.

Wear and tear on the tranny?

[cfo111]

Originally Posted by bubbles

Wear and tear on the tranny?

Yes when your tranny down shifts all the time to slow down your huge load clutch disks in auto takes a beating. Have you ever seen what they look like? If you did you most likely won't asked this compared to size of disk pads on brakes. And which would be easy and cost effective to replace. My bet would be Pads.

[Hogq]

I look at it this way: My FR3 uses a F53 Chassis, with 18K GVWR. It is really a medium commercial rated platform. Meaning under commercial duty it would be loaded fully for some percentage of its use. The remaining use would be empty. My motor coach weighs in at 17,300, which is quite near its rated capacity, all the time. Therefore it is constantly “hauling”. I have the 5Star tune, which makes the engine braking a bit more aggressive. I don’t use tow/haul to save the brakes, but i do believe that that mode shares the braking load between the trans, and the brake system which is more efficient and safe overall. I think the transmission is designed to manage the load, as long as I am within the rated weight for the chassis. As far as using more fuel, it should be a wash, as using tow/haul mode, the drivetrain is moving the same load upon acceleration, the only difference is using mechanical advantage through use of lower gears in a slightly delayed up shift program, as required, to increase speed. Slowing the vehicle using engine braking does not use more fuel.

[cfo111]

Transmission shops will love you people. And as far as fuel you never get into lockup on converter . so just say if you have a 5 speed with lock up you get 6 speed you lose one speed you rps are much higher so more fuel. My Ford manual also state this did you read your ?

[bubbles]

Originally Posted by cfo111

Yes when your tranny down shifts all the time to slow down your huge load clutch disks in auto takes a beating. Have you ever seen what they look like? If you did you most likely won't asked this compared to size of disk pads on brakes. And which would be easy and cost effective to replace. My bet would be Pads.

First off the tranny will not down shift until the allocated speed (gear selected) to down shift is present and secondly, the tranny down shifts automatically every time you come to a stop. Tow/haul may not allow the maximum MPG on flat terrain but it is recommended to be used in mountainous areas so when the brake is tapped the tranny will down shift automatically. Without tow/haul manual selecting a lower gear is the norm. Why do you think all those transmission gears are available to be selectable? God forbid one ever selects something other than "D"; the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

[myxkp]

Originally Posted by Hogq

Yes, there are lots of factors. I use tow/haul mode full time, so engine braking helps reduce the need for brakes. Also, I am not pulling a toad, or trailer. My coach is under the max weight by about 700 lbs, and I drive around 60mph.

Yeah for another safe driver!
Seems most folks don't know even at 60 that's 88 feet per second, with an average reaction time of 3/4 of a second, that's 66 feet traveled before the brakes are applied.

[TitanMike]

Originally Posted by myxkp

Yeah for another safe driver!
Seems most folks don't know even at 60 that's 88 feet per second, with an average reaction time of 3/4 of a second, that's 66 feet traveled before the brakes are applied.

Yes, and as people get older the reaction time increases. Reaction times start to noticeably slow when you enter your 30's and by 60's it can be significant.

You also have to allow for distractions from conversation with passengers.