this may be a dumb question, but is it harmful to shift gears without the clutch simply by synching the engine rpm's? it is easy to do and i never hear the gears grind, but if there is some other damage that it causes i would like to know.

thanks guys

 

the only time ive seen that done that is in a stake truck and only on up shifting. you still had to use the clutch on the downside and the concept was that the farmers that owned the trucks could rebuild the trany for cheaper than replacing the brakes

 

I've done it in a '97 Jetta every so often and not experienced problems. Then again, I didn't make a habit out of it.

 

I wouldnt recomend it if it was way better than u would here about it way more.

 

I used to be able to do that on my 87 Accord..but only about 75% of the time...I could botch it up pretty good too.

So....I would say...it really isn't worth it....if you hit it right everytime, you won't be doing any damage...matching the revs exactly, you are acting as the synchros....but what is the advantage? Let the synchros do the work!

 

Something I'm confused about is that without the synchros, you need to double shift, but you still use the clutch. So why is it that it's possible to rpm match and shift (basically double shifting) *without* the clutch (at least in an '87 Accord and a '97 Jetta)?

It probably just boils down to me needing to learn more about how a transmission works.

 

I'm no expert, but it's my understanding that straight cut gears do much better at shifting without the clutch than helical cut. Can anyone confirm or deny?