5 speed vs auto hill descent in 4 low..

B

bling

New member
I have read several threads, but I haven't found the exact answer to this. I know people said that for 3rd gens a manual trans was better for hill descent due to the better engine braking ability. It was not made clear however, whether they were talking about being in low 4 for the comparison or 2 hi or 4 hi or what. For comparison, how is first gear for the manual in 4 low vs being in 1st gear in the auto in 4 low for hill descent?

I am asking because I used to have a 93 Pathfinder many years ago and in low 4 in 1st gear (automatic), it crawled beautifully down steep hills without much brake input. However I went out with my buddy in his 2012ish Taco 4x4 w/TRD and even though we put it in low 4x4 and 1st gear (automatic), the truck just wanted to barrel down the hill until he put it in A-TRAC and VSC or whatever... Speaking of, I hate the binding sounds that come from those systems - they sound horrendous!
 
Register to hide this ad
That Taco is probably twice the weight of your old Pathy. Tire diameter plays a role too.

All other things being equal, engine compression braking with a manual will be more effective than with an automatic because the manual has a rigid connection through the clutch. The auto has the viscous connection of the torque converter.
 
Thank you. Hadn't thought about the weight aspect. I know my old Pathy had 31" BFG A/T's and his truck has whatever it came with from factory. I wonder the hill decent difference between 3rd gen manuals and autos compared to what I remembered the old Pathy being like.

I like to be able to go down steep hills in low 4 with very little effort and without the lovely binding sounds of an A-TRAC setup. As it is I'm looking to buy a 3rd gen, as they were a favorite vehicle when I was growing up, so I need to figure out what transmission I ought to be aiming for.
 
KidVermicious said:
That Taco is probably twice the weight of your old Pathy. Tire diameter plays a role too.

All other things being equal, engine compression braking with a manual will be more effective than with an automatic because the manual has a rigid connection through the clutch. The auto has the viscous connection of the torque converter.
Click to expand...



The weight isn't much off. And a manual to a clutch is basically an automatic to a torque converter so that in itself isn't much different. I will tell you with less HP the pathy probably has lower gear ratios. The first gen xterra was 4.9 so without looking it up that's my input.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It looks like a 93 Pathy is about 3800 pounds while a 3rd gen is about 3900 pounds. 2012 4x4 CC Tacos are about 550 pounds heavier than a 3g.
 
When I was young and wild-er I had a Mazda B2600 4x4 with a manual/ mechanical 5 speed.(we don't need no stinking computers). I was like a bull in a china shop with that thing cannon balling over boulders and through mud holes, I beat the hell out of it and had a blast!

The first time I used the Crawl Control in my TuRD I was on a very slick,wet muddy hill that I didn't think the 5000 lb Tank would get up. But as that sucker ground and clicked and shuttered I sat back and laughed my ass off as it clawed it's way up that slope with minimal slippage. The idea that a computer was kicking that hills ass with no stress to me tickled me pink.

If you want the fun and challenge of manually controlling your rig by all means do it but don't worry about the high tech gadgetry. All that noise means is that expensive tecno gear you paid for is doing it's job. So sit back, have a beverage, enjoy the view and relax. lol
 
PWD4R said:
The weight isn't much off. And a manual to a clutch is basically an automatic to a torque converter so that in itself isn't much different. I will tell you with less HP the pathy probably has lower gear ratios. The first gen xterra was 4.9 so without looking it up that's my input.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

About 10 years ago I had a '94 Pathfinder V6 5 speed on 31's for a few months, and I would do 3k rpm's at 75mph as opposed to my 5 speed '00 4Runner on 33's that is around 2600 rpm's. I know they're geared taller, but didn't offroad the Pathfinder so I couldn't compare the downhill 4 low aspect. My T4R needs a fair amount of additional braking in 4 low on a steep grade, but we're talking Big Bear, Ca on a steep downhill with anything from small to watermelon sized rocks in the trail. That's really the only trail I've been on that I felt I needed to be in 4 low going downhill. I guess it depends on what the "downhill in 4 low" terrain we're talking about. It would have been fine if it was a smooth-ish trail with no obstacles.
 
My V6 '97 4Runner needs added braking on steep hills in 4Lo/1st. Maybe requires a little less braking than my old '91 22RE truck.
 
Overall I was very impressed with the braking ability of my 96 in 4 Low 1st gear descending hills. Even on the steepest of hills I was crawling down with very minimal brake use.
 
Clayton74 said:
Overall I was very impressed with the braking ability of my 96 in 4 Low 1st gear descending hills. Even on the steepest of hills I was crawling down with very minimal brake use.
Click to expand...

I agree, my 96 does very well in 1st/lo 4wd. I just did a trail descending from 13500 ft very quickly and I barely used the brakes. Just on the switchbacks. If anything I was on throttle more than brake.
 
No worries.

I can say with decent confidence that no 3rd gen will have issues relating to 1st gear 4-lo downhill situations.

I have a 2001 with an auto, and with traction control, which makes it the most likely to make said noises.

It slows me down very nicely, and doesn't make those weird noises. That is because even in a 3rd gen with traction control (2001-2002), the traction control only activates with throttle applied, and over 3-5ish mph. 1996-2000 don't even have traction control (fact check: I can't remember if a 2000 does or not, but 96-99 def doesn't, and 01-02 def does).

If you apply the brakes though, you run the chance of ABS activating (again, only in 2001-2002), which could cause the clicking noise.

To summarize, 3rd gens shouldn't make weird clicking noises when using engine braking down a hill. :guitar3:
 
bling said:
I have read several threads, but I haven't found the exact answer to this. I know people said that for 3rd gens a manual trans was better for hill descent due to the better engine braking ability. It was not made clear however, whether they were talking about being in low 4 for the comparison or 2 hi or 4 hi or what. For comparison, how is first gear for the manual in 4 low vs being in 1st gear in the auto in 4 low for hill descent?

I am asking because I used to have a 93 Pathfinder many years ago and in low 4 in 1st gear (automatic), it crawled beautifully down steep hills without much brake input. However I went out with my buddy in his 2012ish Taco 4x4 w/TRD and even though we put it in low 4x4 and 1st gear (automatic), the truck just wanted to barrel down the hill until he put it in A-TRAC and VSC or whatever... Speaking of, I hate the binding sounds that come from those systems - they sound horrendous!
Click to expand...

Just get a 5 speed, it's a beast in 4/lo 1st gear downhill. Climbs like a mother too. Just touch the gas once in a while if you feel like you're going to stall.
Last time I went wheeling, the 4th gen behind me was like whats up with your truck?! Dont you use the brakes?! I was like, nope, dont need to. He rode the brakes down every hill. (2003 - 8cyl - 4/hi)
__________________
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 568 (members: 3, guests: 565)

Forum statistics

Threads
278,316
Messages
3,554,113
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Share this page

Trending content

Back
Top