I drive a stick shift. Whenever I back up, I’ll hit the accelerator for a second or two as I back out of the space, and then take my foot off the gas and coast the rest of the way. While coasting, I’ll put the car into first gear and give it gas. Essentiall, the car goes from coasting backwards to accelerating forwards without stopping.
Is this bad for the car in any way?
It causes additional wear on your clutch.
Brakes are cheaper and easier to replace than your clutch components.
Not much harm, if any. You’re using the clutch to stop your rearward motion instead of the brakes. In the very long run, clutches are more expensive than brakes, but the extra wear doesn’t amount to much (unless you back up really fast.)
One little detail, though; if your car has drum brakes in the rear, you should occasionally hit the brakes hard in reverse. That’s how they self-adjust. A couple times a month should do it.
It’s funny. Every mechanic-type seems to say “NEVER DO THIS!”, but I often do it when the car is moving very slowly backwards, then I get in moving gently forwards. Yes it will cause wear, but I think less wear than somebody popping the clutch from a standing start and launching it hard.
If you want your car to remain in perfect condition forever, then don’t do it. In fact, don’t drive it at all. I think it comes down to how much wear and tear you are willing to accept in exchange for convenience. Personally, I think a small amount of this behaviour (done gently) is going to cause negligible ill-effects. But then, IANAM.
Trying to think of the gear movement in my mind. You might wear the syncro’s down a little faster, not sure. If it takes more effort to get into 1st gear then you are putting more wear on them. Better to use your brakes. If nothing else you will save wear on the clutch. If you’re a good shifter then 1st gear is the only gear that wears it down.
Yes, I’d say breaking the laws of physics is a Bad Thing.
I don’t think reverse gear ever has a syncronizer on it. (Now someone is going to come along and point out that the 1936 Peugout 205 had a syncro on the reverse, or somesuch.) You are, in fact, coming to a stop, but passing virtually instantaneously through it. I wouldn’t be quite so worried about the clutch as the fact that you are unnecessarily putting a high lugging load on the engine in the worst condition. How bad the load is depends on how much you feather the clutch, but its a good idea to avoid this if you want to keep your engine running over a long haul. (As a Subaru owner, I tend to think in terms of middle six figures for engine life. If you’re driving a Chevy Corsica then this is perhaps not quite such an issue for you.)
This isn’t the best thing you can do to your car, but it isn’t the worst, either. As long as you aren’t skimming the clutch all the time (lightly pressing on the petal while in motion) you’re not going to get nearly the clutch wear that many people put on their clutches. But, as Magiver notes, better to use your brakes, as replacing the pads is a simple, low-labor effort that doesn’t require pulling the engine.
Stranger
It’s the first gear synchro that suffers additional wear.
What if the car is an automatic? I’ve seen people back up and then put it in drive when they are still rolling backward a little bit. It always makes me cringe because it doesn’t seem like it can be good for things.
Relax!
This is not hurting anything in automatic or manual. We are talking about parking, not cranking down the road in reverse. Sure it would be best to park on a slight hill so that the car rolls a few mph’s before even attempting to shift but geeezzzz.
Lets get an engineer in here to figure on how much stress we can save on the friction materials by only filling the gas tank to 1/2 at most for some weight savings.
It certainly isn’t doing much to an automatic, as the torque converter will take up slight reverse loads at non-lockup speeds. A manual–a little more clutch wear, a little more load on the crank and the piston rods. No biggie, but not good for longevity. Better to use the brakes as intended unless you are stunt driving.
And a mechanical engineer who has done some consulting/analysis work for the automotive industry, I say that the best way to reduce engine bearing wear isn’t by reducing gross vehicle weight but by microfinishing the bearing surfaces (like Nissan does on their VQ-series engines) and/or picking a more optimal geometry for light bearing loads, as with the boxer configuration a la Porsche and Subaru. I don’t know why more automakers don’t do the former–it’s not that much more costly–and as for the latter the benefits are readily apparent for any low-torque vehicle (passenger car).
Stranger
You sound like you might know how bad it is (or not) to use main and rod bearings that have had a dial bore gauge passed thru them a few times - the ball tips leave marks that are only visible.