I disagree with those who recommend putting the car in reverse while parking facing downhill. The timing belt (or chain) tensioning pulley is placed on the slack side. If the engine rotates in reverse the belt or chain can jump time. Better to use first gear when facing downhill and reverse when facing uphill. Turn the front wheels towards (or away from) the curb. Use the parking brake.
Wheels towards the street if facing up, towards the curb if facing down, in the proper gear for whichever way gravity will pull the car (reverse if facing up, first if facing down), with the hand brake (or foot brake) firmly engaged.
Never once have I had a car get away from me when I wasn’t there…unless it was being towed (and that only happened once). Been doing it this way - on some pretty steep hills - for an awful long time. I know I’m not the oldest out here, but I’m certainly not the youngest, and have lived and traveled all over the world.
Don’t think that leaving a car in high gear with the parking brake off will hold the car on a hill. I had a 71 VW bus that I had to adjust the valves on every time I changed the oil. I turned the engine over by leaving the bus in high gear and pushing it back or forth with one hand from underneath so I only had to make one trip under the car.
I still remember the canned sequence from my driver’s ed instructor lo these 37 years: “turn off the key, put it in park, parking brake”.
Not so much because of the parking brake part (I’m in flat country now where back then I was in the mountains), but because just about every car I’ve had since then wouldn’t let you turn the key all the way to the “off” position until after you put it in park.
I’d have to agree with oldtimer. Cars in third gear can roll, even on a moderate hill. They can even roll in second gear if the hill is steep enough.
I always left my manual transmissions in reverse when parking on a grade, regardless of the direction the car is pointing. Reverse gear usually has a gear ratio of about 3.3:1, while first gear has a gear ratio that is typically about 2.95:1, so there is greater piston movement relative to tire movement when the car is in reverse. (Ray referred to this as “mechanical advantage.”) Ratios of 3.3/2.95 would add about 12% to the resistance of the car to move under gravity when in reverse as opposed to when in first gear.
When a car with a dead battery is started on a hill or by a strong push from behind, the procedure is to turn the ignition key to “on” and to put the car in third gear with the clutch in until the car gains enough speed (as much as safety allows) and then to quickly let the clutch out. The car will continue to coast slowly in third and hopefully the alternator will generate enough electricity to start firing the engine. If, on the other hand, you put the tranny into first gear and quickly let the clutch out while coasting, you could possibly lose some teeth on the steering wheel as the car comes to an abrupt halt, thereby demonstrating the difference in “mechanical advantage” between first and third gears. The car’s resistance to rolling under gravity is about three times greater when it in first gear than when it in third gear. (I’m assuming third gear is 1:1 here — I’m talking about three-speed trannys. If the car has Overdrive, of course that should be used in starting a battery-dead car.)
One quick question. I haven’t driven a manual transmission car recently. Do any of the newer manual transmission cars require the transmission to be in Neutral in order to remove the ignition key? Some sort of “safety” reason?
Mechaniker: “When a car with a dead battery is started on a hill or by a strong push from behind, the procedure is to turn the ignition key to “on” and to put the car in third gear…”
I was taught the same procedure, but in second gear.
Mechaniker: “Do any of the newer manual transmission cars require the transmission to be in Neutral in order to remove the ignition key?”
I’ve never seen one that did.
Nope…every one I’ve seen you can remove the key in 5th (6th if available) and at 100MPH if you want. You’d be an idiot - likely a dead idiot - but you could. Newest manual I’ve been in was an 09…someone else’s…I don’t remember, it was a ways away from where I live.
I can offer one reason for an effective parking brake on automatic equiped vehicles. Years ago, I was called by a couple of less seasoned drivers who had comandeered the company vehicle ( late eighties chrysler minivan) for a delivery. They could not leave their destination as they could not move the gear lever. I went home, got on a bicycle and rode to their location. With the application of great force, I was able to move the gear lever into reverse and back the vehicle down the severe grade it was parked on. I have never seen an occurenced as severe as this but, given a little slip before parking brake engagement and a worn parking pawl in an older vehicle, what would be less cash consumtive to rectify? I would give the nod to renewing the parking brake.
I81 — "I would give the nod to renewing the parking brake."True. If not used for a year or two, the parking brake mechanism, cables, etc. tend to rust in place. If you don't use it, you'll lose it.
Mechaniker, I think Saabs have the ignition in the console, and the only way to take the key out is to put the stick in reverse.
I81, I would have put a chock under the wheels then have the drivers who put themselves in that predicament to jack up the thing close to the drive wheel itself. How else will people learn to put on the parking brake AND MAKE SURE IT HOLDS before shifting to park?
chunkyazian — "I think Saabs have the ignition in the console, and the only way to take the key out is to put the stick in reverse."Interesting. So Saab, having its provenance in the aircraft industry and noted for its well-engineered cars, requires its cars be left in reverse gear when parked. (I assume they also have a parking brake.) That says a lot for the practice of parking a car in reverse.
The Saab 900’s did for sure. In the center console, between the seats. I thought it was entirely asinine the first time I saw one. The 9000’s didn’t, that was on the column. I can’t speak for any of the models since then.
I’ve always stopped, put the parking brake on, then put the car in either first or reverse - first if it would roll forward (were everything else to fail) and reverse if it would roll backwards. My thinking is that, if the compression of the engine and the parking brake were to both fail, I’d want the engine turning in the “correct” direction (the direction that it “expects” to be turning.) If you have an interference engine (like most cars being built in the last decade or so), can’t turning the engine backwards cause the pistons to contact the valves, essentially trashing the engine?
I also try to park so that when I put it in that gear, I won’t hit anything if I stall when I’m pulling out!
Also, I’m not very worried about the difference in mechanical advantage between first and reverse - either should be MORE than enough to hold the car in place. If there’s a loss of compression, neither’s going to work too well anyway.
“…can’t turning the engine backwards cause the pistons to contact the valves, essentially trashing the engine?”
…not unless the timing belt breaks.
When you think about it, turning the engine in the opposite direction makes everything happen in reverse motion, and that should include movement of the valves.
Gathering from the info here, one should turn the wheels toward the curb, put it in reverse if headed uphill, 1st gear if headed downhill, put a chock under all 4 wheels, and lock the doors.'
No, Whitey, turning the engine backwards will not cause the pistons to hit the valves.
@EllyEllis: “No, Whitey, turning the engine backwards will not cause the pistons to hit the valves.”
Maybe you should take a closer look at my answer. That’s what I said.
[sigh] You’re even argumentative when we agree.
Sorry, Whitey, I now see that you were quoting someone else. I do agree with you. I have been acused of saying things on here when I was quoting someone else, also. So much so that you guys on here think I am an idiot.
Meckaniker: If you have ever had to work on a Saab 900, you’d be less enthusiastic about the engineering. The key in the console is a natural collector of trash and liquids…a really bad idea.
Those were FWD cars with an inline engine…mounted backwards. The timing cover is just a few inches away from the firewall. Try changing the timing chain with that setup. To complicate things, the oil pump is mounted in the timing cover. This makes it very difficult to reinstall, as the drive gear has to exactly align, or you risk breaking it (ask me how I know). The auto trannies in these models were notoriously bad (although sourced elsewhere–Borg-Warner?–not Saab engineered). Auto-trannied 900s are non-existent today. They were all scrapped decades ago.
These and many other ‘Saab stories’ are the reason I hated the one my wife fell in love with and ‘had to have’. To be fair, it was a wonderful driving machine…when it drove.
My early SAABs had front wheel drive and parking brakes that operated only on the rear along with free wheeling on the transmission. You could then induce over steer while cornering with gentle application. You could also do “donuts” as well as a rwd car in snow covered parking lots. You may think this is a needless exercise, but we were taught if a collision is in inevitable in the older cars, it was better to “back” into it…Or start heading in the other direction as quickly as possible. I agree with jakedert…SAABs lost their advantages when they dumped the two stroke and others made awd and more reliable cars in general. Then SAABs became just another yuppie name plate instead of a real performance option.
No further comment!!