It uses a different (larger) muscle group and is therefore more controllable and accurate.
Yes, but not as the initial movement.
See above. You may think that the answer is stupid but I can butture that it is quite true.
The reason that is bad has already been pointed out. Braking on the driving wheels only is potentially dangerous. That's why cars have brakes on all four wheels.
If you need to slow down then use the brakes, that is what they are for. With the exception of using a lower gear to help control (note, not reduce) speed on long descents, changing down before you know what gear you need to accelerate again is completely pointless. It breaks the drivetrain unecessarily, risks snatching the clutch release, is mechanically unsympathetic (however small) and gives no measurable advantage whatsoever. It is, by definition, less safe.
They are also a lot cheaper to replace than the clutch and gearbox.
No, it is not. It causes more wear to expensive parts than using the part of the car that was specifically designed for that purpose. If it was that much better to use engine braking then there would not be as much R&D into braking systems as there is. Manufacturers would put their efforts into improving the braking efficiency of the engine.
Why don't you just use the parts of the car for the purposes that they were designed for. Brakes to slow. Gears to go.
Why? If it is more efficient and easier on the car to not use the brakes why not do so everywhere?
-- Mark Foster, Brighton, Suslove, UK PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as...'I didn't have a chance.'" Driving, HMSO
