[Lucky13]

This is just crazy, I can think of two specific situation yesterday when it would have been dumb as hell to put the car in neutral. I was stopped at a light to turn left and was probably car 5 or 6 and the cars kept moved up 10-15 feet at a time or 3-5 ft. I'm supposed to shift into first move 3 ft shift back to neutral shift to first back to neutral like 3-4 times in a 50-60 ft stretch. Sitting on a slight hill in the afternoon this was repeated maybe 7-8 times at a busy stretch where cars kept moving up either a couple feet or a full car length. You send me the specific information that shows shifting two to 5 times more often than needed puts less stress on your clutch or transmission. In a perfect flat world with zero traffic your theory might work unfortunately it isn't flat where I live, the traffic is constantly adjusting the position of their cars. Pulling out of my neighborhood at the stop sign its a mandatory right or left turn and you need to get up to speed quick because its a blind hill. You couldn't pay me to put my car in neutral at that spot. I could care less if I have to repair a part at 60,000 miles if it saves my life and saves about 5,000 additional shifts a year. This theory can be put beside the change your oil every 3,000 mile theory. Like I said never had a problem and drove this way with daily bumper to bumper traffic. I would have a forearm like Popeye if I had to constantly take an additional shift in traffic each time at a couple miles an hour, stop shift into neutral, cars move then shift back to first, cars stop shift back to neutral, cars move shift back to first. Please enlighten me how this is less wear with twice as many shifts.