Why stick shifts rule...... 34.5 mpg's this morning on my wagon

[BearZDefect]

I too have noticed some autos getting better EPA highway fuel consumption than manuals due to taller gearing... so, why do the manufacturers make the top gear on the manual shorter than the top gear on the automatic? (It used to be the reverse, especially on 3sp japanese autos, like older Corolla autos). Don't tell me it is just because many people lug it in top gear most of the time due to laziness to shift down.

Come to think of it, I have seen a number of people drive their I4 Hondas in 5th at 1,500rpm, and accelerate too. If you've driven a Honda 4cyl of any vintage you know they don't thrive on that.

 

[jason07-1zzfe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by NovaMan:
To me, a manual is more fun even if I have to deal with traffic. I did it for 6 years in my '81 VW Rabbit, may it rest in peace. I loved that car.

---

I'm talking about the kind of traffic in which you test your car's ability to from zero to 3.0 mph and back about a hundred times while half of the others around you are becoming psychotically violent from sheer frustration. If that's your idea of fun, OK, we'll just have to agree to disagree. . .

---

Yep do it all the time. Not fun in any car. But I still prefer manual.

 

[buster]

AT are much better then they used to be. It comes down to whether one wants to have more control over their car. I prefer manual bc I'd rather make the decision to what gear I need to be in.

My wife's Focus AT sucks and so did my Dodge Ram. Both had issues. Ram had about 3 TSB when I had it in only 6 months time. No thanks. MT are more reliable over all.

 

[Pablo]

The worst AT is the GM piece of junk they put behind the 4.3L in the 1988 Blazer.......

 

[JHZR2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by XS650:
I really heavy stop and go in an automatic I use the a gear range that starts in 2nd so the automatic isn't shifting as much. Smooths things out a bit, saves some wear on friction materials in the transmission and makes the throttle reaction less touchy in acar with decent performance.

---

Ive read that this is a bad thing to do, as it is hard on the trans and makes a LOT more heat, and should be avoided...

JMH

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kestas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimbo:
Many manual transmission cars/trucks have a higher numerical final drive ratio. If the overdrive ratio is the same, it is possible for the highway mileage to be better with the automatic, at least in the EPA test.

---

Agreed (good point!) - on a practical level. But on a theoretical level with no other variables my statement still stands.

Detroit hates manual transmissions from an emissions standpoint. Everytime there's a shift, the throttle goes down to zero, then back up again. A rich plug of air/fuel mixture shoots through the engine and it's hard to meet EPA standards for emissions under those conditions.

---

Kestas:

I'm not picking on you, but the only thing I would add is that once an auto trans goes into lockup, it's just as efficient as a comparable manual, that is, it is suffering none of the slippage inefficiencies it does otherwise. Now if the mfr has hobbled one of its models, AT or MT, with an inefficient final drive, that's really another issue, but one that's very hard to isolate from relative efficiencies of transmissions.

I could not agree more regarding Detroit. I think they've been trying to kill MTs for decades. It will be very interesting to see where all this goes in the future. Some of the very high end makes (Ferrari for one, IIRC) have introduced true auto-manuals (manual insides, but with good enough computers and associated controls that they actually shift completely automatically). Since such a trans should be theoretically more efficient that a traditional auto, I wonder if more mainstream makes will evolve in that direction.

 

[Kestas]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:
.... the only thing I would add is that once an auto trans goes into lockup, it's just as efficient as a comparable manual, that is, it is suffering none of the slippage inefficiencies it does otherwise....

---

This would be true except that the fluid pump is still drawing parasitic losses from the drivetrain. This pumping is needed to maintain pressure on the clutch packs to keep the transmission engaged in gear and lockup (unless lockup is electronic, I don't know). That, and automatics are generally heavier, so you're lugging all this extra weight around.

Plus, some lockup designs are actually split-torque designs*, 60% of the power is mechanically transmitted, the other 40% through the torque converter. Though there's no slippage, the torque converter is still part of the power transmission package and it's main function is to dampen the vibrations reducing peak load on gear teeth.

(*) - My father generated a patent on one such design, of which Ford made good use. Back in the early 80s he developed a split torque for the second gear of a 3-speed automatic transaxle. It put an extra planetary gear set in the transmission and increased the EPA mileage for city cycle driving by 2 mpg!

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JHZR2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by XS650:
I really heavy stop and go in an automatic I use the a gear range that starts in 2nd so the automatic isn't shifting as much. Smooths things out a bit, saves some wear on friction materials in the transmission and makes the throttle reaction less touchy in acar with decent performance.

---

Ive read that this is a bad thing to do, as it is hard on the trans and makes a LOT more heat, and should be avoided...

JMH

---

You read some common misinformation. At the very low average power levels transmitted in stop and go traffic, it doesn't matter.

If you were pulling a big load up a hill at low speed in 2nd, churning the TC instead of using 1st when you should, then it would make a differnce.

For many years (1951-1957) Ford 3 speed automatics started is 2nd unless you manually selected low.

 

[JHZR2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kestas:
That, and automatics are generally heavier, so you're lugging all this extra weight around.

---

From what Ive seen as of late, the differense is only 50-70 lbs...

JMH

 

[JHZR2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by XS650:
For many years (1951-1957) Ford 3 speed automatics started is 2nd unless you manually selected low.

---

Now that you mention it, back in the 70s, the 4-sp auto trans in most gasser MBs selected 2nd gear at a standstill. The supposed reason was that old ladies dont like to have to hold the brake so hard at a stoplight...

It would kickdown if the throttle was beyond some certain point, for performance driving.

That said, a lot of older MB transmissions have issues... but then again, lots last hundreds of thousands of miles without...

JMH

 

[Win]

quote:

---

---

Ive read that this is a bad thing to do, as it is hard on the trans and makes a LOT more heat, and should be avoided...

JMH [/QB][/QUOTE]

The GM HydraMatic 4L80E in my Jaguar Xj12 does not bother with first gear. The V12 has trainloads of torque, so first is not really needed and is not used unless the tranny is switched into the sport mode or the go pedal floored.

It does have a massive tranny cooler and about a 21.5 qt capacity IIRC.

AFAIK, there are no longevity penalties from starting in 2nd.

 

[Win]

I'd much rather have a good autobox.

When I was younger, I avoided auto boxes like the plaque. Now that I'm a Geezer at 46, I avoid MT's like the plaque. I have purged our entire fleet of MT's save for a totally gutless 1999 S-10 2.2 liter.

I was never a great shifter anyway, and I know the autobox in my cars will never miss a shift at wide open throttle and float an expensive valvetrain, like I might.

The new autos are quite good. I bought a new Jaguar Xj8 for my wife and it has a 6 speed ZF tranny in it. If you can get 6 speeds in an auto, who needs a manual?

The new Xj8 gets 22 mpg city, incidentally, for a full size luxury car with a 4.2 liter V8. A lot of the efficiency comes from being constructed of aluminum, but I'm sure that 6 speed and torque convertor plays a part.

 

[Mitch Alsup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple_Se7en:
Not for folks using cellphones, cigarettes & liquid refreshments.

---

I can shift with a cup of liquid in my shifting hand without spilling a drop.

quote:

---

Also have to include the cost of a new clutch & bearing installation in a half-dozen years for many folks. Having a clutch last a vehilce lifetime is a rare occurence.

---

I have never burned out a clutch in my life, and have driven well ofer 800,000 miles in manually shifter transmissions. If you burn up a clutch in less than 80,000 miles you don't know how to use a clutch.

I currently hae 20,000 miles on my Ferrari F355B (a car noted for eating clutches) and 4,000 of these miles have taken place on race tracks. I had a dual mass flywheel problem (due to racing heat) and when we looked at the disk it has less than 10% of its wear surface consumed.

 

[oilpan49]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 97f150:

I drive a 5-speed, smoke, drink beverages and talk on my cell tel all at the same time, no problems.

---

Beautiful *****!!! I love it!!

 

[Gurkha]

I still know people here who start in 2nd, this with a measly 72bhp OM 616 engine on a mini bus chassis, talk about clutch wear. They would buy sub compacts with small high performance low torque high bhp, high revving engines and do the same, 2nd gear start and then complain about low pick up and abnormal clutch wear.

 

[Jimbo]

I miss the first gear lockout that both the GM 4L60E and Ford E4OD had. The current 5-speed Toyota automatic has no such feature, making smooth starts on slippery surfaces difficult.

 

[TallPaul]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimbo:
I miss the first gear lockout that both the GM 4L60E and Ford E4OD had. The current 5-speed Toyota automatic has no such feature, making smooth starts on slippery surfaces difficult.

---

Your right. The E4OD, when you select "2" it actually starts in "2," not 1 like many trannies. Another nice E4OD feature is the overdrive lockout switch.

 

[brianl703]

The GM 4T40E/4T45E with the 7-position selector has a 2nd gear start feature according to the manual (and common sense) It has 123DNRP .. if it didn't start in 2nd gear in 2, then why does it have a 1?

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brianl703:
The GM 4T40E/4T45E with the 7-position selector has a 2nd gear start feature according to the manual (and common sense) It has 123DNRP .. if it didn't start in 2nd gear in 2, then why does it have a 1?

---

Even though this isn't the case, a logical explanation would be that 2 meant it was limited to 1st and 2nd. It doesn't start in 3rd in 3 does it?

 

[TallPaul]

quote:

---

Originally posted by XS650:

quote:

---

Originally posted by brianl703:
The GM 4T40E/4T45E with the 7-position selector has a 2nd gear start feature according to the manual (and common sense) It has 123DNRP .. if it didn't start in 2nd gear in 2, then why does it have a 1?

---

Even though this isn't the case, a logical explanation would be that 2 meant it was limited to 1st and 2nd. It doesn't start in 3rd in 3 does it?

---

That's right. My wifes Aerostar (A4LD tranny) will start in first when the selector is in "2."