Quote:
Originally Posted by elhigh
I'm glad you mentioned the Viper. Jalopnik asked the question the other day, how many gears do you really need? Citing the Viper, I said you could get away with one.
It depends on the engine, of course. With the Viper's tugboat torque, 3rd gets you from a standstill to over 100 without ever touching the shifter.
I used to have a 1978 Civic with the "Hondamatic" two-speed, and I really liked it. No clutch, but you still had to shift it. The shifter looked like one from an auto, too.
The torque converter gave it some extra twist, and the car was actually very zippy in traffic. First gear took you to 50mph, and Second took you everywhere else, all the way up to an Oh-God-I'm-Going-To-Die 95.
With a slightly taller Second and a lockup TC, that would have been one of the best transmissions I've ever driven. It's in my top five regardless.
I don't think more is better.
|
While you could "get away" with one gear, you need to make compromises that may be undesirable. Either acceleration will be severely hindered, or you need to have a very loose viscous coupling to allow the engine to get up to speed (which reduces efficiency) or you need some other power source to pick up the slack.
Your Viper in 3rd gear would be able to accelerate, but not rapidly until maybe 30-50 mph.
Powerglides (2-speed GM tranny) are often used in drag racing because they are light, can be made to be robust, and only one shift tends to improve consistency. With a loose torque converter, acceleration is still excellent, but you wouldn't want this combo for commuting to work every day.
If you are Koenigsegg, you can build a supercar with one speed... and use electric motors to boost low speed performance:
How The 1,500 HP Koenigsegg Regera Hits 248 MPH Without A Gearbox
However, for a conventional, basic commuter car where efficiency is the primary goal... more IS better (generally).