CNBC Says only racing enthusiasts buy manuals, let’s correct them

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by JSH

You mention real world vs testing. For a manufacturer the test is reality - that is all we get credit for. Compliance and avoiding millions (USA) and billions (Europe) in fuel economy fines are based on what the testing shows.

That supports my opinion that the manual transmission test itself is part of the problem.

Also explains why GM put that 1st-to-4th manual skip shift feature in some of its big V8 sports cars back in the day? (Hmmm... do they still?)

I wonder what we'd find if we looked at owner-reported fuel economy of manual vs. automatic transmissions for a non-hypermiler's type of car. How about, say, the Subaru/Toyota BRZ/82? My theory is the manuals will still be less bad / better than the automatics, relative to their respective EPA ratings. I may poke around Fuelly and see, just for fun.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Overdrive reminds me of the 1985 Volvo I drove. It had a 4 (or was it 5?) speed manual with an overdrive switch on the shifter knob. Never knew what that actually did to reduce the RPMs, or why they didn't just add another gear.

I do know coming back from Canada without the overdrive made for a noisy and inefficient trip back.

Likely similar to the 4+3 in the C4 Corvette my brother owned.

Jalopnik: Called the “Doug Nash 4+3,” the transmission was essentially just a Borg-Warner Super T-10 four-speed with an overdrive bolted to the ass-end. That electro-hydraulically controlled two-speed overdrive was automatic, engaging when the driver let off the gas (i.e. under low load), and could be turned on and off via a button on the top of the shifter.

https://jalopnik.com/the-chevrolet-c...smi-1825119474

[JSH]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

That supports my opinion that the manual transmission test itself is part of the problem.

Also explains why GM put that 1st-to-4th manual skip shift feature in some of its big V8 sports cars back in the day? (Hmmm... do they still?)

I wonder what we'd find if we looked at owner-reported fuel economy of manual vs. automatic transmissions for a non-hypermiler's type of car. How about, say, the Subaru/Toyota BRZ/82? My theory is the manuals will still be less bad / better than the automatics, relative to their respective EPA ratings. I may poke around Fuelly and see, just for fun.

Small sample size but if you look at Fuelly for 2019 Corolla Hatchbacks with the 2.0L

8 Automatics (CVT) averaging 36.0 mpg (EPA Combined = 36 mpg)
4 Manual (6-speed) averaging 34.1 mpg (EPA Combined = 31 mpg)

EDIT:
Looking at European Ratings the autos still beat the manuals on the WLTP cycle but they are a lot closer. From the UK site nextgreencar:

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by JSH

I guess that depends on what manual transmission Allison is using as a benchmark. If Allison is benchmarking a 4 or 5 speed manual they might be more efficient.

For urban transit buses here, nowadays the manuals are usually 5 or 6-speed.

In the USA, the Allison 3000 series is popular for Class 6 medium duty trucks used for vocational applications. The Eaton manual option would be a Fuller 9-18 speed or Eaton Ultrashift automated manual. The Allison is the least fuel efficient option but the easiest to drive. (As one would expect from a 6 speed auto with a torque converter)

I often see medium-duty trucks with 6-speed manuals. Nowadays fewer have been fitted with anything more than a 9-speed here.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by JSH

Small sample size but if you look at Fuelly for 2019 Corolla Hatchbacks with the 2.0L

8 Automatics (CVT) averaging 36.0 mpg (EPA Combined = 36 mpg)
4 Manual (6-speed) averaging 34.1 mpg (EPA Combined = 31 mpg)

I don't know why, but the gearing on the 6-speed manual TSX is much closer ratio and shorter than the automatic. As a result, it gets worse fuel economy. My assumption is most manufacturers cripple their manuals similarly.

As I've always complained, the 6th gear is useless on my car because there's no straight long enough on a racetrack to necessitate 6th gear, yet it's too short to be useful for highway cruising.

[Fat Charlie]

... Because sporty.

As if having that much better control over your gears than an AT wasn't sporty enough.

[Xist]

I was happy to see someone bring up tire chains and then you completely moved past.

Sorry, my posts per hour have been way down lately. It seems like the longer that TPgate continues the more difficulty that I have accounting for each passing day.

This is still June, right?

Weird how I remembered various details from this scene, but not the piano:


I do have one theory about where my time goes. Imagine me looking around my 43" monitor and saying this to the wall:

[freebeard]

It turns out my son'e SRT-8 has the Autostick.



He confirms — put it in Autostick, floor it and let the TCM shift up just before the redline. Don't think you can do that with VWs.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Not that I became totally unfavorable to manuals on any application, but it's hard to deny automatics became favored when it comes to maintenance schedules, as most of the routine procedures became simpler than replacing a clutch pack on a manual.

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

... Because sporty.

It might not be only due to this, even though surprisingly some older cars had a shorter gearing for sporty versions which actually rendered their top speed lower than some conventional versions. Seemed like a good excuse to increase the amount of gears in sportier models in order to retain a wider gear spread...

As if having that much better control over your gears than an AT wasn't sporty enough.

Nowadays the sequential manual mode is enough for most circumstances when a more spirited driving is considered either desirable or just funny.