11-03-2011, 06:51 PM
|
#11 (permalink)
|
(:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
|
I thought the last gen EPA ratings were pretty good...
|
|
|
Today
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
11-03-2011, 07:17 PM
|
#12 (permalink)
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 2,442
Thanks: 1,422
Thanked 737 Times in 557 Posts
|
The "point" to an automatic isn't just lazy drivers, it's the commute. Thus, the need to eat, text and change radio stations all at once.
The single place, otherwise, where an automatic tends to be superior is in towing.
|
|
|
11-03-2011, 11:22 PM
|
#13 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Red Deer, AB
Posts: 421
Thanks: 39
Thanked 96 Times in 69 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinduck
Good thing about old-fashioned Europe... when taking your driving lessons, you have to do your driving test on a stick; if you take your test on an automatic, you get a note in your driving license saying that you are not allowed to drive stick shifts.
And I guess the guy from the Strassenverkehrsamt will not issue you a license if you think the only way to shift is UP :-)
Amazingly, over here we sometimes have problems with auto trannys, especially if the car has this broaaaaad brake pedal. Because, what do you do on a stick when the revs go up? You stomp on the clutch with your left foot to put the next gear in. Bingo. With nowadays vacuum-assisted brakes, the tyres start protesting immediately, let alone the traffic behind you :-)
I was wondering anyway why auto trannys are not frowned upon in this forum... there is not a single car in existence which you can get with manual and auto with a better mileage in the auto version. If you are serious about saving fuel, you just have to go manual... even the most modern double clutch transmissions (e. g. from VW, the 7-speed version) use about 0,5L/100km more fuel than the same engine/vehicle combination with a stick shift.
But I disgress.
so long,
tinduck
|
Well, here it really is the other way around. Not that it should be,but it is. When my son was looking at drivers training (necessary for a good insurance rate), the cost was substantially higher and the wait time a lot longer if he wanted to train in a standard. The system discourages driving standards, and I believe that is a big reason most people here don't know how to drive them and don't want to. Another thing is that some vehicles sold here, mine included, don't even have a standard option. Everywhere else in the world it's offered with a manual, but not here. It wouldn't matter for me anyway since my wife flat out refuses to drive one.
I say good for the girl that wanted to go for it, even if she missed a lesson or two, she'll be a better driver when she gets it mastered.
__________________
Almost all my driving is done 1-5 miles at a time.
Best short trip: 2.4 l/100 km, 3.9 km
|
|
|
11-04-2011, 11:06 AM
|
#14 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,194
Thanks: 112
Thanked 511 Times in 213 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
I thought the last gen EPA ratings were pretty good...
|
My point was that the EPA ratings are a estimate that doesn't (and can't really) take into account changes in driving technique. If all the shifting happens at exactly the same time, then there's basically no difference in the FE you'll get.
The advantage of a manual in my opinion is that you the driver have information that an automatic transmission doesn't have--what is about to happen. An auto has to pick gears so that it's "prepared" for whatever may happen next. With a manual, you the driver can pick a gear that is optimized for what you're about to do next.
__________________
Diesel Dave
My version of energy storage is called "momentum".
My version of regenerative braking is called "bump starting".
1 Year Avg (Every Mile Traveled) = 47.8 mpg
BEST TANK: 2,009.6 mi on 35 gal (57.42 mpg): http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...5-a-26259.html
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Diesel_Dave For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-04-2011, 11:30 AM
|
#15 (permalink)
|
Hypermiler
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,321
Thanks: 611
Thanked 434 Times in 284 Posts
|
Well put, Dave.
__________________
11-mile commute: 100 mpg - - - Tank: 90.2 mpg / 1191 miles
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to PaleMelanesian For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-05-2011, 07:19 PM
|
#16 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Lurker
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 9
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
I never let my daughter drive my 86 Chevy FS PU 3 'on a tree.' Talk about lousy gas mileage. I hate to think it being a auto.
|
|
|
|