interesting trend? Slush boxes getting better MPG's?

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by garys_1k

The next trend in autoshifting, already in use in Europe (e.g. Volkswagen) are dual shaft, dual clutch automatics. One shaft for odd gears, another for even. Engage both first and second gear at the same time, then engage the odd shaft clutch to pull away. When it's time to upshift, let out the odd shaft clutch and bring in the even. While second gear is in use and the odd shaft's clutch is open, shift to third for the next shift. Continue on up to top gear.

If wet clutches are used the only penalty is the oil pump. If dry clutches are used you have identical losses (small) to a manual trans, over 95% efficiency. Give the driver shift paddles if he wants to be in charge, but override for engine overspeed.

All that complexity and expense and for what? Gimme a plain ol' 5-speed.

[metromizer]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

All that complexity and expense and for what?...

Let's face it, most kids (future consumers) won't ever learn how to drive a stick. The goal would be a hybrid manual-automatic transmission that anyone can drive, with the efficiency of a manual gearbox. With shifts that take small fractions of a second, it opens the door to all sorts of possibilities:

no energy sapping torque converter
no gear change torque spike to break loose the drive tires in ice or snow

"looks and feels like an automatic to the driver, but delivers the effieciency of a manual". I will say the cost is going to have to come down, to make those things viable to put in any daily commuter car. I've seen a $14,000 transaxle for a dunebuggy... <google Mendeola>

[Bror Jace]

"In the North American market, stick is not for economy, it is for sport."

Up until this year very few people in the North American market purchased for economy ... so I'm not sure if the above is true.

But now people are buying many vehicles expressly for economy (pardon the ironic pun). So far, I'd guess they are buying based on over-all size and dumbed-down EPA numbers. It will take a couple years of data and some historical perspective to see if the economy-minded driver in this hemisphere equates a manual tranny with economy any more.

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

All that complexity and expense and for what? Gimme a plain ol' 5-speed.

Right on, even a normal manual transmission is complicated enough without adding a bunch more mechanical bits. The only real advantage of "automatic" manuals is racing on the track at the limit where two hands on the wheel is a very slight advantage. Nobody should be driving hard enough on the street where using one hand to shift is of any importance.

I think it all comes down to marketing and how a car manufacturer can get people to buy the next "big" thing. What does a 2008 4 cyl. Honda Accord do that a 1998 4 cyl Accord can't? Empty your wallet maybe? I assume the 2008 will be slightly safer but other than that? I doubt its significantly faster, quieter, or more fuel efficient given that is gained 100's of pounds...

If I could buy a new 1998 accord with a manual transmission for $12,000 I would do it today without even looking at any other new or used car...
Anyways, that's another thread for someday.
Ian

[joey]

Well, in contrast to most folks in this thread, I unabashedly prefer auto transmissions. I had the chance to drive a manual recently, and while I got the hang of it soon enough, I didn't fancy the extra attention I needed to pay toward shifting whenever approaching (or departing) stops. I got interested in manuals for the FE advantage, but it's no longer worth it to me. I'd rather lose a few MPG and maintain a much more enjoyable driving experience than gain the MPG and devote any more brainpower to managing the vehicle than necessary. Especially when in stop-and-go traffic (e.g., city driving), driving a manual quickly becomes a chore (at least for me). I can drive less to make up the difference, but when I do drive, I don't want to battle the car. YMMV.

[Doofus McFancypants]

Joey -
Yes it does take more attention to drive a manual - But many of us PREFER to be more connected to the car. kinda like the "be one with the car" idea. After years of driving a manual it becomes second nature to some extent - but you always have that connection.

I am hoping that the FE pressures drive auto makers to offer Manuals with better gearing. maybe they can package with some basic aero packages ( factory Moon Discs?) i would pay a K or more for a car that was in line with what my "goals" are.

[Nevyn]

Originally Posted by joey

Well, in contrast to most folks in this thread, I unabashedly prefer auto transmissions. I had the chance to drive a manual recently, and while I got the hang of it soon enough, I didn't fancy the extra attention I needed to pay toward shifting whenever approaching (or departing) stops. I got interested in manuals for the FE advantage, but it's no longer worth it to me. I'd rather lose a few MPG and maintain a much more enjoyable driving experience than gain the MPG and devote any more brainpower to managing the vehicle than necessary. Especially when in stop-and-go traffic (e.g., city driving), driving a manual quickly becomes a chore (at least for me). I can drive less to make up the difference, but when I do drive, I don't want to battle the car. YMMV.

Understood, and nicely put. Christ's comments hold true; here's some other things. A LOT of hypermiler types take the manual for the ability to drop it in N and shut down (FAS) or install some sort of injector kill-switch knowing that there isn't any worry about transmission damage, whether or not they are "flat-towable," etc. It's stuff like this that allows one man to take his 2007 Honda Fit Sport with a 5-speed into 65+ MPG territory. Another thing is that folks can swap out lower gears and get better ratios - not possible on autos.

I will agree about the extra brainpower, with one caveat - time. If you have a desire to learn manual, and work hard at it, I'd say it takes a good 3 months before your brain is fully trained on it. At that point shifting isn't something you *do,* it's something that just happens.

[aerohead]

What is the context for the claims? Is it EPA estimates? Is it real-world comparisons? Robots driving? City? Highway? On a dynomometer without the other axle even spinning? ---------------- I understand that automakers are attempting to compensate for Barbie and Ken's inability for cognitive behavior when behind the wheel by calibrating shift points for maximum mpg,however,those numbers only have to satisfy a laboratory,not a real road.Please help with specifics,it's critical that everyone understands where these numbers come from.

[stevey_frac]

Originally Posted by LostCause

I think the future trend will be servo-operated manuals. I believe the automatic Smart Car has an computer/servo controlled manual, clutched gearbox. To the layman, you get the best of both worlds.

- LostCause

Yes, the smart car has a servo operating clutch, and and is an automatically shifted manual transmission. I had a 6 speed version. It came with a racing style slap stick shifter type dealie. You hit the stick forward, you got the next higher gear. And again to get the next. Pull it back to get the next lower. It also had a button on the side to get the automagic shifting happening. I've been driving stick for years, and it taught me a thing or two about driving stick! No word of a lie. All the efficiency of a manual, all the convience of an automatic. Too bad the linear actuators in them couldn't last more then 100k miles at a time, and cost $2000 a pop. Give me a real clutch anyday.

I think the automagics are generally getting better because of things like lock-up torque converters, and more speeds. Back in the day, autos were 3 speeds. Now my fathers sienna is a 5 speed, and Mercedes has a 7 speed. If manuals start coming with 6 speed double-overdrive trannies, and people learn that they have to downshift to 5th to pass on the highway, manuals will once again rule in FE.
-Steve

[Frank Lee]

Back in the day they were 2 speeds!