Less engine, more gears

[Frank Lee]

I'm not going to load the car with ballast just so it's loaded "properly". Yes, it is overpowered. I've long thought of disabling two of the four cylinders, or repowering with a smaller engine. But it runs good, reliably, and reasonably efficient so there we are.

The act of shifting is in itself inefficient. Skip-shifting gets me in top gear quicker. Fewer clutch activations. Fewer quick throttle-offs. Fewer throttle-ons when accelerating.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by litesong

Since this thread's last post, the disastrous CVT, DCT, & 9 & 10 speed automatic repair follies for so many customers, have blasted to bits the desire to save gasoline money, while giving ten(20?) times more money to transmission mechanics.

I recently had a talk with a Bolivian tourist who owned a F-150 with the 3.5L EcoBoost and the 10-speed transmission. He was very satisfied with the truck. DCTs on the other hand might be quite a PITA on harsh operating conditions.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by litesong

....... the disastrous CVT, DCT, & 9 & 10 speed automatic repair follies for so many customers, have blasted to bits the desire to save gasoline money, while giving ten(20?) times more money to transmission mechanics.

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

I recently had a talk with a Bolivian tourist who owned a F-150 with the 3.5L EcoBoost and the 10-speed transmission. He was very satisfied with the truck.

One vote fer 10-speed transmissions. Do I hear a bid a 2? Do I hear 2? Sold american!

[litesong]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I'm not going to load the car with ballast just so it's loaded "properly".
The act of shifting is in itself inefficient. Skip-shifting gets me in top gear quicker. Fewer clutch activations. Fewer quick throttle-offs. Fewer throttle-ons when accelerating.

Jawohl! Fer sure.
The great increase in transmission gears started with small 65HP economy cars of the latter 70's & 80's, so they had a chance to keep up with "real" cars. Those with 5-speed manual trannies, I viewed with much envy. But that didn't keep me from skipping gears with my 4-speed manual. I love turning my manual transmission into half an auto tranny by skipping gears in a 5-speed. With little traffic & accommodating terrain, my 6-speed manual Elantra gets the 1-3-6 or 2-4-6 shuffle. Its BETTER than half an auto tranny.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by litesong

The great increase in transmission gears started with small 65HP economy cars of the latter 70's & 80's, so they had a chance to keep up with "real" cars. Those with 5-speed manual trannies, I viewed with much envy.

Even before WWII, American cars often had fewer gears than some of their European counterparts. Sure there were some exceptions such as the Ford Prefect which retained the 3-speed while the competition was already switching to 4-speeds.

But that didn't keep me from skipping gears with my 4-speed manual. I love turning my manual transmission into half an auto tranny by skipping gears in a 5-speed. With little traffic & accommodating terrain, my 6-speed manual Elantra gets the 1-3-6 or 2-4-6 shuffle. Its BETTER than half an auto tranny.

Skip-shifting, or no shifting at all depending on how accomodating the terrain would be, is another long-time American tradition. No wonder engines such as Chrysler's flathead-six had a long life in the market, since they already got their peak torque just a little above idle.

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I'm not going to load the car with ballast just so it's loaded "properly". Yes, it is overpowered. I've long thought of disabling two of the four cylinders, or repowering with a smaller engine. But it runs good, reliably, and reasonably efficient so there we are.

The act of shifting is in itself inefficient. Skip-shifting gets me in top gear quicker. Fewer clutch activations. Fewer quick throttle-offs. Fewer throttle-ons when accelerating.

Reasonable and efficient. Agreed. MPG is only a marker and far from the important ones.

And I’m well aware of skip-shifting. Even though it goes against best chances of long term reliability.

So the question for any of us is power-to-weight. So far as I can tell, everything out there is overpowered. Even when loaded.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by slowmover

I’m well aware of skip-shifting. Even though it goes against best chances of long term reliability.

As long as traffic and terrain conditions are safe for skip-shifting, I see no point for it to decrease long-term reliability.

[19bonestock88]

I’m not 100% sure but it seems that skip shifting can lead to premature gear synchronizer wear... I’ve always skip shifted my car and now for the past 5-6K I’ve had to be cautious on any shift into third gear to avoid a crunch...

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

As long as traffic and terrain conditions are safe for skip-shifting, I see no point for it to decrease long-term reliability.

I see no point to it at all. A moments emotional gain against long term health. My pickup has a transmission from a medium duty truck. Slow isn’t the word. The operators is clear in advocating every gear, every time. I get (or used to get) arguments from other owners about skip-shifting. They’re the ones now buying new clutches and re-man transmissions, or have spent it forward to the next owner.

Gee, I can float the gears in this truck, if I so choose. Again, why?

It’s part of owning it. Shifting is a rhythm. Part of being smooth in every eventuality.

[19bonestock88]

I hadn’t thought of the skip shifting causing premature clutch wear too, but that seems even more likely than the synchro wear and I’m fairly certain that my bad 3rd synchro is related to going 1-3-5 the first 25k I had the car before the problem surfaced