Shift points: EPA testing of manual transmissions (why beating MT ratings is easier)

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by B440

I owned a Jeep Renegade with the 1.4L Fiat turbo engine and it was nearly impossible to stay out of boost in any real world driving.

Sometimes a seemingly undersized (and underpowered) engine might get worse fuel-efficiency in a naturally-aspirated trim.

The Subarus have 2.0-2.4L engines that could be NA and still motivate the car (no boost). The Renegade would be a turd if the 1.4L was NA (no boost).

Since smaller engines are usually supposed to get driven at a higher RPM than it would be actually needed with a larger engine in a comparable setup (either NA or turbo), plus turbochargers fitted to small-displacement engines nowadays are often smaller in order to increase boost from low to mid RPM and some downsized engines are actually not so rev-happy at all compared to bigger NA engines, getting out of boost becomes effectively out of question.

[MetroMPG]

I just read [yet another] article about the disappearance of manual transmissions from North American new cars:


Last of the manuals: Automatic transmissions may be the norm, but some cars still let you pick your gears

And I practically fell out of my chair when the writer did NOT simply regurgitate the false statement that modern automatics are more efficient than manuals.

He gets the nuance:

... despite what the official numbers may say, a well-driven manual can still outperform or use less fuel than a poorly driven automatic.

I'd guess it's 1 out of 20 auto journos / bloggers who actually understands this.

The rest just look at the EPA ratings and tell readers that the CVT is better. Sigh.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

He gets the nuance

You know, nowadays most customers don't really care about learning how to shift their own gears, and the ones who just want to pretend to be a race driver once in a while are OK with the paddle-shifters for those moments when their last concern is trying to keep a reasonable fuel-efficiency.

[Autobahnschleicher]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

You know, nowadays most customers don't really care about learning how to shift their own gears, and the ones who just want to pretend to be a race driver once in a while are OK with the paddle-shifters for those moments when their last concern is trying to keep a reasonable fuel-efficiency.

And these often deny shifts or shift themselfes when you don't want them to.
Had to drive such cars before, absolutely hate it.
Give me gears 1-4 spaced close and short, gear 5th for topspeed and give me a tall 6th gear for fuel efficiency in a manual transmission and I'm happy.

[redpoint5]

Perhaps I've mentioned it before, but our kids are going to wonder why we call them "standard" transmissions when automatic is more common.

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

I just read [yet another] article about the disappearance of manual transmissions from North American new cars:


Last of the manuals: Automatic transmissions may be the norm, but some cars still let you pick your gears

And I practically fell out of my chair when the writer did NOT simply regurgitate the false statement that modern automatics are more efficient than manuals.

He gets the nuance:

I'd guess it's 1 out of 20 auto journos / bloggers who actually understands this.

The rest just look at the EPA ratings and tell readers that the CVT is better. Sigh.

Absolutely true, which is why I was dismayed when I briefly (1 month) owned an automatic Subaru and expected to beat EPA ratings as severely as I had in my previous 5-speed manual. It felt more sluggish and got much worse fuel economy.

It does seem that most automatics have taller top gears than their manual counterparts. The automatic version of my TSX will get better highway economy than my car no matter what I do. I actually get better fuel economy in deadlocked Portland traffic than highway because the gearing is so miserable.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Perhaps I've mentioned it before, but our kids are going to wonder why we call them "standard" transmissions when automatic is more common.

Just like we call the taildragger landing gear "conventional", despite the greater usage of tricycle landing gears on modern aircraft. Or how most Venezuelans refer to any manual transmission as "sincrónica" even when some are not fitted with synchronizers.