some honda autos get better mileage than manuals?

[shovel]

Originally Posted by dcb

Lol "Chest beating", funny because an ape could probably drive an auto with very little training.

it kinda sounds like you're trying to use this statement to deride automatic transmissions, but.. when did "easy to use" turn into a bad thing? all of us use dozens of easy to use things every day when there's a manual workaround.

driving, for example, is totally easier to do than walking. i hardly see how any conclusions of intelligence and/or manliness can be drawn just from whether or not you have to select gear ratios each time you accelerate

manual transmissions offer the hard core hypermiler an added means to exploit when actively attempting to get maximum mpg, and on inherently fun cars it's also fun to squeeze just the right amount of power at just the right time out of the engine using a manual trans... in those 2 cases a manual is great! beyond that, I just don't see the point. if you want to make life more tedious, why not outfit yourself a series of little pushbutton valves to open and close your fuel injectors from the drivers' seat? after all, you can do a better job manually than some ol' computer right?

of course, it all comes down to preference as well.. if you just like driving a stick, ok cool like driving one but liking one thing doesn't mean everything else sucks, strawberry ice cream doesn't suck just because you prefer chocolate.. it's just different. automatics have become quite good, they're really not that complex or mysterious and now that they're optimized for MPG on many cars they're becoming an excellent way for the average driver to drive the way they're used to driving and still save petroleum. Great, if you ask me

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by PaleMelanesian

The automatic only wins because it has better gear ratios AND an extra 6th gear. A manual with matching gears and ratios could match or likely beat that 40 mpg rating.

Back to the original question re: Honda. It's again a manual with ridiculous gear ratios vs an automatic with reasonable ones.

Both cars would be undrivable with the automatic gear ratios in a manual transmission. The vast majority of drivers would complain about having to slip the clutch too much just to get he car moving. The Civic has a double over drive setup in the automatic. These are not ratios that a normal human would be happy to drive on a daily basis. The computer controlled automatic doesn't have a problem with it. It shifts gears much faster and much more often than a human being could ever hope. In the case of the civic which still has a conventional lock up torque converter, it can use the lockup feature as an additional gear in between each shift.
I understand that people are wedded to the idea that manual transmissions are always more efficient than automatics because thats all they've ever known. It has been true for decades. But that doesn't mean you have to categorically deny the possibility that some autos are now more efficient than their manual equivalent. Technology is changing and people need to learn how to adapt. Personally I would still buy the manual because its cheaper and its more enjoyable for me (although the double clutch setup in the Fiesta sounds tempting) but its good to know that the vast majority of drones buying autos can finally get the same or better FE as the few manual transmissions still sold in this country.

[PaleMelanesian]

Is it that difficult to downshift?

I find the gear ratios in my Civic to be unacceptable short (high rpm). I usually start in 2nd gear. I doubt even a tall first gear would be worst than that.

Maybe I'm not a "normal human", but I would prefer an occasional downshift over being forced to run at buzzy high rpm all the time.

[PaleMelanesian]

I agree that better automatics are a good thing. They'll help more people than any manual transmission will, because more people buy them.

[dcb]

Originally Posted by shovel

...when did "easy to use" turn into a bad thing?...

No matter how expensive or wasteful something is? you can't think of any case where easy to use might not be the best idea? Really? I have to spell this one out for you?

Originally Posted by shovel

why not outfit yourself a series of little pushbutton valves to open and close your fuel injectors from the drivers' seat? after all, you can do a better job manually than some ol' computer right?

Really? that's what you think? that a human can outperform a computer at the sub-microsecond timing of injectors? Really?

The concept of technology must be very binary for you, either everything is amish or everything must be automated to the n'th degree. Shifting is one of those things that computers haven't caught up with, and even then they will only break even in the end, at huge expense over time.

Originally Posted by shovel

...they're becoming an excellent way for the average driver to drive the way they're used to driving...

Like I said, autos have been wasting gobs of fuel for many decades for lack of a shifter, and the standards that we hold our fellow drivers to is abominable compared to many other countries. Technology can solve a lot of problems, and a lot of non-problems, but invariably creates new ones, weather you can see them or not.

If you only look at things in terms of dollars and at an individuals "rights" and ignore less tangible costs and responsibilities, you will be blind ignorant to a multitude of problems, even (especially) if they are now someone elses problem.

[Allch Chcar]

The biggest variable power robber on classic Automatics is the wet clutch setup. When the torque converter activates the Efficiency is almost the same as a Manual transmission but is less due to requiring a pump to keep the transmission cool. Where the Ford Dual clutch is so efficient is that it uses a dry clutch which also does not like slipping. Classic Autos generate a lot of heat from slipping and without an oil cooler would overheat, part of the reason that coasting with an Auto is so risky. The DCT is just as efficient as the Manual because it does not slip, but that doesn't make it better, it makes it just as efficient. The Manual Transmission is a piece of simplistic transmission design. One in which the CONTROL of the transmission is solely in the hands of the driver, something a computerized transmission cannot outdo because the driver is controlling the vehicle. The 5spd is approx 85% efficient depending on model, gears, etc, the Borg/Warner one speed box in the Tesla is 98% efficient because it is even more simple. Classic Autos slip and they require a cooler so they are not as efficient the better EPA score is purely from wider gears and taller final drive gearing.

The CVT is considered less efficient than Manual transmission from a driveline loss/speed perspective. But I haven't seen a report on the CVT's exact efficiency. They're more effective than Classic Automatics and can beat Manuals in EPA scores but that is because they're packaged that way.

Tjts, that's just not true, if you'd driven the car the car back to back with both gear ratios we would believe you. It's no doubt the taller final drive would make the car slower but even suggesting it's undriveable is purely subjective. One things for sure, on older smaller cars where the classic transmission would have the same final drive the Manual won in every case. The difference now is that Autos are geared taller to give better MPG and Manuals are geared shorter to give better acceleration.

Shovel, do you really think that Manuals are hard to use? The Automatic is a supreme exactly of laziness. There is nothing you can do better with an Automatic that driver skill and a Manual couldn't meet or beat. Yes, it's less work for an Automatic but that's because the "control" of an automatic car is accomplished with one pedal. Saying one is better than the other is subjective. Automatics are more expensive they're slower/except the actual shift which is 1/10th of a difference, and less efficient overall. If you believe "the dumbing down" is bad raise your hand.

We're not saying that because we like Manuals you should all convert or die. We're saying that even suggesting that Automatics are more efficient is fallacy. Manuals are heavily gearing dependent whereas an Automatic wants/needs taller and wider gearing. On Factory cars most come from the factory with Automatics, sports cars are really the only outlet for 6spd Manual transmissions. Automatics get taller gearing because they affect the Company MPG score and Manuals are given shorter/closer ratios to appeal to those with more sporty ambitions.

This reminds me of the discussion where someone made the claim that FWD was Faster than RWD. Sure there's no discounting that a transverse engine is more efficient since it faces the same direction as the wheels but even suggesting that FWD is faster is a fallacy. The argument was that the FWD could handle corning at it's limits better and therefore take turns faster. The problem with that is the RWD vehicles he was comparing to were big cars with big engines and cushy suspensions. The point I'm trying to make is suggesting something and providing evidence to support it doesn't make it true, if it's still a fallacy because the conclusion is not accurate.

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by shovel

if you want to make life more tedious, why not outfit yourself a series of little pushbutton valves to open and close your fuel injectors from the drivers' seat? after all, you can do a better job manually than some ol' computer right?

The funny part is, somebody is reading this right now thinking OMG, I bet I could do it better than a computer. Why my daddy's old carbureted blah blah blah
Thanks for the laugh.

[AJI]

Originally Posted by PaleMelanesian

I agree that better automatics are a good thing. They'll help more people than any manual transmission will, because more people buy them.

This hits on a pretty good point, though it does also apply more to say, the US and the Far East than it does to Europe, where manuals are still more popular.

I suspect that the vast majority of the public would get better fuel consumption with an automatic simply because the auto box would be much better at choosing the most efficient gear than the driver would. So many drivers are consistantly in the wrong gear.

You can tell just from the way they drive - cars at low speeds and high revs going through town who should have changed up one or even two gears more, taxi drivers labouring around with the engine stuttering in top gear because they think it saves more fuel than using the correct gear, people dithering at junctions because they've not had the foresight and observation to select the right gear for joining the traffic - all those examples and more.

With an auto? Not a bother. If you accelerate it changes down to help you, if you lift off it changes up and saves fuel. Of course, more skilled drivers do this themselves, but you can't count on Joe Public to be as skilled.

It's a view I've held for quite a while - a significant proportion of people would be better off with an auto, both to make up for their lack of skill, and to save fuel at the same time.

In the real world: A car with lower official fuel figures as an auto might actually be more fuel efficient than the manual when you give it to an unskilled driver.

[shovel]

Originally Posted by dcb

No matter how expensive or wasteful something is? you can't think of any case where easy to use might not be the best idea? Really? I have to spell this one out for you?

I don't see any bicycles in your inventory.

Originally Posted by dcb

Really? that's what you think? that a human can outperform a computer at the sub-microsecond timing of injectors? Really?

The concept of technology must be very binary for you, either everything is amish or everything must be automated to the n'th degree.

... whenever someone uses this particular style of argument it's especially tedious to hold a serious discussion with them. You know I don't think that, but by suggesting it you're trying to undermine me with preposterous extremes based loosely upon what I said. Not productive at all.

As was obvious, my point was that you don't seem to mind some types of automation but seem quite emotionally attached to a lever you get to row back and forth while driving.

Originally Posted by dcb

Shifting is one of those things that computers haven't caught up with

Citation needed.

Originally Posted by dcb

Like I said, autos have been wasting gobs of fuel for many decades for lack of a shifter, and the standards that we hold our fellow drivers to is abominable compared to many other countries. Technology can solve a lot of problems, and a lot of non-problems, but invariably creates new ones, weather you can see them or not.

If you only look at things in terms of dollars and at an individuals "rights" and ignore less tangible costs and responsibilities, you will be blind ignorant to a multitude of problems, even (especially) if they are now someone elses problem.

That's an awful lot of pessimism in one post so wait why is it that digital controls are better for fuel management but worse for ratio management?

A car is expensive and wasteful and complicated compared to a bicycle, but you drive a car. I just don't see why you're so emotionally attached to moving a lever back and forth I'm not trying to convince you or anyone to give up their own manual, preferences are preferences. It's just false to say that autos suck, and false to assume autos must by necessity produce worse fuel efficiency than manuals even when/if identical ratios are chosen. There's no "LET'S MAKE AMERICA DUMB AND LAZY" agenda at Big Automotive Company.. their job is to stay in business and they do that by selling cars to people, the better they can make the car look compared to its competitors the more they sell - in other words if the manual transmission car could offer satisfactory behavior and performance with the same fuel efficient highway ratio, they would use that ratio on the manuals so that their marketing brochure could report the highest possible MPG - a major selling point. I'd be willing to bet that more than 3 minutes of thought goes into picking ratios for a production car's transmission.

So think what you want but denying the possibility that machines can work quite well, isn't particularly productive.

Cheers

[PaleMelanesian]

Part of the problem is the EPA test's 55 mph highway segment. What's good and acceptable there is horrible at 70+ mph. Even the new test, with its higher speeds, doesn't solve that, because it gets averaged with the old 55 mph test for the final number.

As long as we have these tests, automakers are going to build for the test. Example: Mazda has auto-stop technology available, but it doesn't help on the EPA test. They've decided against selling it. It's a cost to them, for no gain on the test, even though it would save drivers a bunch. (link)