Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

Okay, I'm going to NOT take this out of context. Here is sentence one:

> a lot of auto transmissions in domestics are designed to fail after
> given mileages. *

Sentence two:

> there's nothing inherently less reliable in an auto as
> far as the drivetrain is concerned

Wha.....what!? A slushbox -designed with a limited lifetime- is not
inherently less reliable than a standard gearbox?

You're one of them 'special' kind of stupid folks huh? :-)

Have a good one, and uhh..thanks for the chuckle, smart guy.

Chris

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

On 04/14/2011 07:17 PM, Hal wrote:
> Okay, I'm going to NOT take this out of context. Here is sentence one:
>
>> a lot of auto transmissions in domestics are designed to fail after
>> given mileages. �
>
> Sentence two:
>
>> there's nothing inherently less reliable in an auto as
>> far as the drivetrain is concerned
>
> Wha.....what!? A slushbox -designed with a limited lifetime- is not
> inherently less reliable than a standard gearbox?
>
> You're one of them 'special' kind of stupid folks huh? :-)
>
> Have a good one, and uhh..thanks for the chuckle, smart guy.
>
> Chris

er, "nothing inherent" means it's not liable to fail on its own - you
have to design it to.

sticks can be caused to fail too, it's just harder and more expensive to
implement. [assuming you subscribe to the fallacy that a stick's clutch
wearing out in the same time frame as an auto doesn't make them directly
comparable.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve

manufacturers have spent billions in pursuit of bathtub curves they can
actually define.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

Automatics are better than they used to be -- more efficient, more
gears (implying a better chance of being in the right one), fairly
cleverly computer controlled.

I haven't seen a test of the 6-speed-automatic Fiesta, but even the 5-
speed automatic only gave up 1 mpg city, 2 highway to the manual, so
I'm guessing it'll be about a wash except maybe in the hands, and
feet, of a skilled "hypermiler."

You can also get a $700 Special Fuel Economy option on SE models of
both the sedan and the hatchback. It cleans up aerodynamic detailing
on and under (yes, under) the car. Supposedly this buys you 2 mpg
highway (aerodynamics being much more important at highway speeds).

The EPA rating for a 2011 SFE Fiesta with automatic (doesn't say
*which* automatic but I'm betting on the 6-speed) is 29 city/40
highway, which is best in the subcompact class and not exactly chopped
liver for any car that isn't either a hybrid or a diesel.

I'd recommend the manual if she can only afford a base model, or
drives on mountain roads a lot, or just prefers to row her own -- AND
knows how to do this properly. For city-dominated driving, or people
whose stick-and-clutch skills are unschooled, an automatic is the way
to go and the 6-speed is preferable if the money works out. SFE
package? The ratio of city to highway driving would have a lot to do
with the payback time on that $800 investment.

I haven't driven one but the magazines make me think it's a neat
little car.

Best of luck,
--Joe

> It's been well known a manual transmission obtains better fuel mileage than
> an automatic. My sister is preparing to purchase a Ford Fiesta and wants a
> manual, mainly for the fuel savings. The sales guy indicated the new
> transmissions (more so the 6 speed auto in the Fiesta) are better and more
> fuel efficient than manuals. Anyone know if this is true?