Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

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?

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

SBH wrote:
> 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?
>
>

Yep, The computer know how to shift the trans for economy better than
you do. The only reason that older autos were worse than a stick was due
to the slippage of the converter and the lack of close gearing. New
trans have lock up, better gearing, better overall gear ratios and the
computer controls make them work much better than a stick.

--
Steve W.

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

On 04/11/2011 05:45 PM, SBH wrote:
> 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?

lots of people know the answer to this. you could too if you could be
bothered to look up the numbers on the manufacturer's website.

you'd be better off asking the question "why" - if you don't want a
"rtfm" answer.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

On 2011-04-12, Steve W. > wrote:
> SBH wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>>
>
> Yep, The computer know how to shift the trans for economy better than
> you do. The only reason that older autos were worse than a stick was due
> to the slippage of the converter and the lack of close gearing. New
> trans have lock up, better gearing, better overall gear ratios and the
> computer controls make them work much better than a stick.

But for small cars with small engines an MT will probably still be more
responsive than an AT programmed for fuel economy.

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

"SBH" > wrote in message
...
> 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?

In many cases, the automatic is at least as economical as, or sometimes
better than, the manual. The difference is not worth the worry. And
dats the truff, babe ruff.

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

On 04/11/2011 06:23 PM, Brent wrote:
> On 2011-04-12, Steve > wrote:
>> SBH wrote:
>>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yep, The computer know how to shift the trans for economy better than
>> you do. The only reason that older autos were worse than a stick was due
>> to the slippage of the converter and the lack of close gearing. New
>> trans have lock up, better gearing, better overall gear ratios and the
>> computer controls make them work much better than a stick.
>
> But for small cars with small engines an MT will probably still be more
> responsive than an AT programmed for fuel economy.

"probably"?


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

On 2011-04-12, jim beam > wrote:
> On 04/11/2011 06:23 PM, Brent wrote:
>> On 2011-04-12, Steve > wrote:
>>> SBH wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yep, The computer know how to shift the trans for economy better than
>>> you do. The only reason that older autos were worse than a stick was due
>>> to the slippage of the converter and the lack of close gearing. New
>>> trans have lock up, better gearing, better overall gear ratios and the
>>> computer controls make them work much better than a stick.
>>
>> But for small cars with small engines an MT will probably still be more
>> responsive than an AT programmed for fuel economy.
>
> "probably"?

What you don't have a smart ass response about some special drag racing
automatic?

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

"jim beam" > wrote in message
t...
> On 04/11/2011 05:45 PM, SBH wrote:
>> 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?
>
> lots of people know the answer to this. you could too if you could be
> bothered to look up the numbers on the manufacturer's website.
>
> you'd be better off asking the question "why" - if you don't want a "rtfm"
> answer.
>
Silly me, why didn't I think of that....? Oh wait, I did, but that doesn't
erase my skepticism about manufacture mileage posting. It's similar to the
little guy enhancing the size of his johnson because it really isn't.
Therefore, I thought I'd bother myself twice and ask in here as well. You
know what they say about assumptions.

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:33:09 -0500, "hls" > wrote:

>
>"SBH" > wrote in message
.. .
>> 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?
>
>In many cases, the automatic is at least as economical as, or sometimes
>better than, the manual. The difference is not worth the worry. And
>dats the truff, babe ruff.
The new Ford 6 speed auto has no torque converter. It uses a computer
applied clutch to start and shifts between two clutch driven gear
trains that change the ratios- one for odd, one for even gears.
I wonder how the clutch life will be.
--
Mr.E

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

According to www.fueleconomy.gov, the "regular" automatic Fiesta is rated 29
city / 38 highway. The "regular" manual Fiesta is rated 28 city, 37 highway.
The SFE Fiesta, which has the automatic, is rated 29 city, 40 highway.
Interestingly, both the regular Fiesta automatic and the SFE Fiesta
automatic have a combined rating of 33. The regular manual Fiesta has a
combined rating of 32.

So, at leat in the government mandated tests, the automatic does get better
fuel economy than the manual. The fueleconomy.gov website allows individuals
to post fuel economy estimates. The individual estimates for the manual
transmission model Fiestas are higher that for the regualr or SFE automatic
versions (36.7 for the manual, 34.7 for the regualr automatic, 32.5 for the
SFE automatic). These are "personal" estimates, so take them with a grain of
salt.

Consumer reports tested both manual and an automatic versions of the Fiesta.
In the CR testing the overall mileage for the manual was 32 vs 33 for the
automatic. The manual got 39 mpg on the CR 150 mile trip. The automatic got
41 on the 150 mile trip. For CR the manual averaged 23 city, 42 highway. The
automatic averaged 22 city and 45 highway.

Be aware that the Fiesta automatic is not a traditional automatic. It is a
sort of computer shifted manual transmission. It is a dual clutch
transmission and unlike traditional automatic transmissions, it does not
have a torque converter. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_clutch_transmission.

I have a 2011 Fiesta with an automatic. So far in my normal sort of driving
I am averaging just short of 36 mpg. I don't get a lot better on a long trip
(maybe 38 or so) but then I don't get much worse around town. I bought a
regular automatic Fiesta (not the SFE). The SFE model costs about $600 more
and although it has a higher highway rating (40 vs 38), the in town and
combined ratings are the same as the regular Fiesta. According to the Ford
salesman (not exactly an expert in my opinion) the SFE has additional
areodynamic features that allow it to achieve the higher highway ratings. I
doubt this (I didn't see any dramatic differences). I think it had more to
do with the tires (the SFE has different tires) and possibly the
transmission shift programming. I drove both and didn't really see much
different in performance between the two.

Ed




"SBH" > wrote in message
...
> 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?
>

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

"Mr.E" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:33:09 -0500, "hls" > wrote:

> The new Ford 6 speed auto has no torque converter. It uses a computer
> applied clutch to start and shifts between two clutch driven gear
> trains that change the ratios- one for odd, one for even gears.
> I wonder how the clutch life will be.

I imagine it will be very good. It doesn't use the sort of clutches used by
a manual. It uses stacked clutch packs that are hydraulically activated. I
have a farm tractor with this sort of transmission. After 20 years of hard
use it is still just fine. And remember "traditional" automatics also
include clutches that are activated hydraulically. No reason to think the
clutches in the Fiesta "automatic" will be more failure prone than those.

Ed

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:09:33 -0400, "C. E. White"
> wrote:

>
>"Mr.E" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:33:09 -0500, "hls" > wrote:
>
>> The new Ford 6 speed auto has no torque converter. It uses a computer
>> applied clutch to start and shifts between two clutch driven gear
>> trains that change the ratios- one for odd, one for even gears.
>> I wonder how the clutch life will be.
>
>I imagine it will be very good. It doesn't use the sort of clutches used by
>a manual. It uses stacked clutch packs that are hydraulically activated. I
>have a farm tractor with this sort of transmission. After 20 years of hard
>use it is still just fine. And remember "traditional" automatics also
>include clutches that are activated hydraulically. No reason to think the
>clutches in the Fiesta "automatic" will be more failure prone than those.
>

http://www.egmcartech.com/2009/01/21...matic-gearbox/



In Europe, Ford currently offers a PowerShift transmission in the Ford
Focus. This PowerShift uses a twin wet-clutch system to handle the
higher torque levels of the 2.0-liter TDCI engine available in the
Focus.

In North America, a dry-clutch derivative of Ford’s PowerShift
transmission will be used for added efficiency and durability. A dry
clutch transmits power and torque through manual transmission clutch
facings, while most automatic transmissions utilize wet clutch plates
submerged in oil. As a result, the dry-clutch PowerShift transmission
does not require an oil pump or torque converter, providing superior
mechanical efficiency.

“A dry clutch is a real sweet spot for lighter vehicle applications,”
said Piero Aversa, manager, Ford Automatic Transmission Engineering.
“PowerShift is more efficient, it saves weight, is more durable, more
efficient and the unit is sealed for life, requiring no regular
maintenance.”

PowerShift, unlike conventional automatic transmissions, does not need
the heavier torque converter or planetary gears. In addition, the
dry-clutch derivative eliminates the need for the weighty pumps,
hydraulic fluids, cooling lines and external coolers that wet clutch
transmissions require. As a result, the dry-clutch PowerShift
transmission can weigh nearly 30 pounds less than, for example, the
four-speed automatic transmission featured on today’s Ford Focus.
--
Mr.E

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

"Mr.E" > wrote in message
...
>
> http://www.egmcartech.com/2009/01/21...matic-gearbox/
>
>
>
> In Europe, Ford currently offers a PowerShift transmission in the Ford
> Focus. This PowerShift uses a twin wet-clutch system to handle the
> higher torque levels of the 2.0-liter TDCI engine available in the
> Focus.
>
> In North America, a dry-clutch derivative of Ford's PowerShift
> transmission will be used for added efficiency and durability. A dry
> clutch transmits power and torque through manual transmission clutch
> facings, while most automatic transmissions utilize wet clutch plates
> submerged in oil. As a result, the dry-clutch PowerShift transmission
> does not require an oil pump or torque converter, providing superior
> mechanical efficiency.
>
> "A dry clutch is a real sweet spot for lighter vehicle applications,"
> said Piero Aversa, manager, Ford Automatic Transmission Engineering.
> "PowerShift is more efficient, it saves weight, is more durable, more
> efficient and the unit is sealed for life, requiring no regular
> maintenance."
>
> PowerShift, unlike conventional automatic transmissions, does not need
> the heavier torque converter or planetary gears. In addition, the
> dry-clutch derivative eliminates the need for the weighty pumps,
> hydraulic fluids, cooling lines and external coolers that wet clutch
> transmissions require. As a result, the dry-clutch PowerShift
> transmission can weigh nearly 30 pounds less than, for example, the
> four-speed automatic transmission featured on today's Ford Focus.

Thanks very interesting...but what operates the dry clutches? The article
says "electro-mechanical"...so does this mean a solenoid(s)?

Ed

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:44:17 -0400, "C. E. White"
> wrote:

>
>"Mr.E" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>> http://www.egmcartech.com/2009/01/21...matic-gearbox/
>>
>>
>>
>> In Europe, Ford currently offers a PowerShift transmission in the Ford
>> Focus. This PowerShift uses a twin wet-clutch system to handle the
>> higher torque levels of the 2.0-liter TDCI engine available in the
>> Focus.
>>
>> In North America, a dry-clutch derivative of Ford's PowerShift
>> transmission will be used for added efficiency and durability. A dry
>> clutch transmits power and torque through manual transmission clutch
>> facings, while most automatic transmissions utilize wet clutch plates
>> submerged in oil. As a result, the dry-clutch PowerShift transmission
>> does not require an oil pump or torque converter, providing superior
>> mechanical efficiency.
>>
>> "A dry clutch is a real sweet spot for lighter vehicle applications,"
>> said Piero Aversa, manager, Ford Automatic Transmission Engineering.
>> "PowerShift is more efficient, it saves weight, is more durable, more
>> efficient and the unit is sealed for life, requiring no regular
>> maintenance."
>>
>> PowerShift, unlike conventional automatic transmissions, does not need
>> the heavier torque converter or planetary gears. In addition, the
>> dry-clutch derivative eliminates the need for the weighty pumps,
>> hydraulic fluids, cooling lines and external coolers that wet clutch
>> transmissions require. As a result, the dry-clutch PowerShift
>> transmission can weigh nearly 30 pounds less than, for example, the
>> four-speed automatic transmission featured on today's Ford Focus.
>
>Thanks very interesting...but what operates the dry clutches? The article
>says "electro-mechanical"...so does this mean a solenoid(s)?
>
No clue Ed- I ran across lots of info when researching 2011/2012 cars
to replace a 94 Corolla that a tree fell on. Still not totally
decided..
--
Mr.E

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

"Mr.E" > wrote in message
...

>>Thanks very interesting...but what operates the dry clutches? The article
>>says "electro-mechanical"...so does this mean a solenoid(s)?
>>
> No clue Ed- I ran across lots of info when researching 2011/2012 cars
> to replace a 94 Corolla that a tree fell on. Still not totally
> decided..

Well so far my experiences with the Fiesta automatic have been positive. It
is not quite as smooth as the AW 6 speed in my old Fusion, but better than
the AW automatic in my SO's RAV4. The only oddity I've noticed is the hill
holder "feature." Works OK, but feels "different" than a traditional
automatic. But it is much better than starting up a steep hill with a
traditional manual.

Ed

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks very interesting...but what operates the dry clutches? The article
> says "electro-mechanical"...so does this mean a solenoid(s)?
>
> Ed

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

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

In article >, SBH > wrote:
>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?

It depends entirely on who is driving. Some of the computer controlled
automatic systems are very, very good and probably better than the average
driver.

However, when those systems break, nobody really knows how to repair them,
whereas rebuilding a manual (even a transaxle) is something you can do in
the backyard.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

On Apr 11, 6:00*pm, jim beam > wrote:
> On 04/11/2011 05:45 PM, SBH wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> lots of people know the answer to this. *you could too if you could be
> bothered to look up the numbers on the manufacturer's website.
>
> you'd be better off asking the question "why" - if you don't want a
> "rtfm" answer.
>
> --
> nomina rutrum rutrum

Who knows if the manufacturers are telling the truth about the fuel
savings. I haven't met one person that gets the mileage that was
posted on the sticker from the factory. Believe them if you want.

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

On 04/12/2011 08:27 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In >, > wrote:
>> 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?
>
> It depends entirely on who is driving. Some of the computer controlled
> automatic systems are very, very good and probably better than the average
> driver.
>
> However, when those systems break, nobody really knows how to repair them,

anyone saying this stuff is hard to repair is the same kind of luddite
that said that about fuel injection 30 years ago. now we laugh at
injection luddites, not only because injection systems are simpler to
repair, but because they're much more reliable.


> whereas rebuilding a manual (even a transaxle) is something you can do in
> the backyard.
> --scott

that's not true. look at one of these 6-speed dual clutch systems -
apart from the electronic control module [which i hope you don't think
is any less reliable than an injection computer], it's no more
complicated than a traditional stick. /way/ simpler than a traditional
auto with its hydraulic analog computer, pumps on input and output,
multiple actuators and multiple clutches. if you can't handle just two
clutches and a few electronic solenoids, you've got other problems.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

"That Tune" > wrote in message
...
> "C. E. White" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Thanks very interesting...but what operates the dry clutches? The article
>> says "electro-mechanical"...so does this mean a solenoid(s)?
>>
>> Ed
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_clutch_transmission


Even better:

http://www.dctfacts.com/in-the-marke...h-america.aspx

http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=32463

http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=29738

http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=34218

Ed

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

On Apr 11, 8:45*pm, "SBH" > wrote:
> 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?

I did a short review of those just now. I don,t know what the fuss is
about. In my 2001 cavalier I have got 34 mpg doing average of 65 mph
up and down hills. On the flat I should get minimum of 36 mpg doing
55mph, Mabe more. My chevy has a 4 speed, but hear a 5th noise, maybe
lockup.

Greg

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

> anyone saying this stuff is hard to repair is the same kind of luddite
> that said that about fuel injection 30 years ago. *now we laugh at
> injection luddites, not only because injection systems are simpler to
> repair, but because they're much more reliable.
>

30 years ago fuel injection was a lot different than it is today. The
computers were primitive, and there were plenty of points of failure
in the air box wiper contacts, multi-relays with 15+ pins, primitive
temperature sensors, a separate set of ignition points to fire
injectors(remember the old 1975+ VW beetles?), etc. Factor into that
no malfunction light to flash you a code, and the troubleshooting
could get pretty hairy. What you are saying is like comparing apples
and oranges as far as a modern FI system is concerned.

As far as the OP is concerned...ask yourself what is more likely to go
100,000 miles without a failure..a traditional gearbox, be it a
transmission or a transaxle, or this new DSG stuff that I've heard
nothing but bad things about.

IMHO there are far fewer points of failure in a traditional gearbox.
As soon as you add hydraulics, two clutches(!), that expensive special
fluid those DSG boxes take(!!), and the mechatronic unit, with
failures that seem to be a big issue with the VW version of these
things, it might give you pause about buying one.

Best...

Chris

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

On 04/12/2011 09:35 PM, Hal wrote:
>> anyone saying this stuff is hard to repair is the same kind of luddite
>> that said that about fuel injection 30 years ago. �now we laugh at
>> injection luddites, not only because injection systems are simpler to
>> repair, but because they're much more reliable.
>>
>
> 30 years ago fuel injection was a lot different than it is today. The
> computers were primitive, and there were plenty of points of failure
> in the air box wiper contacts, multi-relays with 15+ pins, primitive
> temperature sensors, a separate set of ignition points to fire
> injectors(remember the old 1975+ VW beetles?), etc. Factor into that
> no malfunction light to flash you a code, and the troubleshooting
> could get pretty hairy. What you are saying is like comparing apples
> and oranges as far as a modern FI system is concerned.

you're stuck in a time warp dude - it's 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro...ion#Electronic


>
> As far as the OP is concerned...ask yourself what is more likely to go
> 100,000 miles without a failure..a traditional gearbox, be it a
> transmission or a transaxle, or this new DSG stuff that I've heard
> nothing but bad things about.
>
> IMHO there are far fewer points of failure in a traditional gearbox.
> As soon as you add hydraulics, two clutches(!),

er, how many clutches are there in a traditional auto? how many
hydraulic systems?


> that expensive special
> fluid those DSG boxes take(!!),

yeah, atf is not special...


> and the mechatronic unit,

as opposed to an hydraulic analog computer actuating /how/ many
hydraulic servos?


> with
> failures that seem to be a big issue with the VW version of these
> things,

one manufacturer cutting corners doesn't mean the concept is bad.


> it might give you pause about buying one.

how about pausing to check your facts?


>
> Best...
>
> Chris


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

On Apr 12, 7:25*am, Mr.E > wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:33:09 -0500, "hls" > wrote:
>
> >"SBH" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> 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?
>
> >In many cases, the automatic is at least as economical as, or sometimes
> >better than, the manual. The difference is not worth the worry. And
> >dats the truff, babe ruff.
>
> The new Ford 6 speed auto has no torque converter. It uses a computer
> applied clutch to start and shifts between two clutch driven gear
> trains that change the ratios- one for odd, one for even gears.
> I wonder how the clutch life will be.
> --
> Mr.E

If that's the case, it sounds awful similar to the VW/Audi DSG
transmissions. Wonder who's licensing what from whom? Additionally
that would imply that the choice of transmission in that case would
pretty much come down to personal preference, although theoretically
the auto might be able to be "programmed" for better economy than the
average stickshift driver, but the extra weight/complexity of the DSG
setup would slightly reduce economy.

nate

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

On 04/13/2011 05:41 AM, N8N wrote:
> On Apr 12, 7:25�am, > wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:33:09 -0500, > wrote:
>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> 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?
>>
>>> In many cases, the automatic is at least as economical as, or sometimes
>>> better than, the manual. The difference is not worth the worry. And
>>> dats the truff, babe ruff.
>>
>> The new Ford 6 speed auto has no torque converter. It uses a computer
>> applied clutch to start and shifts between two clutch driven gear
>> trains that change the ratios- one for odd, one for even gears.
>> I wonder how the clutch life will be.
>> --
>> Mr.E
>
> If that's the case, it sounds awful similar to the VW/Audi DSG
> transmissions. Wonder who's licensing what from whom? Additionally
> that would imply that the choice of transmission in that case would
> pretty much come down to personal preference, although theoretically
> the auto might be able to be "programmed" for better economy than the
> average stickshift driver, but the extra weight/complexity of the DSG
> setup would slightly reduce economy.
>
> nate

if it's the dry clutch variant, there's no complexity that can impact
economy vs. a stick - there are no hydraulic pumps.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

On Apr 13, 10:43*am, jim beam > wrote:
> On 04/13/2011 05:41 AM, N8N wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 12, 7:25 am, > *wrote:
> >> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:33:09 -0500, > *wrote:
>
> >>> > *wrote in message
> .. .
> >>>> 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?
>
> >>> In many cases, the automatic is at least as economical as, or sometimes
> >>> better than, the manual. The difference is not worth the worry. And
> >>> dats the truff, babe ruff.
>
> >> The new Ford 6 speed auto has no torque converter. It uses a computer
> >> applied clutch to start and shifts between two clutch driven gear
> >> trains that change the ratios- one for odd, one for even gears.
> >> I wonder how the clutch life will be.
> >> --
> >> Mr.E
>
> > If that's the case, it sounds awful similar to the VW/Audi DSG
> > transmissions. *Wonder who's licensing what from whom? *Additionally
> > that would imply that the choice of transmission in that case would
> > pretty much come down to personal preference, although theoretically
> > the auto might be able to be "programmed" for better economy than the
> > average stickshift driver, but the extra weight/complexity of the DSG
> > setup would slightly reduce economy.
>
> > nate
>
> if it's the dry clutch variant, there's no complexity that can impact
> economy vs. a stick - there are no hydraulic pumps.

The unit will still be physically heavier than a conventional
stickshift w/ the same number of gears and ratios, that's what I
meant.

nate

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

On 04/13/2011 07:57 AM, N8N wrote:
> On Apr 13, 10:43�am, jim > wrote:
>> On 04/13/2011 05:41 AM, N8N wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 7:25 am, > �wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:33:09 -0500, > �wrote:
>>
>>>>> > �wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> 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?
>>
>>>>> In many cases, the automatic is at least as economical as, or sometimes
>>>>> better than, the manual. The difference is not worth the worry. And
>>>>> dats the truff, babe ruff.
>>
>>>> The new Ford 6 speed auto has no torque converter. It uses a computer
>>>> applied clutch to start and shifts between two clutch driven gear
>>>> trains that change the ratios- one for odd, one for even gears.
>>>> I wonder how the clutch life will be.
>>>> --
>>>> Mr.E
>>
>>> If that's the case, it sounds awful similar to the VW/Audi DSG
>>> transmissions. �Wonder who's licensing what from whom? �Additionally
>>> that would imply that the choice of transmission in that case would
>>> pretty much come down to personal preference, although theoretically
>>> the auto might be able to be "programmed" for better economy than the
>>> average stickshift driver, but the extra weight/complexity of the DSG
>>> setup would slightly reduce economy.
>>
>>> nate
>>
>> if it's the dry clutch variant, there's no complexity that can impact
>> economy vs. a stick - there are no hydraulic pumps.
>
> The unit will still be physically heavier than a conventional
> stickshift w/ the same number of gears and ratios, that's what I
> meant.
>
> nate

it's not significantly though. the only real difference is the solenoid
pack, and you net that out against the weight savings from things like
clutch pedals, linkages, and even the gearsets which now don't need the
same strength of synchro since the computer, with it's fly-by-wire
throttle control, always gets the rev matching right.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

> you're stuck in a time warp dude - it's 2011.
>

WHOA. Holy smokes, thank you for that, Cap'n Obvious. ;-)

> er, how many clutches are there in a traditional auto? *how many
> hydraulic systems?
>

Quite a few, stacked together last time I checked. And one hydraulic
system that I know of. The point was that I was comparing a standard
transmission/transaxle to an automatic anything. The standard
transmission, in my experience, will go longer without a failure
because there are far fewer things to break. Further on that point, it
will be easier to repair if it does break, and since the 'automanual'
boxes are relatively new, long-term reliability is somewhat hard to
gauge. The syncromesh manual gearbox on the other hand has been around
since what, 1940 something?

> yeah, atf is not special...
>

$27 a liter isn't not cheap, and the DSG units do not take ATF. Maybe
the Ford's do? I'll probably never know because I won't buy a ford
anything. But keep reading.

> how about pausing to check your facts?

How about take your own advice?

Best,
Chris

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

On 04/14/2011 05:49 AM, lugnut wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 07:25:27 -0400, Mr.E
> > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:33:09 -0500, > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> In many cases, the automatic is at least as economical as, or sometimes
>>> better than, the manual. The difference is not worth the worry. And
>>> dats the truff, babe ruff.
>> The new Ford 6 speed auto has no torque converter. It uses a computer
>> applied clutch to start and shifts between two clutch driven gear
>> trains that change the ratios- one for odd, one for even gears.
>> I wonder how the clutch life will be.
>
>
> It better be good because it most probably will be expensive
> to repair.
>
> Lugnut

the only way it's going to be "expensive to repair" is if people allow
themselves to be brainwashed with the concept that these things are
complicated. they're not. it's basically just a stick with the clutch
operated by a big solenoid and the gear selection operated by another
couple of solenoids. the only real difference is that shifter and pedal
linkages are now operated by machine, not you. solenoids are reliable
[if corners are not cut]. the gearsets should be as reliable as the
stick. that leaves the clutch[s]. and they're no more difficult to
repair than a traditional stick if you can handle the concept that there
are two driven plates, not one.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Automatic vs. Manual transmission
 

On 04/13/2011 07:33 PM, Hal wrote:
>> you're stuck in a time warp dude - it's 2011.
>>
>
> WHOA. Holy smokes, thank you for that, Cap'n Obvious. ;-)

yeah, well "cap'n mechanical injection is not electronic injection"
should check his dates.

he should also learn to annotate his snipping to preserve meaning, not
distort it.


>
>> er, how many clutches are there in a traditional auto? �how many
>> hydraulic systems?
>>
>
> Quite a few, stacked together last time I checked. And one hydraulic
> system that I know of. The point was that I was comparing a standard
> transmission/transaxle to an automatic anything. The standard
> transmission, in my experience, will go longer without a failure
> because there are far fewer things to break.

a lot of auto transmissions in domestics are designed to fail after
given mileages. there's nothing inherently less reliable in an auto as
far as the drivetrain is concerned - if anything, the opposite -
planetary gearsets are theoretically stronger and therefore more
reliable than simple spur gearsets.

but once detroit succeeded in brainwashing people into expecting to
replace an auto transmission every 100k, then people coughed up the
dough with no real resistance. and the gravy train is well and truly in
motion. detroit's not giving up that particular cash machine without
one heck of a fight.


> Further on that point, it
> will be easier to repair if it does break, and since the 'automanual'
> boxes are relatively new, long-term reliability is somewhat hard to
> gauge. The syncromesh manual gearbox on the other hand has been around
> since what, 1940 something?

so? date has nothing to do with it.

traditional synchros are over-engineered to withstand abuse. the
expression "grind it till you find it" didn't come from nowhere.

if you have a computer shifting, you don't need such heavy synchros
because the thing is being shifted with complete precision each and
every time. that should also improve reliability - unless of course,
the design spec includes life limitation...


>
>> yeah, atf is not special...
>>
>
> $27 a liter isn't not cheap, and the DSG units do not take ATF.

with a dry clutch version, there's no reason it shouldn't run
traditional lubricants. unless of course you as a manufacturer want to
take the opportunity to mystify and expensify.


> Maybe
> the Ford's do? I'll probably never know because I won't buy a ford
> anything. But keep reading.
>
>> how about pausing to check your facts?
>
> How about take your own advice?
>
> Best,
> Chris

that's a classic - "do what i say, not what i [don't] do".


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

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?