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