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