A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Technology
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Automatic vs. Manual transmission



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 13th 11, 01:04 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
g
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default 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
Ads
  #22  
Old April 13th 11, 05:35 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
Hal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 233
Default 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
  #23  
Old April 13th 11, 06:45 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim beam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,204
Default 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
  #24  
Old April 13th 11, 01:41 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
N8N
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,477
Default 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
  #25  
Old April 13th 11, 03:43 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim beam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,204
Default 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
  #26  
Old April 13th 11, 03:57 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
N8N
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,477
Default 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
  #27  
Old April 13th 11, 04:14 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim beam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,204
Default 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
  #28  
Old April 14th 11, 03:33 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
Hal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 233
Default 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
  #29  
Old April 14th 11, 03:37 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim beam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,204
Default 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
  #30  
Old April 14th 11, 03:41 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim beam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,204
Default 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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CJ-5 manual to automatic transmission questions. [email protected] Jeep 2 August 27th 07 07:28 PM
WHAT DO I NEED TO CHANGE MY AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION TO MANUAL IN A HONDA CIVIC 93? [email protected] Honda 0 May 28th 07 06:42 AM
Automatic vs. manual transmission in a used Honda Civic Jacqueline Passey Honda 9 November 15th 06 10:36 PM
Converting an automatic Transmission to a manual one David Craig VW water cooled 2 October 24th 05 09:26 PM
Transmission Cooler For Tacoma PreRunner 4 Cylinder 2.7 Automatic Transmission Tommy Taylor Technology 1 January 2nd 05 12:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.