Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
> > Eeyore wrote:
> > > Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> > >
> > >>When one looks at the weight of today's cars, one common fact
> > >>comes out;
> > >>Weight gain is due mostly to safety considerations.
> > >
> > > This is especially a problem in the USA where it seem the public
> > > thinks heavy vehicles are safer.
> >
> > If push comes to shove, the heavier vehicle will suffer less damage than
> > the lighter should the two tango.
>
> The *vehicle* may indeed suffer less damage. Doesn't necessarily hold
> true for the people inside.
>
>
> > Quite frankly, I feel a whole lot safer in my 1955 Studebaker President
> > with seat belts than I do in my 1983 Civic.
>
> Whereas in fact you're far worse off.
>
Not necessarily. The other car and its occupants may serve as his "crush
zone".

Saludos,

Earle

I think your wrong. A manual transmission with an "automatic shifting
mechanism" is still a manual transmission. In an automatic transmission the
transmission IS automatic (I hate to state the obvious for you). The
transmission in the VW replaces the gear shift with hydraulic actuators,
which aren't an integral part of the transmission. You could theoretically
remove the actuators and put a gear shifter in making it fully manual again.
You could not do this with an automatic transmission.

You stating that a manual transmission with an automatic shifting aparatus
on it makes it an automatic transmission is like saying if your passenger
shifts your manual transmission while you stear makes your manual
transmission an automatic.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in message
...
> In article .com>,
> bill > wrote:
>
>> > I dont understand why VW described it as a 6 speed manual transmission
>> > that shifts automatically. If its a manual its a manual, if its an
>> > automatic its automatic. It only has forward neutral and reverse so
>> > its automatic
>>
>>
>> Automatic transmission is a specific type of automatic shifting
>> mechanism.
>
> No, it's not.
>
> An automatic transmission is simply one that's automatic and doesn't
> require the driver to shift. It can take on any form--for example, like
> the Prius's power split device. Or a belt-driven CVT.
>
> Or even the Honda automatic transmission, which is nothing like the GM
> trannies.
>
>
>
>> What they've done is taken a standard manual shift transmission and
>> strapped an automatic shifting aparatus to it.
>
> Which makes it (wait for it....)....an automatic transmission.
>

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Not to mention the fire bomb characteristics of the current crop of cop
>> cars..
>
> I hadn't heard of that being British and all. Cars catching fire over here
> is virtually
> unheard of.
>
> Graham
>
>

I haven't been following closely, but I gather the Ford Crown Victoria that
is so popular with law enforcement in the US has a problem with the fuel
tank placement or protection. There have been a few cases of the car being
hit from behind and engulfing the occupant in flaming gasoline - reminiscent
of the Pinto problem nearly 40 years ago.
http://www.crownvictoriasafetyalert.com/ has what looks like an explanation.

Mike

"Jeremy" > wrote in
news:5gN4i.208091$6m4.62925@pd7urf1no:

> I think your wrong. A manual transmission with an "automatic shifting
> mechanism" is still a manual transmission.



It's not. "Manual" means it is controlled by the hand. If the hand does not
control the transmission's gear changes, then it is not a "manual".

If no driver input is required to effect gear changes (or ratio changes),
then it is an automatic, regardless of the actual mechanism that performs
the ratio changes, or how those ratios are supplied in the first place.



> In an automatic
> transmission the transmission IS automatic (I hate to state the
> obvious for you). The transmission in the VW replaces the gear shift
> with hydraulic actuators, which aren't an integral part of the
> transmission. You could theoretically remove the actuators and put a
> gear shifter in making it fully manual again. You could not do this
> with an automatic transmission.



Sure you could. The Model-T's planetary unit operated just that way, but
with a pedal instead of a hand control. If you wanted to, you could
probably retrofit a Turbo Hydramatic so as to operate it by the use of
pedals, just like the Model-T.

The various planetary overdrive units that have been installed on manual
transmissions through the years were manually operated by pressing a switch
with your hand.



--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Jeremy wrote:
> I think your wrong.

"you're" as in "you are".

> A manual transmission with an "automatic shifting
> mechanism" is still a manual transmission.

no it's not. any transmission with an automatic shifting mechanism is
an automatic - by definition.

> In an automatic transmission
> the transmission IS automatic (I hate to state the obvious for you).

nonsensical garbage!

<time wasting ends here>

Tegger wrote:
> "jp2express" > wrote in
> et:
>
>> Are automatic transmissions still more expensive to maintain (i.e.
>> fluid changes, belt/band adjustments, filter replacements, etc.)?
>
>
>
> Most autos do not use bands any more; they use clutch packs.

the all clutch pack solution is unique to honda afaik. planetary geared
automatics, which are the majority, still use clutch bands in addition
to clutch packs.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/automa...nsmission4.htm

the modern "semi-auto's" with full auto control use a single dry plate
clutch to shift and individual dog clutches on the ratios like a
standard transmission.

> Filter
> replacements are not usually required if the fluid is changed regularly.
>
>
>> I know of many older vehicles where the manual transmissions have not
>> been serviced during the lifetime of the vehicle.
>
>
>
> So do I. But I seriously doubt any of those boxes would last 300K miles.
>
> It is to the credit of the manufacturers that trannies last as long as they
> do with the neglect and abuse many people throw at them.
>
>
>
>> Has this been
>> changed for modern day manual transmissions?
>
>
> No. Fluid changes are always desirable regardless of transmission make or
> model. Lubricant quality deteriorates over time regardless.
>
>
>

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>
> Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>
>>
>>> When one looks at the weight of today's cars, one common fact comes out;
>>> Weight gain is due mostly to safety considerations.
>>
>>
>> This is especially a problem in the USA where it seem the public
>> thinks heavy
>> vehicles are safer.
>>
>> Graham
>>
>
>
> If push comes to shove, the heavier vehicle will suffer less damage than
> the lighter should the two tango.
>
> Quite frankly, I feel a whole lot safer in my 1955 Studebaker President
> with seat belts than I do in my 1983 Civic.
>
> JT
>
>
reality is, it's not weight, it's ability to protect the passenger cell
that matters. if the passenger cell fails, and unfortunately, that
happens in a lot of those big heavy older vehicles, the occupants are
going to have the local coyotes and vultures poking about inside their
vehicle quite actively if the crash is not detected soon enough.

Eeyore wrote:

>
>
> Tegger wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote
>> >
>> > I've *never* seen a maintenance requirement for a manual transmission.
>> >
>>
>> Fluid must be replaced at regular intervals. This will be specified in
>> the maintenance table for your car.
>
> The last one I recall making any oil change requirement was a high-end
> 1970 model.
>
> I should have said that oil level checks are a maintenance requirement of
> course.

Have you actually checked any manuals?

My 06 Civic Si certainly has scheduled service for replacement of the manual
transmission fluid. Can't give you a set schedule, since it is on the
maintenance minder, but it will come up and need to be done.

Tegger wrote:
> Broderick Crawford > wrote in
> :
>
>
>> **** safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a
>> protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out
>> the competition.
>
>
> If that's the case, the plan isn't working very well.

that's the ironic stupidity of it! rather than re-invest and compete,
detroit simply put lipstick on their pig and hoped to keep selling it.
now, domestic product is /so/ bad and /so/ behind the technology curve,
it's hard to see how they could ever catch up. it's not like anyone
couldn't see this coming, not least detroit, and they were filling their
pants with their fears. but then they had the reprieve of the suv
phenomenon when they were suddenly making 50% /NET/ profits on those
pieces of the garbage, and the japanese were standing about scratching
themselves wondering what the **** people were buying those dumb-ass
vehicles for. but ever the pragmatists, the japanese soon figured that
if that's what the round-eyes wanted, that's what they would get, and
suddenly the only thing detroit had left was taken away. dumb *******s.
they deserve to go down in flames if they can't get smart.

> The domestics are
> losing market share left right and center. Isn't Toyota poised to displace
> GM in the #1 position in a few years?
>
>
>
>

Useful Info wrote:

> Read all about it, he http://Muvy.org
>

Useful wins this troll.