The Future Of The Manual Transmission

Replying to: steve_ (Jul 04, 2009 7:53 am)

Replying to: steve_ (Jul 04, 2009 7:53 am)

Audi's new A4 is a real good example of what I'm talking about. Consider the following (per the http://www.fueleconomy.gov web site):
 
2009 Audi A4 FrontTrak (CVT):
 - Weight: 3,538
 - Drive train: FWD
 - City MPG: 23
 - Comb MPG: 25
 - Hwy MPG: 30
 
2009 Audi Quattro 6-Speed Manual:
 - Weight: 3,605
 - Drive train: AWD
 - City MPG: 22
 - Comb MPG: 25
 - Hwy MPG: 30
 
Funny thing, in spite of the fact that the A4 Quattro weighs more than the CVT equipped A4 FrontTrak, the only driving regimin where the CVT car eeks out any advantage is in the city circuit, exactly where the lighter drive train will make its fuel economy advantage most obvious.
 
So, if the CVT was such a superior design compared to a manual transmission, one would expect the A4 FrontTrak to significantly beat the heavier, more mechanically complex (and by definition with more drive train loss) A4 Quattro.
 
Long story short, I have yet to see any scientific evidence that shows that CVTs offer even a shred of benefit compared to a properly ratioed manual transmission from the fuel economy perspective.
 
If someone out there has any verifiable science that proves the advantage of CVTs against all comers, I'd love to see it (but I won't be holding my breath).
 
Best regards,
Shipo

Replies to this message:
• ruking1 (Jul 04, 2009 9:20 am)
• steve_ (Jul 04, 2009 9:32 am)
  • ruking1 (Jul 04, 2009 9:43 am)
    • steve_ (Jul 04, 2009 9:44 am) and 2 more...
  • wwest (Jul 04, 2009 2:04 pm)
• wwest (Jul 04, 2009 2:23 pm)
  • shipo (Jul 04, 2009 7:13 pm)
    • wwest (Jul 05, 2009 8:27 am) and 2 more...

Replying to: shipo (Jul 04, 2009 9:06 am)

So for example given the rule of thumb, posted in other msg's weight difference alone can account for the 1 mpg differences.
 
It is funny how the CVT advocates almost ignore what happens in the real world.
 
1. There is little to NO history, as there are with manuals and certainly automatics. 2. there is an almost immeasurable population of CVT's in the passenger vehicle fleet.
 
DSG's (in VW's anyway have gone through some Euro and US stumbling block issues) I think CVT's will take away market share from (slush box) automatics if oems are unable or unwilling to improve the ubiquitious "slush box" and there is a constant improvement effort for CVT's.
 
So for another example, the 09 VW Jetta TDI posts 1 mpg BETTER for the 6 spd MANUAL over the 6 spd DSG. In many respects the DSG is almost a TOTAL waste for 3/4 drivers in my house hold. It also commands a $1,100 premium over NONE for the 6 spd manual. Truthfully I only use it for break in purposes and to understand and feel its workings. Sure it is a hoot when I feel like doing the F1 fantasy gig. .... Or as Billy Joel would say in an OCD "(NY) state of mind"
 
Now I also know (from past experiences) I can very easily get even better mpg out of a manual than I can from a DSG.

Replying to: shipo (Jul 04, 2009 9:06 am)

Replies to this message:
• ruking1 (Jul 04, 2009 9:43 am)
  • steve_ (Jul 04, 2009 9:44 am)
    • ruking1 (Jul 04, 2009 9:46 am)
    • ruking1 (Jul 04, 2009 9:59 am)
• wwest (Jul 04, 2009 2:04 pm)

Replying to: nippononly (Jul 03, 2009 9:58 am)

Replies to this message:
• igozoomzoom (Jul 06, 2009 8:02 pm)
  • wwest (Jul 07, 2009 8:16 am)
    • ruking1 (Jul 07, 2009 8:24 am)
    • shipo (Jul 07, 2009 6:12 pm) and 13 more...
  • srs_49 (Jul 08, 2009 8:07 am)
    • ruking1 (Jul 08, 2009 8:30 am)
    • dave594 (Jul 09, 2009 6:45 am) and 1 more...
  • dino001 (Jul 09, 2009 4:50 am)

Replying to: steve_ (Jul 04, 2009 9:32 am)

Replies to this message:
• steve_ (Jul 04, 2009 9:44 am)
  • ruking1 (Jul 04, 2009 9:46 am)
  • ruking1 (Jul 04, 2009 9:59 am)

Replying to: ruking1 (Jul 04, 2009 9:43 am)

Send them over and I'll give them a thorough test for a few weeks.
 
I see your point though.
 
How about a list of the highest rated gas and/or diesel cars available in the US that aren't hybrids?
 
Will the MTs be well represented in that top ten list? Here's one such list from fueleconomy.gov

Replies to this message:
• ruking1 (Jul 04, 2009 9:46 am)
• ruking1 (Jul 04, 2009 9:59 am)

Replying to: steve_ (Jul 04, 2009 9:44 am)

Actually that would be an interesting article to write for your mates down in Santa Monica !!?? Inquiring minds do want to know!! From the few reviews that I read, to be PC, I think the jury is still out....

Replying to: steve_ (Jul 04, 2009 9:44 am)

This might be way too technical in light of a manual transmission thread, but the Prius does employ two important technologies 1.hybrid 2. idle cut off and re start technology. Both add to an almost 20% advantage (city).
 
Item two is already being applied in European diesels. There is no doubt it can also be applied to gassers.
 
When you do the math, (Prius EPA 48/45 highway * .20 (%)= minus- 9.6/9 mpg = 38.4/36 mpg) my Civic or anyone elses for that matter does better (38-42 mpg) In my case, app 12,000 cheaper AND with an auto transmission ( premium of course) !!!! Again a swag only but a 5 spd manual could easily add 1-3 mpg. or 41 to 45 mpg.
 
Would I (anybody else for that matter) spring for the item #2? My take is let you guys at www.edmunds.com test it first !!!!
 
Now I am swagging here, but the numbers indicate an app 7% advantage for item #2. (3 mpg/45= 6.7%) So it might make some sense 50%/50% C/H driving.
 
Now I am aware that John, who does the guerrilla postings gets 55 mpg in his new Prius, would beg to differ, BUT... If I drove my 03 TDI VW Jetta, 5 speed manual (119,000 miles) like he drives his NEW Prius (the old one didnt do nearly as well), I can easily get 58-65 mpg. However this TDI 5 spd (wish it was 6 spd) is too much fun !!!! So in "italian" tune mode, I only get the Prius' epa city rating of 48 mpg (to 50 mpg).

Replying to: steve_ (Jul 04, 2009 9:32 am)