Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
On another, A/T, a 7 year old oem battery on a Civic gave out and the same thing happened with the tow truck; the jump did NOT start the DEAD battery. Didn't of course do the M/T roll start. (obvious reasons?) Again brought the old one to the store. Bought the new one. It was reinstalled and started immediately.
Granted, modern day automotive electronics might need more of a supply voltage than the minimum amount it takes to turn over the starter. But again, the tow truck system should have been up to that task, enough voltage overall.
Puzzling.
On the other with that fully dead battery it often takes several days on a charger for it to recover and behind accepting a charge.
Beyond the 6-Speed: More Ratios for Automatic Transmissions
By LINDSAY BROOKE
Published: September 28, 2012
"GENERAL MOTORS and Ford next month are expected to announce an agreement that will pave the way for the automakers to jointly develop new automatic transmissions designed for improved fuel economy.
The deal will enable G.M. and Ford engineers to study and possibly share a variety of future transmission designs, with an eye toward a manufacturing alliance, according to sources at both companies who declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak about future product plans. The automakers are known to have 8-, 9-, and 10-speed automatic transmissions in development for front- and rear-wheel-drive cars and light trucks.
With the agreement, the companies, longtime Detroit rivals in most matters, are once again cooperating in a venture that could save them billions on technologies critical to meeting stringent new federal fuel economy regulations set for 2017 as well as similar standards coming in Europe.
If the relationship evolves into a joint production program, 'it would have huge manufacturing cost and volume advantages over all the competition,' because of the combined size of G.M. and Ford and their supply base, said Skip Nydam, who tracks transmission developments for ND-Automotive, an industry analyst firm.
G.M. and Ford already are successful in working together on transmissions. In 2002, they agreed to share design and production of a new 6-speed automatic for front-drive vehicles. The resulting Ford 6F and G.M. 6T70 transmissions, introduced in 2006 and numbering over 8 million produced, use common mechanical parts but have electronic controls specific to their applications. The independently developed electronics tailor the transmissions to nearly 30 different models.
The auto industry’s race toward a greater number of transmission gears now resembles that of the bicycle industry of 25 years ago, when 10-speed bikes were left in the dust by those with 12, 15 and more speeds. But there’s no comparison in the investment required. Experts say there is not much change left from a billion-dollar investment in a new automatic gearbox that will be produced in numbers of at least 500,000 a year.
Automakers that buy new transmission designs from specialist suppliers like ZF in Germany and Aisin in Japan, rather than designing and manufacturing their own, typically pay royalties on intellectual-property rights and license fees for each transmission, adding to the vehicle’s cost.
'The biggest benefit in G.M. and Ford working together is it reduces their investment risk,' said David Petrovski, a powertrain analyst at IHS Automotive.
'It’s just not economically feasible for them to separately chase after every new fuel-efficiency technology under the sun,' he said. 'By collaborating, they’re able to use the best engineering concepts from both sides.'
Automatic transmissions with more gear ratios and more sophisticated electronic controls are crucial to improving fuel economy. Mr. Petrovski noted that as automakers replace existing engines with smaller turbocharged versions that use less fuel, the engines typically have to operate at higher speeds to produce maximum output. He cited the industry’s steady march from 3- and 4-speed automatics in the 1980s to 5- and 6-speeds in the 1990s, then the jump to 7- and 8-speed transmissions in the early 2000s. Chrysler is preparing to release a 9-speed automatic, designed by ZF, in 2013.
Adding more gears helps to keep the engine operating in a speed range where it has the best performance with the least fuel consumption. An 8-speed automatic can deliver up to 11 percent better fuel economy than a 6-speed, for example, depending on engine, vehicle and drive-axle gearing.
An important factor in the move to seven and more gears is the transmission’s ratio spread — the numerical relationship between first and top gear (called the overall ratio spread), or between adjacent gears — for instance, third and fourth gears.
Adding more gears is the only way to have a large overall ratio spread (for both good acceleration and quiet highway cruising) along with a small ratio spread between gears (to keep the engine revving at its best power level for a given road speed). The higher the number, the better. The new 9-speeds will have a ratio spread close to 10, compared with a typical 6-speed’s ratio spread of about six.
Packing more gears into the compact transmission housings used in smaller vehicles — along with the hardware needed to deliver smooth, imperceptible shifts — is an increasingly tricky challenge, engineers say. They are designing the gearsets to 'nest' within each other to save space.
However, there is only so much space available under the hood of subcompact and compact cars with front-wheel drive, in part because their transmissions are positioned across the chassis, rather than lengthwise as in trucks, large S.U.V.’s and most sports cars and large luxury sedans. The limited width between the front wheels restricts how wide the transmissions can be — and the number of gears that can fit inside.
The lack of space to package seven and more gears is one reason that subcompacts like the Ford Fiesta and Chevrolet Sonic don’t achieve higher fuel efficiency than the larger Ford Focus and Chevy Cruze. It’s also why compacts like the Focus and Cruze can’t top the economy of the midsize Fusion and Malibu. (The longer vehicles also have lower aerodynamic drag, which helps overall efficiency.)
The tiny Chevrolet Spark had only enough space in its engine compartment to accommodate a 4-speed automatic. To quickly satisfy demand for more gear ratios from American customers who don’t want the standard 5-speed manual, G.M. plans to offer a continuously-variable transmission, supplied by Jatco, a Japanese C.V.T. specialist, in coming Sparks. The compact C.V.T. essentially offers an infinite number of gear ratios, enabling the tiny car to close the fuel-economy gap with its larger, more expensive stablemates."
The higher the number, the better.
WRONG
Lindsay Brooke is either just plain dumb or at a minimum needs a remedial course in mechanical engineering.
Yes, a Tour de France bike has 20-22 gear ratios. But in the history of the Tour there isn't a rider that has ever shifted through all 22 of them in sequential order to get up to cruising speed. If they tried, he/she would die of exhaustion before getting halfway done. Those ratios are NOT intended to be sequential, they simply provide a wide variety of options for optimizing the pedal rpms for the particular rider under the particular riding conditions.
The transmissions in a car ARE designed to go through the gears sequentially. Meaning that if you have 9 gears, you would typically be shifting 8 times to get to highway cruising speed. I'm not aware of any A/T's that jump gears in upshifts. This may be efficient for low torque engines with a narrow power band. It is NOT necessarily the most efficient for higher torque engines with broad power bands. And it can lead to fishing for gears at lower than highway cruising speeds which can hamper efficiency. That negative factor is greater for torque converter slushboxes than double clutch auto's, but fishing for gears isn't good either way.
MORE is NOT always better. BETTER is always better. And when you look at companies like Porsche relative to high performance transmissions, PDK or manual, you quickly realize that they can get more performance out of a 3.8 liter 400 horsepower engine than GM gets out of a 8+ liter 500+ horsepower engine. That's called engineering. Not some brainless "more is better" or "bigger is better" infatuation.
Someone should tell tell Lindsay to go back to engineering school.
CVTs in bicycles haven't taken off. Can't get the weight down I think.
12-15 speeds in bikes was partly marketing, like externally lugged frames. Schwinn frame technology in the 70s was better but some talking heads decreed that lugged frame bikes were better, and people believed them.
One of the factors I was not too happy with in a 2003 VW Jetta TDI buy was a 5 speed M/T. My op/ed was the 5 speed was dumbed down for the US markets. I have come to find out a few years later the exact same (European/world) model have 6 speeds. All new M/T's (VW anyway) are 6 speeds)
Not to worry, albeit there are aftermarket 6 speed M/T kits for those 5 speed M/T's owners with 6 speed gear envy, albeit EXPENSIVE :surprise: For those that just want to solve the "gear" problem or issue, one can actually do a "5th gear swap"(literally) and you can drop your rpm at particular speeds. :shades:
Indeed one of the operational considerations within cost constraints of course is the "gear ratio spread". In the M/T, 5th and 6 gear are the two "over drive gears". Unless one is a gear head, there is not much written on this by oems.
Tremec is one "vendor" (M/T maker) that covers it. Product Guide: Tremec Transmissions
tremec TR 6060
Here is an Aisin 8 speed A/T design TR 80 SD and TL 80 SN
Here is the verbiage.VW product application
And yeah, sometimes I pine for a fixie to go with my 21 speed MTB.
I was and still am just fine with skipping the 5 speed manual transmission for any number of reasons: extra gear (longer legs), better mpg ,wider range (better over all adaptability), etc.
personally I'll stick with Lindsay's article & points, and the engineering analyses of the sources, rather than your counter-interpretation of it all.
Lindsay's was a great article, WAY ABOVE the norm for a media article trying to relate empirical engineering results and the analyses and already-tested-theories consistent with those results.
Oem's and vendors of M/T AND especially A/T's seldom if ever talk of this to consumers. Verboten unless a customer owns it are the repair to replacement costs when either go wrong, especially the A/T's.
I don't disagree that in some/many circumstances, additional gears in an transmission - automatic or manual - can improve performance and efficiency. However, there is a diminishing return that can turn negative, taken beyond a certain point. The statement that "the higher the number, the better", is just plain ignorant. Forty three is higher than six.
As for volunteering my time to re-educate GM's "thousands of experienced engineers", that's a lost cause. They still think that by adding 33% more cylinders and 100% more displacement to achieve barely comparable horsepower to Porsche is going to make their top of the line Corvette competitive in performance with a 911 Turbo. Ha, ha.
Why don't you volunteer your time to try to convince Elon Musk that he has it all wrong at Tesla and he should adopt the highly sophisticated Linsday Brooke theory that "the higher the number of gears the better" for the Model S. Just think of what he could do with a 10 speed transmission. What's that he has now....a one speed?? Never-mind that he has the only 100% electric car on the market with a 250+ mile range that is capable of going 0-60 in 4.4 seconds.
But before you take on Mr. Musk, perhaps you should first ask your guru Lindsay what the actual benefits would be with a 10 speed automatic in the Tesla, the cost of trying to cram all those gears into something that fits inside the transmission housing, what the negative impact is on durability by mandating infinitely more shifts to get to cruising speed, the negative impact upon durability by matching those mini-gears to a high torque engine, and what the expected repair costs are of that transmission compared to his one speed. And get some actual engineering analysis to back up the claims, not some anecdotal quotes that were picked up eavesdropping at the water cooler.
within the ranges/numbers/digits available today, "the higher # of gears the better" continues to be true, that was the Lindsay's point as I read it. A correct/excellent/intriguing point as far as gas/diesel cars go - we haven't reached the point where it's not true - so we gotta keep adding the gears to find out where is that tradeoff point.
It makes me wonder where is the tradeoff-point too, how many gears, especially if there's a way to add gears without adding *weight* and merely by adding weightless *software*.
of course there are 'diminishing returns' with the # of gears if weight or complexity is added, and a huge # of tradeoffs such as reliability and the mechanics of shifting 47 times every time you drive from 0 to 30 mph.
should Lindsay have mentioned along the way that perpetual motion and free lunches are both impossible? maybe!
the interesting tradeoffs and engineering issues regarding automotive gearing systems vs mpg are totally different than the diminishing returns/tradeoffs/issues for engineering bicycles' gearing or anything else about bicycles. apples and oranges, man. i had to go medieval-usenet on you when you mentioned bicycle engineering in this forum.
As for tesla, some cool technology out of there. Fisker too. Not sure they got the business side right, but that's not my angle to know much about. Engineering-wise they are very nifty cars and I'd like to learn/see more. I don't know detail enough about their transmissions/gearing/motor issues to say much else - except that bicycle engineering is thankfully not a factor any more for Tesla/Fisker than it is for GM&Fvord! Also I know there are enormous differences in engineering optimal gearing for an electric *motor* compared to a petroleum-burning *engine*.
And while I admire CAMPAGNOLO I am not going to look for them for the gearing solution for a car.
as for water-coolers, i'm sure it would be awesome to chill at the water-cooler near the GM/Fisker/Ford/Tesla engineers. Good times. I have not been there or done that. Water-cooler at my new favorite motorsports track sure was awesome though. I think I'll go back there before I visit GM/Ford/Fisker/Tesla.
ps - Wait a few years and see: all successful electric cars in USA are going to use basically the same design as GM's volt/ampere. As an engineer, Volt/Ampere is far more impressive to me than either Fisker or Tesla. But as a sports car enthusiast, the Fisker&Tesla seem more interesting/impressive. I think I'll google a bit and see how Fisker or Tesla they do on a road course! :}
as for the corvette vs 911 turbo, i dunno, i'd have to withhold judgement until trying/watching their latest models run at laguna seca or someplace like that, like I used to do back in the early 1990s on weekends.
I suppose i'll google and check the nurburing/whatever stats that to be sure, and compare with the current model CTS-V.
cheers! and sorry for harshing out on you too much, dude! i'm sure the GM/Ford engineers would actually have a fun time rapping with you if you dialed back the bad-attitude about the Corvette. (hey, let's talk green: does the 911 turbo get 30 mpg on the highway like corvette does?!
(1) A lockup CVT doesn't use gears at all. The "more is always better" claim of Lindsay was for A/T or M/T geared transmissions and that is just plain WRONG. I could get a 1st year ME student to design and build a 50 gear transmission on a long weekend. The ENGINEERING prowess goes into precisely matching the transmission to the engine output to extract the most efficient power out of it. That is where Porsche is light years ahead of GM.
(2) Lindsay brought up the bicycle comparison, not me. I merely pointed out why it was grossly flawed. Check with any of your Tour buddies and find out if they go through 22 gears sequentially. If they do, I guarantee they have never worn a yellow shirt.
(3) The Volt being a Tesla model?? Are you really kidding me, or did you dip into too many momosa's. The Volt doesn't have the electric range to do a lap around the DC beltway. GM is losing their shorts on production costs. It's NOT an electric vehicle, it's a hybrid. It should be killed and the taxpayers should take the writeoff before it grows. Tesla is where the future lies.
(4) Porsche vs. Corvette. That's bound to create some animosity that has both sides throwing rational thinking in the trash. My point was that Porsche can get world class performance out of 3.8 liters of displacement by matching the engine and transmission PERFECTLY. Top speed is redline in 6th gear in the manual. When they added a 7th gear to the manual for the 991 model, it was strictly an overdrive and they didn't change the ratios or spacing of the first 6. GM needs bigger and more of everything to do what Porsche does with less. I would claim that's poor engineering. I can make an i-Pad that requires a suitcase to carry the electronics. Apple isn't worried about me. Porsche isn't worried about GM. And yes, in real world driving, the 911 gets better fuel efficiency than the Corvette, by a large margin.
(5) I admire your loyalty to Lindsay. Not sure if their is a family relationship. But I suggest you revise your reading list to include Popluar Science or Popular Mechanics if you want some actual engineering content. I've found that popular media can restate 2+2=5 and the next thing you know, the public starts believing it.
Cheers.
On the face of it that might be true but on the histories of each, the realities are far more divergent. Porsche has for many years (47?) had a commitment to the rear engine rear transmission design with rights to its 6 cylinder design. Corvette has for many years had a commitment to the front engine rear transmission design with rights to both its 8 cylinder design, ala small/large blocks. For each to do what the other does best would probably not be playing to either's strengths, burn a lot of monies unfruitfully etc. So for example, I don't think Porsche could do anything near the cost of what Corvette does and vice versa.
(5.5 L) 325 hp would post a minimum of 586# ft of torque. I trust Tremec 6060 has a variant that can handle that kind of hp/torque That would not be bad for a sub 3k touring machine. :shades:
99% of my driving would be in derated, poor FE, mode.
WRONG. Here's the fact:
"Starting in September 2008 Tesla Motors selected BorgWarner to manufacture gearboxes and began equipping all Roadsters (and future Model S's) with a single speed, fixed gear gearbox (8.2752:1) with an electrically actuated parking pawl mechanism and a mechanical lubrication pump"
And hows 0-60 in 3.9 seconds for the 5-7 passenger Model S?? Motor Trend Tesla Test
The Prius isn't even an electric car. It's a hybrid. It has far more in common with whatever you are driving today than with the Tesla.
If you are a lazy driver, then buy cubic inches and an automatic and be happy. :P
When I was picking up my wife's X5 in Spartanburg, the BMW driving instructors were all lamenting the anticipated replacement of the free revving V8 in the M3 with a turbo 6, thanks to the EPA outlawing real fun.
As for me, I'm very happy with the turbo-diesel in the X5d, especially when it reads 30mpg at 75mph. But I'd prefer NA in a real sports car, even if it meant losing a stop light drag race. That seems to be the consensus among the non lazy professionals as well. :P
Available manual transmission on all trims.
Electrically-driven hydraulic power steering
And not a turbo to be found outside of the Mazdaspeed3.
I suppose it depends on the execution. That one wasn't good enough for me to pass on getting a clutch.
I have to imagine the tech is still in its infancy.
Shifts were a little jerky.
Bleeding edge tech is often awful, the MSG in the Toyota MR2 was the 2nd worst transmission I've ever sampled. Only the Smart ForTwo was worse.
In Mister Two it would lift abruptly off the throttle and toss your head forward with each shift, you simply could not drive aggressively, or even smoothly.
I
walkedran back to my Miata and never looked back.I am seriously thinking about working my way up to one of those bikes with clutchless upshifts if I take up the hobby. Less left hand cramps, and probably better shifts than I could do anyway.
The clutch was never a hassle.
I know Gixxers from 08+ have a gear indicator, I think some BMWs too. And you can get an aftermarket one, but it looks a little hokey.
Too much clutchwork in a car would annoy me too, although it seems easier in a car to just leave it in 2nd if speeds are low.
Every once in a while I crave riding again, but I had three (yes, 3) stolen from me at one point or another so I swore them off.
I am OK now with the tiptronic in the E55, which I shift just to listen to the car. Maybe I am lazy. I shift the fintail more, just to squeeze out some more momentum out of an engine that has torque measured in inches rather than feet, along with second gear start.
Theft - I accept blame for the first, 2nd was stolen with chains and lock and all, 3rd the thief removed a wheel in broad daylight under video surveillance and made off with everything but the wheel.
Twas not meant to be for me, I'm afraid. :sick:
For the record, I'm not all that fond of turbo cars either, but I am a realist and I can see which way the wind is blowing.
Diesels are great for low end grunt and are a perfect match for a turbo---marriage made in heaven, and (blasphemy!) really, turbo diesels should be mated to automatics for most drivers. It's bad enough so many drivers can't work a manual transmission properly on a gas car; they'd be twice as bad on a diesel.
I noticed this when I drove a DSG-equipped VW Jetta TDI. The Turbo-diesel had so much torque it didn't matter what gear you were in. I decided I wouldn't lose anything if I let the computer pick the gears.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Torque can overcome a lot of problems.
I agree that turbo and diesel are a great match.