TSK TSK ! NO good deed goes unpunished !! "BULLET PROOF" it goes without saying is a illogical expectation !!! My take: if it were mine, do NOT do high RPM (dual) clutch releases from a DEAD stop !!!! This might be far too logical to follow.
I understand that since it is a boutique limited edition, not many folks will have this issue. I also take it it is not built as tough as the Corvette's that are built to the 100 Zero to 60 launches specification before things start to break... AND break they will. They just can't guarantee what EXACTLY will break :lemon: .
I love my car's automatic transmission! I do. I love not having to shift, I can search for CD's while driving and change them out, sip soda safely and carefully, and I don't really miss having to contort my left leg and simultaneously work the accelerator with my right foot.
Hmmm, that's odd; I seem to remember you making any number of posts decrying the very things you now profess to love. Consider the following snippets from posts that you made not too long ago:
Driving an automatic now would be like being forced to listen to Frank Sinatra tunes over and over again, when I have so much classic rock at my easy disposal in cassette tape form. Really!
So, it's really not an advantage to have a slushbox for city driving at all, is it? The manual tranny's are boss, aren't they?
My next Kia will have a manual transmission and my current one has one. The Kia before the one I have now had a manual tranny as well. Starting to see a trend occurring?
But the kind I like and will continue buying, the Rio's, Spectra's Sportage's, etc., will continue to be built with manual transmissions. It really is the only way to fly!
Seriously, though, I consider myself a car enthusiast and I love my manual-trannied Kia's! I will want manual tranny's for several more Kia's in a row, too.
I will not go back to an automatic transmission! It would be like I was being forced to listen to Britney Spears music and somebody taking all of my Foghat, Guess Who and Tragically Hip cassettes and CD's and whizzing them into a nearby garbage dumpster! Seriously!
Even if those of us driving sticks would really rather not go the automatic route? I mean, driving a slushbox has got to be the most dull, unimaginative manner one could drive a decent car.
So, I guess while you're driving, you now guzzle Diet Coke and listen to nothing but Frank Sinatra and Britney Spears, over-and-over-and-over. Question, which dumpster was blessed with your Foghat, Guess Who and Tragically Hip CDs?
Another metric is th European passenger vehicle fleet is @ upwards of 90% manual tranmissions vs 90% of the US passenger vehicle fleet of automatic transmisions. Why do we need fuel @ 7.per gal US to get us to consider the savings in MPG????
I just skimmed a link and promptly lost it. It said that the EU "CAFE" standard was 43 mpg. The US is at 27 (or 27.5?). Maybe that has something to do with it.
Japan's mpg standard is 46 mpg. Anyone know the ratio of ATs to MTs there?
(ah, here's the mpg link at the Discovery Channel)
But isn't that with the "Diesel" type engines included. I believe the European vehicles in diesel form are very much in abundance in Europe?????? and we all know the diesels do in fact get better mpg?????
In the context of this thread (Manual Transmission) we are talking about the contribution of the manual transmission (aka or lack there of, for the automatic) to those averages.
"In the context of this thread (Manual Transmission) we are talking about the contribution of the manual transmission (aka or lack there of, for the automatic) to those averages. "
No, unless the title has changed we are talking about "The Future Of The Manual Transmission". No one is doubting the contribution of the manual some of us just question its continued future in the mainstream US automotive industry. At the very least the future of the third pedal is in question. With 90+ percent of US cars being automatic of some form and several popular vehicles not even being offered in manual that future doesn't look too bright.
But do they really get better mpg than their comparably sized brethren?
The acceptance and adoption of diesels in the US isn't much better than the acceptance of manual transmissions, so more diesels probably isn't going to help the MT/AT ratio.
Then I am glad you are agreeing with the numbers I have posted
..."With 90+ percent of US cars being automatic of some form and several popular vehicles not even being offered in manual that future doesn't look too bright. "...
I take it you probably would agree about my post on the loss of the mph due to using auto transmissions, etc.,
However it does not address the post I was responding to about diesel and the higher mpg.
Yes for sure and (it) diesel is upwards of 60% of the passenger vehicle fleet and GROWING. WE also should keep in mind that EVERY one of these European Union "countries" (making diesel cars) are Kyoto signers !!!!! I have read in passing and probably should post it but one of the VP heads of BMW had actually been quoted as RUG to PUG (most BMW's use PUG) (and I am only trying to convey the feeling) as not being the lead dog as compared to diesel. Indeed (by definition) RUG to PUG has become a minority position. :
..."I just skimmed a link and promptly lost it. It said that the EU "CAFE" standard was 43 mpg. The US is at 27 (or 27.5?). Maybe that has something to do with it.
Japan's mpg standard is 46 mpg. Anyone know the ratio of ATs to MTs there?
(ah, here's the mpg link at the Discovery Channel) "...
Our standards are 27 mpg BUT have a DEFACTO mpg rating of 22 mpg fleet wide.
So without the defacto European rating, let us just compare the standards. So 27 mph is 59.3% WORSE? or 43 is (43-27=16/43=) 37.2 % better?
And WE wonder why the rest of the world thinks we guzzler RUG TO PUG !!!???? :confuse: : :lemon:
And isn't diesel subsidized over there? And don't they send the surplus gasoline to us? And aren't our emissions standards higher than the EU? And it's not a given that a diesel fleet is more mpg efficient than a gas fleet is it? Japan's mpg standard of 46 mpg is 3 mpg higher than the EU. What's their diesel to gas ratio?
In light of my post and the topic (no disrespect intended) SO WHAT!!??? :P :confuse:
(however it is a more expansive discussion that the future of manual transmissions, you do in fact hint at it)
So let me put some order to the numbers. Let's see Japan has 46 mpg standards, Europe has 43 mph standards. USA has 27 mpg standards, with a defacto of 22 mpg !!!!! WELL a slam dunk conclusion: WE ARE ...HELPING ...!!!!!! ?????? :lemon: :shades:
Sip soda, change CDs, put on lip gloss, etc. - Just like my eight year old daughter does while I drive us around in my manual transmissioned Porsches. Do you like Hannah Montana too?
I do that all that and more while driving in 5/6 speed manuals.!! If you want real multi-tasking, get her to shift the actual gear while you work the clutch!!?? GOT my two started on that in pre school. Drills them with 6/10 of the arabic numerals.
ZERO (aka neutral) ONE...., TWO...., THREE...., FOUR......, FIVE, SIX- ops, no 6 in this car, six in the other car, only FIVE in this one....
I just don't think the manual transmission fans can pin their hopes on higher CAFE standards or popularity of diesels to increase the number of MTs in the states.
Maybe a halo car that only came in a MT would do it. Some 125 mpg hatchback hybrid that costs $10k.
Manual transmissions can be seen as incremental. Turbo diesels for my take mated to 5/6 speed MANUAL transmissions are the current "highest and best use" and the "go to " in "the perfect storm".
(I fully understand this is an extreme minority position.)
We get 50 mpg and have for 111,000 miles (- commute slog range is 48-52 mpg) and really,... don't even try. When I do try; more like 62-65 mpg. With every one else relatvely unconcerned about 22 mpg defacto.... who am I to care!?
Point was; we are not even considering "low hanging fruit".
OK lets us normalize for diesel. A diesel driver (similar diesel Jetta, only automatic) gets 39 mpg @ 80 miles an hour vs 5 speed manual (mine) at app 50-52 mpg; mpg difference of 11 mpg due to auto vs manual.)
I think few would argue 39 mpg is NOT good !!! But as good as that is, (you to ANYONE) can do the math over say 100,000, 200,000, 300,000 miles. The nexus for these "crazy" 6 figure mileages poses one question, do you ever envision NOT doing mileage over time? (how many, how long)
So to use 100k / 39 mpg /50 mpg= 2,564 gals/2000 gals. etc etc.
So if you could cut 22% off foreign oil imports (just due to the choice of manual vs automatic....).... WOULD YOU? Keep in mind, we already know the answer/s. :shades: :lemon:
As a comparison the current economic tragedy or whatever you want to label it has only managed to cut down the year over year GROWTH in foreign oil imports demand. :P
"Point was; we are not even considering "low hanging fruit".
There we agree. But there is a reason and that reason is effort and control. People have mentioned control being a reason they like their manuals but those very reasons are why the government and manufacturers in the US are moving towards automatics. While Europe was moving towards small diesels to address their fuel problems we in the Us were faced with CARB and EPA standards that simply wouldn't tolerate the particulent levels Europe has allowed. It took years before low sulphur diesel came close to acceptable levels and then it took even more years before traps could be provided that would meet our EPA standards. If you go back and look at EU 1 standards that were in effect during the smell diesel development period for europe you will see that most of them would have qualified as gross polluters in this country during that period of time. CARB was even worse. Until 2000 they had mandated zero emissions for some cars and finally settled for P-zero for part of the fleet. A small diesel will have a hard time making p-zero standards.
Why go through all this explanation? Because of the control factor I mentioned before. They can not program in the shifting control into manual drivers that they can into automatics for shift points. Yes, the manual driver "could" do it themselves but they don't in most cases. So what is the easiest way to control the driver and the shift points? That leads to a second stage and they is fewer manuals to learn on. That is why we don't tend to grab the low hanging fruit of manuals and diesels. It is easy for those of us who can drive anything that moves, I once had all the class licenses in California 1 through 4, to say that we as a nation could save fuel by switching to manuals. That hard part is convincing the 90+ percent that the extra effort is worth it. That very idea is in my opinion what had doomed the manual in all but niche cars in the US. We love easy and intuitive we don't love training. We want our news in a flash and our communication in our pocket. We want our maps in an electronic box and 500-1000 songs in a Ipod. That is the fly in the ointment for the future of the manual in the US. That and the fact we don't care what europe is doing.
Europe has for a LONG time had a high and higher (compared to US markets) manual transmission population. The last real mainstream manual transmissions I remember was 1951; 3 speed on the tree Dodge. For the math challenged that was 58 MY's ago.
..."That and the fact we don't care what europe is doing. " ...
That is again not true. Here's two You doubt that?
1. STOP taking their exported RUG to PUG !!!
For example we have been in Europe over 65 years. WW2 most know, ended in 1945.
2. Give Europe 5 years and then withdraw ALL OUR troops 2014 !!!!!
I still say we, the generic american consumer, couldn't care less what Europeans drive. And the proof is in our choices of transmissions and vehicles. So if anyone is basing their predictions on having manuals in the US because Europe does that is a stretch.
We don't have different drivers licenses for manuals and Automatics.
"the generic american consumer, couldn't care less what Europeans drive. And the proof is in our choices of transmissions and vehicles. So if anyone is basing their predictions on having manuals in the US because Europe does that is a stretch.
We don't have different drivers licenses for manuals and Automatics. "...
The only one making these arguments is YOU. It is WAY off topic. You already heard and got my original point. Even if you didn't, you acknowledge the second "clarification" and its point.
One take: manuals will continue in the "niche" market segment. As long as there is choice in desirable lines, that is all I would reasonably ask. Again, it is one metric that demonstates we are not serious about mpg.
There are several North American cars out that supposedly get better mpg in the automatic flavor than they do with a manual transmission. Maybe I'll remember the one or two that I've read about.
A special licensing requirement for manuals could be a shot in the arm. People already brag about having no vision endorsements on their licenses or having a CDL.
The 2009 Civic Manual gets better City fuel economy than the Automatic version, however, by virtue of the taller gearing in the automatic, it gets better fuel economy on the highway.
What's funny is that the 2009 VW GTI gets better mileage in the city with the Automatic/DSG transmission, and better mileage on the highway with the 6-Speed Manual.
They can easily give the manual similar taller gears. Then it (the manual transmission mpg) would revert.
Shipo, you and I know the percentage of vehicles, VW sells in the US. (low for those that are wondering) This .5 + .5 "reversal" is a fairly new acomplishment.
You also know the DSG (aka, "automatic"- but not really) is a computer controlled dual clutch MANUAL. It does also command a hefty premium. In addition the verdict is still out on the durability. Indeed the cost of DSG scheduled service is 2x faster and double the cost !!! We already know the cost to (unscheduled) repair is HIGH. So that being said, would you call that .5 +.5= 1 more for 3 models out of 500 some odd? Gee, we are really on a roll!!!
Truth is I would get one if it had the durability and repair costs of a manual (750), as I have three other drivers who could care less about learning manual transmission navigation. If it had 2/3 I'd consider sucking it up on the hefty premium. If the durability is low repair costs high and premium high, makes not much sense.
Two that I happen to know of are the new Corolla, 27/35 auto and 26/35 manual, and the Tacoma V-6, which is two points lower by EPA rating for the 6-speed manual.
Check out the Honda Element - I don't remember the exact numbers, but it is notably worse-rated in manual than in automatic form.
I remember that the Versa prior to 2008 was rated 30/36 in the CVT, and only like 30/34 in the 6-speed stick.
Doesn't matter to me, for all the reasons ruking named and then some. I will stick to the manuals for as long as they are available, and I will shoot for ones that still make better mileage than their automatic counterparts. :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You also know the DSG (aka, "automatic"- but not really) is a computer controlled dual clutch MANUAL.
I'm afraid that we're going to have to disagree on this one. The DSG is an AUTOMATIC transmission (i.e. it can be put into "Drive" and then left to its own devices on when to change gears and which gear to change to) that has a SEMI-AUTOMATIC mode (i.e. the driver triggers a gear change event by selecting a specific gear and then the transmission AUTOMATICALLY figures out how to do the rest -- or not as the transmission has override control on what the driver requests). Does it have a torque converter? No. But where is it designated in the English language that "Automatic" = "Slush-Box"?
Now, if you want to say : You also know the DSG (aka, "automatic") is a computer controlled dual clutch MECHANICAL gear box. Then we'd be in agreement.
Tis ok to disagree. More on point, DSG STILL gets less mpg than the 6 speed manual, albeit not as much as a difference (between auto and manual) . However the issue I presented in a prior post is being side stepped and that is the greater parasitic drag the automatic adds to the mix. Since I have not seen dynos, I have questions as to GREATER DSG parasitic drag: what and where. Again on Corvette web sites it is app automatic 20% vs manual 11%. Hence given same gearing etc: the loss in fuel mileage.The markets have already made the case for the extra premiums (over the automatic premiums), greater repair costs and increased incidents and chances for lack of durability.
You further run into it with torque converter aka slush box. You can argue it from the other side that since there is no dictionary definition of slush box torque converter= automatic: the automatic is really a manual as nothing says the manual can't have a slush box. Splitting hairs my friend. Might be great in razor sharpening and probably law.....but the physics and the mechanicals get in the way in the real world.
I'm afraid that we're going to have to disagree on this one. The DSG is an AUTOMATIC transmission
100% true. What he was thinking of is a SMT transmission. Toyota did this in the MR2 and a few others have existed, as well as one by Mercedes in the early 60s(first one in a production car) and of course the infamous VW semi-automatic.
No where near splitting hairs here. In the English language the word "Automatic" is unambiguous; if a device can operate automatically, it is an automatic device. Since the DSG style transmission can operate automatically, it is by definition an "Automatic Transmission".
VW themselves label it an automatic manual. They will also tell you it is a dual CLUTCH system..... less I repeat myself, controlled by computer......
This is probably way off topic, but VW have not done well with automatic transmissions. I dodged a HUGE bullet by not getting the 03 model 01M automatic transmission. Indeed I understand the MY automatic transmission after probably did not fare much better. So indeed, I wish them good luck with the DSG. It is really one of the keys to their continued US market success. But as I said in a prior post, the jury is still out for the reliability and durability issues as not many have the high mileage to really draw conclusions.
Now for the 5 speed MANUAL, indications on mine point to a good chance of 400,000 miles as a minimum. The funny part is this is not considered one of their more robust designs.
Like I have also said, I have driven 09 Jetta TDI DSG and did so in AUTOMATIC mode . It doesn't change the fact it is a dual clutch system- computer controlled.
That's the point, the clutch is computer controlled and not driver controlled, and as such, it is an automatic clutch. The automatic clutch in turn is one of the non-driver actuated components that makes the DSG an automatic transmission.
Since you brought up the agree to disagree a few posts ago, I did then and do again. The oem calls it an automatic manual for reasons, your argument might really be with them.
============================================================ DSG® It's a completely automatic transmission when you want it to be. But, it’s also an F1 race-inspired transmission that shifts in just 4/100s of a second with the tap of a paddle when it’s time to have some fun. Simply put your DSG transmission in sport mode, press the ESP off button, keep your left foot on the brake, and then press the gas pedal to the floor. Take your foot off the brake. Blast off. Automatic only ============================================================
So until I hear more from the field (ie TDICLUB.com) about the DSG, IF I chose to get a 2009 TDI, the order of preference will be a 1. 6 speed MANUAL 2. DSG
What's funny is that the 2009 VW GTI gets better mileage in the city with the Automatic/DSG transmission, and better mileage on the highway with the 6-Speed Manual.
A friend of mine had a 2006 GTI with a DSG. He drove that car for a year and a half, but unfortunately it was a lemon and he replaced it with a 2008 GTI, 6MT. Despite being new to driving manuals he gets better mileage out of the manual without even trying. Same driver, same driving conditions, same time in each (about a year in a half). DSGs generally get slightly worse mileage by about 1-2mpg, unless the manual driver doesn't like to upshift before 4-5K or so.
It can be a tad arcane to "other than DSG owners". However if the concept and execution does catch on, other oem's MIGHT commission it or reverse engineer and do something similar, so they do not violate the patent rights (DSG's).
From driving the new 2009 VW TDI DSG, I already know that (if I decide to get it) I will have to drive the DSG differently from even the 5 speed manual to get the close to hopefully the same (I DON'T CARE) mpg figures as the new 6 speed MANUAL.
You also know the DSG (aka, "automatic"- but not really) is a computer controlled dual clutch MANUAL. It does also command a hefty premium. In addition the verdict is still out on the durability. Indeed the cost of DSG scheduled service is 2x faster and double the cost !!! We already know the cost to (unscheduled) repair is HIGH. So that being said, would you call that .5 +.5= 1 more for 3 models out of 500 some odd?
DSGs have tens and even hundreds of thousands of miles on them, many putting down significantly more power down than what the gearbox is rated at, and failures are few and far between. The "biggest" issue is the Mechatronics unit (the brain) dying and requiring replacement. This is very rare but covered under warranty - outside of warranty it is a huge expense, though.
The big tuners in the VW/Audi community believe that VW overengineered the DSG so they wouldn't have any problems with reliability. This has held out to be true thus far. There are some cars out there that have been pushing well over 300-350lbs-ft of torque to the wheels for years with no sign of problems.
Ironically the DSG in D gets into top gear well before most would ever dare. At 35mph it's already in 6th gear, while I don't get into 6th until about 60mph... I've yet to figure this one out, as even though the DSG has higher parasitic losses than the manual, it's nothing significant; maybe 12% vs 10% at worst.
Oh well. I'm right now at stage 2+ with my GTI (250-260whp, 310wtq) and I can easily get 27mpg. I no longer get 30-32mpg as I used to but as I've said in the past, I'm not even trying.
For certain ! It would be particularly short sighted to provide 236 # ft of torque and not engineer the DSG transmission to reasonably handle more. (your example of 300-350 # ft)
My concern is @ the 100k,200k,300k mileage metrics, as stated previously.
An additional spin off is as you post, if you do not plan to over 100# ft ot torque in modifications, the DSG might be the preferable way to go.
The manual transmission would be good if you plan no real huge modifications. It is commonly known the engine and drive train are more evenly matched in capacity that say the DSG.
Edmunds has misclassified the DSG by calling it a 6AM; that Edmunds called it a manual transmission in no way makes it a manual transmission.
Regarding the VW press release, where did it claim that the DSG was a manual transmission?
Regarding the phase out of Automatic transmissions, that's a bit disingenuous on the part of VWs marketing department, especially in light of my earlier link to VWs own site that clearly states that the DSG is in fact an automatic transmission. Should we infer from this that the DSG is being phased out (regardless of the number of forward gears)?
That's the real deal, IMO. The difference between a manual or a manual with an automatic clutch(same deal if it's purely a mechanical assist) versus an automatic is whether you *have* to shift and match revs and so on manually. Of modern cars, only one or two actually do this. All of the rest have computers and the ability to do the shifting for you.
It's odd to see one of these transmissions in real life. They are literally a hydraulic actuator on the gear lever(bolted on to the shifter assembly around it) linked to a hydraulic actuator that presses on the linkage where the clutch pedal used to be.
The only way I ever got the one I briefly drove years ago to work was to constantly double-clutch, because the combination of a 4 speed on the column manual and it doing (only) the clutch for you was just too weird. :P
Oh - yeah, I'm no fan of these new DSG and similar electronic toys. More stuff to break and absolutely an automatic.
Comments
I understand that since it is a boutique limited edition, not many folks will have this issue. I also take it it is not built as tough as the Corvette's that are built to the 100 Zero to 60 launches specification before things start to break... AND break they will. They just can't guarantee what EXACTLY will break
Hmmm, that's odd; I seem to remember you making any number of posts decrying the very things you now profess to love. Consider the following snippets from posts that you made not too long ago:
============================================================
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ef6716a/39
Driving an automatic now would be like being forced to listen to Frank Sinatra tunes over and over again, when I have so much classic rock at my easy disposal in cassette tape form. Really!
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ef6716a/386
Manual tranny's rule! It's cool that Ford sees fit to offer the Fusion in 5-speed manual form.
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ef6716a/496
So, it's really not an advantage to have a slushbox for city driving at all, is it? The manual tranny's are boss, aren't they?
My next Kia will have a manual transmission and my current one has one. The Kia before the one I have now had a manual tranny as well. Starting to see a trend occurring?
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ef6716a/606
But the kind I like and will continue buying, the Rio's, Spectra's Sportage's, etc., will continue to be built with manual transmissions. It really is the only way to fly!
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ef6716a/584
Seriously, though, I consider myself a car enthusiast and I love my manual-trannied Kia's! I will want manual tranny's for several more Kia's in a row, too.
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ef6716a/586
I will not go back to an automatic transmission! It would be like I was being forced to listen to Britney Spears music and somebody taking all of my Foghat, Guess Who and Tragically Hip cassettes and CD's and whizzing them into a nearby garbage dumpster! Seriously!
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ef6716a/858
Even if those of us driving sticks would really rather not go the automatic route? I mean, driving a slushbox has got to be the most dull, unimaginative manner one could drive a decent car.
============================================================
So, I guess while you're driving, you now guzzle Diet Coke and listen to nothing but Frank Sinatra and Britney Spears, over-and-over-and-over. Question, which dumpster was blessed with your Foghat, Guess Who and Tragically Hip CDs?
Best regards,
Shipo
Japan's mpg standard is 46 mpg. Anyone know the ratio of ATs to MTs there?
(ah, here's the mpg link at the Discovery Channel)
What's next? Logical thought, with evidence?
This will never do.
You may well be the next Tim Russert (& I don't make that comparison lightly -- I was stunned when he was felled last June).
No, unless the title has changed we are talking about "The Future Of The Manual Transmission". No one is doubting the contribution of the manual some of us just question its continued future in the mainstream US automotive industry. At the very least the future of the third pedal is in question. With 90+ percent of US cars being automatic of some form and several popular vehicles not even being offered in manual that future doesn't look too bright.
But do they really get better mpg than their comparably sized brethren?
The acceptance and adoption of diesels in the US isn't much better than the acceptance of manual transmissions, so more diesels probably isn't going to help the MT/AT ratio.
What Would It Take for YOU to buy a diesel car?
..."With 90+ percent of US cars being automatic of some form and several popular vehicles not even being offered in manual that future doesn't look too bright. "...
I take it you probably would agree about my post on the loss of the mph due to using auto transmissions, etc.,
However it does not address the post I was responding to about diesel and the higher mpg.
..."I just skimmed a link and promptly lost it. It said that the EU "CAFE" standard was 43 mpg. The US is at 27 (or 27.5?). Maybe that has something to do with it.
Japan's mpg standard is 46 mpg. Anyone know the ratio of ATs to MTs there?
(ah, here's the mpg link at the Discovery Channel) "...
Our standards are 27 mpg BUT have a DEFACTO mpg rating of 22 mpg fleet wide.
So without the defacto European rating, let us just compare the standards. So 27 mph is 59.3% WORSE? or 43 is (43-27=16/43=) 37.2 % better?
And WE wonder why the rest of the world thinks we guzzler RUG TO PUG !!!????
Ah, but we digress.
LOL!! So you enjoy doing a bunch of things that AREN'T DRIVING while you are moving around town in your car?
Get this man an autopilot, he's done driving for this lifetime!
ROTFL! :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
(however it is a more expansive discussion that the future of manual transmissions, you do in fact hint at it)
So let me put some order to the numbers. Let's see Japan has 46 mpg standards, Europe has 43 mph standards. USA has 27 mpg standards, with a defacto of 22 mpg !!!!! WELL a slam dunk conclusion:
WE ARE ...HELPING ...!!!!!! ??????
WAY too FUNNY !!!!
ZERO (aka neutral) ONE...., TWO...., THREE...., FOUR......, FIVE, SIX- ops, no 6 in this car, six in the other car, only FIVE in this one....
I just don't do lip gloss.
Maybe a halo car that only came in a MT would do it. Some 125 mpg hatchback hybrid that costs $10k.
Manual transmissions can be seen as incremental. Turbo diesels for my take mated to 5/6 speed MANUAL transmissions are the current "highest and best use" and the "go to " in "the perfect storm".
(I fully understand this is an extreme minority position.)
We get 50 mpg and have for 111,000 miles (- commute slog range is 48-52 mpg) and really,... don't even try. When I do try; more like 62-65 mpg. With every one else relatvely unconcerned about 22 mpg defacto.... who am I to care!?
Point was; we are not even considering "low hanging fruit".
I think few would argue 39 mpg is NOT good !!! But as good as that is, (you to ANYONE) can do the math over say 100,000, 200,000, 300,000 miles. The nexus for these "crazy" 6 figure mileages poses one question, do you ever envision NOT doing mileage over time? (how many, how long)
So to use 100k / 39 mpg /50 mpg= 2,564 gals/2000 gals. etc etc.
So if you could cut 22% off foreign oil imports (just due to the choice of manual vs automatic....).... WOULD YOU? Keep in mind, we already know the answer/s.
As a comparison the current economic tragedy or whatever you want to label it has only managed to cut down the year over year GROWTH in foreign oil imports demand. :P
There we agree. But there is a reason and that reason is effort and control. People have mentioned control being a reason they like their manuals but those very reasons are why the government and manufacturers in the US are moving towards automatics. While Europe was moving towards small diesels to address their fuel problems we in the Us were faced with CARB and EPA standards that simply wouldn't tolerate the particulent levels Europe has allowed. It took years before low sulphur diesel came close to acceptable levels and then it took even more years before traps could be provided that would meet our EPA standards. If you go back and look at EU 1 standards that were in effect during the smell diesel development period for europe you will see that most of them would have qualified as gross polluters in this country during that period of time. CARB was even worse. Until 2000 they had mandated zero emissions for some cars and finally settled for P-zero for part of the fleet. A small diesel will have a hard time making p-zero standards.
Why go through all this explanation? Because of the control factor I mentioned before. They can not program in the shifting control into manual drivers that they can into automatics for shift points. Yes, the manual driver "could" do it themselves but they don't in most cases. So what is the easiest way to control the driver and the shift points? That leads to a second stage and they is fewer manuals to learn on. That is why we don't tend to grab the low hanging fruit of manuals and diesels. It is easy for those of us who can drive anything that moves, I once had all the class licenses in California 1 through 4, to say that we as a nation could save fuel by switching to manuals. That hard part is convincing the 90+ percent that the extra effort is worth it. That very idea is in my opinion what had doomed the manual in all but niche cars in the US. We love easy and intuitive we don't love training. We want our news in a flash and our communication in our pocket. We want our maps in an electronic box and 500-1000 songs in a Ipod. That is the fly in the ointment for the future of the manual in the US. That and the fact we don't care what europe is doing.
Europe has for a LONG time had a high and higher (compared to US markets) manual transmission population. The last real mainstream manual transmissions I remember was 1951; 3 speed on the tree Dodge. For the math challenged that was 58 MY's ago.
..."That and the fact we don't care what europe is doing. " ...
That is again not true.
Here's two You doubt that?
1. STOP taking their exported RUG to PUG !!!
For example we have been in Europe over 65 years. WW2 most know, ended in 1945.
2. Give Europe 5 years and then withdraw ALL OUR troops 2014 !!!!!
You think you have UN/WORLD problems NOW!!??
I have never felt that strongly about my vehicles' transmissions, even though I do prefer the manual.
With friends like these, who needs enemies?
We don't have different drivers licenses for manuals and Automatics.
We don't have different drivers licenses for manuals and Automatics. "...
The only one making these arguments is YOU. It is WAY off topic. You already heard and got my original point. Even if you didn't, you acknowledge the second "clarification" and its point.
One take: manuals will continue in the "niche" market segment. As long as there is choice in desirable lines, that is all I would reasonably ask. Again, it is one metric that demonstates we are not serious about mpg.
A special licensing requirement for manuals could be a shot in the arm. People already brag about having no vision endorsements on their licenses or having a CDL.
I'M HELPING !!!!!
What's funny is that the 2009 VW GTI gets better mileage in the city with the Automatic/DSG transmission, and better mileage on the highway with the 6-Speed Manual.
Best regards,
Shipo
Shipo, you and I know the percentage of vehicles, VW sells in the US. (low for those that are wondering) This .5 + .5 "reversal" is a fairly new acomplishment.
You also know the DSG (aka, "automatic"- but not really) is a computer controlled dual clutch MANUAL. It does also command a hefty premium. In addition the verdict is still out on the durability. Indeed the cost of DSG scheduled service is 2x faster and double the cost !!! We already know the cost to (unscheduled) repair is HIGH. So that being said, would you call that .5 +.5= 1 more for 3 models out of 500 some odd?
Truth is I would get one if it had the durability and repair costs of a manual (750), as I have three other drivers who could care less about learning manual transmission navigation. If it had 2/3 I'd consider sucking it up on the hefty premium. If the durability is low repair costs high and premium high, makes not much sense.
Check out the Honda Element - I don't remember the exact numbers, but it is notably worse-rated in manual than in automatic form.
I remember that the Versa prior to 2008 was rated 30/36 in the CVT, and only like 30/34 in the 6-speed stick.
Doesn't matter to me, for all the reasons ruking named and then some. I will stick to the manuals for as long as they are available, and I will shoot for ones that still make better mileage than their automatic counterparts. :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I'm afraid that we're going to have to disagree on this one. The DSG is an AUTOMATIC transmission (i.e. it can be put into "Drive" and then left to its own devices on when to change gears and which gear to change to) that has a SEMI-AUTOMATIC mode (i.e. the driver triggers a gear change event by selecting a specific gear and then the transmission AUTOMATICALLY figures out how to do the rest -- or not as the transmission has override control on what the driver requests). Does it have a torque converter? No. But where is it designated in the English language that "Automatic" = "Slush-Box"?
Now, if you want to say : You also know the DSG (aka, "automatic") is a computer controlled dual clutch MECHANICAL gear box. Then we'd be in agreement.
Best regards,
Shipo
You further run into it with torque converter aka slush box. You can argue it from the other side that since there is no dictionary definition of slush box torque converter= automatic: the automatic is really a manual as nothing says the manual can't have a slush box.
100% true. What he was thinking of is a SMT transmission. Toyota did this in the MR2 and a few others have existed, as well as one by Mercedes in the early 60s(first one in a production car) and of course the infamous VW semi-automatic.
Best regards,
Shipo
This is probably way off topic, but VW have not done well with automatic transmissions. I dodged a HUGE bullet by not getting the 03 model 01M automatic transmission. Indeed I understand the MY automatic transmission after probably did not fare much better. So indeed, I wish them good luck with the DSG. It is really one of the keys to their continued US market success. But as I said in a prior post, the jury is still out for the reliability and durability issues as not many have the high mileage to really draw conclusions.
Now for the 5 speed MANUAL, indications on mine point to a good chance of 400,000 miles as a minimum. The funny part is this is not considered one of their more robust designs.
Best regards,
Shipo
Okay, now you've snagged my curiosity. Where does VW call the DSG an "automatic manual"?
FWIW, I did find the following on the VW web site (http://www.vw.com/gti/features/en/us/#/performance/DSG):
============================================================
DSG®
It's a completely automatic transmission when you want it to be. But, it’s also an F1 race-inspired transmission that shifts in just 4/100s of a second with the tap of a paddle when it’s time to have some fun. Simply put your DSG transmission in sport mode, press the ESP off button, keep your left foot on the brake, and then press the gas pedal to the floor. Take your foot off the brake. Blast off. Automatic only
============================================================
Best regards,
Shipo
1. "AM references" on www. Edmunds.com.
..."009 Volkswagen Jetta Summary
Style:
TDI 4dr Sedan (2.0L 4cyl Turbo 6AM) "...
2. In VW's own releases
link title
So until I hear more from the field (ie TDICLUB.com) about the DSG, IF I chose to get a 2009 TDI, the order of preference will be a 1. 6 speed MANUAL 2. DSG
But then again.... a 7 speed DSG is COMING !!
link title
3. An article saying, VW is phasing OUT ..... AUTOMATICS......
link title
Lastly, there is no heads up whether they will phase out the 6 speed MANUAL.
A friend of mine had a 2006 GTI with a DSG. He drove that car for a year and a half, but unfortunately it was a lemon and he replaced it with a 2008 GTI, 6MT. Despite being new to driving manuals he gets better mileage out of the manual without even trying. Same driver, same driving conditions, same time in each (about a year in a half). DSGs generally get slightly worse mileage by about 1-2mpg, unless the manual driver doesn't like to upshift before 4-5K or so.
It can be a tad arcane to "other than DSG owners". However if the concept and execution does catch on, other oem's MIGHT commission it or reverse engineer and do something similar, so they do not violate the patent rights (DSG's).
From driving the new 2009 VW TDI DSG, I already know that (if I decide to get it) I will have to drive the DSG differently from even the 5 speed manual to get the close to hopefully the same (I DON'T CARE) mpg figures as the new 6 speed MANUAL.
DSGs have tens and even hundreds of thousands of miles on them, many putting down significantly more power down than what the gearbox is rated at, and failures are few and far between. The "biggest" issue is the Mechatronics unit (the brain) dying and requiring replacement. This is very rare but covered under warranty - outside of warranty it is a huge expense, though.
The big tuners in the VW/Audi community believe that VW overengineered the DSG so they wouldn't have any problems with reliability. This has held out to be true thus far. There are some cars out there that have been pushing well over 300-350lbs-ft of torque to the wheels for years with no sign of problems.
Oh well. I'm right now at stage 2+ with my GTI (250-260whp, 310wtq) and I can easily get 27mpg. I no longer get 30-32mpg as I used to but as I've said in the past, I'm not even trying.
My concern is @ the 100k,200k,300k mileage metrics, as stated previously.
An additional spin off is as you post, if you do not plan to over 100# ft ot torque in modifications, the DSG might be the preferable way to go.
The manual transmission would be good if you plan no real huge modifications. It is commonly known the engine and drive train are more evenly matched in capacity that say the DSG.
Regarding the VW press release, where did it claim that the DSG was a manual transmission?
Regarding the phase out of Automatic transmissions, that's a bit disingenuous on the part of VWs marketing department, especially in light of my earlier link to VWs own site that clearly states that the DSG is in fact an automatic transmission. Should we infer from this that the DSG is being phased out (regardless of the number of forward gears)?
Best regards,
Shipo
That's the real deal, IMO. The difference between a manual or a manual with an automatic clutch(same deal if it's purely a mechanical assist) versus an automatic is whether you *have* to shift and match revs and so on manually. Of modern cars, only one or two actually do this. All of the rest have computers and the ability to do the shifting for you.
It's odd to see one of these transmissions in real life. They are literally a hydraulic actuator on the gear lever(bolted on to the shifter assembly around it) linked to a hydraulic actuator that presses on the linkage where the clutch pedal used to be.
The only way I ever got the one I briefly drove years ago to work was to constantly double-clutch, because the combination of a 4 speed on the column manual and it doing (only) the clutch for you was just too weird. :P
Oh - yeah, I'm no fan of these new DSG and similar electronic toys. More stuff to break and absolutely an automatic.