The Future Of The Manual Transmission

iluvmysephia1

does something like paddle shifters make anyone at all angry? I like the ones on my 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS. I like the whole car. Everything about it. No anger just a whole lotta love, brothers.

Rock on to some vintage Guess Who.

ruking1

Paddle shifters may make you LOL, but you are seriously behind the times. The paddle shifters have the ability to appeal to the serious OCD in some and the F1 "fantasy". You might want to go to the Corvette informational site. I am told the "automatics" have paddle shifter options. :surprise:

MX0 6-Speed Paddle Shift Automatic Transmission
Includes 6-speed automatic transmission with steering wheel mounted paddle shifters and 2.56 axle ratio. $ 1,250. R $1,100. Inv.

ateixeira

The Fiesta doesn't have to cost $12k, though.

Look at the Fit - $16k or so to start and up over $20k loaded up.

I bet the Fiesta adopts similar pricing, maybe just a tad less, but not $12k. I just can't imagine that at all.

nippononly

I dunno...

Chrysler to build four versions of Fiat 500 for U.S. market

Chrysler will build and sell four versions of the tiny Fiat 500 in North America starting in 2011: a hatchback, a convertible, a station wagon and a sporty hatchback.

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090629/CARNEWS/906299995

Just how much money will they ask for the non-Abarth 500, a Fiat smaller than a Yaris? Fiesta will be going head-on with cars just like that, not to mention the $10K Versa and Accent and the $12K Yaris.

I think there will be non-RS versions of the Fiesta that are pretty basic in nature and very inexpensive.

ateixeira

I seriously doubt that Fiat will be cheap.

The 500 Abarth will compete with the Mini Cooper S in the $25k+ price range. Think about it.

These are premium small european cars, not economy cars.

I bet the 500 costs a lot more than a Fit, for instance.

That Smart's not cheap, nor is the Cooper. Once VW figures out a way to bring a car smaller than the Golf, we'll see Golf prices creep in to the $20s as well.

Look at the Euro vs. Dollar values. To sell a Fiat 500 here for $12k, they would only be getting about half the Euros they charge for it in Europe, and that ignores the extra freight cost.

My guess is the 500 will start at around $18k, like the Cooper.

nippononly

Well, two things:
1. There are both Abarth and non-Abarth 500s in the proposal for U.S. sales. The non-Abarth has the driving characteristics and features of a Yaris, with the styling of a Fiat. If they price that one at $18K, they won't sell a single one. Maybe not $12K, maybe $14K, but you can count on it being cheap and as such, I am sure a 6-speed manual will be the standard transmission.

2. They are planning to build it in the U.S., so Euro vs Dollar will be muted in importance.

ateixeira

Again, I wouldn't necessarily look at Japanese competitors.

This is a european car. I'd compare to a VW New Beetle, perhaps, not a Yaris.

Starting prices in the $17-18k range for the Beetle.

By the way, I'm not saying they will sell well, in fact I don't think it will sell well at all, no matter the price. The USA has no nostalgia for the 500 like it did for the Beetle and Cooper.

The 500 will have small niche appeal at best.

nippononly

Well the Beetle has way more feature content than the Yaris and the 500. That's why they won't get Beetle money for the 500. Heck, even VW doesn't get Beetle money for Beetles nowadays!They are heavily discounted and are STILL declining in sales the last few years.

The best-selling Rabbit was the cheapo 2-door for 15 grand, and even THAT had more content than the 500 will!

It is $14K or bust for the 500, IMHO. And as you say, there are good odds of "bust"! Think anyone will confuse it with the former Ford of the same name?! ;-)

ateixeira

Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves, here, the US-spec 500 is far from being finalized.

I think we'll get the higher-end versions that are fairly well equipped. We typically get only the biggest gas engine offered in Europe, while Europe gets 12 engine options, including 4 diesels, none of which will come here.

Make that the top 2 gas engines. One for the base car and the 2nd for the Abarth.

I will be shocked if they bill it as an economy car. Surely they will chase the more profitable small/premium car segment.

The Beetle is very old and way past its prime, plus it has not been updated. The first two years it was very successful, IIRC.

andys120

The non-Abarth has the driving characteristics and features of a Yaris, with the styling of a Fiat.

Anyone who has ever driven any Fiat would be surpised if that were so..

stever

"Here's a strong endorsement for CVTs, as they can turn even a heavy, all-wheel-drive wagon into a fuel-efficient family car.

With the base 2.5-liter engine and the new CVT, the 2010 Subaru Outback is rated 22 mpg city/29 mpg highway."

2010 Subaru Outback Rated 24 City/29 Highway (Inside Line)

nippononly

At which point you have to ask yourself: why IS it that this engine turns almost 2800 rpm at 65 mph in top gear with the 5-speed stick????

This manual has the same problem a lot of manuals do these days - it needs to be geared taller. If the manual were geared so that it loped along at 2200 rpm at freeway speed, it would pull 29 mpg too. This engine is plenty torquey enough to handle that. Why Subaru and other manufacturers gear their manuals this stupid way these days is beyond me.

elias

nippononly, you present no data to support your theory, yet you write it as if it is a fact. Are you aware of any data to back up your point for any particular vehicle?
I understand that it's not torque that is most directly relevant to keeping a car moving at constant speed - instead the key metric is "road horsepower" - the # of hp used to keep the car moving at whatever speed.
So with respect, until we get some current data, I'll tend to trust the choices from Subie's engineers who use actual data to optimize mpg & performance of their cars.

Possibly on some Subie forum there are mpg reports from folks who have swapped a transmission gear to get a taller top gear?

ruking1

..."At which point you have to ask yourself: why IS it that this engine turns almost 2800 rpm at 65 mph in top gear with the 5-speed stick????

This manual has the same problem a lot of manuals do these days - it needs to be geared taller. If the manual were geared so that it loped along at 2200 rpm at freeway speed, it would pull 29 mpg too. This engine is plenty torquey enough to handle that. Why Subaru and other manufacturers gear their manuals this stupid way these days is beyond me."...

I think this really hits the nail on the head (from a consumers point of view) .

This is not to discount the almost rabid (some say cult like) Subaru following !!?? I just don't count myself among the faithful. This is also NOT to vilify Subie engineers choices for the offered products.

To answer another poster, (Elias) the data is there. It is just not presented in such a way as to be easily inspected, compared, graphic 'ed, etc.

So for example on a 03 VW Jetta TDI, 2,950 #, @ 2,800 rpms in 5th gear I'd be trolling for a ticket (in a 65 mph zone) at 90-95 mph, except on I 40 E/W in TX. (GOD bless TX !!) I would also be looking at 48/50 mpg !!?? Don't try this at home :lemon:

The other way to look at it is @ 65 mph, I would be looking at 58-60 mpg. (I am not sure of the rpms)

A rule of thumb is for every +/-100 #'s a delta (change) of 1-2 mpg.

On the VW (www.TDIclub.com) forum there is plenty of information on the .658 /.681 gear (5th gear) swap. Most information points to an 11% RPM drop in 5th gear due to the change. On an engine with a 5,100 redline, 11% drop would be app -500 rpms (561 actual) One can easily do a search on that site.

To put this in context, the above 03 VW TDI (Jetta in this example) was put on the European market with bigger injectors (.205) AND a 6 speed manual.

What came over to the US market were smaller injectors (.184) and a 5 speed manual. The scuttle butt is the bigger injectors and 6 speed manual can easily clock more speed, torque and more importantly in this example, 1 to 2 mpg better !!!! ???

While I am not complaining of 48/50 and 58-60 in the above scenarios, whats wrong with 50/52 and 60-62 mpg?? :shades:

wwest

"..it needs to be geared taller.."

No, NOT...!!

The answer is quite plain and SIMPLE.

Multiple gear ratio manuals and automatics MUST give way to CVTs.

With a CVT the engine can run, will be free to run, at whatever RPM/throttle opening that PERFECTLY matches, JUST BARELY MATCHES, the requirement of the moment, constant speed on a flat smooth roadbed or climbing a steep pass fully loaded and towing.

Put as many gears as you wish in that "box" and your will still NEVER reach the FE and performance capability of a CVT.

ruking1

Right!! 29 mpg is better than 48-50 mpg??? (also keep in mind there is no real world variance data) Lucy.... U have some ...splaining to do (and not just your opinion) The old rating was at 26 mpg. The new rated 6 spd manual transmission is at 27 mpg. Anoher question remains what is the premium of the CVT over the 6 spd manual?

Again that is nothing new, as one strategy has always been to keep the RPMS the same and select the "correct" gear to keep a preselected and supposedly fuel efficient rpm reading constant. Another that I sometimes do at altitude (aka in the mountains 2k to 7,000ft) is to select a steady mph. I pass many a Subaru doing that. (not that I set out to do that, but a lot of Subaru owners head for the mountains- its kind of a lifestyle mindset)

Again what is extremely well hidden is the hp/torque at the so called "crank" and at the rear wheels. The differences (app 11% for the manual and 20% for the automatic) is customarily identified as the parasitic loss or drag. Again the real question: what is it for the CVT.

nippononly

Multiple gear ratio manuals and automatics MUST give way to CVTs.

And that way, you can have that exciting feeling of driving your motorboat all the time, even when you are on dry land!! ;-)

All I'm asking for is a taller top gear. Even some 6-speed manuals today are still geared without a proper high-MPG highway cruising gear.

stever

Hmmm, my sailing buddy drives a manual transmission F-150. On the boat he is contantly trimming the sail, adjusting a line or dinking around with a cleat or something. He'd be bored stiff in a CVT stinkpot.

shipo

"Multiple gear ratio manuals and automatics MUST give way to CVTs."

Bwaaahaha! CVTs, for those whom like mind numbingly boring cars, they are the perfect answer. For the rest of us, give us a nicely ratioed 6-Speed manual gearbox, complete with a clutch pedal and we'll easily be able get the same fuel economy for any given driving environment, and have more fun while doing it.

andys120

There's a first, WWest actually said something I more or less agree with.

wwest

I just drove ~1800 miles in 8 days in our 28' MH, E350 V10 class C.

Seattle, Livingston MT, Lewistown MT, Everson MT, back to Seattle.

Meals at Missoula Crackerbarrel both ways.

If it had a manual transmission I would have left it home and taken the train.

The nice thing about a CVT is if you want to "stir" it the programmers could give you any number (6 or 9,...more....?) of "fixed" gear ratios you like. In the best of all worlds you would even be able to select each ratio.

Then when you get tired of "stirring" you can simply leave the driving to "us', speaking for firmware programmers.

wwest

"...same fuel economy..."

Not possible, not even close.

Not even if/when you're sharp as a tack, let alone a few hours into a 500 mile destination.

nippononly

Why would you want to "stir it" if you dislike controlling the engine so much that you would prefer taking the train to doing so?!

Not to mention, the car will go fastest if you just floor it and let it motorboat. "Stirring it" with the plastic paddles in a "sport" CVT is just absurd.

What is amusing, in a general sense, is how hard designers of automatics try to imitate the operation of a true manual, and just how far short of that goal they fall.

I do think that the death knell has now been sounded for the slushbox, which will be replaced by DGSs in expensive applications, and by CVTs in cheap ones.

andys120

I do think that the death knell has now been sounded for the slushbox, which will be replaced by DGSs in expensive applications, and by CVTs in cheap ones.

I agree with that as well but I also think the three-pedal manual will also be replaced by the DSG or CVT except for narrowly focused track sports cars like the Ariel Atom
and Caterham Seven or perhaps retro excercises like the Morgans

shipo

It appears that you're under the naive impression that there is exactly one RPM setting that will deliver the best fuel economy in any given driving environment, and that just isn't true. Given the broad power curves of modern engines, there is virtually zero difference in the BFSC of an engine putting out say thirty horsepower at 2,200 RPMS compared to that same engine putting out that same thirty horsepower at 2,300 RPMS. Now, if you want to compare 2,200 to say 3,000 RPMS, then yes, there should be a small but measurable difference in the BFSC, but that should never be an issue with a car with a manual transmission and properly chosen gear ratios.

The truth is, CVTs are an answer to a question very few folks ask, and for my part, if a car is sporting a CVT, I won't even bother considering it.

wwest

".. naive impression..." ".. exactly one RPM setting...."

No, but there is ONE exacting POWER setting for each situation that will return the OPTIMUM FE.

Look at it this way, suppose you could design the ECU control software to continuously SEARCH for the POWER POINT that results in just the TINIEST level of detonation and then adjust the engine POWER to be just a tad above.

A CVT would be the ONLY solution to that "equation".

shipo

"No, but there is ONE exacting POWER setting for each situation that will return the OPTIMUM FE."

Like I said, naive...

I don't care whether you believe me or not, look it up for yourself. If any given vehicle requires say 30 hp to maintain 70 mph on a standard day (i.e. 59 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level), then the engine needs to produce 30 hp, period, full stop, the end. If it made any more, the vehicle would go faster, if it made any less, the vehicle would go slower.

Now, as for that 30 hp, if you look at the BSFC charts for the vast majority of engines on the road today, you'll see that producing that relatively small amount of power at pretty much any RPM between 2,000 and 2,300 will not change the amount of fuel required to generate that power by any measurable degree. Said another way, there is NOT one specific RPM that is exactly perfect for any given amount of power, at least in modern computer controlled fuel injected engines. Said still another way, CVTs have not, and will not prove to be any better from a fuel economy perspective than a well thought manual transmission. Like it or don't.

stever

That begs the question though - where are the well thought out manual transmissions? The CVTs (and some "normal" automatics) are beating the manuals in fuel economy, at least according to the official testing.

The old saw that a MT will always get better FE than a AT DHW anymore.

(DWH = doesn't hold water; that sentence is Twitter eligible ).

shipo

I haven't looked at all MTs from all manufacturers, I have found that the VW Rabbit, Jetta, GTI and GLI all have very nice gear ratios for their manual transmissions.

Best regards,
Shipo

shipo

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). :shades:

Best regards,
Shipo

ruking1

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" :P

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.

stever

Maybe the CVT would significantly beat the 6 speed if they tuned it for regular gas. Judging by the dearth of mpg reports here and at fueleconomy.gov, people aren't driving A4s to save on gas.

Maybe we could track down some make/model aimed at fuel efficiency and compare notes that way. Something like a hybrid that's also available in a gasser stick? Like, ahem, the FWD 2009 Ford Escape stick (24 combined) vs the hybrid CVT flavor (32 combined).

Now drop the 5 speed into the hybrid (where's Wwest - he could do that). My guess is that it won't get close to that 32. Unfortunately coupling a MT to the hybrid drivetrain probably isn't feasible, otherwise Ford could have used the parts bin, so I guess we'll never know.

Oh, the 5 speed does beat the automatic FWD Escape by one mpg (combined). The MT is 2 mpg better in the city, same on the highway.

mcdawgg

All I'm asking for is a taller top gear. Even some 6-speed manuals today are still geared without a proper high-MPG highway cruising gear.

I completely agree. My theory is that the automakers don't want you to have to downshift while on the highway going up a hill. I'd welcome it, makes the drive more fun and saves fuel!

ruking1

Given your hypothesis, it would be interesting to really hear what the "performance" differences are between a CVT and 6 spd manual in an A4.

Frankly, I don't think it would make any difference on RUG as it does on PUG. So for example on PUG the Z06 6 spd manual which has 10% "zippier" (lower) gearing gets the same mpg to slightly better as a Vette with automatic transmission and much taller gearing.

stever

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

ruking1

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.... :shades:

ruking1

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).

wwest

The Escape hybrid, nor any Toyoya HSD type hybrid for that matter, cannot be functional absent the PSD, Power Split Device, often mistakenly referred to as a CVT because it has CVT functionality.

wwest

"...DHW..."

The water bucket isn't empty it simply has a leak.

Most 6 speed automatics now have 8 or 9 effective gear ratios. The torque converter is often locked up, optionally locked up, in several of the higher ratios.

A well driven MT can still beat ANY automatic, just not by as wide a margin if you happen to be up against on of these new 6-9 speed automatics that lock up the torque converter during light engine loads/loading.

On the other hand I cannot believe how BUSY these things are at shifting up or down with even the slightest roadway perturbation. Methinks NONE of us would enjoy shifting an MT that often, continously, 100% of the time, to attain equal FE.

The new V6 engines, especially those with DFI, have such a surplus of power available throughout the RPM band that 2 of the 6 ratios are often OD ratios.

wwest

On the other hand if you take an engine that is TUNED specifically for FE, say a smallish Atkinson cycle DFI I4, and that results in a fairly narrow RPM power band, I have no question that a CVT would beat ANY 6-speed MT driver for FE EVERY time.

shipo

You're still missing the point. Computer controlled engines, even Atkinson Cycle engines operate very efficiently across wide RPM ranges, and unless you're going to build an Atkinson Cycle engine without all of the advantages of other modern engines (kinda dumb don't you think), then the manual transmission will still yield as good as or better fuel economy compared to a CVT.

stickguy

one of my pet peeves too. Seems to be more prevelant with 4 cyl cars though. I assume it is to avoid downshifting on hilss, although some people have speculated it was so cruise control could be used?

On my Accord, at 60 IIRC the 5 speed is turning ~2400, but the AT is loafing at 2000 (might be slightly off, but I think the spread is right). 75 form me is about 2900 rpm, and I think the AT is 2500 or less.

Now, I have to imagine the AT downshifts at the slightest provocation, since the 4 cyl is a tad gutless below 2500 (for sure below 2K).

What people forget though is that the MT would not be shifting up and down constantly (hunting gears) like the AT. If you were pulling an upgrade at 55-60 with a decent load in the car, just leave it in 4th for a little extra oomph.

I get pretty good highway mileage for a 3,200+ pound sedan, but I have to imagine a 6th gear for loafing at 75 would really help make it better.

ruking1

Perhaps the back ground information on your Accord on a more specific site, i.e., ahm-ownerlink.com would put some of that into context.

Here are some examples for a 04Civic VP

..."Displacement (cc): 1668
Horsepower @ rpm (SAE net): 115 @ 6100
Torque (lb.-ft. @ rpm): 110 @ 4500
Bore and Stroke (mm): 75 x 94.4
Compression Ratio: 9.5:1
Valve Train: 16-Valve SOHC
Multi-Point Fuel Injection
Front-Wheel Drive

Transmission
5-Speed Manual Transmission Gear Ratios
1st: 3.462
2nd: 1.870
3rd: 1.241
4th: 0.970
5th: 0.711
Reverse: 3.231
Final Drive: 4.111

4-Speed Automatic Transmission Gear Ratios
1st: 2.722
2nd: 1.516
3rd: 0.975
4th: 0.674
Reverse: 1.955
Final Drive: 4.067

So for example given the above information AND the knowledge that parasitic drag is app 11% for a M/T vs 20% for a A/T, the VARIABLES would indicate better mpg for the M/T (despite lower gearing -less mpg) . In fact it is 1-2 mpg better than the A/T.

By the same token, IF the M/T had the A/T's GEARING, and knowing that "In fact it is 1-2 mpg better than the A/T", the mpg would increase 1-2 mpg ABOVE that !! So mpg can increase a min of 2 mpg to 4 mpg !!!!

One question would be, would the M/T transmission owner be happy with the (higher gearing of the ) A/T LIKE (NOW) sluggish performance ?? This can be done vice versa also (A/T with M/T GEARING) The question would then be are you happy with the much increased performance with the MINUS- 2 to 4 mpg?

wwest

Okay, let's try this...

There are two operational parameters of primary interest for these engines.

With WOT operation the pumping losses are ZIP but the frictional losses dominnate. Just cruising along at partial throttle, light engine loading, the frictional losses are minimal but the pumping losses dominate.

Therefore one of the chief ways to increase "cruising" FE would be to reduce engine RPM. So it doesn't matter so much that a particular engine can produce a nominal level of cruising HP from, say, ~2000 RPM to 3500RPM, what matters is running at the lowest possible RPM and thereby reducing the frictional losses.

ruking1

Oh you mean something like a TDI engine?

Max torque comes on @ 1,750 rpms to 2,250 rpms? One of the best matings would be with a 6 spd manual transmission to stay at an rpm certain or to stay within the narrow range (500 rpms)?

In addtion, manual transmission parasitic frictional losses are the lowest at app 11%

shipo

Yeesh, from the sublime to the ridiculous.

The fact is, a well thought out CVT does not offer any real world advantage over a similarly well thought out manual transmission. This is a simple fact of life.

stickguy

Lots of info. I just like to wing it. Looking up all thoughs details gices me a headache!

But I think you made the point that taller top gear gearing can increase cruising MPG.

And the simple answer to the question about giving up performance? No reason to, if they just added a 6th gear on top of the current box.

Even if they just made 5th slightly taller, the only difference would be using 4th slightly longer (shifting up at say 55 instead of 50). Not a biggie either.

igozoomzoom

All I'm asking for is a taller top gear. Even some 6-speed manuals today are still geared without a proper high-MPG highway cruising gear.

I completely agree. My theory is that the automakers don't want you to have to downshift while on the highway going up a hill. I'd welcome it, makes the drive more fun and saves fuel!

Twenty years ago, when I started driving, you had to downshift at least a gear or two in almost any 4-cylinder/manual to increase (or sometimes maintain) forward momentum....my old '81 Accord and '85 Civic required frequent shifting to gain any speed!

So it seems logical that someone who buys a manual transmission would be okay with a true overdrive 6th gear...even if it meant an occasional shift down to 5th or 4th on hilly roads. And most modern vehicles have enough power so frequent downshifts wouldn't be needed on most cars.

Several months ago, I drove a friend's Nissan Versa from Atlanta to Knoxville with the cruise set between 75-80mph. It has a 122hp 1.8L I-4 and 6-speed manual transmission. I never had to downshift to maintain that speed. And the engine was only turning about 3100-3200rpm at 80mph. My Mazda3 runs closer to 4000rpm at 80mph in 5th gear,....it NEEDS another cog!

wwest

There is no doubt, should be no doubt, that an engine with a reasonably wide power band matched with a "tall" top gear ratio would likely result in less need for frequent shifting while simply cruising along, even with minor road pertubations.

The question "here" involves whether or not an MT, well driven, so geared would yield improved FE over a CVT and it simply cannot.

ruking1

Witness the lack of any posted information !!!

i.e., 1. parasitic loss actual/percentage due to CVT transmission 2. dyno runs 3. even hp/torque ratings at the flywheel vs hp/torque ratings at the rear/front wheels.

Googling turned up a paper from Pusan University indicating a range of 30-8% (power loss) for a motorcycle, whicl arguably lacks any number of power drains a normal passenger sedan has link title