Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Or, are you trying to compare two dogs?
Dull is good! ? I think you probably knew that even before you got the vehicle? But then most family type cars are usually that.... family cars.
In "this" regard.
Not really. The issue here is that a diesel would only get better MPG if it could operate at 38% lower RPMS. I suspect that the HP would be too low to get a car that heavy up to speed safely if you were to tune it like that. The type of fuel doesn't have much to do with it.
Though, you're right - a manual transmission might get better MPG, but I doubt it in this case, as GM is famous for having overdrives that are absurdly high. I once calculated out the speed required to get maximum rated HP on overdrive and it was about 130mph. Only if the manual has even lower gearing ratios will it actually get better mpg, considering that the thing will drop into overdrive at exactly 38mph if I let it. (1200rpm - barely over idle when it happens)
The real way to do this is what Mercedes and Volvo were doing, which was to put a supercharger or turbo on a 4 cylinder engine that's designed for low-end boost only. That way you get your low-end torque at low rpms like a diesel and also crazy fast top end speeds if you really want to push it, since gas engines have no issues with that, unlike Diesels. Win-win. ~35mpg was possible on the highway with such designs. And it's also why you don't see many C230K sedans for sale - who wants to sell theirs with gas so high?
Of course, the C180 CGI Diesel engine in the new C class (Europe only. WHY WHY WHY????) gets a staggering 44mpg highway (converted, actual reports of conservative driving with manual are close to 50mpg U.S. equivalent) 0-62 in 8.9 seconds, so it's acceptable for getting around town in normal traffic. But most of that gain is from the CGI/direct injection, which is a natural "why weren't we doing this a LONG time ago"? for a Diesel engine.
Of course, that's also ignoring something like the B class Diesel, which would eviscerate the rest of the market if Mercedes would just bring it over. 45mpg combined (converted as well) - just blow a hole clean through the yuppie hybrid market. A Prius or a B-Class for 2-4K more? DUH. :P
Oxymoron upon oxymoron......
I suspect you meant to say "low end WOT boost only. "low end boost only " makes absolutely no sense except at WOT.
"...turbo... low end boost only..."
Nor even a possibility...!
The first issue appears to be that cars sold in the U.S. have way, WAY too much power and not enough economy (which was my original point). There's no reason that you couldn't put a 1.8-2.0L turbo engine in a Camry, instead of the 2.4 I4 it has. You could probably get 5mpg better just by doing this and some careful gearing selection in the design process. But trying to find any car in the U.S. with a turbo or supercharger on it is essentially futile outside of very expensive luxury vehicles or racing machines (WRX and similar as an example).
As for the advantages of a supercharger:
http://www.audizine.com/gallery/data/500/PES_R8_stock_vs_SC.jpg
While the HP isn't that different at low to moderate RPMS, when it kicks in, it adds a huge amount of torque. Some designs (don't forget modifying the exhaust like they did here) have it set up so that it builds at higher RPMs, and some are set up so that most of the added torque hits early on.
Some turbos are also designed to operate/engage at low RPMs, and while it's not as quick, it can help economy if you don't keep your foot down. This type of variable-geometry turbo is normally seen in turbo diesel engines, but there's no reason you couldn't design a gasoline powered engine to use one. (full boost at ~1500rpm qualifies as "low end" in my book, as opposed to max HP at something silly like 6000RPM)
note - several auto makers are apparently trying to do exactly this, so there's some potential hope for gasoline as a fuel, yet.
And that's the second, and main point - that it's a tad unfair to compare normal low-tech gasoline engines to turbocharged high-tech diesels without factoring that into the mix. If the same level of technology was used in both cases, the only difference should be the BTUs between a gallon of X and a gallon of Y.
Ah yes how about those 5 and 6 speed manual transmissions !? :shades:
A 4L DFI N/A engine might have base/native compression ratio as high as 12-13:1, 14:1 in one recent case. The same 4L DFI engine's base/native compression ratio with forced induction will only be 10:1 or slightly higher.
So at low to moderate engine loading, partial or incomplete cylinder charging, FE will suffer for the boosted engine
(taxes in Japan on new cars are based upon displacement, not HP - go figure)
Thanks for trying, Robert. :sick:
With the 6 speed mt in the eco this gets 42 mpg highway. Considerably better than the automatic in fuel economy.
I would very much like to see some real world mpg numbers with the stick and the 1.4. It seems like the automatics are having trouble besting their epa numbers.
As far as beating the EPA it is a piece of cake with a stick shift. My 2007 Accord (with stick shift) has averaged 34.7 mpg over 104,000 miles. That is nearly 4 mpg better than the epa highway. At the same time it is over a second faster to 60 than the automatic. No brainer really. I find it hard to believe anybody would buy the automatic, but I am often at a loss to explain the poor decisions of the American consumer.
The EPA tests seem to favor automatics. In the real world they seem to have a harder time beating the EPA. Not a problem with a stick shift.
I think there are a lot of things that can be and remains opaque about the subject of EPA and MPG, automatic vs manual. Perhaps that is really the intent and design.
I think a lot of folks buy automatics because of a slightly different version of "
no brainer really", for example, put the transmission in drive and ...drive. Fuel gauge sez M/T? Put 2 bux in: to fill the tank!
In any case, as I have said before in other posts the passenger vehicle car fleet is app 80% automatic. So purely from a numbers point of view, one has got to WANT a manual transmission. Of course there are those ( extreme minority group) set of folks that started off on a manual and for any number of reasons have/chose manuals. Most I am guessing switch to.... automatics.
However the DISADVANTAGES of the ubiquitous "slushbox" automatic manifests itself with the dawning of the 2012 35 mpg fuel standard.
***quote***
"The turbo was sized really for two reasons; one is for maximum low-speed torque as opposed to top-end power," he said. "The intent was to make it look like a larger-displacement engine."
***
Exactly what I was saying can be done with a turbo or supercharger IF you design it to operate that way. Just that nobody up till now was bothering with making it happen.
Of course, GM did cripple the thing by making the U.S. version without direct injection and sacrificing almost 5mph for no good reason. But the Euro version at least does show with can be done to narrow the gap between gas and diesel.
Even at that suffice to say the thing that really is EXCITING: full torque (148 # ft @) 1,850 rpm. As Dudlleyr alluded, not many folks know that that even means, let alone in english.
As for approaching diesel? The latest 1.4 turbo gasser as "good" as it might be, is not even close. To wit: 138 hp/148# ft of torque (damn fine numbers by the way) . A TDI with 140 hp puts out 236 # ft of torque. So torque wise , it has app 59% more to go.
The 2012 Mazda3 will continue with the same 2.0L (sedan) and 2.5L (5-door) MZR engines standard. Manual transmissions (5-speed with the 2.0L, 6-speed on 2.5L models) will remain standard and a 5-speed automatic will be available with either.
BUT the new 2.0L SKYACTIV-G (for gas, diesel variants will follow in some (all?) markets) will be an option in the 4-door and the 5-door. It will be paired with a choice of two all-new transmission- SKYACTIV-MT 6-speed manual or SKYACTIV-Drive 6-speed automatic. In the sedan, it has EPA ratings of 28/40 (DRIVE A/T) and 27/39 with the MT.
Here is how Mazda details the new 6-speed manual-
“For SKYACTIV-MT, the goal was to achieve a shift feel that is sporty, brisk and responds to the driver. To accomplish this, not only was the shift-lever stroke shortened by about 10 percent compared to the current six-speed manual (available only in models equipped with the MZR 2.5-liter engine or MZR 2.3-liter Direct-Injection Spark Ignition turbo engine) but other technologies were applied as well: a down type system, lock ball type synchronizer, shift load canceler, slide ball bearing and locating 2nd and 3rd gears on a common shaft. By reconfiguring the current six-speed manual transmission, its weight was reduced by approximately 4.4 pounds due to the need for fewer components, while creating a quicker and crisper shift feel.”
Mazda appears to be committed to manual transmissions (at least in the Mazda3), which is better than nothing...
Thanks for trying, Robert
It is a bit hard keeping everyone on topic when no one is making or buying manuals in the US anymore.
There's what, six models out there that are the exception that proves the rule?
Someone over in Edmunds Answers was searching for a 2012 Honda Civic with a stick. Apparently the sedans are only automatics now, and only two Coupe trims come with a 6 speed. Optional on the EX, standard on the Si.
One of the last Accords I ever sold was a five speed LX and I'll bet it was five years since I had sold one.
Handshakers simply don't sell at least for Honda.
Ford EcoBoost.
Forced induction will use more fuel than a comparably sized engine, but auto makers are using smaller displacement and getting performance and economy.
The take rate for the F150 EcoBoost is better than expected. It outguns the base V8 and easily beat it in MPG too.
Cruze ECO was also mentioned, beat 42mpg with gas in a near mid-size....you can't.
Here we go...
Fuel consumption per hour of idling is not a commonly known or even published thing. It goes without saying it is a cummulative type of thing and is obviously dependent on your cummulative idle time vs anyone elses.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
wwest swore up and down there was no 4 cylinder Sienna, too. He's not always right (who is?).
Hyundai Sonata 2 generations ago had a base 4 cylinder and anemic v6 optional engine. One generation ago it gained a credible v6. This generation, they replaced the v6 with a turbo 4 cylinder.
Mercedes, Audi, BMW and others are downsizing their largest engines and sometimes they keep the same number of cylinders but add forced induction.
Anyway, enough about that. Bring on the mainstream dual-clutch manumatics!
Indeed, the topic is MTs, not each other.
http://www.jbcarpages.com/toyota/sienna/2011/pictures/images/2011_toyota_sienna_- picture%20%285%29.jpg
Copy/paste to your browser, hotlink didn't work...
To get this back on topic, with a manual transmission that might actually give the Sienna adequate performance....
While not a deal breaker, I am disappointed the 2011 Touareg TDI does not come with a six speed manual. It does come with 8 speed automatic. 27.5 mpg
Surprisingly, though, Automotive News just wrote a story about how the Sienna is the #1 minivan in sales so far this year.
Perhaps because they do indeed offer a base 4 cylinder 2.7l model.
If I HAD to get a minivan, it would be between the Sienna and the Odyessey
Nice to have choices....even if they are few and far between.
Or maybe I'm thinking of the durn Transit Connect that only comes in an automatic.
Ford makes the Duratorq diesel and the Ecoboost. Both can be bought in the Ford Focus in the U.K., which solves the issues of gearing, weight, tires, and drag coefficient for a comparison. Since technologies differ, the best way is to compare 0-62 and 31-62 times as listed. Let's see what the difference is:(note - I don't know this as I'm typing it, so it should be interesting to see if the math works out, as it should)
(downloaded Ford's brochure - loads of technical data)
The Ford Duratorq 2.0L has 140 PS/320 Torque/129 CO2/0-62 8.9/31-62 8.6 (4th gear)
Fuel consumption: Urban: 44.8 Extra-Urban: 67.3 Combined: 56.5
The Ford Ecoboost 1.6L has 150 PS/220 Torque/139 CO2/0-62 8.6/31-62 8.6 (4th gear)
Fuel consumption: Urban: 36.7 Extra-Urban: 56.5 Combined: 47.1
Since those were all U.K. units, there's parity. (diesel has 20% better fuel economy in this comparison) All we need to know is the difference between Diesel and Gasoline in their native states:
Unleaded gas (U.K. equivalent 95 RON/91 octane): ~111,800 BTU/gal
ULSD:128,700 BTU/gal
15.1% difference. It's not far off. That 5% or so is probably coming from intake efficiencies and/or a slightly higher compression ratio.
So there you have it - two technologies. About 5% actual difference in efficiencies by applying the same technology to both fuels.
That very same non Ford TDI engine (that I compared it with has 2 mpg better and 10 to 20 hp better and 27# ft of torque MORE. in Europe. So while it does sound interesting, it is to can be far from the reality, once it gets here. And we are talking HERE? Because if that were not so, I would have much preferred the European equipt TDI. So there you have it. Oh and I forgot the 6 speed manual (Europe) vs 5 speed manual (US). Now the latest one? I really haven't read much about the differences.
So who really knows what the FORD diesel would look like when it hits our shores. It could be FUBAR or as you have compared, "similar". Given what I have seen, I'd bet on FUBAR.
Ecoboost 0-62: 8.6
Both engines use direct injection and other than a slightly larger displacement on the diesel, the performance is identical between the two. Despite the seemingly higher HP and torque figures for the diesel)
MPG is 56.5 combined vs 47.1. The same 20% difference, which is roughly to be expected in a gas vs diesel comparison, since diesel fuel is about 20% more dense than gasoline, per gallon.
At that point, it boils down to fuel costs and economics and not really a discussion about engine efficiencies. Myself, I'd still love to have a diesel version just because of the extra cruising range and slight costs savings (USLD is more pricey where I live by about 10%), but it's really not a huge game-breaker either way.
It certainly makes me think twice about a hybrid, though...
EDIT - yes, that was apples to apples in the U.K. Apparently Ford is going to make it sort of pear-shaped in the transition, so we might get a cripple or we might not see much difference at all. I'm going to be sorely disappointed if the 5 speed (which should be quicker 0-60) has something like a 1.0 ratio in top gear vs a true overdrive in the U.K. (0.86 would be my guess?) and what could have been a 42 mpg car turns into 35mpg as a result.
It looks like it all depends upon what ratios Ford decides to use in the U.S. transmission. I so hope we don't get burned again.
ACTUAL mpg can be a deal maker/breaker for a host of folks. It really is a matter of one priorities. Since most of the US market DOES use gas and gas products DO consume MORE, it is a pretty easy logic to conclude there is a US priority on consuming more while professing to wanting to consume MORE. While you might argue talk IS the walk, I would take the traditional translation, talk the talk, walk the walk.
In terms of engine efficiencies, diesels are actually dumbed down. Diesels can easily run 19-1 to 25 to one compression which would give better efficiencies and result in even BETTER fuel mileage. Again that results IN fuel costs and economies. Diesel Fuel costs are higher and a lot IS artificial. AS you probably would agree that offsets the advantage a bit, which is the "artificial but desired" (in golf they would call that "handicapping") result.
I do truly like the range that diesel gives. On a trip (14.5 gal) I can get a range of 672 to 826 miles (48-59 mpg). If I had the 6 speed instead of the 5 speed that would be a range of 700 miles to 854 miles. Unfortunately nature calls me usually before those miles.
To address your last point about a true overdrive I hear what you are saying. I do have one 6 speed with a dual overdrive (5/6 gear) and the mpg is amazing for a small block V8.
Sadly, unless Ford makes a late change, it is going to be AT only. With the 6 speed stick, it would be very interesting for my wife.
not sure I can get her into something with sliding doors again though, even that small. She did like the pictures though of the piece that is supposed to be the next Escape. Just have to see how roomy it is for cargo.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
The real good news about the DSG/DSG like transmission are the EPA's seem to be similar to the 6 speed manual transmissions. HOWEVER, the real life mpg RANGES seem to be much greater with the 6 speed manual transmission.
I have not seen dyno comparisons to see how much parasitic losses are in the DSG/DSG like automatic transmissions.
My understanding between a 6 speed manual (-11% parasitic loss) and "slushbox" automatics (-20-22% parasitic loss) is app -9 to -11%. Naturally this would have mpg consequences.
- Regular: $3.99
- Mid-Grade: $4.09
- Diesel: $4.09
- Premium: $4.19
Now if they offered a 6-speed manual with the 4-cyl, they could either make it much faster or much more fuel-efficient than the 4-cylinder automatic. But this is Toyota, and the ship of the manual transmission has sailed at Toyota. :sick:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Bypassing the lossy torque converter most of the higher gear ratios and coastdown fuel-cut being two of the major advantages over the "stick".
I would say that yours is a take with one issue and solution. It is more of a limited application, albeit @ much higher acquisition cost, operating, downstream maintenance and repair consequences. Now since most oems do not offer the 5/6 speed manual transmission option higher costs are no longer an option but a requirement.
I would say the stick can easily solved that concern with earlier upshift/s. As to the no fuel draw during coasting, it is one of the real advantages on (my diesel) 5 speed manual (drive by wire). I routinely do a round trip to/from the mountains, highest road pass @ 7300 ft altitude. Coming back DOWN, there are app 110 miles of down grade/hill. The fuel mileage easily jumps 4-6 mpg if I even marginally utilize the no fuel draw during coasting.