The Future Of The Manual Transmission

shipo

Actually there were three versions of the E39 540i, and two of them had the gas guzzler tax (GGT).

1) 540i, Automatic, non-Sport, standard rubber and rear end. No GGT
2) 540i, Automatic, Sport Package, wider staggered wheels and tires and shorter rear end. Got the GGT.
3) 540i, 6-Speed, Sport Package, wider staggered wheels and tires and shorter rear end. Got the GGT.

In reality, the 540i 6-Speed got almost the same mileage as the 540i Automatic non-Sport, especially on the highway (15/23 versus 18/24), it's just that the EPA (probably rightfully so) hammered the manual transmission equipped car for its city mileage. After all, how do you drive a 540i 6-Speed from stop light to stop light and NOT push it a little? ;-)

Best Regards,
Shipo

kevm14

The "getting-off-the-gas-getting-back-on-the-gas" cycle at each shift is an issue that the EPA has largely ignored so far

BINGO. I think you're onto something. Except I'm not sure I agree that they've been ignoring it. I think this may have a lot to do with the infamous 1-4 skip shift on Camaros and Corvettes since the early to mid 90s.

kevm14

do you stick guys put the car to neutral whenever you think you will stop or slow down pretty soon, sometimes in the slowl traffic less than 30mph?

The amount of fuel saved depends largely on the traffic situation.

If you need to stop as hard or harder than the engine braking will in a given gear, then leave it in gear. This will allow the computer to go into deceleration fuel cutout mode, which cuts fuel to the engine. This would both slow down the car and save gas.

If you need to stop less hard than engine braking would permit, or not stop at all (like coast naturally) then you'd be best served by using neutral.

wai

If you need to stop as hard or harder than the engine braking will in a given gear, then leave it in gear.

The rpm will still be higher in this case than in neutral. So I think if I keep it in neutral while braking, the engine will eat lesser gas.

kevm14

All versions of the GTO use a 3.46 differential ratio, manual and automatic. This is a first for GM RWD V8 vehicles. In the past, after the availability of the Borg-Warner/Tremec T56 6-speed with its overdriven 5th and 6th gears, the ratio of T56-equipped cars could be relatively aggressive by past standards, as the RPMs are still very low in top gear. But the automatic version has a shorter 4th (overdrive), so they'd gear it taller. In the F-Body world, the standard gear for the auto was 2.73 while the 6-speed got a 3.42. The Corvette was also like this, putting taller gears in the automatic-equipped cars. But the GTO uses basically the same transmissions (the auto has the same ratios as 700R4s and 4L60s before it) and the 6-speed has the same ones as the C5 Z06, which is to say a little shorter than ones preceding it. Yet they kept the rear ratio the same. Hence the relatively poor EPA mileage rating of the auto.

kevm14

The rpm will still be higher in this case than in neutral. So I think if I keep it in neutral while braking, the engine will eat lesser gas.

But that's not true, because pretty much all engines have some form of deceleration fuel cutout or at least enleanment on overrun. Put in layman's terms, when you let off the gas at cruise rpm or higher (overrun) the computer will either decrease fuel supply (deceleration enleanment) or stop it completely (deceleration fuel cutoff) until the engine slows down to a point where it would risk stalling.

So the key to using this feature is to make sure the gear chosen puts the engine solidly in the engine-braking zone, and that you're completely off the throttle.

potemkin

Just noticed that the base 350Z (as well as the "Track" version) only come with 6-speed manuals.

Yippee!

habitat1

Unfortunately, the 3,400 lb 350Z comes with a water buffalo sitting in the passenger seat. Buy a 2,800 lb Honda S2000. They all only come with 6-speeds.

ateixeira

An Elise owner might argue that the S2000 comes with two buffalo - one in the passenger seat and another in the trunk.

-juice

allfiredup

No need to change my perception since I won't be buying one.

All I need is three pedals on the floor and a gearshift with five or six gears next to my right leg. No CVT or automatic for me, thanks!

habitat1

Right you are, but I was sticking with cars somewhat suitable for public roads, that I would consider having a loved one in the passenger seat. After test driving the Elise while I was shopping this fall, I realized that it went a bit too far in the direction of a track car for me - and I suspect most driving enthusaists. I also met a guy who was picking his up after having $5,000 in wheel, tire and suspension repairs courtesy of DC's potholed roads.

Back to manual transmissions - when I took my 911 in yesterday for an adjustment, I saw the first 6-speed manual transmission Cayenne that the dealer had ever received. Unfortuanately, it was a customer order, so I couldn't test drive it. When I asked them why they never ordered one before, they said "lack of demand". Mind you, they have over 80 unsold automatic Cayennes in stock and only 2 unsold 911 6-speeds in stock. So trying out a 6-speed Cayenne, would hardly ruin their inventory management.

potemkin

"They all only come with 6-speeds."

More great news. But seriously, unless my tastes change before my next purchase, I probably won't be looking at either car. Right now I'm thinking my next car will be an M3 (as long as they don't pull a Lexus or M-B and make it only available with an SMG).

ateixeira

Even then, S2000 is not among the lightest roadsters. A Miata or an MR2 are quite a bit lighter, and very livable.

-juice

allfiredup

I just read today about the Nissan Versa, Nissan's new subcompact that will slot in below the Sentra (which is also being replaced next year). The standard transmission is a 6-speefd manual. Great way for them to get some extra performance and fuel economy out of the little 1.8L. A regular automatic and CVT are optional, but I was surprised they'd make a 6-speed manual standard instead of the cheaper and more common 5-speed.

I'll at least have to test drive one when they come out next year...

potemkin

6 speeds are quite common now. I imagine that by now, a 6-speed is probably no more expensive than a 5-speed -- owing to economies-of-scale and all that jazz. I think the 5-speed is about to be as common as the 4-speed.

My 318ti wouldn't benefit from another gear reduction, but it would be nice to have a tighter shift range.

habitat1

Cute, lightweight roadsters they are indeed, but the Miata and MR2 aren't remotely competitive with the S2000 and Boxster S as real sports cars. The latter is the league the 350Z convertible would like to play in, but that damn water buffalo is squarely in the way (along with a low rpm engine borrowed from a Maxima/Altima/Pathfinder....).

ateixeira

Check the C&D for the new MX-5, I think the new one is. 0-60 was actually quicker than some of the early S2000s they tested.

There was a lot of variance in measured performance for the S2K, I saw 6.8, 5.8, low 5s, basically numbers all over the place. But the MX-5 does overlap with some of them, at least.

Versa's 6 speed should be a good selling point in the segment.

-juice

nippononly

I hope that means that despite the smallness of the engine, the 6th gear is a proper overdrive to yield maximum highway fuel economy. In a lot of small-engined cars, even though there are 6 gears the 6th is still geared high so you can accelerate on the highway without downshifting? Why? These days, at least 90% of the people buying manuals must be shifting enthusiasts anyway, so they won't mind downshifting to accelerate and pass.

ateixeira

I think a lot of small engined compacts are geared too short. My Miata is.

-juice

habitat1

The new Miata is still not in the same league as the S2000.

A properly broken in S2000 (3,000+ miles on hte odometer) in the hands of someone who knows how to drive a sports car with a 8,300-9,000 rpm redline will achieve 0-60 in 5.3+/- seconds and 0-100 in 14. If, on the other hand, you get some bozo from Consumer Reports shifting at 4,500 rpm, it will take a lot longer. Interestingly, I saw an article where the Ferrari 360 was tested shifting at 6,000 rpm instead of 8,500 and it's 0-60 time was about 6.5 seconds (compared to the 4.5 it was capable of). That's the nature of small displacement, high horsepower, high rpm engines.

Speaking of rpms and gearing, I've noticed that my 911S is geared to achieve it's maximum speed - 182 mph - exactly at redline - 7,200 rpm - in 6th gear. That means that 70 mph on the highway, the engine is at 2,770 rpm. Compare that to my Acura TL 6-speed that is only at about 2,200 rpm and a Corvette or Viper that are both below 2,000 rpm. Acura would say that the TL 6th gear is geared for economy - but it only gets 28-30 mpg at 65 mph compared to it's EPA rating of 30. My 911S got 25.6 mpg at an average speed of 74.5 mph on a recent highway trip (EPA rating 26) And the TL requires at least 1-2 downshifts to have any acceleration capability on the highway. Even my old 5-speed Maxima, that would be running at 2,650 rpm in 5th at 70 mph would consistently get 28-30 mpg on the highway (EPA rating of 27) and had better acceleration in 5th than the TL has in 6th.

I believe that most cars - sports or sedans - equiped with 6-speeds have poor gearing. Dropping rpms to 2,000+/- at 65-70 mph may boost EPA ratings, but, unless you are driving a perfectly flat road with a tailwind, does not result in real world mpg imporvement, in my experience. And downshifting to pass or handle even average grade hills wipes out any theoretical MPG advantage rather quickly.

Oh, and my S2000, it was running at nearly 4,100 rpm in 6th at 75 mph and got 32 mpg on several 250 +/- mile highway trips - EPA estimate of 26. It's gearing, along with the 911's, is perfect, IMO. The Corvette, which has to be dropped down to 4th to accelerate and 5th to maintain its top speed might as well throw out it's 6th gear alltogether. It's an EPA based appenditure.

nippononly

"The Corvette, which has to be dropped down to 4th to accelerate and 5th to maintain its top speed might as well throw out it's 6th gear alltogether. It's an EPA based appenditure."

This does not seem to jibe with professional reviews of this model, which pretty much all say you could just leave it in third all day long and never need any more power than that provides.

I know that in these speed machines the concept of slowing down is not a popular one, but if you put some of the cars you mentioned in their highest gear and stuck to the speed limit on the highway, I bet you could exceed the EPA rating fairly easily, especially in relatively flat cruising. Which would bring a consumption rate of 30 mpg or better in the Corvette and the TL, probably. OTOH, the S2000, Miata, RSX, etc that still turn 3000 rpm even as low as 65 mph, may not provide such a great fuel economy return.

stickguy

maybe some cars are geared too high (like the Vette), but you can always just run in 5th if conditions require it. But, on a 5 speed that is geared too short (like my tC), you are screwed, because you can't put it into a 6th gear that isn't there.

A high rev sports car like an S2000 (or even a miata) is one thing. that I can understand. But, on normal cars like the tC, they went overboard. It has plenty of torque to loaf along at lower revs and still pull at highway speeds. Even 75 MPH out of 3K revs wouldn't be too bad, compared to the 66 MPH I get now.

On the rare occurance that a lower revving cruising gear would be too high (a steep hill stuck behind a semi), than I can suck it up and downshift to 4th. And that whole CC thing is silly, since it isn't that hard to use the gas for a minute, and when you shift back into 5th the cruise can resume.

To me, that is a small trade off for much better mileage and quieter cruising. There is no way a sub-3,000# car with a 4 cyl and 5 speed should only get 29 highway, when a 3,200#ish Camry with the same engine and tranny, but higher gearing, is rated at something like 34.

There is a reason that an Accord 4/5 has such good MPG numbers. it's geared higher in 5th (and overall) that the Fusion, Mazda 6i, etc. And it still has very good performance.

OK, I'm done now. Glad I got that off my chest!

carlisimo

I agree that a car's top gear should be for cruising at low revs.

Otherwise, you end up with normal-driving shift points that are maybe 10mph apart. That's silly. (I've even seen owner's manuals that recommend shifting into 4th at 40mph, and 5th at 45mph.) My ideal normal-driving shift points: 15mph, 30mph, 45mph, 60mph, 75mph. Redline for each gear should be at double those speeds.

That only applies to the unhardcore cars I drive - cars you almost never take above 100mph.

habitat1

"..but if you put some of the cars you mentioned in their highest gear and stuck to the speed limit on the highway, I bet you could exceed the EPA rating fairly easily, especially in relatively flat cruising."

I don't necessarily disagre, but my point was that, based upon my experience driving the same 750 mile highway rountrip at least 6-8 times a year for the past 15 years, having a 5th or 6th gear that is excessively tall doesn't necessarily produce the best fuel efficiency compared to the EPA estimate. Again:

Car - Approx RPM @ 70 mph - EPA Highway - Actual Highway - Difference

2002 S2000 3,900 RPM 26 30 to 32 +4 to +6 mpg (above EPA)
1995 Maxima 3,000 RPM 27 28 to 29 +2 to +3 mpg (above EPA)
2004 TL 2,300 RPM 30 28 to 29 -2 to -1 mpg (below EPA)
2005 911S 2,750 RPM 26 26 0 (equal EPA - limited data)

So, although the TL has the "tallest gearing" it struggles to meet it's EPA estimate of 30 mpg, while the other cars, with seemingly less fuel efficient lower gearing exceed their EPA estimates. I think this is because the EPA estimates do assume perfect conditions and in whatever methodology they use, overestimate what a 6th gear, lugging along at low RPM's, can achieve.

I have been consistently advised by driving instructors, mechanics and, most recently, a Porsche race car test driver, that one of the WORST things you can do to an engine is "lug" it along at very low RPMS, well below its maximum torque curve. It would be like putting your 18 speed bicycle in it's tallest gear at 10 mph. In theory, you are burning less energy to pedal it a given distance. But you will likely have to stand up on the pedels to get any acceleration or to negotiate the slightest incline. A good way to pull a muscle. At a lower gear you will be pedaling faster, but be using the gear ratios to reduce stress and strain. Same principal applies to an engine.

There is a happy median here. But I don't think engines with 7,000 rpm redlines should be lugging along at 1,800 rpm in 6th gear at 70 mph.

carlisimo

I think it'd be ok for a top gear to be around 2000rpm at 70mph. You'd only shift into it at 80mph or higher.

stickguy

I agree. If a mid size V6 shouldn't be lugging at 1800 rpm @70, a 2.4l 4 cyl (160/160 hp/torque) doesn't need to be screaming along at 3,200 rpm either. 2,500 would be a nice number for the tC or something like it (or about what the Accord is probably turning).

Maybe a smaller engine (say a 1.8l civic or Toyota XRS) needs to be turning a little faster, maybe 2,800-2,900, just because of where the power and torque are made.

kevm14

GM products do pretty well for highway fuel economy with tall gearing.

For street car engines, there really isn't anything that you'll be "lugging" at 1800rpm.

bumpy

GM products do pretty well for highway fuel economy with tall gearing.

GM pushrods get rather grumpy when you push them much past 4000 rpm (the LSx V8s are an exception, but those are specifically designed as sportscar motors), so that "tall" gearing puts them at about 30% of their useful rpm range at highway speeds.

For street car engines, there really isn't anything that you'll be "lugging" at 1800rpm.

A bunch of smaller I4s will be very unhappy at 1800 rpm. The first-gen SE-R pulls 3000 rpm at 60mph, but that's only about 33% of the SR20DE's range from 800 to 7500 rpm.

allfiredup

Speaking of the Accord, I test drove an Accord EX 5-speed manual a few nights ago. I was very impressed. It was one of the best shifting manuals I've ever driven. It also feels much quicker than the automatic version. My sister has and '04 Accord EX automatic 4-cylinder and while it is adequate, the manual version smokes it!

I applaud Honda for making a significant number of Accords with the manual transmission, based on dealer inventory. Ford also deserves kudos for making a plentiful number of Fusions and even Milans with the 5-speefd manual (so far). Part of Ford's manual versions are because the 4-cylinder isn't available with an automatic yet. As a result, dealers have to order 4-cylinder/5-speed manual versions to keep the price down. Too bad no dealers seem to have the SEL with manual.

rockylee

I'm waiting for the day when you see a 7 or 8 speed manual tranny. They are already doing it with automatics, so I'm sure the 7 or 8 speed "row your own" is around the corner !

Rocky

stickguy

already here, but you need to step up to a semi to get it.

Too many gears is overkill most of the time. I think 6 is plenty, if they space them out right.

Another good idea was the old fashioned overdrive. On some cars, you could flick it on in 3rd or 4th, effectively giving a 6 speed. use the standard box around town, and when you were cruising on flat highway, flick the switch and the engine revs dropped to a nice cruising speed.

IOW, exactly what I want 6th gear to do today!

habitat1

Pardon my ignorance, but how did the "overdrive" feature actually work on a manual transmission? I can picture it being like changing the front gear sprocket on a bicycle, but something tells me that's not the real way it works.

That said, I also recall an economy car that was made in the mid to late 70's that had a second stick that you could shift between economy and sport. Then as you ran through each of the 5 gears, the gear ratios were different. My buddy that had one used to brag that he had a 10 speed. Or maybe it was a 4 / 8 speed. Hell, I can't even remember the car, although Dodge Colt comes to mind.

stickguy

I'm not sure about the mechanics, but I think it is like a 2-speed rear end on a truck. Must be a different gear set to run out of the tranny somehow, so your bicycle analogy is probably good enough.

the car you are thinking of was a Dodge Colt (made by Mitsubishi), from the early 80's (up to '84). They called it the "twin stick". Not sure if it was a 4 or 5 speed base, but it did work like the 2 speed rear end on a truck. But, mechanically i don't know what they did, although your friend was right, it was like an 8 (or 10) speed, although I bet some of the combos overlapped.

allfiredup

The Dodge Colt was a 4-speed and the twin stick was effectively an 8-speed with two totally different sets of gears- one for acceleration, one for economy. A friend of mine had one in high school. The acceleration gears were actually pretty good to start off and you could change to the economy ones for cruising on the highway.

I also had a friend with a Volvo GLT and it had the 4-speed+OD manual. Worked like a regular 4-speed until you got up to highway speed, then you could press a button on top of the shifter to engage overdrive. Why they didn't just add a 5th gear is a mystery.

whahappan

I believe (but I'm not sure) that the twin stick was only on the turbo. One of my friends had one, and it was pretty quick in its day.

kevm14

On some cars, you could flick it on in 3rd or 4th, effectively giving a 6 speed.

The Corvette from 84 to 88 (I think) used a Doug Nash 4+3. I believe it was thusly named because it had 4 real speeds and an electric OD could be engaged in 2nd, 3rd or 4th. I think I would probably end up driving it like a 5-speed. Although I wonder if anything was autonomous about that transmission (like if it automatically went into OD in a given gear if RPM crossed a threshold while there was light throttle). That would be kinda neat.

allfiredup

Actually the Twin-Stick came out in the '79 Colt and the Colt Turbo didn't show up until '84. Doubt there are many left on the road, though...

allfiredup

I have a question about the Corvette 4+3- Why and what situation would you use O/D in 2nd or 3rd? In the top gear it makes sense (cruising speed) but lower gears? I'm baffled.

Thankfully the 'Vette got a proper 6-speed in '89.

mmcnamara

The 1980 Champ I owned had the Twin-Stick, which certainly didn't hurt things acceleration-wise as it had only 1.4 liters to work with under the hood. For myself, it was basically a fifth gear, as I would work up to speed through the gears and then shift the POWER/ECONOMY lever into the latter. The thing I seem to remember the most about that car, though, was that even as a 1980 model it still had a set of points in the distributor.

kevm14

I'm not sure a driver would go through the hassle of shifting 2nd and 3rd into OD. But maybe the OD automatically disengaged before the next gear was selected, so you could essentially go 1st, 2nd, 2nd OD, 3rd, 3rd OD, 4th, 4th OD. Maybe the tranny had really wide ratios (as a 4 speed). So by using OD in the lower gears, you could turn it into a close ratio 7-speed. I mean, it probably WAS a widely geared tranny, since it was only a 4 speed. 2nd OD was probably shorter than regular 3rd, but if you went from real 2nd to real 3rd skipping 2nd OD, the rpms would drop a lot, which hurts acceleration. Though we're talking about low rpm small block V8s with ample off-idle torque here....

Plus, 4+3 sounds great in a brochure.

bhill2

To answer a couple of questions that have popped up, the OD was essentially just a 2-speed transmission hung on the end of the primary transmission. It had 2 ratios; 1:1 and something like 0.7:1. Typically you could shift back and forth between these two ratios without clutching. How they worked in lower gears of the primary transmission varied as a function of gearing. In the old 3 speed + OD of American cars of the '50s and '60s, 2nd OD was often between 2nd and 3rd, so if you were, say, in hilly country you could go back and forth between 2nd and 2nd OD instead of 2nd and 3rd. These installations usually automatically shifted out of OD if you floored the accelerator, so the 2nd/2nd OD (or for that matter the 3rd/3rd OD) transition took no manipulation whatsoever. The big advantage of OD was that it emulated a 5 or 6 speed transmission at a time when a primary transmission with this many ratios would be expensive and/or trouble prone. Actually, I preferred them to the present 5 and 6 speeds because they were easier to use (see above).

jeffyscott

Well, if I were intending it to sound correct I'd likely go with Focuses, but I might also say or write Focii just for fun...I've been known to say and write Taurii also .

Perhaps the correct form would be just two Focus...like deer.

wai

The new Z4 M Roadster doesn't have SMG as in M3, M5 and M6.
So those rich guys if not know how to drive stick cannot own one with the 6 speed standard. This brought out the fact that BMW still valued 6 speed stick.

ateixeira

I think it's a reaction to the negative feedback from enthusiasts, since the M5 didn't get it at first.

-juice

nippononly

up a manual shift 4Runner, the last model year they made them, so I will have to hang onto it for a very long time! However, point is that the salesman pointed out to me that it is a "very rare" truck because of the manual, which is why he was charging a premium for it! I have always wondered whether this was salesman bunk, or reality, that a stick shift SUV would be snapped up real quick. I happen to know (discovered after agreeing to the sale) that the one I bought had been there almost exactly two months, so I am thinking it is a case of the former. Whatever, I got the price I wanted, so everyone was happy in the end.

In the "future trends that offer a glimmer of hope" category, we find that the new Toyota FJ offroad SUV that will come out next year is offering an OPTIONAL manual 6-speed on 4WD models only. The fact tht they have gone to the extra trouble and expense of offering a manual just in that one configuration, meaning it will sell in low volumes, and even though they are making the automatic standard, offers hope to folks like me!

growwise

I have a confession to make. I never owned or drove a manual in my life. whew... that being said, I am curious as to how people handle the manual transmission in heavily congested cities. I cannot imagine how hard it must be to constantly keep shifting gears and keep an eye on the clutch in a stop and go traffic... Or am I wrong. Are all the posters in this topic live in a relatively traffic jam free areas? In toronto, the traffic is really a nightmare.. You are lucky if you are moving at 25 mph and I seem to be using the brakes more than the accelerator... anyways just want to know how you ardent manual tranny fans handle day to day traffic?

PF_Flyer

(The wife INSISTS on having 5 speeds :P )

To be honest, I don't even think about shifting all that much in traffic. If it's really backed up, I'll try to keep as much distance open in front of me so I can keep moving, but that's about it. If 25 mph was the max I was going, I might skip using second gear and just get the car moving in first, then jump to third.

After all these years driving them , it is pretty much (pun alert) AUTOMATIC

nippononly

ditto here. If the traffic is literally stop and go, I tend to allow space to grow, then push the car forward and let it roll as long as possible, but that is about the only "coping mechanism" I can think of, and that is second nature, so it doesn't feel like a hassle.

wale_bate1

So you guys are the buttheads who leave the honking gaps that get plugged up by opportunistas and leave the rest of us digging fingernails into the leather wrap!

carlisimo

I do hate stop and go. Slow rolling in first or second gear... I can do that, if it's within a 15mph band so I don't have to shift. Piece of cake.

But if it's under 5mph then any brief slowdown forces me to get on the clutch. Then I'd rather stop and go, with brief rests in between.

My left foot doesn't enjoy it. My commute isn't too bad though - at least it wasn't. Ever since Daylight Savings, traffic seems to be much worse! It's my first year commuting; does this happen every year?

But sometimes I've been in traffic driving my family's automatic CR-V. My right foot gets tired - in an auto you have to maintain more pressure on the brakes - and my left foot gets numb from disuse.

So traffic sucks either way. How bad it is with a stick depends on how hard the clutch is (which can depend on how new it is), how much torque the engine has near idle (less worrying about stalling at low speeds), clutch pedal travel, and how smoothly the car shifts when you're not trying your hardest to be smooth.