I find it sort of funny that the simplest and cheapest solution to the fuel economy problem is a 6 speed manual transmission. If most modern economy cars had that, you'd get much better efficiency with almost zero changes. One of the reason that older cars had such cruddy mileage was simply their 2 or 3 speed autos and 3 or 4 speed manuals. I'd bet that a 1971 Plymouth Duster 340 with a 6 speed manual would get similar (within 4mpg) fuel economy to the modern 2008 Dodge Charger Hemi with cylinder deactivation.
It's almost sad that car manufacturers are dribbling out these obvious solutions bit by bit so they can put off admitting that they have no idea what the hell to do.
We dont see more manual transmissions because there isnt as big of a demand for them as would be needed for the manufacture to justify the cost. Damn thats a long sentence. If there is more demand for them then we will see more.
Knoxfire wrote:I find it sort of funny that the simplest and cheapest solution to the fuel economy problem is a 6 speed manual transmission. If most modern economy cars had that, you'd get much better efficiency with almost zero changes. One of the reason that older cars had such cruddy mileage was simply their 2 or 3 speed autos and 3 or 4 speed manuals. I'd bet that a 1971 Plymouth Duster 340 with a 6 speed manual would get similar (within 4mpg) fuel economy to the modern 2008 Dodge Charger Hemi with cylinder deactivation.
It's almost sad that car manufacturers are dribbling out these obvious solutions bit by bit so they can put off admitting that they have no idea what the hell to do.
I can assure you car manufacture mechanical engineers have a far greater understanding of power in relation to fuel consumption than you could possibly imagine. And it isn't always because the technology isn't there, it's usually because it isn't affordable. Auto manufacturers always have to make sacrifices to turn a profit while still keeping their buyers happy. In the case of your 71' Duster, they also came with inefficient carburaters as well, which significantly decreases your mpg over tuneable fuel injection. But yes... gear ratio is very important to fuel economy. A taller final gear in a muscle or pony car would certainly provide better fuel economy.
I think it's interesting that Nissan used to have a 5-6 speed transmission as the standard transmission.
I figure if I could have 12l/100km efficiency and drive the way I do, if I let off of the gas a bit I'd do a lot better.
Knoxfire wrote:I find it sort of funny that the simplest and cheapest solution to the fuel economy problem is a 6 speed manual transmission. If most modern economy cars had that, you'd get much better efficiency with almost zero changes. One of the reason that older cars had such cruddy mileage was simply their 2 or 3 speed autos and 3 or 4 speed manuals. I'd bet that a 1971 Plymouth Duster 340 with a 6 speed manual would get similar (within 4mpg) fuel economy to the modern 2008 Dodge Charger Hemi with cylinder deactivation.
It's almost sad that car manufacturers are dribbling out these obvious solutions bit by bit so they can put off admitting that they have no idea what the hell to do.
Not true.
This can only be valid if you have tall gearing, or have the gearing of Tremec--- Vette, Viper, F-body.
Today's 6-speed manual cars are generally short ratio. 60mph @ 2500+rpm is the norm.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
I worry that the new transmisions, with their rush to production, will suffer in reliability. Small trannies, lots of gears. and extra moving parts sound like a disaster in the making. Either way, we will have to pay. They are here so that they can get away with smaller engines in our increasingly hefty safety mobiles. It seems we are shooting ourselfves in the foot. The extra safety is needed because of our need for speed. If we all would slow down, we would save the fuel in the first place. My 3 speed 88 Cavalier got great milleage. As long as you didnt' drive over 80km/hr.
I wonder if the push for smaller engines has really been thought through. I mean, it takes x amount of fuel to make HP. There is only a marginal difference in weight between 4 and 6's. In my experience, a lazy v6 can give equal or increased milleage, with better drivability and reliabilty. There are many examples of the larger engine option actually being more economical in real world use. The trailblazer being the best dirrect comparison I have experience with.
The use of power adders, in my experience doesn't work at saving fuel in the real world. If you use 260hp, you use 260hp in fuel. But with boost, the computer dumps extra fuel to keep things cool enough. My CAFE ready, next gen LNF is a pig. Plain and simple. Only if I drive like an automaton does it have any sort of decent milleage. Otherwise, my tail pipes are sooty and delicioush with my normal driving style.
The only thing we really need to do to reduce out need for oil is make a slight effort. On a challenge form a local radio station, I kept my RPM bellow 2000 rpm at all times. I gained over 200km that tank! I went back to driving thereafer the point was made, but anyway...
I guess my point is that the only real answer is to take the fun out of the automobile. All the while maintaining the margin's of our car makers. Argh!!!
I have to add, like with all emission, fuel saving, green type threads I find. Please stop using the drivethough!!!! I parket my car at the back side of the Tim Horton's lot. After walking in past the drivethroguh lineup and accross the paring lot I placed my order and got 2 toasted cheese tea biscuits and a couple regulars. Iwent back all the way to may car were I passed a gentleman that I had noticed in the line on the way in. I sat there in my car stuffing my face like the pig I am, hhen I noticed the swinelike humans waiting at the trough with thier idling SUVs and trucks having not even placed their order yet. Ooooink Ooiink!!
Craig:
HAHA! So true on the timmies line-up eh? If it's empty at night, I'll go through, but otherwise, I'll get my ass out of my Yaris... Besides, it's nice to stretch my muscles after sitting in the 'kitchen chair'.
--------------------------------------------------------
2002 Sunfire -->
- Ractive steering wheel
- ASA 17" EM9 + Nexen N5000 215/45/17 (steelies for winter)
- D-Spec Lowering kit @ 1.4" (issues currently
)
- Rockford P250.1 + MTX MZS1004 + Panasonic CQ-C8313U head unit
- Barely legal tint.
Diesel is also the only solution to the gas problem. There's no other way.
I was just reading about the new Jaguar X-type 2.0 Diesel. It does 31mpg city and 51mpg highway (an average of 41mpg) in a car that is roughly as fast as a base Cobalt and weighs almost 3500lbs. To me, that is a miracle. A Ford Fiesta Diesel gets 45mpg in the city and 60mpg on the highway (an average of 54mpg)
WHY DON'T WE HAVE THESE CARS???????????
It's insane, even at high diesel prices we'd still save money puttering around to work in those things.
Not to mention that if we're gonna save the trucking industry the only way is to lower the price of Diesel; and the best way to do that is to make Diesel the common fuel for most cars and all trucks, gradually relegating gasoline to sports cars and very specific applications. Sure, that'll make ordinary gas prices quadruple, but it means that Diesel fuel will go wayyyy down making it very attractive to drive a diesel as a daily driver and keep the gas powered cars just for weekends and nice days.
Damn I hate politics sometimes.
04-06 gto 2000 rpm at 80mph
my 68 elco gets 20mpg around town , but 15 on the hwy , gotta love a 4spd and 4:10's , with a spd id probably be able to clear 25mpg on the hwy , with the over sized carb ive got on it
My 6 speed is is around...2800 rpm at 70.
21mpg on the highway=lose
to the OP 100% agreed here. GM is notoriously bad in this respect. They don't offer 5 or 6 speed manuals with a lot of their midsize sedans. If the new malibu came with a six speed manual and the 3.6vvt, I'd be all over that. Same with the saturn aura. But GM bitched out...
the reason you get better mileage with a manual is simple,
lower rotating mass
even if it only has 5 speeds.and not 6. its all about the gear split and final gearing more so than the quantity of gears.
but people are lazy nowadays.
and where auto trans used to be an OPTION the companies now want to make thier cars appear to have more value to the average buyer by making the auto STANDARD and not bothering with a manual variant to keep production cost down
just my own insight there
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Those so naive, so hard headed, so narcissistic, that think that buy their own efforts can single handedly change the world, are always the ones that do.
Fuel economy is the exact reason I got my Cobalt the way i did, base of the base with a 5-speed. The problem with manuals is some people are unable to operate them (i.e. lack the hand-foot coordination, children, something else). Since most people would rather have something handed to them than work for it there is always going to be a lack of manuals for us who enjoy it.
*****************************************************
*
* Student of the University of Oklahoma. Go Sooners!
*
*****************************************************
