You know how I know that most of this "Ecocar" BS is hypocritical nonsense? Because everyone wants electric cars or hybrids, but no one wants to use manual transmissions. It seems that it's only green as long as the greenies like it. Which means that pot and improv theatre is green, but not drinking beer or shooting clay pigeons.
So here's my contribution to the green movement. I say we start a petition, a serious one, to encourage the use of manual transmissions among young people. A manual tranny will net a minimum 1mpg improvement in the average fuel economy of almost any car. That's 15 extra miles per tank per car per fill up.
As an added bonus it'll drive the greenies nuts that we're doing something to help their cause because they won't be able to bitch about us car guys as much anymore.
Modern auto transmissions have more gears than before (when manuals always had more), so the effect is less (and sometimes reversed). The new gadgets promoting inefficiency are CVTs, there's your devil.
11 speaker JL Audio stereo setup for sale:
http://www.j-body.org/classifieds/audio/52021/
Knoxfire wrote:the use of manual transmissions among young people.
Hate to break it to you, but combine a "young person" with a manual transmission and the net effect will probably be *worse* fuel economy.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about
the former." - Albert Einstein
OHV notec wrote:Modern auto transmissions have more gears than before (when manuals always had more), so the effect is less (and sometimes reversed). The new gadgets promoting inefficiency are CVTs, there's your devil.
Say no to CVT.
I wonder if the auto trannies, with a bazillion gears, will last.
Its not just young people that want a manual. My mom would not have her 02 SS (mmmmmmLS1/T56) or her SS S/C if they were not offered with a manual. I would think that auto manufacturs would be pushing manual transmissions for the simplicity of them.
wizkiddrummer wrote:Craig Lewis wrote:OHV notec wrote:Modern auto transmissions have more gears than before (when manuals always had more), so the effect is less (and sometimes reversed). The new gadgets promoting inefficiency are CVTs, there's your devil.
Say no to CVT.
Why?
Large power losses = inefficient = use more gas.
11 speaker JL Audio stereo setup for sale:
http://www.j-body.org/classifieds/audio/52021/
My mom has a caliber with a cvt and she gets about 28mpg in town...
-Seth
a cvt allows the engine to operate at the optimum range to maximize fuel efficiency or performance depending upon the operator input.
the drawback is durability and expense. they can"t be used in high torque applications. $4000 to replace mine when it failed. luckily i had about 500 miles left on a 100k extended warranty.
whatever you may gain in fuel economy on the highway by using a manual transmission over an automatic will more than be lost during city driving,
wizkiddrummer wrote:My mom has a caliber with a cvt and she gets about 28mpg in town...
2007 Caliber ratings:
Quote:
EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway)
Manual: 28 mpg / 32 mpg
Automatic: 26 mpg / 30 mpg
Just because she gets good milage doesn't mean the manual doesn't get better...
Labotomi wrote:a cvt allows the engine to operate at the optimum range to maximize fuel efficiency or performance depending upon the operator input.
...
whatever you may gain in fuel economy on the highway by using a manual transmission over an automatic will more than be lost during city driving,
Maybe someday this will be true, but for now they are not as efficient.
11 speaker JL Audio stereo setup for sale:
http://www.j-body.org/classifieds/audio/52021/
The manual transmission will always have a leg up on autos simply because it's lighter and more inherently efficient. Autos need a small amount of the engine's power to shift, manuals need your arm.
Yes, some autos have more gears and manage to be superior because of that, but what's to stop manuals from adding gears? Technically speaking, you could probably have up to 8 gears on a manual and still preserve the standard H pattern. Also, I don't think that economy engines need more than 5 or 6 gears to run efficiently. More than that and you're just adding weight and complexity for no reason.
And weight is the big issue in fuel economy. To me, a green car is like my Sunfire. No AC, no power options, no auto. Basically 4 wheels and a seat. What galls me about hybrids is that they come fully equipped. How many extra MPG would you make if you didn't have all that crap on them? 5? 10?
Older cars used to be fuel efficient by being so light that the engine had to do no work at all to pull them along. New cars are fuel effiencent because their engines and transmissions are so sophisticated. However, combining the best of both these worlds would make the ultimate fuel miser. I think a car designer once said that a car gains/loses 100lbs for every 1-2 inch of width that is added/removed.
So when car designers say that their hands are tied on making cars get better fuel efficiency, i can't help but laugh. Manual transmissions, slightly skinnier cars (by like 1 or 2 inches) and the ability to order a car with a minimum of options (with the added bonus of making the car cheaper to buy in the process) would require no investment on the part of car companies and no substantial sacrifice on the part of the consumer.
But that's all wishful thinking, in the meantime I say we encourage self-shifting. Can't hurt and it just might help.
They would have to have one hell of a demand for such a car to justify the cost of re-tooling a plant to make it. Even a small change like a different shaped fender can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to make. All the old tooling for the dodge ram body had to be scraped before the DS09 could come down the line.
OHV notec wrote:wizkiddrummer wrote:My mom has a caliber with a cvt and she gets about 28mpg in town...
2007 Caliber ratings:
Quote:
EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway)
Manual: 28 mpg / 32 mpg
Automatic: 26 mpg / 30 mpg
Just because she gets good milage doesn't mean the manual doesn't get better...
Labotomi wrote:a cvt allows the engine to operate at the optimum range to maximize fuel efficiency or performance depending upon the operator input.
...
whatever you may gain in fuel economy on the highway by using a manual transmission over an automatic will more than be lost during city driving,
Maybe someday this will be true, but for now they are not as efficient.
i'd like to know where you're getting this info. i'm using generic sources such as wikipedia and nissan. neither actually have data posted, just claimed results.
if they aren't more efficient, what is the reason for car manufacturers to use them? they definitely cost more to manufacture, maintain and replace. they can't be used to pull a boat or other trailer. why use them at all?
i hope i'm making sense. i'm typing one handed and am on a steady diet of pain pills
Labotomi wrote:i'd like to know where you're getting this info. i'm using generic sources such as wikipedia and nissan. neither actually have data posted, just claimed results.
if they aren't more efficient, what is the reason for car manufacturers to use them? they definitely cost more to manufacture, maintain and replace. they can't be used to pull a boat or other trailer. why use them at all?
Those mileage figures are posted on Edmunds, I haven't bothered to look at any of the other vehicles that offer CVTs though, they
could be different I suppose.
They are used because of the no 'shift-shock', mainly. In theory they do offer the possibilty of allowing the engine to operate where needed, but I'm not familiar enough with current passenger car controls methods to give a definite answer regarding this. However, I know with smaller applications (like lawnmowers), the mechanically-controlled CVTs do not always allow the enough to operate at maximum efficiency.
I don't know of any applications using a CVT mated to an internal combustion engine designed specifically for CVT use, as ICE's are inherently designed for gearboxes.
What I want to see is a CVT mated to a microturbine in a passenger car
11 speaker JL Audio stereo setup for sale:
http://www.j-body.org/classifieds/audio/52021/
#1: Autos make driving in heavy traffic a lot more bareable.
#2: CVTs are not meant for spirited driving, or really anything more involved than commuting. In and of themselves, they keep the fuel mileage consistent between city and highway (3-4 mpg difference is pretty good). They also make for a nice easy ride which makes the old-man-mobile stigma even more noticeable... No shift points means you don't have to worry about your coffee spilling on you.
#3: Electric vehicles (like the Volt) are going to definitely be a LOT greener than anything that uses gasoline as the primary fuel: 150 mpg anyone?
OHV notec wrote:Labotomi wrote:i'd like to know where you're getting this info. i'm using generic sources such as wikipedia and nissan. neither actually have data posted, just claimed results.
if they aren't more efficient, what is the reason for car manufacturers to use them? they definitely cost more to manufacture, maintain and replace. they can't be used to pull a boat or other trailer. why use them at all?
Those mileage figures are posted on Edmunds, I haven't bothered to look at any of the other vehicles that offer CVTs though, they could be different I suppose.
They are used because of the no 'shift-shock', mainly. In theory they do offer the possibilty of allowing the engine to operate where needed, but I'm not familiar enough with current passenger car controls methods to give a definite answer regarding this. However, I know with smaller applications (like lawnmowers), the mechanically-controlled CVTs do not always allow the enough to operate at maximum efficiency.
I don't know of any applications using a CVT mated to an internal combustion engine designed specifically for CVT use, as ICE's are inherently designed for gearboxes.
What I want to see is a CVT mated to a microturbine in a passenger car
the "no-shock" may be a selling point, but it's also listed as a con because to some it's difficult to get used to. it took a while before it stopped feeling "wrong" to me also.
i looked at fueleconomy.org and most cars had 1 to 2 mpg better ratings with a cvt than without. keep in mind that the years weren't the same so that could have something to do with it also. I don't know of any cars that were offered with a cvt or standard auto option in the same year.
lawnmowers? I've never known a lawnmower designed for efficiency. dont most use hydrostatic transmissions? i dont think these are comparable with car cvts.
anyway, i don't think cvt are going to save the world or destroy it either. also, the inefficient auto transmissions have been replaced so that in most applications, the only appreciable difference between auto and manual is preference.
Heh... there was a reason GM/ Saturn abandoned their CVT.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
CVT's are better than most people give them credit for. But they tend to break fairly often due to easily worn down innards, while a manual tranny will pretty much never break if you don't abuse it.
My buddy just bought an 08 Lancer with a CVT. It's....different.
One thing he has learned is that the harder you push it, the more weird it feels. When you tromp on the gas at 45 or so and run it up to near 80 to pass someone [he gets carried away with speed often] it's a very weird feeling to watch the revs lock at a little over 6k and just sit there while the wind noise picks up and the car accelerates. But yes, for city driving or highway driving, the CVT's are fine for most people. He just didn't know that they're not good for performance until AFTER he bought the car. Now he wishes he went for the stick or regular auto to save himself a lot of money and gas.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Heh... there was a reason GM/ Saturn abandoned their CVT.
and GM is known for making great decisions?
GM will start putting CVTs in their cars about the time other manufacturers have ceased using gasoline engines
.
GM is skipping the Hybrid intermediate step and going to Electric and Hydrogen... Terrible ideas too... Honda, Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan/Renault and Hyundai: all are about 5-7 years away from putting out a real working model.
Back to my original point, I just always thought it was hypocritical that being green only involved doing things that the greenies thought were green. Which, apparently, didn't include driving a car with no options and a lightweight manual transmission. We're being subtly asked to one day sacrifice cars altogether (And our ability for easy, uncontrolled movement if you think about. The absence of private transportation is just one step away from needing travel papers.) but not automotive luxury. Yet, luxury is something that I think everyone here would be willing to give up in exchange for being able to own an affordable car. Only the elitists who run the green movement wouldn't give up their creature comforts, and that tells you something about their ultimate motives.
This is no different that the old temperance movements of the 1800's. It's just entitled rich people with too much time on their hands using the rest of us to try and shape the world according to their vision of a perfect society. It's no different than how those old Victorians would drink tea and chat excitedly about what a frightfully exciting thing war was while battles raged on the horizon and human beings were killed and maimed for little more than squabbles between kings.
This isn't war, that's how the entitled rich religious right wingers try to change the world according to their vision, but it does come from the same elitist mindset and it's the people who think that way are all the same disgusting rotten lot of idiots regardless of their ideological affiliation.
