The banner above is an advertisment - if it asks you to download software, please ignore.
Site News - 3/26 M Car Covers (by State of Nine) | 12/12 Make Amazon Pay Saabnet!
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 08:47:32 -0700
From: B&D <NO_SPAMnopsamCOM>
Subject: Re: GM to increase SAAB lineup


On 4/19/03 5:49 AM, in article iug2av8mn9rgfab71k4b9qcqr1mmm9j0b6nopsamcom, "'nuther Bob" <nonenopsam.nom> wrote: > On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 08:47:59 -0700, B&D <NO_SPAMnopsamCOM> wrote: > >> I think the "manual driving experience" is going to be more and more for the >> luddites among us. I think very shortly the new generation of automatic >> transmissions will exceed in the speed department under all circumstances >> and will be better at emissions and mileage as compared to people's skill at >> shifting. > > > I don't know about the mileage issues. Losses through the automatic > vs. a direct gear system will still keep mileage lower in automatics > I'd guess. But, i'm no engineer. Maybe they'll figure it out. That is due mostly to automatics having a torque converter - which saps a bit of power and acts as a substitute clutch as best as I can figure. The CVT (Continuously Variable Transmissions), the new Audi Sequential Shift, as well as the GM/Ford 6 speed auto do away with the torque converter and either have a system which requires no clutch (CVT), or has a computer controlled traditional clutch. The end being is the the mileage as well as acceleration is usually *better* then a manual transmission. If someone is really skilled (which few amongst us are) they might be able to match the acceleration, and mileage, but the new generation automatics get the benefits without requiring skill or work to do so. And in stop and go traffic, you can put it into full auto and not shift. For instance, on the new Mercedes C230K hatchback, the manual mileage is 20 mpg city / 30 mpg highway, the automatic is 21 mpg city/ 29 mpg highway, and 0-60mph acceleration is within a gnats hair of each other (less than 0.3 sec). And that is with a traditional torque converter. The Audi A4 CVT is a bit less thirsty (1mpg or so), and accelerates abot 0.2sec faster to 60mph - with no wheelspin-dumped-the-clutch styel starts as you have to do with the manual. It is no fluke that just about every super-car available comes in automatic modes ("F1 Style Transmission") - since a computer can clutch 500HP/500ft-lb of torque easily, but an inexpert shift can destroy a clutch, as well as having the clutch be so hard a human the small side of a body builder can operate it expertly. Given the above and the slower European traffic becomes, I can see a slow adaptation of these technologies. I do know that most EU folks, though, are a bit more thrifty than typical Americans, so it might take longer as the new high-tech transmissions do cost a bit more. In the US it is a "done deal" as they say. Is a shame and the end of an era, but since the new transmission with bring environmental benefits, preserve or improve gas mileage and be just as brisk or brisker acceleration/torque wise, I think it will end up being a good thing. > In the USA, automatics already rule the day. I think the trend > towards the automatic with a "sport mode" for alleged > "manual shifting" in many, many cars indicates driver's desires > to have a manual but with the convenience of an auto. (I'd be > the last to agree that these so called sport automatics are > better in any way at all, in fact I find them actually less > useful than a "regular" automatic.). The Saab we own (9-5 Aero Wagon) has the 5 speed auto. I agonized over that one, but given its use, and the fact that at rolling start it seemed to have no torque steer, and just as much acceleration and power band, and depressing the little "S" on the top of the tranny turns it into quite an aggressive car, we got it. It didn't hurt that 99% of the driving would be in the SF Bay Area where the speed would be below 35mph, so in the name of stress reduction, the auto became doubly important. I agree about the manumatic - it is a way that someone can tell themselves a little white lie that they didn't make a choice. At least the Saab one doesn't shift nearly fast enough to suit me, I didn't plan on using it much anyway. Oh, and gas mileage was impacted by 1 mpg. > So, drivers seem to still covet "a manual". I hope that these > horrid new automatics don't displace real manual tranny's. I think that some of the ones just coming out are a little less "horrid" - Audi/VW for instance has spent an inordinate amount of time and effort removing that darn torque converter and uses a double clutch with the next gear pre-selected so when you ask it to shift (or as most will do) let the computer decide, the one clutch lifts off, the engine revs a bit and the next clutch engages. The reviewer was amazed and eventually let the computer decide because it never made a mistake, and the shifts took less than 0.2 sec. This auto will be in the new Audi TT 3.2L V6, and the new Golf 5 with the 3.2L engine starting next year in the US. I think there will be a place for traditional 5 and 6 speed manual transmissions - as long as enthusiasts demand it, though it may end up being an expensive option on some cars. It will also be in economy cars probably for awhile.

Return to Main Index
StateOfNine.com
SaabClub.com
Jak Stoll Performance
M Car Covers
Ad Available

The content on this site may not be republished without permission. Copyright © 1988-2024 - The Saab Network - saabnet.com.
For usage guidelines, see the Mission & Privacy Notice.
[Contact | Site Map | Saabnet.com on Facebook | Saabnet.com on Twitter | Shop Amazon via TSN | Site Donations]