Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <482ae912$0$7721$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> frijoli <crabman@dud.net> wrote:
>
>>>> I have seen some automatics that were close in mileage, but I would like
>>>> for you to point out one that surpasses the manual.
>>> Current generation Honda Civic.
>>>
>> The only one I see that get better mileage is the CNG version.
>
> Nope. Look again.
>
Okay, where am I to look? I didn't see it on Honda's' site, nor
Fueleconomy.gov

 

"Crabman" <C@dud.net> wrote
> Elle wrote:
>> "Newbie" <newbie@no.spam> wrote
>>> TWO, I am not sure if "apples to apples" is as fair a
>>> comparison as you
>>> make it sound. Corolla is available in cheaper versions,
>>> Prius is not.
>>> A manual CE would not only cost less but also have
>>> better mpg.
>>
>> Most of the reason a manual Toyota Corolla still gets
>> better mpg than an automatic Toyota Corolla is that the
>> manual has a 5-speed tranny while the auto has a 4-speed
>> one.
>>
>> For other makes and models, and in the last five years or
>> so, changes in auto tranny design have resulted in it
>> often surpassing manual trannies when it comes to mpg,
>> when comparing the same models whose only difference is
>> the tranny.
>
> Actually, this mileage is related to less transmission
> slippage, not gear selection.

Not to sound condescending or anything, but I am glad you
chimed in, because on further reading, I thought it should
be pointed out that a major factor in automatics
traditionally getting worse MPG is the torque converter. The
TC represents a "fluid coupling," whereas the manual
tranny's clutch etc. are a mechanical linkage. Energy
transmission losses are greater with the liquid linkage. As
many of the pros here know. (I am just an amateur who works
on her own car and reads like crazy to understand it.)

But this has changed somewhat with the advent of the "lock
up torque converter."

Optimal gearing is still said to be a factor, though.
Several other factors are said to play significant roles, as
well. So my post did not do justice to why older automatic
trannies were less efficient than manual trannies.

> I have seen some automatics that were close in mileage,
> but I would like for you to point out one that surpasses
> the manual.

Sure. www.fueleconomy.gov. Just sort of randomly, based on
checking this a few times in the last several years, and
using only the same engine size for a given model:

2007 Civic, same engine size, both five forward speeds:
Manual = 26 MPG city, 34 MPG highway
Auto = 25, 36

2007 Subaru Impreza (an all-wheel drive vehicle)
Manual (5-speed) = 19, 26
Auto (4-speed) = 20, 25

2007 Nissan Sentra
Manual (6-speed) = 24, 31
Auto (variable gear) = 25, 33

2007 Hyundai Elantra
Manual (5-speed) = 24, 33
Auto (4-speed) = 25, 33

2007 Kia Rio
Manual (5-speed) = 27, 32
Auto (4-speed) = 25, 35

From this survey, I think we could argue that newer
automatic trannies seem to do better at highway speeds, even
though it often has fewer gears. The lock up converter (used
only at higher speeds) is the first area I would explore to
explain most of this higher efficiency. I see the lockup
converter started gaining in popularity around the late
1970s but ISTM only recently did all models start having
them. I see the 1995 versions of the cars above never saw
the autos beating the manuals for miles per gallon. Granted
other improvements may have been implemented, like
continuously variable transmissions (CVT).

The Sentra is interesting, since for the two versions I
compared, the big difference is the variable gearing in the
auto. It's the only model that beat the manual version in
both city and highway.

Toyota OTOH seems to consistently have no models where the
auto does better than the manual under city or highway
conditions.

Again, just an amateur here.

 

In article <GOFWj.12025$MQ1.9489@newsfe11.phx>,
"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote:

> From this survey, I think we could argue that newer
> automatic trannies seem to do better at highway speeds, even
> though it often has fewer gears. The lock up converter (used
> only at higher speeds) is the first area I would explore to
> explain most of this higher efficiency.

My Chrysler 4 sp automatic, which came out in the early 90s, has lockup
on the top 3 gears. In effect it has 7 gears.
The fuel mileage is excellent.

 

Josh S <Josh@clean.spam> wrote in news:Josh-
D0B8B7.16053514052008@news.telus.net:

> In article <GOFWj.12025$MQ1.9489@newsfe11.phx>,
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote:
>
>> From this survey, I think we could argue that newer
>> automatic trannies seem to do better at highway speeds, even
>> though it often has fewer gears. The lock up converter (used
>> only at higher speeds) is the first area I would explore to
>> explain most of this higher efficiency.
>
> My Chrysler 4 sp automatic, which came out in the early 90s, has lockup
> on the top 3 gears. In effect it has 7 gears.
> The fuel mileage is excellent.
>

"lockup" doesn't change gear ratios,it just eliminates torque converter
slippage. it "locks" the input turbine to the output turbine.

No "7 gears".

"Overdrive" would be "extra" gears.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
news:bCyWj.7144$3O7.6527@newssvr19.news.prodigy.ne t...
>
> "Tomes" <ask.me@here.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> I have read that the Prius mileage in cold winter weather is similar to
>>> the Corolla's.
>>
>> Grille blocking enhances the Prius' mileage significantly.
>> Tomes
>
> I'd think that Toyota would know that and have a thermostatic louver
> rather than risk having people block it when too warm.
>
Yep, I wish Toyota would have put that in as well. I a car as sophisticated
as this one is, it should also be automatically driven.
Tomes

 

You are rightly concerned about the batteries.

These 270 or so volt batteries have a list price in the $2500 range.
They have 228 cells in series and only one needs to go bad to ruin your
battery assembly. Newer models only use 201.6 volt batteries,

Besides you have the $3400 list price for the inverter and $1100 for the
generator module.

Though the warranty should do good, imagine getting hit with the
prorated prices.

Think about all the dead weight you carry around, pollution issues
(disposing of the battery), and then, having your system repaired in
case of a failure. We all have heard the stories about a battery not
charging, alternator issues etc with conventional cars. Think about a
system many times more complex...

With all the problems fuel cells still have, I think hydrogen is the way
to go.



Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
>
>>Hmmmm. The Prius will get, over a year's time, no less than 45mpg. And
>>that's without any freaky driving techniques.
>>
>
>
> My concern is still the batteries. The OP had his present car for 12 years
> so I'm going to assume he wants long life from the next. Will the batteries
> become a nightmare or just another expense? Just something to be factored
> in for the total cost of driving over the years. I keep hearing about a
> five year life, so that would be two changes for the OP if he keeps the car
> that long.
>
>

 

AS wrote:
> You are rightly concerned about the batteries.
>
> These 270 or so volt batteries have a list price in the $2500 range.
> They have 228 cells in series and only one needs to go bad to ruin your
> battery assembly. Newer models only use 201.6 volt batteries,


Yet, the individual cells can be replaced.

> Besides you have the $3400 list price for the inverter and $1100 for the
> generator module.
>
> Though the warranty should do good, imagine getting hit with the
> prorated prices.
>
> Think about all the dead weight you carry around, pollution issues
> (disposing of the battery), and then, having your system repaired in
> case of a failure. We all have heard the stories about a battery not
> charging, alternator issues etc with conventional cars. Think about a
> system many times more complex...

Yet, the technology has been proven and has been in use for over ten
years (although not in the US during the first few years).

> With all the problems fuel cells still have, I think hydrogen is the way
> to go.

Why? Hydrogen is used to power fuel cells. And there is almost no
infrastructure for fuel cells. Hydrogen has the problem that to make
hydrogen, CO2 is generated, as well (i.e., using hyrdogen as a fuel
still results in CO2 being produced).

Fuel cells have been used for year. In fact, the O2 tank that exploded
on Apollo 13 when I was about four was used in two different types of
fuel cells (mitochondria in the astronaut's bodies and the fuel cells
that supplied electricity to the Aquarius and Odyssey).

> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> Hmmmm. The Prius will get, over a year's time, no less than 45mpg. And
>>> that's without any freaky driving techniques.
>>>
>>
>>
>> My concern is still the batteries. The OP had his present car for 12
>> years so I'm going to assume he wants long life from the next. Will
>> the batteries become a nightmare or just another expense? Just
>> something to be factored in for the total cost of driving over the
>> years. I keep hearing about a five year life, so that would be two
>> changes for the OP if he keeps the car that long.
>>

 

Jim Yanik wrote:

> Josh S <Josh@clean.spam> wrote in news:Josh-
> D0B8B7.16053514052008@news.telus.net:
>
>
>>In article <GOFWj.12025$MQ1.9489@newsfe11.phx>,
>> "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>From this survey, I think we could argue that newer
>>>automatic trannies seem to do better at highway speeds, even
>>>though it often has fewer gears. The lock up converter (used
>>>only at higher speeds) is the first area I would explore to
>>>explain most of this higher efficiency.
>>
>>My Chrysler 4 sp automatic, which came out in the early 90s, has lockup
>>on the top 3 gears. In effect it has 7 gears.
>>The fuel mileage is excellent.
>>
>
>
> "lockup" doesn't change gear ratios,it just eliminates torque converter
> slippage. it "locks" the input turbine to the output turbine.
>
> No "7 gears".
>
> "Overdrive" would be "extra" gears.
>

When he wrote "in effect" he was probably right. Unless the RPM at
lockup happens to match between one or more of those combinations, you
get seven different "ratios" of crankshaft to ouput shaft speed, even
though it doesn't happen because of gear ratios changing.

 

"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"@verizon.net> wrote in
news:x4OWj.2122$za1.807@trndny07:

> Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>> Josh S <Josh@clean.spam> wrote in news:Josh-
>> D0B8B7.16053514052008@news.telus.net:
>>
>>
>>>In article <GOFWj.12025$MQ1.9489@newsfe11.phx>,
>>> "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>From this survey, I think we could argue that newer
>>>>automatic trannies seem to do better at highway speeds, even
>>>>though it often has fewer gears. The lock up converter (used
>>>>only at higher speeds) is the first area I would explore to
>>>>explain most of this higher efficiency.
>>>
>>>My Chrysler 4 sp automatic, which came out in the early 90s, has lockup
>>>on the top 3 gears. In effect it has 7 gears.
>>>The fuel mileage is excellent.
>>>
>>
>>
>> "lockup" doesn't change gear ratios,it just eliminates torque converter
>> slippage. it "locks" the input turbine to the output turbine.
>>
>> No "7 gears".
>>
>> "Overdrive" would be "extra" gears.
>>
>
> When he wrote "in effect" he was probably right. Unless the RPM at
> lockup happens to match between one or more of those combinations, you
> get seven different "ratios" of crankshaft to ouput shaft speed, even
> though it doesn't happen because of gear ratios changing.
>

nope. wrongo.
when the converter locks up,the crank RPM equals the converter output
RPM,because they are -locked together-. No slippage.

after that,it's all gear ratios determining output shaft RPMs.
fixed ratios.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

> Why? Hydrogen is used to power fuel cells. And there is almost no
> infrastructure for fuel cells. Hydrogen has the problem that to make
> hydrogen, CO2 is generated, as well (i.e., using hyrdogen as a fuel still
> results in CO2 being produced).

Hydrogen can be produced pollution-free with solar cells. Solar array
produces DC power. DC power is used to split water into H and O2. H is used
in fuel cells or whatever. Heck, it burns nicely in internal combustion
engines. Or externally in the Hindenburg. O2 is sold to NASA for their
monkey business. What could be simpler? Alternative methods to produce
energy are easy. All they require is our cleverness and industry. Tough part
is the politics. Here in Houston the normal grocery-getter is an F-350
dually towing a boat. It is easy to hear its one passenger muttering about
the high diesel prices to the clerk at HEB. The most gentle suggestion to
this poor soul that perhaps a smaller vehicle might be in their enlightened
self-interest and well.......you can imagine. We are talking about a driver
who has a Ph.D. in engineering here. From Texas A&M. The best damn school on
earth!
Light rail, interurban, bike paths, golf cart trails, abundant plug-ins for
the electric vehicles, efficient use of our rail freight system to keep the
use of 18 wheelers to a minimum and a zillion other schemes (no hyperbole)
will never come to fruition because we are too ignorant as a species. And
too stubborn.
On the topic of my 2003 Civic Si engine spinning too fast at 80mph: Is it
possible and affordable to put a 6 speed in that little car? I'd be happier
if its revs were closer to 2000 at 80 mph. Anyone have a referral for that
project?

 

"Enrico Fermi" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:IcTWj.3149$ah4.1758@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com:


> On the topic of my 2003 Civic Si engine spinning too fast at 80mph: Is
> it possible and affordable to put a 6 speed in that little car? I'd be
> happier if its revs were closer to 2000 at 80 mph. Anyone have a
> referral for that project?

I suspect the tranny from an RSX would fit in the Civic,it's a 6
speed,IIRC.
Whether that changes the final drive ratio,I don't know.

you could always go to a larger diameter tire and recal the speedo.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

>> On the topic of my 2003 Civic Si engine spinning too fast at 80mph: Is
>> it possible and affordable to put a 6 speed in that little car? I'd be
>> happier if its revs were closer to 2000 at 80 mph. Anyone have a
>> referral for that project?
>
> I suspect the tranny from an RSX would fit in the Civic,it's a 6
> speed,IIRC.
> Whether that changes the final drive ratio,I don't know.
>
> you could always go to a larger diameter tire and recal the speedo.
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> kua.net

That is one good idea. The larger tire would act to effectively lower my
final drive ratio, thus slowing me down off the line. That might be a good
thing My 64 VW 1.4 had a 4.11 gear and was quick until the rpm's ran out
at 15 mph for the 1-2 shift. That flat four wasn't a real high revver. But,
since I've done no homework at all, it is possible the six speed from the
RSX could have the same ratios for 1st and 6th that my box has for 1st and
5th, but with closer ratios. That would do me no good at all for my plan. I
should research the possibility of putting a taller 5th gear in my box.
Perhaps that is possible? My first inclination is to just throw money at the
idea and see what happens. I hope I know better than that......

 

"Enrico Fermi" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:x5YWj.3361$7k7.2869@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com:

>
>>> On the topic of my 2003 Civic Si engine spinning too fast at 80mph:
>>> Is it possible and affordable to put a 6 speed in that little car?
>>> I'd be happier if its revs were closer to 2000 at 80 mph. Anyone
>>> have a referral for that project?
>>
>> I suspect the tranny from an RSX would fit in the Civic,it's a 6
>> speed,IIRC.
>> Whether that changes the final drive ratio,I don't know.
>>
>> you could always go to a larger diameter tire and recal the speedo.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Yanik
>> jyanik
>> at
>> kua.net
>
> That is one good idea. The larger tire would act to effectively lower
> my final drive ratio, thus slowing me down off the line. That might be
> a good thing My 64 VW 1.4 had a 4.11 gear and was quick until the
> rpm's ran out at 15 mph for the 1-2 shift. That flat four wasn't a
> real high revver. But, since I've done no homework at all, it is
> possible the six speed from the RSX could have the same ratios for 1st
> and 6th that my box has for 1st and 5th, but with closer ratios. That
> would do me no good at all for my plan. I should research the
> possibility of putting a taller 5th gear in my box. Perhaps that is
> possible?

I doubt the gears would be available,and tearing apart your tranny would be
a very complex task with a high chance for screwing things up.
I would just swap the whole tranny,assuming the gear ratios were what you
desire.(and as long as you're putting in the RSX tranny,the RSX-S motor
would be a nice increase,too!)

> My first inclination is to just throw money at the idea and
> see what happens. I hope I know better than that......


BTW,is the motor in your Civic a K series?
Other Honda motors rotate in the opposite direction,and are positioned 180
deg from the K series.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9A9F7BEA013DAjyanikkuanet@64.209.0.86...
> "Enrico Fermi" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in
> news:x5YWj.3361$7k7.2869@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com:
>
>>
>>>> On the topic of my 2003 Civic Si engine spinning too fast at 80mph:
>>>> Is it possible and affordable to put a 6 speed in that little car?
>>>> I'd be happier if its revs were closer to 2000 at 80 mph. Anyone
>>>> have a referral for that project?
>>>
>>> I suspect the tranny from an RSX would fit in the Civic,it's a 6
>>> speed,IIRC.
>>> Whether that changes the final drive ratio,I don't know.
>>>
>>> you could always go to a larger diameter tire and recal the speedo.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Yanik
>>> jyanik
>>> at
>>> kua.net
>>
>> That is one good idea. The larger tire would act to effectively lower
>> my final drive ratio, thus slowing me down off the line. That might be
>> a good thing My 64 VW 1.4 had a 4.11 gear and was quick until the
>> rpm's ran out at 15 mph for the 1-2 shift. That flat four wasn't a
>> real high revver. But, since I've done no homework at all, it is
>> possible the six speed from the RSX could have the same ratios for 1st
>> and 6th that my box has for 1st and 5th, but with closer ratios. That
>> would do me no good at all for my plan. I should research the
>> possibility of putting a taller 5th gear in my box. Perhaps that is
>> possible?
>
> I doubt the gears would be available,and tearing apart your tranny would
> be
> a very complex task with a high chance for screwing things up.
> I would just swap the whole tranny,assuming the gear ratios were what you
> desire.(and as long as you're putting in the RSX tranny,the RSX-S motor
> would be a nice increase,too!)
>
>> My first inclination is to just throw money at the idea and
>> see what happens. I hope I know better than that......
>
>
> BTW,is the motor in your Civic a K series?
> Other Honda motors rotate in the opposite direction,and are positioned 180
> deg from the K series.
>
It seems my motor is a K20A3 which would swap with the RSX powerplant. I
really feel insane contemplating that. I'll leave well enough alone for now

 

Jim Yanik wrote:
> "mjc13<REMOVETHIS>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:x4OWj.2122$za1.807@trndny07:
>
>
>>Jim Yanik wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Josh S <Josh@clean.spam> wrote in news:Josh-
>>>D0B8B7.16053514052008@news.telus.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <GOFWj.12025$MQ1.9489@newsfe11.phx>,
>>>>"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>From this survey, I think we could argue that newer
>>>>
>>>>>automatic trannies seem to do better at highway speeds, even
>>>>>though it often has fewer gears. The lock up converter (used
>>>>>only at higher speeds) is the first area I would explore to
>>>>>explain most of this higher efficiency.
>>>>
>>>>My Chrysler 4 sp automatic, which came out in the early 90s, has lockup
>>>>on the top 3 gears. In effect it has 7 gears.
>>>>The fuel mileage is excellent.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"lockup" doesn't change gear ratios,it just eliminates torque converter
>>>slippage. it "locks" the input turbine to the output turbine.
>>>
>>>No "7 gears".
>>>
>>>"Overdrive" would be "extra" gears.
>>>
>>
>> When he wrote "in effect" he was probably right. Unless the RPM at
>>lockup happens to match between one or more of those combinations, you
>>get seven different "ratios" of crankshaft to ouput shaft speed, even
>>though it doesn't happen because of gear ratios changing.
>>
>
>
> nope. wrongo.
> when the converter locks up,the crank RPM equals the converter output
> RPM,because they are -locked together-. No slippage.
>
> after that,it's all gear ratios determining output shaft RPMs.
> fixed ratios.
>

Are you deliberately misunderstanding us? Nobody claimed an
overdrive type shaft speed ratio. What is being said is that when the
lockup engages, you do in fact get the geared ratio - which you
*weren't* effectively getting with the converter unlocked. So for each
gear in which the lockup works, you have two different shaft speed
ratios: one with the lock off and one with the lock on. The *effect* is
the same as having seven gear ratios, with *none* of them being an
overdrive. I don't know how much clear I can make it...