On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:16:04 -0800, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:48:16 -0800, jim beam
>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>>>>>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>>>>>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>>>>> tell that to porsche - last i heard, their autos were faster than their
>>>>> sticks.
>>>> That is because most Porsche buyers are people who want to show off
>>>> how rich/cool they are and don't really care about driving it or even
>>>> know how.
>>> eh? how does criticizing [without basis] driver skill address the
>>> ability of a computer-controlled transmission to shift faster than a
>>> stick? makes no sense.
>>
>> Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you were saying that the ATs
>> were *selling* faster than the MTs.
>>
>> My preference for MT is not based on how fast it shifts but rather the
>> ability to integrate the shifts seamlessly into driving. This
>> requires decisions based on information that the computer cannot
>> possibly know. May not matter much for a minivan, but it is
>> fundamental for a sports car.
>
>that's your perception. unless you've driven a modern auto, especially
>a sports auto, you're just making uninformed assumptions and using them
>as your basis for criticism.
>
>>
>> The problem with most (virtually all) ATs is that they are biased
>> toward automatic operation and discourage manual operation.
>
>how? my auto has the shift in exactly the same place as where the stick
>would be. i see no difference. the transmission even has a no-lock
>gate between 3rd & 4th [commonest manual override] especially so you
>/can/ flip up and down at will.

If you put it in 4, will it ever downshift into 3 by itself? When you
shift into 3 does it effectively double clutch?

>
>> Also, I
>> don't particularly care for the slippage of the torque converter.
>
>eh? what "slippage" is that? how does its mechanical function differ
>from a clutch [other than it has a much better efficiency range and is
>much smoother of course]?

Well, as you point out, I don't have any experience with modern high
end luxury cars, but I note that at least more modest cars generally
have a significantly greater 0-60 speed and a lower mpg rating. Since
they now mostly have five gears, I would assume that means they are
slipping. Actually, the slipping is partly by design, the so-called
torque multiplier effect. Basically, if you are cruising along and
you give it a little gas, but not enough to force a downshift, you
will see the rpms jump up immediately.

The ultimate "torque multiplier" is a CVT. A lot of people don't like
them at all, but others say they get used to it. (The perception
problem is so bad that some manufacturers program virtual gears into
them thereby defeating the chief advantage of the CVT.) I only rode
in one CVT car, a Nissan luxury sedan in Japan and it wasn't bad in
that application. He drove it fairly aggressively too - we hit almost
180 kph on the expressway. I would like to try one of these. I don't
know if I would like it or not.

>> I
>> understand that VW has a paddle shift AT that is actually built like
>> an MT.
>
>as are a lot of the euro "autos".
>
>> This has potential if the AT function can be completely
>> disabled, i.e. it never makes a shift without a command from the
>> driver.
>
>dude, have you ever driven an auto? you have pretty much full control
>over everything except clutching action - except for the fact that it
>won't let you select wrong gears of course.

Will it let you start out in 5th gear? Not that I want to do that,
but the point is I don't like it downshifting or upshifting without my
command.

>> (Not that I would buy a VW under any circumstances.)
>>
>>> bottom line, you're welcome to drive whatever you want, but don't
>>> criticize autos on the basis of fud - it's simply not justified.
>>
>> fud?
>
>fear. uncertainty. doubt. if there is no technical argument against
>something, people resort to fud.

Well, I would certainly prefer an MT to the AT in my 98 Ody, but of
course that was not an option.

Perhaps newer, high dollar vehicles are better set up for manual
shifting, and have fewer compromises but then that raises the point:
Why not just have an MT? They are cheaper, more durable and I like
the way they work just fine. For my purposes and preferences, I see
no benefit to an AT whatsoever.

I presume I will never again be able to buy a large, cargo carrying
vehicle (eg. my old Volvo 245 station wagon) with an MT so I assume I
will have to go with 2007 technology sooner or later. I will let you
know what I think.

>here's another nugget for you - automatics are banned from f1. like
>certain types of ground effects, they gave too much advantage to the
>[better funded] teams that had them. the compromise is paddle shift,
>but even then, interpretation of the ban has been taken to the limit
>since a lot of the control functions are still automatic.

I would first point out that torque converters are not banned AFAIK,
but they are not used either. I would be curious to know whether and
how ATs would be used in F1 if they were not banned. I can imagine
the programming: if rpm >= redline then upshift, if downshift RPM <
redline then downshift. The situation is a little different on the
road and the technology is bound to be different and more compromised.
I seem to recall Ferrari had an AT at one time in F1. I dont' recall
if it was a clear advantage but I do recall that on a couple of
occasions it decided to downshift into 2nd when it should have been in
5th. That was exciting. Not relevant to the argument but an amusing
story. It may have been an early paddle shifter rather than a true AT

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:16:04 -0800, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:48:16 -0800, jim beam
>>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>>>>>>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>>>>>>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>>>>>> tell that to porsche - last i heard, their autos were faster than their
>>>>>> sticks.
>>>>> That is because most Porsche buyers are people who want to show off
>>>>> how rich/cool they are and don't really care about driving it or even
>>>>> know how.
>>>> eh? how does criticizing [without basis] driver skill address the
>>>> ability of a computer-controlled transmission to shift faster than a
>>>> stick? makes no sense.
>>> Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you were saying that the ATs
>>> were *selling* faster than the MTs.
>>>
>>> My preference for MT is not based on how fast it shifts but rather the
>>> ability to integrate the shifts seamlessly into driving. This
>>> requires decisions based on information that the computer cannot
>>> possibly know. May not matter much for a minivan, but it is
>>> fundamental for a sports car.
>> that's your perception. unless you've driven a modern auto, especially
>> a sports auto, you're just making uninformed assumptions and using them
>> as your basis for criticism.
>>
>>> The problem with most (virtually all) ATs is that they are biased
>>> toward automatic operation and discourage manual operation.
>> how? my auto has the shift in exactly the same place as where the stick
>> would be. i see no difference. the transmission even has a no-lock
>> gate between 3rd & 4th [commonest manual override] especially so you
>> /can/ flip up and down at will.
>
> If you put it in 4, will it ever downshift into 3 by itself?

yes, absolutely. it does it on "kickdown" acceleration /and/ it does it
on braking. not gentle braking, but harder braking.

> When you
> shift into 3 does it effectively double clutch?

pointless exercise on an automatic. but even then, on the modern autos,
in conjunction with electronic throttle, yes, the engine revs /are/
meshed to the gear on shift.

>
>>> Also, I
>>> don't particularly care for the slippage of the torque converter.
>> eh? what "slippage" is that? how does its mechanical function differ
>>from a clutch [other than it has a much better efficiency range and is
>> much smoother of course]?
>
> Well, as you point out, I don't have any experience with modern high
> end luxury cars, but I note that at least more modest cars generally
> have a significantly greater 0-60 speed and a lower mpg rating. Since
> they now mostly have five gears, I would assume that means they are
> slipping.

there's no slipping unless the lock-up clutch is released. see below.

> Actually, the slipping is partly by design, the so-called
> torque multiplier effect.

yes, that's what a torque converter does.

> Basically, if you are cruising along and
> you give it a little gas, but not enough to force a downshift, you
> will see the rpms jump up immediately.

that's because the lockup clutch is released to allow more torque. more
flexibility than a stick where you'd have to shift.

>
> The ultimate "torque multiplier" is a CVT.

that's different - it's not a torque multiplier. if is however a great
way of achieving absolute optimum gear for all conditions.

> A lot of people don't like
> them at all, but others say they get used to it. (The perception
> problem is so bad that some manufacturers program virtual gears into
> them thereby defeating the chief advantage of the CVT.)

absolutely! i drove a "real" cvt one when i was in europe years ago,
and yes it is /real/ weird at first. but it's amazing how much you can
get out of a small 2-cylinder engine when it's got perfect gearing.
quite fun! this particular model had 2 independent drives too, so not
only did you have optimum gearing, you had limited slip diff benefits in
snow & ice too.
http://www.ritzsite.demon.nl/DAF/DAF_cars_p2.htm

> I only rode
> in one CVT car, a Nissan luxury sedan in Japan and it wasn't bad in
> that application. He drove it fairly aggressively too - we hit almost
> 180 kph on the expressway. I would like to try one of these. I don't
> know if I would like it or not.

if you're not used to traditional automatics, the transition is easy.
if you're used to traditional autos, its weird for a few minutes because
it doesn't "shift", but beyond that, they're actually very impressive.

>
>>> I
>>> understand that VW has a paddle shift AT that is actually built like
>>> an MT.
>> as are a lot of the euro "autos".
>>
>>> This has potential if the AT function can be completely
>>> disabled, i.e. it never makes a shift without a command from the
>>> driver.
>> dude, have you ever driven an auto? you have pretty much full control
>> over everything except clutching action - except for the fact that it
>> won't let you select wrong gears of course.
>
> Will it let you start out in 5th gear? Not that I want to do that,
> but the point is I don't like it downshifting or upshifting without my
> command.

no, but it'll start in 2nd. mine will anyway. useful in snow.

regarding shifting, it'll shift down any time on command, providing
doing so doesn't over-rev the engine - it won't let you do that.
regarding up-shifting, you can hold it back until you're ready, and even
then, it'll wait until it's certain you mean it - if you have your foot
down. if you're not driving hard, it's academic.

>
>>> (Not that I would buy a VW under any circumstances.)
>>>
>>>> bottom line, you're welcome to drive whatever you want, but don't
>>>> criticize autos on the basis of fud - it's simply not justified.
>>> fud?
>> fear. uncertainty. doubt. if there is no technical argument against
>> something, people resort to fud.
>
> Well, I would certainly prefer an MT to the AT in my 98 Ody, but of
> course that was not an option.
>
> Perhaps newer, high dollar vehicles are better set up for manual
> shifting, and have fewer compromises but then that raises the point:
> Why not just have an MT? They are cheaper, more durable and I like
> the way they work just fine. For my purposes and preferences, I see
> no benefit to an AT whatsoever.

i used to think that. then i had a knee injury that prevented me
driving a stick for some months, so i bought an auto. and every time
i've driven a stick since, it's been a real chore. that was nearly 20
years ago. it may be that there's some bad autos out there, but the way
i have my civic set up [the shift pattern is adjustable], the shift
points are pretty much dead on where i'd have them manually, and for
other stuff, i over-ride.

>
> I presume I will never again be able to buy a large, cargo carrying
> vehicle (eg. my old Volvo 245 station wagon) with an MT so I assume I
> will have to go with 2007 technology sooner or later. I will let you
> know what I think.
>
>> here's another nugget for you - automatics are banned from f1. like
>> certain types of ground effects, they gave too much advantage to the
>> [better funded] teams that had them. the compromise is paddle shift,
>> but even then, interpretation of the ban has been taken to the limit
>> since a lot of the control functions are still automatic.
>
> I would first point out that torque converters are not banned AFAIK,
> but they are not used either.

correct - they're heavy.

> I would be curious to know whether and
> how ATs would be used in F1 if they were not banned. I can imagine
> the programming: if rpm >= redline then upshift, if downshift RPM <
> redline then downshift. The situation is a little different on the
> road and the technology is bound to be different and more compromised.
> I seem to recall Ferrari had an AT at one time in F1. I dont' recall
> if it was a clear advantage but I do recall that on a couple of
> occasions it decided to downshift into 2nd when it should have been in
> 5th. That was exciting. Not relevant to the argument but an amusing
> story. It may have been an early paddle shifter rather than a true AT
>
maybe a problem with the sequencing mechanicals? who knows.

i think in due course, semi autos will replace sticks. at least in
sports cars. they offer faster, more accurate shifting, and computer
control knows more about the potentials of the system than the driver
does a lot of the time. a friend has a tiptronic carrera - hold the
shift lever and put your foot down, and it'll select the lowest gear for
the speed to give fastest acceleration, and you can revert to auto from
there so it shifts up through in the fastest possible time. trust me -
it's fun!

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:16:04 -0800, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:48:16 -0800, jim beam
>>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>>>>>>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>>>>>>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>>>>>> tell that to porsche - last i heard, their autos were faster than their
>>>>>> sticks.
>>>>> That is because most Porsche buyers are people who want to show off
>>>>> how rich/cool they are and don't really care about driving it or even
>>>>> know how.
>>>> eh? how does criticizing [without basis] driver skill address the
>>>> ability of a computer-controlled transmission to shift faster than a
>>>> stick? makes no sense.
>>> Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you were saying that the ATs
>>> were *selling* faster than the MTs.
>>>
>>> My preference for MT is not based on how fast it shifts but rather the
>>> ability to integrate the shifts seamlessly into driving. This
>>> requires decisions based on information that the computer cannot
>>> possibly know. May not matter much for a minivan, but it is
>>> fundamental for a sports car.
>> that's your perception. unless you've driven a modern auto, especially
>> a sports auto, you're just making uninformed assumptions and using them
>> as your basis for criticism.
>>
>>> The problem with most (virtually all) ATs is that they are biased
>>> toward automatic operation and discourage manual operation.
>> how? my auto has the shift in exactly the same place as where the stick
>> would be. i see no difference. the transmission even has a no-lock
>> gate between 3rd & 4th [commonest manual override] especially so you
>> /can/ flip up and down at will.
>
> If you put it in 4, will it ever downshift into 3 by itself?

yes, absolutely. it does it on "kickdown" acceleration /and/ it does it
on braking. not gentle braking, but harder braking.

> When you
> shift into 3 does it effectively double clutch?

pointless exercise on an automatic. but even then, on the modern autos,
in conjunction with electronic throttle, yes, the engine revs /are/
meshed to the gear on shift.

>
>>> Also, I
>>> don't particularly care for the slippage of the torque converter.
>> eh? what "slippage" is that? how does its mechanical function differ
>>from a clutch [other than it has a much better efficiency range and is
>> much smoother of course]?
>
> Well, as you point out, I don't have any experience with modern high
> end luxury cars, but I note that at least more modest cars generally
> have a significantly greater 0-60 speed and a lower mpg rating. Since
> they now mostly have five gears, I would assume that means they are
> slipping.

there's no slipping unless the lock-up clutch is released. see below.

> Actually, the slipping is partly by design, the so-called
> torque multiplier effect.

yes, that's what a torque converter does.

> Basically, if you are cruising along and
> you give it a little gas, but not enough to force a downshift, you
> will see the rpms jump up immediately.

that's because the lockup clutch is released to allow more torque. more
flexibility than a stick where you'd have to shift.

>
> The ultimate "torque multiplier" is a CVT.

that's different - it's not a torque multiplier. if is however a great
way of achieving absolute optimum gear for all conditions.

> A lot of people don't like
> them at all, but others say they get used to it. (The perception
> problem is so bad that some manufacturers program virtual gears into
> them thereby defeating the chief advantage of the CVT.)

absolutely! i drove a "real" cvt one when i was in europe years ago,
and yes it is /real/ weird at first. but it's amazing how much you can
get out of a small 2-cylinder engine when it's got perfect gearing.
quite fun! this particular model had 2 independent drives too, so not
only did you have optimum gearing, you had limited slip diff benefits in
snow & ice too.
http://www.ritzsite.demon.nl/DAF/DAF_cars_p2.htm

> I only rode
> in one CVT car, a Nissan luxury sedan in Japan and it wasn't bad in
> that application. He drove it fairly aggressively too - we hit almost
> 180 kph on the expressway. I would like to try one of these. I don't
> know if I would like it or not.

if you're not used to traditional automatics, the transition is easy.
if you're used to traditional autos, its weird for a few minutes because
it doesn't "shift", but beyond that, they're actually very impressive.

>
>>> I
>>> understand that VW has a paddle shift AT that is actually built like
>>> an MT.
>> as are a lot of the euro "autos".
>>
>>> This has potential if the AT function can be completely
>>> disabled, i.e. it never makes a shift without a command from the
>>> driver.
>> dude, have you ever driven an auto? you have pretty much full control
>> over everything except clutching action - except for the fact that it
>> won't let you select wrong gears of course.
>
> Will it let you start out in 5th gear? Not that I want to do that,
> but the point is I don't like it downshifting or upshifting without my
> command.

no, but it'll start in 2nd. mine will anyway. useful in snow.

regarding shifting, it'll shift down any time on command, providing
doing so doesn't over-rev the engine - it won't let you do that.
regarding up-shifting, you can hold it back until you're ready, and even
then, it'll wait until it's certain you mean it - if you have your foot
down. if you're not driving hard, it's academic.

>
>>> (Not that I would buy a VW under any circumstances.)
>>>
>>>> bottom line, you're welcome to drive whatever you want, but don't
>>>> criticize autos on the basis of fud - it's simply not justified.
>>> fud?
>> fear. uncertainty. doubt. if there is no technical argument against
>> something, people resort to fud.
>
> Well, I would certainly prefer an MT to the AT in my 98 Ody, but of
> course that was not an option.
>
> Perhaps newer, high dollar vehicles are better set up for manual
> shifting, and have fewer compromises but then that raises the point:
> Why not just have an MT? They are cheaper, more durable and I like
> the way they work just fine. For my purposes and preferences, I see
> no benefit to an AT whatsoever.

i used to think that. then i had a knee injury that prevented me
driving a stick for some months, so i bought an auto. and every time
i've driven a stick since, it's been a real chore. that was nearly 20
years ago. it may be that there's some bad autos out there, but the way
i have my civic set up [the shift pattern is adjustable], the shift
points are pretty much dead on where i'd have them manually, and for
other stuff, i over-ride.

>
> I presume I will never again be able to buy a large, cargo carrying
> vehicle (eg. my old Volvo 245 station wagon) with an MT so I assume I
> will have to go with 2007 technology sooner or later. I will let you
> know what I think.
>
>> here's another nugget for you - automatics are banned from f1. like
>> certain types of ground effects, they gave too much advantage to the
>> [better funded] teams that had them. the compromise is paddle shift,
>> but even then, interpretation of the ban has been taken to the limit
>> since a lot of the control functions are still automatic.
>
> I would first point out that torque converters are not banned AFAIK,
> but they are not used either.

correct - they're heavy.

> I would be curious to know whether and
> how ATs would be used in F1 if they were not banned. I can imagine
> the programming: if rpm >= redline then upshift, if downshift RPM <
> redline then downshift. The situation is a little different on the
> road and the technology is bound to be different and more compromised.
> I seem to recall Ferrari had an AT at one time in F1. I dont' recall
> if it was a clear advantage but I do recall that on a couple of
> occasions it decided to downshift into 2nd when it should have been in
> 5th. That was exciting. Not relevant to the argument but an amusing
> story. It may have been an early paddle shifter rather than a true AT
>
maybe a problem with the sequencing mechanicals? who knows.

i think in due course, semi autos will replace sticks. at least in
sports cars. they offer faster, more accurate shifting, and computer
control knows more about the potentials of the system than the driver
does a lot of the time. a friend has a tiptronic carrera - hold the
shift lever and put your foot down, and it'll select the lowest gear for
the speed to give fastest acceleration, and you can revert to auto from
there so it shifts up through in the fastest possible time. trust me -
it's fun!

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:16:04 -0800, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:48:16 -0800, jim beam
>>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>>>>>>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>>>>>>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>>>>>> tell that to porsche - last i heard, their autos were faster than their
>>>>>> sticks.
>>>>> That is because most Porsche buyers are people who want to show off
>>>>> how rich/cool they are and don't really care about driving it or even
>>>>> know how.
>>>> eh? how does criticizing [without basis] driver skill address the
>>>> ability of a computer-controlled transmission to shift faster than a
>>>> stick? makes no sense.
>>> Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you were saying that the ATs
>>> were *selling* faster than the MTs.
>>>
>>> My preference for MT is not based on how fast it shifts but rather the
>>> ability to integrate the shifts seamlessly into driving. This
>>> requires decisions based on information that the computer cannot
>>> possibly know. May not matter much for a minivan, but it is
>>> fundamental for a sports car.
>> that's your perception. unless you've driven a modern auto, especially
>> a sports auto, you're just making uninformed assumptions and using them
>> as your basis for criticism.
>>
>>> The problem with most (virtually all) ATs is that they are biased
>>> toward automatic operation and discourage manual operation.
>> how? my auto has the shift in exactly the same place as where the stick
>> would be. i see no difference. the transmission even has a no-lock
>> gate between 3rd & 4th [commonest manual override] especially so you
>> /can/ flip up and down at will.
>
> If you put it in 4, will it ever downshift into 3 by itself?

yes, absolutely. it does it on "kickdown" acceleration /and/ it does it
on braking. not gentle braking, but harder braking.

> When you
> shift into 3 does it effectively double clutch?

pointless exercise on an automatic. but even then, on the modern autos,
in conjunction with electronic throttle, yes, the engine revs /are/
meshed to the gear on shift.

>
>>> Also, I
>>> don't particularly care for the slippage of the torque converter.
>> eh? what "slippage" is that? how does its mechanical function differ
>>from a clutch [other than it has a much better efficiency range and is
>> much smoother of course]?
>
> Well, as you point out, I don't have any experience with modern high
> end luxury cars, but I note that at least more modest cars generally
> have a significantly greater 0-60 speed and a lower mpg rating. Since
> they now mostly have five gears, I would assume that means they are
> slipping.

there's no slipping unless the lock-up clutch is released. see below.

> Actually, the slipping is partly by design, the so-called
> torque multiplier effect.

yes, that's what a torque converter does.

> Basically, if you are cruising along and
> you give it a little gas, but not enough to force a downshift, you
> will see the rpms jump up immediately.

that's because the lockup clutch is released to allow more torque. more
flexibility than a stick where you'd have to shift.

>
> The ultimate "torque multiplier" is a CVT.

that's different - it's not a torque multiplier. if is however a great
way of achieving absolute optimum gear for all conditions.

> A lot of people don't like
> them at all, but others say they get used to it. (The perception
> problem is so bad that some manufacturers program virtual gears into
> them thereby defeating the chief advantage of the CVT.)

absolutely! i drove a "real" cvt one when i was in europe years ago,
and yes it is /real/ weird at first. but it's amazing how much you can
get out of a small 2-cylinder engine when it's got perfect gearing.
quite fun! this particular model had 2 independent drives too, so not
only did you have optimum gearing, you had limited slip diff benefits in
snow & ice too.
http://www.ritzsite.demon.nl/DAF/DAF_cars_p2.htm

> I only rode
> in one CVT car, a Nissan luxury sedan in Japan and it wasn't bad in
> that application. He drove it fairly aggressively too - we hit almost
> 180 kph on the expressway. I would like to try one of these. I don't
> know if I would like it or not.

if you're not used to traditional automatics, the transition is easy.
if you're used to traditional autos, its weird for a few minutes because
it doesn't "shift", but beyond that, they're actually very impressive.

>
>>> I
>>> understand that VW has a paddle shift AT that is actually built like
>>> an MT.
>> as are a lot of the euro "autos".
>>
>>> This has potential if the AT function can be completely
>>> disabled, i.e. it never makes a shift without a command from the
>>> driver.
>> dude, have you ever driven an auto? you have pretty much full control
>> over everything except clutching action - except for the fact that it
>> won't let you select wrong gears of course.
>
> Will it let you start out in 5th gear? Not that I want to do that,
> but the point is I don't like it downshifting or upshifting without my
> command.

no, but it'll start in 2nd. mine will anyway. useful in snow.

regarding shifting, it'll shift down any time on command, providing
doing so doesn't over-rev the engine - it won't let you do that.
regarding up-shifting, you can hold it back until you're ready, and even
then, it'll wait until it's certain you mean it - if you have your foot
down. if you're not driving hard, it's academic.

>
>>> (Not that I would buy a VW under any circumstances.)
>>>
>>>> bottom line, you're welcome to drive whatever you want, but don't
>>>> criticize autos on the basis of fud - it's simply not justified.
>>> fud?
>> fear. uncertainty. doubt. if there is no technical argument against
>> something, people resort to fud.
>
> Well, I would certainly prefer an MT to the AT in my 98 Ody, but of
> course that was not an option.
>
> Perhaps newer, high dollar vehicles are better set up for manual
> shifting, and have fewer compromises but then that raises the point:
> Why not just have an MT? They are cheaper, more durable and I like
> the way they work just fine. For my purposes and preferences, I see
> no benefit to an AT whatsoever.

i used to think that. then i had a knee injury that prevented me
driving a stick for some months, so i bought an auto. and every time
i've driven a stick since, it's been a real chore. that was nearly 20
years ago. it may be that there's some bad autos out there, but the way
i have my civic set up [the shift pattern is adjustable], the shift
points are pretty much dead on where i'd have them manually, and for
other stuff, i over-ride.

>
> I presume I will never again be able to buy a large, cargo carrying
> vehicle (eg. my old Volvo 245 station wagon) with an MT so I assume I
> will have to go with 2007 technology sooner or later. I will let you
> know what I think.
>
>> here's another nugget for you - automatics are banned from f1. like
>> certain types of ground effects, they gave too much advantage to the
>> [better funded] teams that had them. the compromise is paddle shift,
>> but even then, interpretation of the ban has been taken to the limit
>> since a lot of the control functions are still automatic.
>
> I would first point out that torque converters are not banned AFAIK,
> but they are not used either.

correct - they're heavy.

> I would be curious to know whether and
> how ATs would be used in F1 if they were not banned. I can imagine
> the programming: if rpm >= redline then upshift, if downshift RPM <
> redline then downshift. The situation is a little different on the
> road and the technology is bound to be different and more compromised.
> I seem to recall Ferrari had an AT at one time in F1. I dont' recall
> if it was a clear advantage but I do recall that on a couple of
> occasions it decided to downshift into 2nd when it should have been in
> 5th. That was exciting. Not relevant to the argument but an amusing
> story. It may have been an early paddle shifter rather than a true AT
>
maybe a problem with the sequencing mechanicals? who knows.

i think in due course, semi autos will replace sticks. at least in
sports cars. they offer faster, more accurate shifting, and computer
control knows more about the potentials of the system than the driver
does a lot of the time. a friend has a tiptronic carrera - hold the
shift lever and put your foot down, and it'll select the lowest gear for
the speed to give fastest acceleration, and you can revert to auto from
there so it shifts up through in the fastest possible time. trust me -
it's fun!

 

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:33:58 -0800, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:16:04 -0800, jim beam
>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:48:16 -0800, jim beam
>>>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>>>>>>>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>>>>>>>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>>>>>>> tell that to porsche - last i heard, their autos were faster than their
>>>>>>> sticks.
>>>>>> That is because most Porsche buyers are people who want to show off
>>>>>> how rich/cool they are and don't really care about driving it or even
>>>>>> know how.
>>>>> eh? how does criticizing [without basis] driver skill address the
>>>>> ability of a computer-controlled transmission to shift faster than a
>>>>> stick? makes no sense.
>>>> Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you were saying that the ATs
>>>> were *selling* faster than the MTs.
>>>>
>>>> My preference for MT is not based on how fast it shifts but rather the
>>>> ability to integrate the shifts seamlessly into driving. This
>>>> requires decisions based on information that the computer cannot
>>>> possibly know. May not matter much for a minivan, but it is
>>>> fundamental for a sports car.
>>> that's your perception. unless you've driven a modern auto, especially
>>> a sports auto, you're just making uninformed assumptions and using them
>>> as your basis for criticism.
>>>
>>>> The problem with most (virtually all) ATs is that they are biased
>>>> toward automatic operation and discourage manual operation.
>>> how? my auto has the shift in exactly the same place as where the stick
>>> would be. i see no difference. the transmission even has a no-lock
>>> gate between 3rd & 4th [commonest manual override] especially so you
>>> /can/ flip up and down at will.
>>
>> If you put it in 4, will it ever downshift into 3 by itself?
>
>yes, absolutely. it does it on "kickdown" acceleration /and/ it does it
>on braking. not gentle braking, but harder braking.

It is not a bad thing, I just don't care for it. If I want to
downshift, I can do that. If I don't want to, I don't like the car
doing it on its own.

>> When you
>> shift into 3 does it effectively double clutch?
>
>pointless exercise on an automatic. but even then, on the modern autos,
>in conjunction with electronic throttle, yes, the engine revs /are/
>meshed to the gear on shift.

That is what I mean. I figured they had fixed that aspect which is
the worst part of the older ATs.

>>>> Also, I
>>>> don't particularly care for the slippage of the torque converter.
>>> eh? what "slippage" is that? how does its mechanical function differ
>>>from a clutch [other than it has a much better efficiency range and is
>>> much smoother of course]?
>>
>> Well, as you point out, I don't have any experience with modern high
>> end luxury cars, but I note that at least more modest cars generally
>> have a significantly greater 0-60 speed and a lower mpg rating. Since
>> they now mostly have five gears, I would assume that means they are
>> slipping.
>
>there's no slipping unless the lock-up clutch is released. see below.
>
>> Actually, the slipping is partly by design, the so-called
>> torque multiplier effect.
>
>yes, that's what a torque converter does.
>
>> Basically, if you are cruising along and
>> you give it a little gas, but not enough to force a downshift, you
>> will see the rpms jump up immediately.
>
>that's because the lockup clutch is released to allow more torque. more
>flexibility than a stick where you'd have to shift.

But that is the slippage. The engine speeds up races up ahead of any
change in vehicle speed. It is like a slipping clutch. As for more
torque (horsepower really) a lot of that is eaten up by the
inefficiency of the torque converter. On cars where you can get a MT
or AT with the same engine, the MT is almost always faster and gets
better mileage.

>> The ultimate "torque multiplier" is a CVT.
>
>that's different - it's not a torque multiplier.

Neither is the conventional AT, it just has a clever design to let the
engine speed up ahead of the vehicle speed without shifting. It is
basically like a limited range CVT.

>if is however a great
>way of achieving absolute optimum gear for all conditions.

I agree that it has a big theoretical advantage, especially compared
to a conventional AT.

>> A lot of people don't like
>> them at all, but others say they get used to it. (The perception
>> problem is so bad that some manufacturers program virtual gears into
>> them thereby defeating the chief advantage of the CVT.)
>
>absolutely! i drove a "real" cvt one when i was in europe years ago,
>and yes it is /real/ weird at first. but it's amazing how much you can
>get out of a small 2-cylinder engine when it's got perfect gearing.
>quite fun! this particular model had 2 independent drives too, so not
>only did you have optimum gearing, you had limited slip diff benefits in
>snow & ice too.
>http://www.ritzsite.demon.nl/DAF/DAF_cars_p2.htm

That was the original CVT. Do you remember who offered the first CVT
in the US. (I don't think they ever sold the Daffodil here.)

>> I only rode
>> in one CVT car, a Nissan luxury sedan in Japan and it wasn't bad in
>> that application. He drove it fairly aggressively too - we hit almost
>> 180 kph on the expressway. I would like to try one of these. I don't
>> know if I would like it or not.
>
>if you're not used to traditional automatics, the transition is easy.
>if you're used to traditional autos, its weird for a few minutes because
>it doesn't "shift", but beyond that, they're actually very impressive.

Again though, I am not sure they are any faster or more efficient than
a good MT. Consumer Reports tested the Versa with MT and with CVT.
The MT version was 0.6 seconds faster to 60 and got one more mpg. (And
CR panned that MT.) They also tested MT and (conventional) AT
versions of Fit, Rio, Accent and Yaris. In each case the MT was 2 - 3
seconds faster and got 2 more mpg, so the CVT was clearly better than
an AT but not as good as even a mediocre MT, at last on raw numbers.

And yet, there is hardly a proliferation of CVTs on the market. Most
of them seem to be on hybrids in fact.

>
>>
>>>> I
>>>> understand that VW has a paddle shift AT that is actually built like
>>>> an MT.
>>> as are a lot of the euro "autos".
>>>
>>>> This has potential if the AT function can be completely
>>>> disabled, i.e. it never makes a shift without a command from the
>>>> driver.
>>> dude, have you ever driven an auto? you have pretty much full control
>>> over everything except clutching action - except for the fact that it
>>> won't let you select wrong gears of course.
>>
>> Will it let you start out in 5th gear? Not that I want to do that,
>> but the point is I don't like it downshifting or upshifting without my
>> command.
>
>no, but it'll start in 2nd. mine will anyway. useful in snow.
>
>regarding shifting, it'll shift down any time on command, providing
>doing so doesn't over-rev the engine - it won't let you do that.
>regarding up-shifting, you can hold it back until you're ready, and even
>then, it'll wait until it's certain you mean it - if you have your foot
>down. if you're not driving hard, it's academic.
>
>>
>>>> (Not that I would buy a VW under any circumstances.)
>>>>
>>>>> bottom line, you're welcome to drive whatever you want, but don't
>>>>> criticize autos on the basis of fud - it's simply not justified.
>>>> fud?
>>> fear. uncertainty. doubt. if there is no technical argument against
>>> something, people resort to fud.
>>
>> Well, I would certainly prefer an MT to the AT in my 98 Ody, but of
>> course that was not an option.
>>
>> Perhaps newer, high dollar vehicles are better set up for manual
>> shifting, and have fewer compromises but then that raises the point:
>> Why not just have an MT? They are cheaper, more durable and I like
>> the way they work just fine. For my purposes and preferences, I see
>> no benefit to an AT whatsoever.
>
>i used to think that. then i had a knee injury that prevented me
>driving a stick for some months, so i bought an auto. and every time
>i've driven a stick since, it's been a real chore. that was nearly 20
>years ago. it may be that there's some bad autos out there, but the way
>i have my civic set up [the shift pattern is adjustable], the shift
>points are pretty much dead on where i'd have them manually, and for
>other stuff, i over-ride.

I appreciate that many people prefer AT, and if you have a bad knee,
there isn't much choice. But I really enjoy driving the MT. I
haven't encountered an AT yet that I could actually say I enjoyed, but
I certainly haven't driven many new ones.

>> I presume I will never again be able to buy a large, cargo carrying
>> vehicle (eg. my old Volvo 245 station wagon) with an MT so I assume I
>> will have to go with 2007 technology sooner or later. I will let you
>> know what I think.
>>
>>> here's another nugget for you - automatics are banned from f1. like
>>> certain types of ground effects, they gave too much advantage to the
>>> [better funded] teams that had them. the compromise is paddle shift,
>>> but even then, interpretation of the ban has been taken to the limit
>>> since a lot of the control functions are still automatic.
>>
>> I would first point out that torque converters are not banned AFAIK,
>> but they are not used either.
>
>correct - they're heavy.
>
>> I would be curious to know whether and
>> how ATs would be used in F1 if they were not banned. I can imagine
>> the programming: if rpm >= redline then upshift, if downshift RPM <
>> redline then downshift. The situation is a little different on the
>> road and the technology is bound to be different and more compromised.
>> I seem to recall Ferrari had an AT at one time in F1. I dont' recall
>> if it was a clear advantage but I do recall that on a couple of
>> occasions it decided to downshift into 2nd when it should have been in
>> 5th. That was exciting. Not relevant to the argument but an amusing
>> story. It may have been an early paddle shifter rather than a true AT
>>
>maybe a problem with the sequencing mechanicals? who knows.

It was a computer glitch. As they say, to error is human. To really
foul things up requires a computer.

>i think in due course, semi autos will replace sticks. at least in
>sports cars. they offer faster, more accurate shifting, and computer
>control knows more about the potentials of the system than the driver
>does a lot of the time. a friend has a tiptronic carrera - hold the
>shift lever and put your foot down, and it'll select the lowest gear for
>the speed to give fastest acceleration, and you can revert to auto from
>there so it shifts up through in the fastest possible time. trust me -
>it's fun!

I am open to that, but it has to come down to Civic level before it
will have any relevance to me. I am sure that a Porsche would be fun
no matter what kind of transmission it has.

BTW, you might want to review my post in this thread from 2005:

http://tinyurl.com/ygpvay

I had no idea they would work that way, it just seemed like the
logical way to do it.

 

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:33:58 -0800, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:16:04 -0800, jim beam
>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:48:16 -0800, jim beam
>>>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>>>>>>>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>>>>>>>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>>>>>>> tell that to porsche - last i heard, their autos were faster than their
>>>>>>> sticks.
>>>>>> That is because most Porsche buyers are people who want to show off
>>>>>> how rich/cool they are and don't really care about driving it or even
>>>>>> know how.
>>>>> eh? how does criticizing [without basis] driver skill address the
>>>>> ability of a computer-controlled transmission to shift faster than a
>>>>> stick? makes no sense.
>>>> Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you were saying that the ATs
>>>> were *selling* faster than the MTs.
>>>>
>>>> My preference for MT is not based on how fast it shifts but rather the
>>>> ability to integrate the shifts seamlessly into driving. This
>>>> requires decisions based on information that the computer cannot
>>>> possibly know. May not matter much for a minivan, but it is
>>>> fundamental for a sports car.
>>> that's your perception. unless you've driven a modern auto, especially
>>> a sports auto, you're just making uninformed assumptions and using them
>>> as your basis for criticism.
>>>
>>>> The problem with most (virtually all) ATs is that they are biased
>>>> toward automatic operation and discourage manual operation.
>>> how? my auto has the shift in exactly the same place as where the stick
>>> would be. i see no difference. the transmission even has a no-lock
>>> gate between 3rd & 4th [commonest manual override] especially so you
>>> /can/ flip up and down at will.
>>
>> If you put it in 4, will it ever downshift into 3 by itself?
>
>yes, absolutely. it does it on "kickdown" acceleration /and/ it does it
>on braking. not gentle braking, but harder braking.

It is not a bad thing, I just don't care for it. If I want to
downshift, I can do that. If I don't want to, I don't like the car
doing it on its own.

>> When you
>> shift into 3 does it effectively double clutch?
>
>pointless exercise on an automatic. but even then, on the modern autos,
>in conjunction with electronic throttle, yes, the engine revs /are/
>meshed to the gear on shift.

That is what I mean. I figured they had fixed that aspect which is
the worst part of the older ATs.

>>>> Also, I
>>>> don't particularly care for the slippage of the torque converter.
>>> eh? what "slippage" is that? how does its mechanical function differ
>>>from a clutch [other than it has a much better efficiency range and is
>>> much smoother of course]?
>>
>> Well, as you point out, I don't have any experience with modern high
>> end luxury cars, but I note that at least more modest cars generally
>> have a significantly greater 0-60 speed and a lower mpg rating. Since
>> they now mostly have five gears, I would assume that means they are
>> slipping.
>
>there's no slipping unless the lock-up clutch is released. see below.
>
>> Actually, the slipping is partly by design, the so-called
>> torque multiplier effect.
>
>yes, that's what a torque converter does.
>
>> Basically, if you are cruising along and
>> you give it a little gas, but not enough to force a downshift, you
>> will see the rpms jump up immediately.
>
>that's because the lockup clutch is released to allow more torque. more
>flexibility than a stick where you'd have to shift.

But that is the slippage. The engine speeds up races up ahead of any
change in vehicle speed. It is like a slipping clutch. As for more
torque (horsepower really) a lot of that is eaten up by the
inefficiency of the torque converter. On cars where you can get a MT
or AT with the same engine, the MT is almost always faster and gets
better mileage.

>> The ultimate "torque multiplier" is a CVT.
>
>that's different - it's not a torque multiplier.

Neither is the conventional AT, it just has a clever design to let the
engine speed up ahead of the vehicle speed without shifting. It is
basically like a limited range CVT.

>if is however a great
>way of achieving absolute optimum gear for all conditions.

I agree that it has a big theoretical advantage, especially compared
to a conventional AT.

>> A lot of people don't like
>> them at all, but others say they get used to it. (The perception
>> problem is so bad that some manufacturers program virtual gears into
>> them thereby defeating the chief advantage of the CVT.)
>
>absolutely! i drove a "real" cvt one when i was in europe years ago,
>and yes it is /real/ weird at first. but it's amazing how much you can
>get out of a small 2-cylinder engine when it's got perfect gearing.
>quite fun! this particular model had 2 independent drives too, so not
>only did you have optimum gearing, you had limited slip diff benefits in
>snow & ice too.
>http://www.ritzsite.demon.nl/DAF/DAF_cars_p2.htm

That was the original CVT. Do you remember who offered the first CVT
in the US. (I don't think they ever sold the Daffodil here.)

>> I only rode
>> in one CVT car, a Nissan luxury sedan in Japan and it wasn't bad in
>> that application. He drove it fairly aggressively too - we hit almost
>> 180 kph on the expressway. I would like to try one of these. I don't
>> know if I would like it or not.
>
>if you're not used to traditional automatics, the transition is easy.
>if you're used to traditional autos, its weird for a few minutes because
>it doesn't "shift", but beyond that, they're actually very impressive.

Again though, I am not sure they are any faster or more efficient than
a good MT. Consumer Reports tested the Versa with MT and with CVT.
The MT version was 0.6 seconds faster to 60 and got one more mpg. (And
CR panned that MT.) They also tested MT and (conventional) AT
versions of Fit, Rio, Accent and Yaris. In each case the MT was 2 - 3
seconds faster and got 2 more mpg, so the CVT was clearly better than
an AT but not as good as even a mediocre MT, at last on raw numbers.

And yet, there is hardly a proliferation of CVTs on the market. Most
of them seem to be on hybrids in fact.

>
>>
>>>> I
>>>> understand that VW has a paddle shift AT that is actually built like
>>>> an MT.
>>> as are a lot of the euro "autos".
>>>
>>>> This has potential if the AT function can be completely
>>>> disabled, i.e. it never makes a shift without a command from the
>>>> driver.
>>> dude, have you ever driven an auto? you have pretty much full control
>>> over everything except clutching action - except for the fact that it
>>> won't let you select wrong gears of course.
>>
>> Will it let you start out in 5th gear? Not that I want to do that,
>> but the point is I don't like it downshifting or upshifting without my
>> command.
>
>no, but it'll start in 2nd. mine will anyway. useful in snow.
>
>regarding shifting, it'll shift down any time on command, providing
>doing so doesn't over-rev the engine - it won't let you do that.
>regarding up-shifting, you can hold it back until you're ready, and even
>then, it'll wait until it's certain you mean it - if you have your foot
>down. if you're not driving hard, it's academic.
>
>>
>>>> (Not that I would buy a VW under any circumstances.)
>>>>
>>>>> bottom line, you're welcome to drive whatever you want, but don't
>>>>> criticize autos on the basis of fud - it's simply not justified.
>>>> fud?
>>> fear. uncertainty. doubt. if there is no technical argument against
>>> something, people resort to fud.
>>
>> Well, I would certainly prefer an MT to the AT in my 98 Ody, but of
>> course that was not an option.
>>
>> Perhaps newer, high dollar vehicles are better set up for manual
>> shifting, and have fewer compromises but then that raises the point:
>> Why not just have an MT? They are cheaper, more durable and I like
>> the way they work just fine. For my purposes and preferences, I see
>> no benefit to an AT whatsoever.
>
>i used to think that. then i had a knee injury that prevented me
>driving a stick for some months, so i bought an auto. and every time
>i've driven a stick since, it's been a real chore. that was nearly 20
>years ago. it may be that there's some bad autos out there, but the way
>i have my civic set up [the shift pattern is adjustable], the shift
>points are pretty much dead on where i'd have them manually, and for
>other stuff, i over-ride.

I appreciate that many people prefer AT, and if you have a bad knee,
there isn't much choice. But I really enjoy driving the MT. I
haven't encountered an AT yet that I could actually say I enjoyed, but
I certainly haven't driven many new ones.

>> I presume I will never again be able to buy a large, cargo carrying
>> vehicle (eg. my old Volvo 245 station wagon) with an MT so I assume I
>> will have to go with 2007 technology sooner or later. I will let you
>> know what I think.
>>
>>> here's another nugget for you - automatics are banned from f1. like
>>> certain types of ground effects, they gave too much advantage to the
>>> [better funded] teams that had them. the compromise is paddle shift,
>>> but even then, interpretation of the ban has been taken to the limit
>>> since a lot of the control functions are still automatic.
>>
>> I would first point out that torque converters are not banned AFAIK,
>> but they are not used either.
>
>correct - they're heavy.
>
>> I would be curious to know whether and
>> how ATs would be used in F1 if they were not banned. I can imagine
>> the programming: if rpm >= redline then upshift, if downshift RPM <
>> redline then downshift. The situation is a little different on the
>> road and the technology is bound to be different and more compromised.
>> I seem to recall Ferrari had an AT at one time in F1. I dont' recall
>> if it was a clear advantage but I do recall that on a couple of
>> occasions it decided to downshift into 2nd when it should have been in
>> 5th. That was exciting. Not relevant to the argument but an amusing
>> story. It may have been an early paddle shifter rather than a true AT
>>
>maybe a problem with the sequencing mechanicals? who knows.

It was a computer glitch. As they say, to error is human. To really
foul things up requires a computer.

>i think in due course, semi autos will replace sticks. at least in
>sports cars. they offer faster, more accurate shifting, and computer
>control knows more about the potentials of the system than the driver
>does a lot of the time. a friend has a tiptronic carrera - hold the
>shift lever and put your foot down, and it'll select the lowest gear for
>the speed to give fastest acceleration, and you can revert to auto from
>there so it shifts up through in the fastest possible time. trust me -
>it's fun!

I am open to that, but it has to come down to Civic level before it
will have any relevance to me. I am sure that a Porsche would be fun
no matter what kind of transmission it has.

BTW, you might want to review my post in this thread from 2005:

http://tinyurl.com/ygpvay

I had no idea they would work that way, it just seemed like the
logical way to do it.

 

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:33:58 -0800, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:16:04 -0800, jim beam
>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:48:16 -0800, jim beam
>>>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>>>>>>>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>>>>>>>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>>>>>>> tell that to porsche - last i heard, their autos were faster than their
>>>>>>> sticks.
>>>>>> That is because most Porsche buyers are people who want to show off
>>>>>> how rich/cool they are and don't really care about driving it or even
>>>>>> know how.
>>>>> eh? how does criticizing [without basis] driver skill address the
>>>>> ability of a computer-controlled transmission to shift faster than a
>>>>> stick? makes no sense.
>>>> Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you were saying that the ATs
>>>> were *selling* faster than the MTs.
>>>>
>>>> My preference for MT is not based on how fast it shifts but rather the
>>>> ability to integrate the shifts seamlessly into driving. This
>>>> requires decisions based on information that the computer cannot
>>>> possibly know. May not matter much for a minivan, but it is
>>>> fundamental for a sports car.
>>> that's your perception. unless you've driven a modern auto, especially
>>> a sports auto, you're just making uninformed assumptions and using them
>>> as your basis for criticism.
>>>
>>>> The problem with most (virtually all) ATs is that they are biased
>>>> toward automatic operation and discourage manual operation.
>>> how? my auto has the shift in exactly the same place as where the stick
>>> would be. i see no difference. the transmission even has a no-lock
>>> gate between 3rd & 4th [commonest manual override] especially so you
>>> /can/ flip up and down at will.
>>
>> If you put it in 4, will it ever downshift into 3 by itself?
>
>yes, absolutely. it does it on "kickdown" acceleration /and/ it does it
>on braking. not gentle braking, but harder braking.

It is not a bad thing, I just don't care for it. If I want to
downshift, I can do that. If I don't want to, I don't like the car
doing it on its own.

>> When you
>> shift into 3 does it effectively double clutch?
>
>pointless exercise on an automatic. but even then, on the modern autos,
>in conjunction with electronic throttle, yes, the engine revs /are/
>meshed to the gear on shift.

That is what I mean. I figured they had fixed that aspect which is
the worst part of the older ATs.

>>>> Also, I
>>>> don't particularly care for the slippage of the torque converter.
>>> eh? what "slippage" is that? how does its mechanical function differ
>>>from a clutch [other than it has a much better efficiency range and is
>>> much smoother of course]?
>>
>> Well, as you point out, I don't have any experience with modern high
>> end luxury cars, but I note that at least more modest cars generally
>> have a significantly greater 0-60 speed and a lower mpg rating. Since
>> they now mostly have five gears, I would assume that means they are
>> slipping.
>
>there's no slipping unless the lock-up clutch is released. see below.
>
>> Actually, the slipping is partly by design, the so-called
>> torque multiplier effect.
>
>yes, that's what a torque converter does.
>
>> Basically, if you are cruising along and
>> you give it a little gas, but not enough to force a downshift, you
>> will see the rpms jump up immediately.
>
>that's because the lockup clutch is released to allow more torque. more
>flexibility than a stick where you'd have to shift.

But that is the slippage. The engine speeds up races up ahead of any
change in vehicle speed. It is like a slipping clutch. As for more
torque (horsepower really) a lot of that is eaten up by the
inefficiency of the torque converter. On cars where you can get a MT
or AT with the same engine, the MT is almost always faster and gets
better mileage.

>> The ultimate "torque multiplier" is a CVT.
>
>that's different - it's not a torque multiplier.

Neither is the conventional AT, it just has a clever design to let the
engine speed up ahead of the vehicle speed without shifting. It is
basically like a limited range CVT.

>if is however a great
>way of achieving absolute optimum gear for all conditions.

I agree that it has a big theoretical advantage, especially compared
to a conventional AT.

>> A lot of people don't like
>> them at all, but others say they get used to it. (The perception
>> problem is so bad that some manufacturers program virtual gears into
>> them thereby defeating the chief advantage of the CVT.)
>
>absolutely! i drove a "real" cvt one when i was in europe years ago,
>and yes it is /real/ weird at first. but it's amazing how much you can
>get out of a small 2-cylinder engine when it's got perfect gearing.
>quite fun! this particular model had 2 independent drives too, so not
>only did you have optimum gearing, you had limited slip diff benefits in
>snow & ice too.
>http://www.ritzsite.demon.nl/DAF/DAF_cars_p2.htm

That was the original CVT. Do you remember who offered the first CVT
in the US. (I don't think they ever sold the Daffodil here.)

>> I only rode
>> in one CVT car, a Nissan luxury sedan in Japan and it wasn't bad in
>> that application. He drove it fairly aggressively too - we hit almost
>> 180 kph on the expressway. I would like to try one of these. I don't
>> know if I would like it or not.
>
>if you're not used to traditional automatics, the transition is easy.
>if you're used to traditional autos, its weird for a few minutes because
>it doesn't "shift", but beyond that, they're actually very impressive.

Again though, I am not sure they are any faster or more efficient than
a good MT. Consumer Reports tested the Versa with MT and with CVT.
The MT version was 0.6 seconds faster to 60 and got one more mpg. (And
CR panned that MT.) They also tested MT and (conventional) AT
versions of Fit, Rio, Accent and Yaris. In each case the MT was 2 - 3
seconds faster and got 2 more mpg, so the CVT was clearly better than
an AT but not as good as even a mediocre MT, at last on raw numbers.

And yet, there is hardly a proliferation of CVTs on the market. Most
of them seem to be on hybrids in fact.

>
>>
>>>> I
>>>> understand that VW has a paddle shift AT that is actually built like
>>>> an MT.
>>> as are a lot of the euro "autos".
>>>
>>>> This has potential if the AT function can be completely
>>>> disabled, i.e. it never makes a shift without a command from the
>>>> driver.
>>> dude, have you ever driven an auto? you have pretty much full control
>>> over everything except clutching action - except for the fact that it
>>> won't let you select wrong gears of course.
>>
>> Will it let you start out in 5th gear? Not that I want to do that,
>> but the point is I don't like it downshifting or upshifting without my
>> command.
>
>no, but it'll start in 2nd. mine will anyway. useful in snow.
>
>regarding shifting, it'll shift down any time on command, providing
>doing so doesn't over-rev the engine - it won't let you do that.
>regarding up-shifting, you can hold it back until you're ready, and even
>then, it'll wait until it's certain you mean it - if you have your foot
>down. if you're not driving hard, it's academic.
>
>>
>>>> (Not that I would buy a VW under any circumstances.)
>>>>
>>>>> bottom line, you're welcome to drive whatever you want, but don't
>>>>> criticize autos on the basis of fud - it's simply not justified.
>>>> fud?
>>> fear. uncertainty. doubt. if there is no technical argument against
>>> something, people resort to fud.
>>
>> Well, I would certainly prefer an MT to the AT in my 98 Ody, but of
>> course that was not an option.
>>
>> Perhaps newer, high dollar vehicles are better set up for manual
>> shifting, and have fewer compromises but then that raises the point:
>> Why not just have an MT? They are cheaper, more durable and I like
>> the way they work just fine. For my purposes and preferences, I see
>> no benefit to an AT whatsoever.
>
>i used to think that. then i had a knee injury that prevented me
>driving a stick for some months, so i bought an auto. and every time
>i've driven a stick since, it's been a real chore. that was nearly 20
>years ago. it may be that there's some bad autos out there, but the way
>i have my civic set up [the shift pattern is adjustable], the shift
>points are pretty much dead on where i'd have them manually, and for
>other stuff, i over-ride.

I appreciate that many people prefer AT, and if you have a bad knee,
there isn't much choice. But I really enjoy driving the MT. I
haven't encountered an AT yet that I could actually say I enjoyed, but
I certainly haven't driven many new ones.

>> I presume I will never again be able to buy a large, cargo carrying
>> vehicle (eg. my old Volvo 245 station wagon) with an MT so I assume I
>> will have to go with 2007 technology sooner or later. I will let you
>> know what I think.
>>
>>> here's another nugget for you - automatics are banned from f1. like
>>> certain types of ground effects, they gave too much advantage to the
>>> [better funded] teams that had them. the compromise is paddle shift,
>>> but even then, interpretation of the ban has been taken to the limit
>>> since a lot of the control functions are still automatic.
>>
>> I would first point out that torque converters are not banned AFAIK,
>> but they are not used either.
>
>correct - they're heavy.
>
>> I would be curious to know whether and
>> how ATs would be used in F1 if they were not banned. I can imagine
>> the programming: if rpm >= redline then upshift, if downshift RPM <
>> redline then downshift. The situation is a little different on the
>> road and the technology is bound to be different and more compromised.
>> I seem to recall Ferrari had an AT at one time in F1. I dont' recall
>> if it was a clear advantage but I do recall that on a couple of
>> occasions it decided to downshift into 2nd when it should have been in
>> 5th. That was exciting. Not relevant to the argument but an amusing
>> story. It may have been an early paddle shifter rather than a true AT
>>
>maybe a problem with the sequencing mechanicals? who knows.

It was a computer glitch. As they say, to error is human. To really
foul things up requires a computer.

>i think in due course, semi autos will replace sticks. at least in
>sports cars. they offer faster, more accurate shifting, and computer
>control knows more about the potentials of the system than the driver
>does a lot of the time. a friend has a tiptronic carrera - hold the
>shift lever and put your foot down, and it'll select the lowest gear for
>the speed to give fastest acceleration, and you can revert to auto from
>there so it shifts up through in the fastest possible time. trust me -
>it's fun!

I am open to that, but it has to come down to Civic level before it
will have any relevance to me. I am sure that a Porsche would be fun
no matter what kind of transmission it has.

BTW, you might want to review my post in this thread from 2005:

http://tinyurl.com/ygpvay

I had no idea they would work that way, it just seemed like the
logical way to do it.

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:33:58 -0800, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:16:04 -0800, jim beam
>>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:48:16 -0800, jim beam
>>>>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>>>>>>>>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>>>>>>>>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>>>>>>>> tell that to porsche - last i heard, their autos were faster than their
>>>>>>>> sticks.
>>>>>>> That is because most Porsche buyers are people who want to show off
>>>>>>> how rich/cool they are and don't really care about driving it or even
>>>>>>> know how.
>>>>>> eh? how does criticizing [without basis] driver skill address the
>>>>>> ability of a computer-controlled transmission to shift faster than a
>>>>>> stick? makes no sense.
>>>>> Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you were saying that the ATs
>>>>> were *selling* faster than the MTs.
>>>>>
>>>>> My preference for MT is not based on how fast it shifts but rather the
>>>>> ability to integrate the shifts seamlessly into driving. This
>>>>> requires decisions based on information that the computer cannot
>>>>> possibly know. May not matter much for a minivan, but it is
>>>>> fundamental for a sports car.
>>>> that's your perception. unless you've driven a modern auto, especially
>>>> a sports auto, you're just making uninformed assumptions and using them
>>>> as your basis for criticism.
>>>>
>>>>> The problem with most (virtually all) ATs is that they are biased
>>>>> toward automatic operation and discourage manual operation.
>>>> how? my auto has the shift in exactly the same place as where the stick
>>>> would be. i see no difference. the transmission even has a no-lock
>>>> gate between 3rd & 4th [commonest manual override] especially so you
>>>> /can/ flip up and down at will.
>>> If you put it in 4, will it ever downshift into 3 by itself?
>> yes, absolutely. it does it on "kickdown" acceleration /and/ it does it
>> on braking. not gentle braking, but harder braking.
>
> It is not a bad thing, I just don't care for it. If I want to
> downshift, I can do that. If I don't want to, I don't like the car
> doing it on its own.

why not? it's just like you'd have on a stick.

>
>>> When you
>>> shift into 3 does it effectively double clutch?
>> pointless exercise on an automatic. but even then, on the modern autos,
>> in conjunction with electronic throttle, yes, the engine revs /are/
>> meshed to the gear on shift.
>
> That is what I mean. I figured they had fixed that aspect which is
> the worst part of the older ATs.
>
>>>>> Also, I
>>>>> don't particularly care for the slippage of the torque converter.
>>>> eh? what "slippage" is that? how does its mechanical function differ
>>> >from a clutch [other than it has a much better efficiency range and is
>>>> much smoother of course]?
>>> Well, as you point out, I don't have any experience with modern high
>>> end luxury cars, but I note that at least more modest cars generally
>>> have a significantly greater 0-60 speed and a lower mpg rating. Since
>>> they now mostly have five gears, I would assume that means they are
>>> slipping.
>> there's no slipping unless the lock-up clutch is released. see below.
>>
>>> Actually, the slipping is partly by design, the so-called
>>> torque multiplier effect.
>> yes, that's what a torque converter does.
>>
>>> Basically, if you are cruising along and
>>> you give it a little gas, but not enough to force a downshift, you
>>> will see the rpms jump up immediately.
>> that's because the lockup clutch is released to allow more torque. more
>> flexibility than a stick where you'd have to shift.
>
> But that is the slippage. The engine speeds up races up ahead of any
> change in vehicle speed.

but i don't understand the problem - what's wrong with it? engines are
not perfect across all rev ranges - why not let a computer manage the
efficiency curves - for that's what's happening.

> It is like a slipping clutch. As for more
> torque (horsepower really) a lot of that is eaten up by the
> inefficiency of the torque converter.

how is a slipping clutch more efficient? [it's not.]

> On cars where you can get a MT
> or AT with the same engine, the MT is almost always faster and gets
> better mileage.

not so with the modern autos. and that's one of the big things about
honda autos - it's basically a standard transmission with clutch packs
instead of synchros. inherently more efficient than planetary gears.

>
>>> The ultimate "torque multiplier" is a CVT.
>> that's different - it's not a torque multiplier.
>
> Neither is the conventional AT, it just has a clever design to let the
> engine speed up ahead of the vehicle speed without shifting. It is
> basically like a limited range CVT.

no dude, they're totally different. "torque multiplier" is something a
torque converter can do - hence its name. everything else is ratio
control, be it continuously variable or discrete.

>
>> if is however a great
>> way of achieving absolute optimum gear for all conditions.
>
> I agree that it has a big theoretical advantage, especially compared
> to a conventional AT.

compared to /any/ transmission. there are mechanical efficiency issues
with the friction interface, but that is more than outweighed by ratio
flexibility and ability to keep the engine at its most efficient.

>
>>> A lot of people don't like
>>> them at all, but others say they get used to it. (The perception
>>> problem is so bad that some manufacturers program virtual gears into
>>> them thereby defeating the chief advantage of the CVT.)
>> absolutely! i drove a "real" cvt one when i was in europe years ago,
>> and yes it is /real/ weird at first. but it's amazing how much you can
>> get out of a small 2-cylinder engine when it's got perfect gearing.
>> quite fun! this particular model had 2 independent drives too, so not
>> only did you have optimum gearing, you had limited slip diff benefits in
>> snow & ice too.
>> http://www.ritzsite.demon.nl/DAF/DAF_cars_p2.htm
>
> That was the original CVT. Do you remember who offered the first CVT
> in the US. (I don't think they ever sold the Daffodil here.)

subaru?

>
>>> I only rode
>>> in one CVT car, a Nissan luxury sedan in Japan and it wasn't bad in
>>> that application. He drove it fairly aggressively too - we hit almost
>>> 180 kph on the expressway. I would like to try one of these. I don't
>>> know if I would like it or not.
>> if you're not used to traditional automatics, the transition is easy.
>> if you're used to traditional autos, its weird for a few minutes because
>> it doesn't "shift", but beyond that, they're actually very impressive.
>
> Again though, I am not sure they are any faster or more efficient than
> a good MT.

well, the daf was only 650cc iirc, and 0-30, that wasn't much to touch it.

> Consumer Reports tested the Versa with MT and with CVT.
> The MT version was 0.6 seconds faster to 60 and got one more mpg. (And
> CR panned that MT.) They also tested MT and (conventional) AT
> versions of Fit, Rio, Accent and Yaris. In each case the MT was 2 - 3
> seconds faster and got 2 more mpg, so the CVT was clearly better than
> an AT but not as good as even a mediocre MT, at last on raw numbers.

that depends on the management system. the modern cvt's "simulate" gear
shifts which is the dumbest damned thing since it's not utilizing the
inherent benefit of the system! on that basis, i'm not surprised.

>
> And yet, there is hardly a proliferation of CVTs on the market. Most
> of them seem to be on hybrids in fact.

that's consumer and mechanic inertia - nothing to do with benefits or
reliability. trust me on that one - i've driven the daf for an extended
period and it's a great system.

>
>>>>> I
>>>>> understand that VW has a paddle shift AT that is actually built like
>>>>> an MT.
>>>> as are a lot of the euro "autos".
>>>>
>>>>> This has potential if the AT function can be completely
>>>>> disabled, i.e. it never makes a shift without a command from the
>>>>> driver.
>>>> dude, have you ever driven an auto? you have pretty much full control
>>>> over everything except clutching action - except for the fact that it
>>>> won't let you select wrong gears of course.
>>> Will it let you start out in 5th gear? Not that I want to do that,
>>> but the point is I don't like it downshifting or upshifting without my
>>> command.
>> no, but it'll start in 2nd. mine will anyway. useful in snow.
>>
>> regarding shifting, it'll shift down any time on command, providing
>> doing so doesn't over-rev the engine - it won't let you do that.
>> regarding up-shifting, you can hold it back until you're ready, and even
>> then, it'll wait until it's certain you mean it - if you have your foot
>> down. if you're not driving hard, it's academic.
>>
>>>>> (Not that I would buy a VW under any circumstances.)
>>>>>
>>>>>> bottom line, you're welcome to drive whatever you want, but don't
>>>>>> criticize autos on the basis of fud - it's simply not justified.
>>>>> fud?
>>>> fear. uncertainty. doubt. if there is no technical argument against
>>>> something, people resort to fud.
>>> Well, I would certainly prefer an MT to the AT in my 98 Ody, but of
>>> course that was not an option.
>>>
>>> Perhaps newer, high dollar vehicles are better set up for manual
>>> shifting, and have fewer compromises but then that raises the point:
>>> Why not just have an MT? They are cheaper, more durable and I like
>>> the way they work just fine. For my purposes and preferences, I see
>>> no benefit to an AT whatsoever.
>> i used to think that. then i had a knee injury that prevented me
>> driving a stick for some months, so i bought an auto. and every time
>> i've driven a stick since, it's been a real chore. that was nearly 20
>> years ago. it may be that there's some bad autos out there, but the way
>> i have my civic set up [the shift pattern is adjustable], the shift
>> points are pretty much dead on where i'd have them manually, and for
>> other stuff, i over-ride.
>
> I appreciate that many people prefer AT, and if you have a bad knee,
> there isn't much choice. But I really enjoy driving the MT. I
> haven't encountered an AT yet that I could actually say I enjoyed, but
> I certainly haven't driven many new ones.
>
>>> I presume I will never again be able to buy a large, cargo carrying
>>> vehicle (eg. my old Volvo 245 station wagon) with an MT so I assume I
>>> will have to go with 2007 technology sooner or later. I will let you
>>> know what I think.
>>>
>>>> here's another nugget for you - automatics are banned from f1. like
>>>> certain types of ground effects, they gave too much advantage to the
>>>> [better funded] teams that had them. the compromise is paddle shift,
>>>> but even then, interpretation of the ban has been taken to the limit
>>>> since a lot of the control functions are still automatic.
>>> I would first point out that torque converters are not banned AFAIK,
>>> but they are not used either.
>> correct - they're heavy.
>>
>>> I would be curious to know whether and
>>> how ATs would be used in F1 if they were not banned. I can imagine
>>> the programming: if rpm >= redline then upshift, if downshift RPM <
>>> redline then downshift. The situation is a little different on the
>>> road and the technology is bound to be different and more compromised.
>>> I seem to recall Ferrari had an AT at one time in F1. I dont' recall
>>> if it was a clear advantage but I do recall that on a couple of
>>> occasions it decided to downshift into 2nd when it should have been in
>>> 5th. That was exciting. Not relevant to the argument but an amusing
>>> story. It may have been an early paddle shifter rather than a true AT
>>>
>> maybe a problem with the sequencing mechanicals? who knows.
>
> It was a computer glitch. As they say, to error is human. To really
> foul things up requires a computer.
>
>> i think in due course, semi autos will replace sticks. at least in
>> sports cars. they offer faster, more accurate shifting, and computer
>> control knows more about the potentials of the system than the driver
>> does a lot of the time. a friend has a tiptronic carrera - hold the
>> shift lever and put your foot down, and it'll select the lowest gear for
>> the speed to give fastest acceleration, and you can revert to auto from
>> there so it shifts up through in the fastest possible time. trust me -
>> it's fun!
>
> I am open to that, but it has to come down to Civic level before it
> will have any relevance to me. I am sure that a Porsche would be fun
> no matter what kind of transmission it has.
>
> BTW, you might want to review my post in this thread from 2005:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ygpvay
>
> I had no idea they would work that way, it just seemed like the
> logical way to do it.
>

indeed.

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:33:58 -0800, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:16:04 -0800, jim beam
>>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:48:16 -0800, jim beam
>>>>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>>>>>>>>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>>>>>>>>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>>>>>>>> tell that to porsche - last i heard, their autos were faster than their
>>>>>>>> sticks.
>>>>>>> That is because most Porsche buyers are people who want to show off
>>>>>>> how rich/cool they are and don't really care about driving it or even
>>>>>>> know how.
>>>>>> eh? how does criticizing [without basis] driver skill address the
>>>>>> ability of a computer-controlled transmission to shift faster than a
>>>>>> stick? makes no sense.
>>>>> Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you were saying that the ATs
>>>>> were *selling* faster than the MTs.
>>>>>
>>>>> My preference for MT is not based on how fast it shifts but rather the
>>>>> ability to integrate the shifts seamlessly into driving. This
>>>>> requires decisions based on information that the computer cannot
>>>>> possibly know. May not matter much for a minivan, but it is
>>>>> fundamental for a sports car.
>>>> that's your perception. unless you've driven a modern auto, especially
>>>> a sports auto, you're just making uninformed assumptions and using them
>>>> as your basis for criticism.
>>>>
>>>>> The problem with most (virtually all) ATs is that they are biased
>>>>> toward automatic operation and discourage manual operation.
>>>> how? my auto has the shift in exactly the same place as where the stick
>>>> would be. i see no difference. the transmission even has a no-lock
>>>> gate between 3rd & 4th [commonest manual override] especially so you
>>>> /can/ flip up and down at will.
>>> If you put it in 4, will it ever downshift into 3 by itself?
>> yes, absolutely. it does it on "kickdown" acceleration /and/ it does it
>> on braking. not gentle braking, but harder braking.
>
> It is not a bad thing, I just don't care for it. If I want to
> downshift, I can do that. If I don't want to, I don't like the car
> doing it on its own.

why not? it's just like you'd have on a stick.

>
>>> When you
>>> shift into 3 does it effectively double clutch?
>> pointless exercise on an automatic. but even then, on the modern autos,
>> in conjunction with electronic throttle, yes, the engine revs /are/
>> meshed to the gear on shift.
>
> That is what I mean. I figured they had fixed that aspect which is
> the worst part of the older ATs.
>
>>>>> Also, I
>>>>> don't particularly care for the slippage of the torque converter.
>>>> eh? what "slippage" is that? how does its mechanical function differ
>>> >from a clutch [other than it has a much better efficiency range and is
>>>> much smoother of course]?
>>> Well, as you point out, I don't have any experience with modern high
>>> end luxury cars, but I note that at least more modest cars generally
>>> have a significantly greater 0-60 speed and a lower mpg rating. Since
>>> they now mostly have five gears, I would assume that means they are
>>> slipping.
>> there's no slipping unless the lock-up clutch is released. see below.
>>
>>> Actually, the slipping is partly by design, the so-called
>>> torque multiplier effect.
>> yes, that's what a torque converter does.
>>
>>> Basically, if you are cruising along and
>>> you give it a little gas, but not enough to force a downshift, you
>>> will see the rpms jump up immediately.
>> that's because the lockup clutch is released to allow more torque. more
>> flexibility than a stick where you'd have to shift.
>
> But that is the slippage. The engine speeds up races up ahead of any
> change in vehicle speed.

but i don't understand the problem - what's wrong with it? engines are
not perfect across all rev ranges - why not let a computer manage the
efficiency curves - for that's what's happening.

> It is like a slipping clutch. As for more
> torque (horsepower really) a lot of that is eaten up by the
> inefficiency of the torque converter.

how is a slipping clutch more efficient? [it's not.]

> On cars where you can get a MT
> or AT with the same engine, the MT is almost always faster and gets
> better mileage.

not so with the modern autos. and that's one of the big things about
honda autos - it's basically a standard transmission with clutch packs
instead of synchros. inherently more efficient than planetary gears.

>
>>> The ultimate "torque multiplier" is a CVT.
>> that's different - it's not a torque multiplier.
>
> Neither is the conventional AT, it just has a clever design to let the
> engine speed up ahead of the vehicle speed without shifting. It is
> basically like a limited range CVT.

no dude, they're totally different. "torque multiplier" is something a
torque converter can do - hence its name. everything else is ratio
control, be it continuously variable or discrete.

>
>> if is however a great
>> way of achieving absolute optimum gear for all conditions.
>
> I agree that it has a big theoretical advantage, especially compared
> to a conventional AT.

compared to /any/ transmission. there are mechanical efficiency issues
with the friction interface, but that is more than outweighed by ratio
flexibility and ability to keep the engine at its most efficient.

>
>>> A lot of people don't like
>>> them at all, but others say they get used to it. (The perception
>>> problem is so bad that some manufacturers program virtual gears into
>>> them thereby defeating the chief advantage of the CVT.)
>> absolutely! i drove a "real" cvt one when i was in europe years ago,
>> and yes it is /real/ weird at first. but it's amazing how much you can
>> get out of a small 2-cylinder engine when it's got perfect gearing.
>> quite fun! this particular model had 2 independent drives too, so not
>> only did you have optimum gearing, you had limited slip diff benefits in
>> snow & ice too.
>> http://www.ritzsite.demon.nl/DAF/DAF_cars_p2.htm
>
> That was the original CVT. Do you remember who offered the first CVT
> in the US. (I don't think they ever sold the Daffodil here.)

subaru?

>
>>> I only rode
>>> in one CVT car, a Nissan luxury sedan in Japan and it wasn't bad in
>>> that application. He drove it fairly aggressively too - we hit almost
>>> 180 kph on the expressway. I would like to try one of these. I don't
>>> know if I would like it or not.
>> if you're not used to traditional automatics, the transition is easy.
>> if you're used to traditional autos, its weird for a few minutes because
>> it doesn't "shift", but beyond that, they're actually very impressive.
>
> Again though, I am not sure they are any faster or more efficient than
> a good MT.

well, the daf was only 650cc iirc, and 0-30, that wasn't much to touch it.

> Consumer Reports tested the Versa with MT and with CVT.
> The MT version was 0.6 seconds faster to 60 and got one more mpg. (And
> CR panned that MT.) They also tested MT and (conventional) AT
> versions of Fit, Rio, Accent and Yaris. In each case the MT was 2 - 3
> seconds faster and got 2 more mpg, so the CVT was clearly better than
> an AT but not as good as even a mediocre MT, at last on raw numbers.

that depends on the management system. the modern cvt's "simulate" gear
shifts which is the dumbest damned thing since it's not utilizing the
inherent benefit of the system! on that basis, i'm not surprised.

>
> And yet, there is hardly a proliferation of CVTs on the market. Most
> of them seem to be on hybrids in fact.

that's consumer and mechanic inertia - nothing to do with benefits or
reliability. trust me on that one - i've driven the daf for an extended
period and it's a great system.

>
>>>>> I
>>>>> understand that VW has a paddle shift AT that is actually built like
>>>>> an MT.
>>>> as are a lot of the euro "autos".
>>>>
>>>>> This has potential if the AT function can be completely
>>>>> disabled, i.e. it never makes a shift without a command from the
>>>>> driver.
>>>> dude, have you ever driven an auto? you have pretty much full control
>>>> over everything except clutching action - except for the fact that it
>>>> won't let you select wrong gears of course.
>>> Will it let you start out in 5th gear? Not that I want to do that,
>>> but the point is I don't like it downshifting or upshifting without my
>>> command.
>> no, but it'll start in 2nd. mine will anyway. useful in snow.
>>
>> regarding shifting, it'll shift down any time on command, providing
>> doing so doesn't over-rev the engine - it won't let you do that.
>> regarding up-shifting, you can hold it back until you're ready, and even
>> then, it'll wait until it's certain you mean it - if you have your foot
>> down. if you're not driving hard, it's academic.
>>
>>>>> (Not that I would buy a VW under any circumstances.)
>>>>>
>>>>>> bottom line, you're welcome to drive whatever you want, but don't
>>>>>> criticize autos on the basis of fud - it's simply not justified.
>>>>> fud?
>>>> fear. uncertainty. doubt. if there is no technical argument against
>>>> something, people resort to fud.
>>> Well, I would certainly prefer an MT to the AT in my 98 Ody, but of
>>> course that was not an option.
>>>
>>> Perhaps newer, high dollar vehicles are better set up for manual
>>> shifting, and have fewer compromises but then that raises the point:
>>> Why not just have an MT? They are cheaper, more durable and I like
>>> the way they work just fine. For my purposes and preferences, I see
>>> no benefit to an AT whatsoever.
>> i used to think that. then i had a knee injury that prevented me
>> driving a stick for some months, so i bought an auto. and every time
>> i've driven a stick since, it's been a real chore. that was nearly 20
>> years ago. it may be that there's some bad autos out there, but the way
>> i have my civic set up [the shift pattern is adjustable], the shift
>> points are pretty much dead on where i'd have them manually, and for
>> other stuff, i over-ride.
>
> I appreciate that many people prefer AT, and if you have a bad knee,
> there isn't much choice. But I really enjoy driving the MT. I
> haven't encountered an AT yet that I could actually say I enjoyed, but
> I certainly haven't driven many new ones.
>
>>> I presume I will never again be able to buy a large, cargo carrying
>>> vehicle (eg. my old Volvo 245 station wagon) with an MT so I assume I
>>> will have to go with 2007 technology sooner or later. I will let you
>>> know what I think.
>>>
>>>> here's another nugget for you - automatics are banned from f1. like
>>>> certain types of ground effects, they gave too much advantage to the
>>>> [better funded] teams that had them. the compromise is paddle shift,
>>>> but even then, interpretation of the ban has been taken to the limit
>>>> since a lot of the control functions are still automatic.
>>> I would first point out that torque converters are not banned AFAIK,
>>> but they are not used either.
>> correct - they're heavy.
>>
>>> I would be curious to know whether and
>>> how ATs would be used in F1 if they were not banned. I can imagine
>>> the programming: if rpm >= redline then upshift, if downshift RPM <
>>> redline then downshift. The situation is a little different on the
>>> road and the technology is bound to be different and more compromised.
>>> I seem to recall Ferrari had an AT at one time in F1. I dont' recall
>>> if it was a clear advantage but I do recall that on a couple of
>>> occasions it decided to downshift into 2nd when it should have been in
>>> 5th. That was exciting. Not relevant to the argument but an amusing
>>> story. It may have been an early paddle shifter rather than a true AT
>>>
>> maybe a problem with the sequencing mechanicals? who knows.
>
> It was a computer glitch. As they say, to error is human. To really
> foul things up requires a computer.
>
>> i think in due course, semi autos will replace sticks. at least in
>> sports cars. they offer faster, more accurate shifting, and computer
>> control knows more about the potentials of the system than the driver
>> does a lot of the time. a friend has a tiptronic carrera - hold the
>> shift lever and put your foot down, and it'll select the lowest gear for
>> the speed to give fastest acceleration, and you can revert to auto from
>> there so it shifts up through in the fastest possible time. trust me -
>> it's fun!
>
> I am open to that, but it has to come down to Civic level before it
> will have any relevance to me. I am sure that a Porsche would be fun
> no matter what kind of transmission it has.
>
> BTW, you might want to review my post in this thread from 2005:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ygpvay
>
> I had no idea they would work that way, it just seemed like the
> logical way to do it.
>

indeed.

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:33:58 -0800, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:16:04 -0800, jim beam
>>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:48:16 -0800, jim beam
>>>>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>>>>>>>>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>>>>>>>>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>>>>>>>> tell that to porsche - last i heard, their autos were faster than their
>>>>>>>> sticks.
>>>>>>> That is because most Porsche buyers are people who want to show off
>>>>>>> how rich/cool they are and don't really care about driving it or even
>>>>>>> know how.
>>>>>> eh? how does criticizing [without basis] driver skill address the
>>>>>> ability of a computer-controlled transmission to shift faster than a
>>>>>> stick? makes no sense.
>>>>> Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you were saying that the ATs
>>>>> were *selling* faster than the MTs.
>>>>>
>>>>> My preference for MT is not based on how fast it shifts but rather the
>>>>> ability to integrate the shifts seamlessly into driving. This
>>>>> requires decisions based on information that the computer cannot
>>>>> possibly know. May not matter much for a minivan, but it is
>>>>> fundamental for a sports car.
>>>> that's your perception. unless you've driven a modern auto, especially
>>>> a sports auto, you're just making uninformed assumptions and using them
>>>> as your basis for criticism.
>>>>
>>>>> The problem with most (virtually all) ATs is that they are biased
>>>>> toward automatic operation and discourage manual operation.
>>>> how? my auto has the shift in exactly the same place as where the stick
>>>> would be. i see no difference. the transmission even has a no-lock
>>>> gate between 3rd & 4th [commonest manual override] especially so you
>>>> /can/ flip up and down at will.
>>> If you put it in 4, will it ever downshift into 3 by itself?
>> yes, absolutely. it does it on "kickdown" acceleration /and/ it does it
>> on braking. not gentle braking, but harder braking.
>
> It is not a bad thing, I just don't care for it. If I want to
> downshift, I can do that. If I don't want to, I don't like the car
> doing it on its own.

why not? it's just like you'd have on a stick.

>
>>> When you
>>> shift into 3 does it effectively double clutch?
>> pointless exercise on an automatic. but even then, on the modern autos,
>> in conjunction with electronic throttle, yes, the engine revs /are/
>> meshed to the gear on shift.
>
> That is what I mean. I figured they had fixed that aspect which is
> the worst part of the older ATs.
>
>>>>> Also, I
>>>>> don't particularly care for the slippage of the torque converter.
>>>> eh? what "slippage" is that? how does its mechanical function differ
>>> >from a clutch [other than it has a much better efficiency range and is
>>>> much smoother of course]?
>>> Well, as you point out, I don't have any experience with modern high
>>> end luxury cars, but I note that at least more modest cars generally
>>> have a significantly greater 0-60 speed and a lower mpg rating. Since
>>> they now mostly have five gears, I would assume that means they are
>>> slipping.
>> there's no slipping unless the lock-up clutch is released. see below.
>>
>>> Actually, the slipping is partly by design, the so-called
>>> torque multiplier effect.
>> yes, that's what a torque converter does.
>>
>>> Basically, if you are cruising along and
>>> you give it a little gas, but not enough to force a downshift, you
>>> will see the rpms jump up immediately.
>> that's because the lockup clutch is released to allow more torque. more
>> flexibility than a stick where you'd have to shift.
>
> But that is the slippage. The engine speeds up races up ahead of any
> change in vehicle speed.

but i don't understand the problem - what's wrong with it? engines are
not perfect across all rev ranges - why not let a computer manage the
efficiency curves - for that's what's happening.

> It is like a slipping clutch. As for more
> torque (horsepower really) a lot of that is eaten up by the
> inefficiency of the torque converter.

how is a slipping clutch more efficient? [it's not.]

> On cars where you can get a MT
> or AT with the same engine, the MT is almost always faster and gets
> better mileage.

not so with the modern autos. and that's one of the big things about
honda autos - it's basically a standard transmission with clutch packs
instead of synchros. inherently more efficient than planetary gears.

>
>>> The ultimate "torque multiplier" is a CVT.
>> that's different - it's not a torque multiplier.
>
> Neither is the conventional AT, it just has a clever design to let the
> engine speed up ahead of the vehicle speed without shifting. It is
> basically like a limited range CVT.

no dude, they're totally different. "torque multiplier" is something a
torque converter can do - hence its name. everything else is ratio
control, be it continuously variable or discrete.

>
>> if is however a great
>> way of achieving absolute optimum gear for all conditions.
>
> I agree that it has a big theoretical advantage, especially compared
> to a conventional AT.

compared to /any/ transmission. there are mechanical efficiency issues
with the friction interface, but that is more than outweighed by ratio
flexibility and ability to keep the engine at its most efficient.

>
>>> A lot of people don't like
>>> them at all, but others say they get used to it. (The perception
>>> problem is so bad that some manufacturers program virtual gears into
>>> them thereby defeating the chief advantage of the CVT.)
>> absolutely! i drove a "real" cvt one when i was in europe years ago,
>> and yes it is /real/ weird at first. but it's amazing how much you can
>> get out of a small 2-cylinder engine when it's got perfect gearing.
>> quite fun! this particular model had 2 independent drives too, so not
>> only did you have optimum gearing, you had limited slip diff benefits in
>> snow & ice too.
>> http://www.ritzsite.demon.nl/DAF/DAF_cars_p2.htm
>
> That was the original CVT. Do you remember who offered the first CVT
> in the US. (I don't think they ever sold the Daffodil here.)

subaru?

>
>>> I only rode
>>> in one CVT car, a Nissan luxury sedan in Japan and it wasn't bad in
>>> that application. He drove it fairly aggressively too - we hit almost
>>> 180 kph on the expressway. I would like to try one of these. I don't
>>> know if I would like it or not.
>> if you're not used to traditional automatics, the transition is easy.
>> if you're used to traditional autos, its weird for a few minutes because
>> it doesn't "shift", but beyond that, they're actually very impressive.
>
> Again though, I am not sure they are any faster or more efficient than
> a good MT.

well, the daf was only 650cc iirc, and 0-30, that wasn't much to touch it.

> Consumer Reports tested the Versa with MT and with CVT.
> The MT version was 0.6 seconds faster to 60 and got one more mpg. (And
> CR panned that MT.) They also tested MT and (conventional) AT
> versions of Fit, Rio, Accent and Yaris. In each case the MT was 2 - 3
> seconds faster and got 2 more mpg, so the CVT was clearly better than
> an AT but not as good as even a mediocre MT, at last on raw numbers.

that depends on the management system. the modern cvt's "simulate" gear
shifts which is the dumbest damned thing since it's not utilizing the
inherent benefit of the system! on that basis, i'm not surprised.

>
> And yet, there is hardly a proliferation of CVTs on the market. Most
> of them seem to be on hybrids in fact.

that's consumer and mechanic inertia - nothing to do with benefits or
reliability. trust me on that one - i've driven the daf for an extended
period and it's a great system.

>
>>>>> I
>>>>> understand that VW has a paddle shift AT that is actually built like
>>>>> an MT.
>>>> as are a lot of the euro "autos".
>>>>
>>>>> This has potential if the AT function can be completely
>>>>> disabled, i.e. it never makes a shift without a command from the
>>>>> driver.
>>>> dude, have you ever driven an auto? you have pretty much full control
>>>> over everything except clutching action - except for the fact that it
>>>> won't let you select wrong gears of course.
>>> Will it let you start out in 5th gear? Not that I want to do that,
>>> but the point is I don't like it downshifting or upshifting without my
>>> command.
>> no, but it'll start in 2nd. mine will anyway. useful in snow.
>>
>> regarding shifting, it'll shift down any time on command, providing
>> doing so doesn't over-rev the engine - it won't let you do that.
>> regarding up-shifting, you can hold it back until you're ready, and even
>> then, it'll wait until it's certain you mean it - if you have your foot
>> down. if you're not driving hard, it's academic.
>>
>>>>> (Not that I would buy a VW under any circumstances.)
>>>>>
>>>>>> bottom line, you're welcome to drive whatever you want, but don't
>>>>>> criticize autos on the basis of fud - it's simply not justified.
>>>>> fud?
>>>> fear. uncertainty. doubt. if there is no technical argument against
>>>> something, people resort to fud.
>>> Well, I would certainly prefer an MT to the AT in my 98 Ody, but of
>>> course that was not an option.
>>>
>>> Perhaps newer, high dollar vehicles are better set up for manual
>>> shifting, and have fewer compromises but then that raises the point:
>>> Why not just have an MT? They are cheaper, more durable and I like
>>> the way they work just fine. For my purposes and preferences, I see
>>> no benefit to an AT whatsoever.
>> i used to think that. then i had a knee injury that prevented me
>> driving a stick for some months, so i bought an auto. and every time
>> i've driven a stick since, it's been a real chore. that was nearly 20
>> years ago. it may be that there's some bad autos out there, but the way
>> i have my civic set up [the shift pattern is adjustable], the shift
>> points are pretty much dead on where i'd have them manually, and for
>> other stuff, i over-ride.
>
> I appreciate that many people prefer AT, and if you have a bad knee,
> there isn't much choice. But I really enjoy driving the MT. I
> haven't encountered an AT yet that I could actually say I enjoyed, but
> I certainly haven't driven many new ones.
>
>>> I presume I will never again be able to buy a large, cargo carrying
>>> vehicle (eg. my old Volvo 245 station wagon) with an MT so I assume I
>>> will have to go with 2007 technology sooner or later. I will let you
>>> know what I think.
>>>
>>>> here's another nugget for you - automatics are banned from f1. like
>>>> certain types of ground effects, they gave too much advantage to the
>>>> [better funded] teams that had them. the compromise is paddle shift,
>>>> but even then, interpretation of the ban has been taken to the limit
>>>> since a lot of the control functions are still automatic.
>>> I would first point out that torque converters are not banned AFAIK,
>>> but they are not used either.
>> correct - they're heavy.
>>
>>> I would be curious to know whether and
>>> how ATs would be used in F1 if they were not banned. I can imagine
>>> the programming: if rpm >= redline then upshift, if downshift RPM <
>>> redline then downshift. The situation is a little different on the
>>> road and the technology is bound to be different and more compromised.
>>> I seem to recall Ferrari had an AT at one time in F1. I dont' recall
>>> if it was a clear advantage but I do recall that on a couple of
>>> occasions it decided to downshift into 2nd when it should have been in
>>> 5th. That was exciting. Not relevant to the argument but an amusing
>>> story. It may have been an early paddle shifter rather than a true AT
>>>
>> maybe a problem with the sequencing mechanicals? who knows.
>
> It was a computer glitch. As they say, to error is human. To really
> foul things up requires a computer.
>
>> i think in due course, semi autos will replace sticks. at least in
>> sports cars. they offer faster, more accurate shifting, and computer
>> control knows more about the potentials of the system than the driver
>> does a lot of the time. a friend has a tiptronic carrera - hold the
>> shift lever and put your foot down, and it'll select the lowest gear for
>> the speed to give fastest acceleration, and you can revert to auto from
>> there so it shifts up through in the fastest possible time. trust me -
>> it's fun!
>
> I am open to that, but it has to come down to Civic level before it
> will have any relevance to me. I am sure that a Porsche would be fun
> no matter what kind of transmission it has.
>
> BTW, you might want to review my post in this thread from 2005:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ygpvay
>
> I had no idea they would work that way, it just seemed like the
> logical way to do it.
>

indeed.

 

Interesting discussion I started here, I guess....!

I've driven the CVT in an Audi A4 loaner and thought it was weird at
first (as someone else noted). But it also had 'sport' settings where
it would 'shift' thru seven 'gears'. There are more CVT's out there
than you think - off the top of my head, I can think of the Audi (A4
non-quattro auto models), Ford Freestyle cross-over, and Nissan Altima,
Murano, Maxima and Versa.* I think some version of the Ford Five
Hundred has it as well. So, they are becoming more popular.

The best compromise seems to be the automated manual transmissions -
they are a true manual trans with an automated clutch. No torque
converter. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-Shift_Gearbox )
Audi's DSG is commonly considered the best example, although BMW has
one (whch regularly gets panned for poor auto shifting). Porsche may
have one as well. I've driven the DSG and it is excellent, very fast
shifting and a decent auto mode as well. But I still prefer a
conventional manual transmission.

For the Ody, I'm prefectly happy with an automatic.

*Oh, Wiki has a list of CVT equipped autos world-wide.

* Audi A4 2.0/1.8T/2.4/3.0/2.5 TDI
* Audi A6 2.0/1.8T/2.4/3.0/2.5 TDI
* Dodge Caliber
* Fiat Punto 1.2 L
* Ford Escape Hybrid 2.3 L 4 cyl
* Ford Five Hundred 3.0 L 6 cyl
* Ford Focus C-MAX 1.6 L TDCi 110 PS
* Ford Freestyle 3.0 L 6 cyl
* Honda Civic HX 1.7 L 4 cyl
* Honda Civic Hybrid 1.3 L 4 cyl
* Honda City 1.5 L
* Honda HR-V 1.6 L
* Honda Insight 1.0 L 3 cyl
* Honda Jazz 1.4L / Honda Fit 1.3 L/1.5 L
* Hyundai Azera 3.8 Lambda
* Hyundai Sonata 3.3 Lambda
* Jeep Compass 2.4 L
* Lexus GS450h 3.5 L 6 cyl
* Lexus RX400h 3.3 L 6 cyl
* Mercedes-Benz A-Class

* Mercedes-Benz B-Class
* Mercury Montego 3.0 L 6 cyl
* Microcar MC1/MC2 505cc 2 cyl diesel or petrol
* Microcar Virgo 505cc 2 cyl diesel or petrol
* Mitsubishi Colt 1.5 L MIVEC 4 cyl with INVECS-III CVT
(Asian-Oceanian version only, 72 kW)
* Mitsubishi Lancer 1.6 L/1.8 L MIVEC 4 cyl with INVECS-III CVT
(Asian version only)
* MG F/MG TF 1.8L
* BMW MINI One and Cooper.
* Nissan Altima (from 2007)
* Nissan Cube
* Nissan Maxima (from 2007)
* Nissan Micra 1.0 L/1.3 L
* Nissan Murano 3.5 L
* Nissan Primera 2.0 L
* Nissan Sentra (from 2007)
* Nissan Serena 2.0 L
* Nissan Skyline 350GT-8
* Nissan Tiida / Versa
* Opel Vectra 1.8 L
* Rover 25
* Rover 45
* Rover Streetwise
* Saturn ION Quad Coupe (2003-2004)
* Saturn VUE 2.2 L AWD (2002-2005), 2.2 FWD (2002-2004)
* Subaru R1
* Subaru R2
* Subaru Stella
* Toyota Highlander Hybrid 3.3 L 6 cyl
* Toyota Camry Hybrid 2.4L 4 cyl
* Toyota Prius 1.5 L 4 cyl


Dan D
'04 A4 1.8Tq 6-speed

 

Interesting discussion I started here, I guess....!

I've driven the CVT in an Audi A4 loaner and thought it was weird at
first (as someone else noted). But it also had 'sport' settings where
it would 'shift' thru seven 'gears'. There are more CVT's out there
than you think - off the top of my head, I can think of the Audi (A4
non-quattro auto models), Ford Freestyle cross-over, and Nissan Altima,
Murano, Maxima and Versa.* I think some version of the Ford Five
Hundred has it as well. So, they are becoming more popular.

The best compromise seems to be the automated manual transmissions -
they are a true manual trans with an automated clutch. No torque
converter. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-Shift_Gearbox )
Audi's DSG is commonly considered the best example, although BMW has
one (whch regularly gets panned for poor auto shifting). Porsche may
have one as well. I've driven the DSG and it is excellent, very fast
shifting and a decent auto mode as well. But I still prefer a
conventional manual transmission.

For the Ody, I'm prefectly happy with an automatic.

*Oh, Wiki has a list of CVT equipped autos world-wide.

* Audi A4 2.0/1.8T/2.4/3.0/2.5 TDI
* Audi A6 2.0/1.8T/2.4/3.0/2.5 TDI
* Dodge Caliber
* Fiat Punto 1.2 L
* Ford Escape Hybrid 2.3 L 4 cyl
* Ford Five Hundred 3.0 L 6 cyl
* Ford Focus C-MAX 1.6 L TDCi 110 PS
* Ford Freestyle 3.0 L 6 cyl
* Honda Civic HX 1.7 L 4 cyl
* Honda Civic Hybrid 1.3 L 4 cyl
* Honda City 1.5 L
* Honda HR-V 1.6 L
* Honda Insight 1.0 L 3 cyl
* Honda Jazz 1.4L / Honda Fit 1.3 L/1.5 L
* Hyundai Azera 3.8 Lambda
* Hyundai Sonata 3.3 Lambda
* Jeep Compass 2.4 L
* Lexus GS450h 3.5 L 6 cyl
* Lexus RX400h 3.3 L 6 cyl
* Mercedes-Benz A-Class

* Mercedes-Benz B-Class
* Mercury Montego 3.0 L 6 cyl
* Microcar MC1/MC2 505cc 2 cyl diesel or petrol
* Microcar Virgo 505cc 2 cyl diesel or petrol
* Mitsubishi Colt 1.5 L MIVEC 4 cyl with INVECS-III CVT
(Asian-Oceanian version only, 72 kW)
* Mitsubishi Lancer 1.6 L/1.8 L MIVEC 4 cyl with INVECS-III CVT
(Asian version only)
* MG F/MG TF 1.8L
* BMW MINI One and Cooper.
* Nissan Altima (from 2007)
* Nissan Cube
* Nissan Maxima (from 2007)
* Nissan Micra 1.0 L/1.3 L
* Nissan Murano 3.5 L
* Nissan Primera 2.0 L
* Nissan Sentra (from 2007)
* Nissan Serena 2.0 L
* Nissan Skyline 350GT-8
* Nissan Tiida / Versa
* Opel Vectra 1.8 L
* Rover 25
* Rover 45
* Rover Streetwise
* Saturn ION Quad Coupe (2003-2004)
* Saturn VUE 2.2 L AWD (2002-2005), 2.2 FWD (2002-2004)
* Subaru R1
* Subaru R2
* Subaru Stella
* Toyota Highlander Hybrid 3.3 L 6 cyl
* Toyota Camry Hybrid 2.4L 4 cyl
* Toyota Prius 1.5 L 4 cyl


Dan D
'04 A4 1.8Tq 6-speed

 

Interesting discussion I started here, I guess....!

I've driven the CVT in an Audi A4 loaner and thought it was weird at
first (as someone else noted). But it also had 'sport' settings where
it would 'shift' thru seven 'gears'. There are more CVT's out there
than you think - off the top of my head, I can think of the Audi (A4
non-quattro auto models), Ford Freestyle cross-over, and Nissan Altima,
Murano, Maxima and Versa.* I think some version of the Ford Five
Hundred has it as well. So, they are becoming more popular.

The best compromise seems to be the automated manual transmissions -
they are a true manual trans with an automated clutch. No torque
converter. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-Shift_Gearbox )
Audi's DSG is commonly considered the best example, although BMW has
one (whch regularly gets panned for poor auto shifting). Porsche may
have one as well. I've driven the DSG and it is excellent, very fast
shifting and a decent auto mode as well. But I still prefer a
conventional manual transmission.

For the Ody, I'm prefectly happy with an automatic.

*Oh, Wiki has a list of CVT equipped autos world-wide.

* Audi A4 2.0/1.8T/2.4/3.0/2.5 TDI
* Audi A6 2.0/1.8T/2.4/3.0/2.5 TDI
* Dodge Caliber
* Fiat Punto 1.2 L
* Ford Escape Hybrid 2.3 L 4 cyl
* Ford Five Hundred 3.0 L 6 cyl
* Ford Focus C-MAX 1.6 L TDCi 110 PS
* Ford Freestyle 3.0 L 6 cyl
* Honda Civic HX 1.7 L 4 cyl
* Honda Civic Hybrid 1.3 L 4 cyl
* Honda City 1.5 L
* Honda HR-V 1.6 L
* Honda Insight 1.0 L 3 cyl
* Honda Jazz 1.4L / Honda Fit 1.3 L/1.5 L
* Hyundai Azera 3.8 Lambda
* Hyundai Sonata 3.3 Lambda
* Jeep Compass 2.4 L
* Lexus GS450h 3.5 L 6 cyl
* Lexus RX400h 3.3 L 6 cyl
* Mercedes-Benz A-Class

* Mercedes-Benz B-Class
* Mercury Montego 3.0 L 6 cyl
* Microcar MC1/MC2 505cc 2 cyl diesel or petrol
* Microcar Virgo 505cc 2 cyl diesel or petrol
* Mitsubishi Colt 1.5 L MIVEC 4 cyl with INVECS-III CVT
(Asian-Oceanian version only, 72 kW)
* Mitsubishi Lancer 1.6 L/1.8 L MIVEC 4 cyl with INVECS-III CVT
(Asian version only)
* MG F/MG TF 1.8L
* BMW MINI One and Cooper.
* Nissan Altima (from 2007)
* Nissan Cube
* Nissan Maxima (from 2007)
* Nissan Micra 1.0 L/1.3 L
* Nissan Murano 3.5 L
* Nissan Primera 2.0 L
* Nissan Sentra (from 2007)
* Nissan Serena 2.0 L
* Nissan Skyline 350GT-8
* Nissan Tiida / Versa
* Opel Vectra 1.8 L
* Rover 25
* Rover 45
* Rover Streetwise
* Saturn ION Quad Coupe (2003-2004)
* Saturn VUE 2.2 L AWD (2002-2005), 2.2 FWD (2002-2004)
* Subaru R1
* Subaru R2
* Subaru Stella
* Toyota Highlander Hybrid 3.3 L 6 cyl
* Toyota Camry Hybrid 2.4L 4 cyl
* Toyota Prius 1.5 L 4 cyl


Dan D
'04 A4 1.8Tq 6-speed

 

jim beam wrote:

> > On the upside, completing the downshift earlier makes it ready to
> > accelerate on short notice. All-in-all, that is one reason why I
> > prefer manual transmissions. The AT will never have enough sensors
> > until they put in one that can read my mind.
>
> you haven't driven an automatic lately.

Yeah, my friend's Prelude of mid -80s did same thing.

 

jim beam wrote:

> > On the upside, completing the downshift earlier makes it ready to
> > accelerate on short notice. All-in-all, that is one reason why I
> > prefer manual transmissions. The AT will never have enough sensors
> > until they put in one that can read my mind.
>
> you haven't driven an automatic lately.

Yeah, my friend's Prelude of mid -80s did same thing.