6 ms·

I mean, Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic transmission yet. That's because automatic transmission is the worst and invented by the devil. More seriou

by Marazan 13y ago

I mean, Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic transmission yet. That's because automatic transmission is the worst and invented by the devil. More seriously, using an automatic transmission results in trade-offs, for instance fuel usage was the historical number 1 sticking point with automatics guzzling up the petrol compared to manuals. Modern engineering has closed that gap but there are still issues related to control - ironically a move to fully autonomous cars would solve most of them (principally in non-autonomous cars drivers in manual transmission cars can use knowledge of future road conditions to make gear selection decisions that an automatic transmission cannot make as they have only a limited input set)

Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
I used to think automatics were horrible (I live in the UK, drove manual for 15 years) then I got one... In terms of fuel economy, isn't it just a matter of time before automatics become as economical (then probably more economical) than manuals? Even without anticipating future events? Driving efficiently feels like something a computer could optimise for and that a human has no natural advantage doing.
- josephlord 13y ago
  A traditional automatic with a torque converter will always be less efficient I but the newer dual clutch models can probably match (or even exceed through better gear selection) the efficiency of manuals.
- Marazan 13y ago
  Without being able to determine future road conditions then automatics can't guarantee being in the "right" gear for the up coming section of road. Be that due to traffic, grading, weather, banking, sharpness of corner etc. My go to example is the insanity of junction 15 of the m8, that loop onto the west bound motorway is a 270 degree corkscrew rising 30 feet with a diameter of 55 yards onto a 5 lane motorway where I need to go from the left hand lane to the right hand lane (as there are entrance and exit lanes on both the inside and outside of the motorway at that point). A current automatic engine wouldn't know what was the right thing to do in that situation ( https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.8672951,-4.2358853,374m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.8672951,-4.2358853,374m/da... ) To determine all of that you'd basically be at the level of self-driving car. Which would be awesome.
  - gambiting 13y ago
    >> Without being able to determine future road conditions then automatics can't guarantee being in the "right" gear for the up coming section of road. Be that due to traffic, grading, weather, banking, sharpness of corner etc. Latest Rolls-Royce Wraith does exactly that - it uses the GPS map data to change gears in advance as it is approaching a turn in the road. I am sure that this technology will be available in ordinary cars soon enough.
    - emidln 13y ago
      An augmented version of this technology (applying known map data plus sensor data) is a huge piece of the self-driving car.
  - dagw 13y ago
    Your GPS already knows where you want to go, what the road ahead looks like and often even the current traffic situation. I imagine writing some semi-smart software that hooks up that info to the automatic gearbox to give it hints about what to do wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility and no doubt a lot easier than self-driving.
    - gambiting 13y ago
      There are cars which already do exactly that: http://www.dvice.com/2013-3-7/new-rolls-royce-looks-ahead-gps-pick-right-gear http://www.dvice.com/2013-3-7/new-rolls-royce-looks-ahead-gp...
  - ecopoesis 13y ago
    Or just buy a Nissan Versa today: http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/five-myths-about-stick-shifts.html http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/five-myths-about-stick-s... Manuals have better fuel usage then automatics is a myth for recent cars, no fancy self driving needed.
    - Marazan 13y ago
      That's based on the official figures. No-one gets the listed MPG ratings in real life and automatics suffer worst than manuals for under-shooting the official mpg rating.
- bananas 13y ago
  You'd think so but I get 7mpg more than the best rated Toyota hybrid which is supposedly the most efficient thing out there. Bear in mind I drive a 6 year old 1.3L diesel Fiat van converted to a people carrier which is as aerodynamic as a shed. It also has 3 children, a buggy and a pile of crap in it. Perhaps a computer could optimise this better but I doubt it. The computer and automatic box just goes when you push the pedal down. The driver isn't connected to it and feeling what it's doing and understanding the power curves.
  - selmnoo 13y ago
    > You'd think so but I get 7mpg more than the best rated Toyota hybrid which is supposedly the most efficient thing out there. You sure about that? Because I easily get about 70 mpg on my Prius (C class) when I'm supermiling in the city. Granted it's not as efficient on the highway, and unfortunately I do have to do a lot of highway travel. I can sustain a good a 55mpg average at the end of the month though. I plan to start borrowing my wife's whenever I'm on the highway, I think this way I can average mpg in the 70s overall when I do this.
    - bananas 13y ago
      I get 58 solid. Prius is quoted at 50 here in the UK. If I'm on a flat road at 40-50mph (north circular) I can get a solid 80mpg average. Just have to stay easy on the throttle and not change speed.
  - jbondeson 13y ago
    You do realize that you're comparing a diesel car to a standard petrol-hybrid right? Diesel engines are ~33% more efficient per-liter (and usually that much more expensive). The number for a Prius-hybrid you'd really care to look at would be the city driving numbers as that's where you get all the advantages of regenerative breaking. Running a Prius at 100+ km/h it just turns back into a standard petrol fueled vehicle carrying drained batteries.
    - bananas 13y ago
      Yes. It's about the end game, not the tools. I've found diesel engines and vehicles to be considerably more reliable and therefore less expensive. Fuel is between 5-7% more expensive here in the UK so things are good there. The city driving numbers are about the same I found. I regularly drive right into London's congestion charging zone - at least 1-2 times a week. 51 is the expected MPG in city driving scenarios. I can achieve that with no particular effort in London traffic. I don't drive like a crazy person and hang back regularly - that is all. My vehicle doesn't have piles of expensive electronics, batteries and things to go wrong either (look at recent threads about Toyota stack overflows for example). The most expensive thing on a Diesel that can go wrong is the particulate filter, EGR valves and timing chains and these are cheaply regenerated and replaced respectively.
- tallanvor 13y ago
  It pretty much has already happened. Most cars that offer both versions are very similar in terms of mileage for automatics and manuals - the difference is usually only like 1 or 2 mpg, with the automatics actually coming out on top at times because the car makers can add more gears. And realistically, most drivers aren't as good at using manual transmissions as they like to think they are, which also does a lot to cancel out the theoretical improvements a manual transmission offers.
- bsder 13y ago
  Not really, an automatic transmission always adds some amount of weight over a manual transmission. And this is why electrics are eventually going to win. A motor optimized for a single RPM speed driving a generator doesn't need a transmission. Even if the rest of the drive chain was as efficient, the loss of weight would drive the change over time.
coldtea 13y ago
For at least 15 years or so, that's just cargo cult BS Europeans who haven't tried automatic transmission cars say.
- Marazan 13y ago
  I drove a new Vauxhall Corsa with automatic transmission a couple of months ago. It was the second worst driving experience of my life.
  - jarek 13y ago
    What an utterly un-useful statement without any detail. Why was it a bad driving experience? What vehicles are ranked first and third?
  - grmarcil 13y ago
    Very low cost automatic transmissions are terrible - the gap between gear shifts goes on for ages. The Vauxhall Corsa is an example of this; for the American market check out a Smart Car. Is this really a good argument against automatics though? The worst example of anything is usually going to be pretty bad. As a matter of current economics, yes, if you have a very tight budget and want a good driving experience, manual is going to be better. But automatics are as fast and as efficient as manuals a little higher up the market. And it will trickle down soon enough.
    - Marazan 13y ago
      Well, I find the Vauxhall Corsa with manual transmission is lovely to drive so I am comparing the experience between the two. So sure, I might not have been looking at the best-of-the-best when it came to automatic gears but I was comparing like-for-like. Maybe in another 10 years the automatic experience at my price range will be better but at that point we're 25 years on from coldtea's period where European cargo-cult bullshit started. Apparently.
    - ahlatimer 13y ago
      Also worth noting that most of the modern super-cars don't even have a true manual (that is, a stick-shift and a user-operated clutch). They're mostly electronically controlled dual-clutch setups since a computer can shift faster than any human can. The 2015 BMW M3 was even rumored to not have a manual option at all, and it's known for being a driver's car. I believe they're keeping it around for now, but there's some worry that the clutch/stick-shift arrangement is going away in the future because the electronically controlled transmissions are that much faster.
dipth 13y ago
You should try a proper DSG gearbox, they will change your mind and they're even faster and more economical than manual gearboxes. I have one in my VW Golf!
- driverdan 13y ago
  But DSG isn't a traditional auto. It's still clutch based, you just don't control the clutch yourself.
  - selectodude 13y ago
    Automatic transmissions have a clutch that's operated automatically. DSGs have two clutches for quicker gear changes. That's the only major difference.
    - jcromartie 13y ago
      Standard automatic transmissions don't have a clutch disc. They have a torque converter.
      - Shebanator 13y ago
        Virtually all modern automatic transmissions use a "lockup torque converter" for fuel efficiency. The lock-up clutch is activated once the transmission is fully coupled, and at that point the efficiency of the transmission is essentially identical to that of a manual transmission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque_converter#Lock-up_torque_converters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque_converter#Lock-up_torque...
    - acchow 13y ago
      Oh how I wish this were the language we all adopted.

by Marazan 13y ago

Tyrannosaurs 13y ago

I used to think automatics were horrible (I live in the UK, drove manual for 15 years) then I got one... In terms of fuel economy, isn't it just a matter of time before automatics become as economical (then probably more economical) than manuals? Even without anticipating future events? Driving efficiently feels like something a computer could optimise for and that a human has no natural advantage doing.

josephlord 13y ago
A traditional automatic with a torque converter will always be less efficient I but the newer dual clutch models can probably match (or even exceed through better gear selection) the efficiency of manuals.
Marazan 13y ago
Without being able to determine future road conditions then automatics can't guarantee being in the "right" gear for the up coming section of road. Be that due to traffic, grading, weather, banking, sharpness of corner etc. My go to example is the insanity of junction 15 of the m8, that loop onto the west bound motorway is a 270 degree corkscrew rising 30 feet with a diameter of 55 yards onto a 5 lane motorway where I need to go from the left hand lane to the right hand lane (as there are entrance and exit lanes on both the inside and outside of the motorway at that point). A current automatic engine wouldn't know what was the right thing to do in that situation ( https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.8672951,-4.2358853,374m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.8672951,-4.2358853,374m/da... ) To determine all of that you'd basically be at the level of self-driving car. Which would be awesome.
- gambiting 13y ago
  >> Without being able to determine future road conditions then automatics can't guarantee being in the "right" gear for the up coming section of road. Be that due to traffic, grading, weather, banking, sharpness of corner etc. Latest Rolls-Royce Wraith does exactly that - it uses the GPS map data to change gears in advance as it is approaching a turn in the road. I am sure that this technology will be available in ordinary cars soon enough.
  - emidln 13y ago
    An augmented version of this technology (applying known map data plus sensor data) is a huge piece of the self-driving car.
- dagw 13y ago
  Your GPS already knows where you want to go, what the road ahead looks like and often even the current traffic situation. I imagine writing some semi-smart software that hooks up that info to the automatic gearbox to give it hints about what to do wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility and no doubt a lot easier than self-driving.
  - gambiting 13y ago
    There are cars which already do exactly that: http://www.dvice.com/2013-3-7/new-rolls-royce-looks-ahead-gps-pick-right-gear http://www.dvice.com/2013-3-7/new-rolls-royce-looks-ahead-gp...
- ecopoesis 13y ago
  Or just buy a Nissan Versa today: http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/five-myths-about-stick-shifts.html http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/five-myths-about-stick-s... Manuals have better fuel usage then automatics is a myth for recent cars, no fancy self driving needed.
  - Marazan 13y ago
    That's based on the official figures. No-one gets the listed MPG ratings in real life and automatics suffer worst than manuals for under-shooting the official mpg rating.
bananas 13y ago
You'd think so but I get 7mpg more than the best rated Toyota hybrid which is supposedly the most efficient thing out there. Bear in mind I drive a 6 year old 1.3L diesel Fiat van converted to a people carrier which is as aerodynamic as a shed. It also has 3 children, a buggy and a pile of crap in it. Perhaps a computer could optimise this better but I doubt it. The computer and automatic box just goes when you push the pedal down. The driver isn't connected to it and feeling what it's doing and understanding the power curves.
- selmnoo 13y ago
  > You'd think so but I get 7mpg more than the best rated Toyota hybrid which is supposedly the most efficient thing out there. You sure about that? Because I easily get about 70 mpg on my Prius (C class) when I'm supermiling in the city. Granted it's not as efficient on the highway, and unfortunately I do have to do a lot of highway travel. I can sustain a good a 55mpg average at the end of the month though. I plan to start borrowing my wife's whenever I'm on the highway, I think this way I can average mpg in the 70s overall when I do this.
  - bananas 13y ago
    I get 58 solid. Prius is quoted at 50 here in the UK. If I'm on a flat road at 40-50mph (north circular) I can get a solid 80mpg average. Just have to stay easy on the throttle and not change speed.
- jbondeson 13y ago
  You do realize that you're comparing a diesel car to a standard petrol-hybrid right? Diesel engines are ~33% more efficient per-liter (and usually that much more expensive). The number for a Prius-hybrid you'd really care to look at would be the city driving numbers as that's where you get all the advantages of regenerative breaking. Running a Prius at 100+ km/h it just turns back into a standard petrol fueled vehicle carrying drained batteries.
  - bananas 13y ago
    Yes. It's about the end game, not the tools. I've found diesel engines and vehicles to be considerably more reliable and therefore less expensive. Fuel is between 5-7% more expensive here in the UK so things are good there. The city driving numbers are about the same I found. I regularly drive right into London's congestion charging zone - at least 1-2 times a week. 51 is the expected MPG in city driving scenarios. I can achieve that with no particular effort in London traffic. I don't drive like a crazy person and hang back regularly - that is all. My vehicle doesn't have piles of expensive electronics, batteries and things to go wrong either (look at recent threads about Toyota stack overflows for example). The most expensive thing on a Diesel that can go wrong is the particulate filter, EGR valves and timing chains and these are cheaply regenerated and replaced respectively.
tallanvor 13y ago
It pretty much has already happened. Most cars that offer both versions are very similar in terms of mileage for automatics and manuals - the difference is usually only like 1 or 2 mpg, with the automatics actually coming out on top at times because the car makers can add more gears. And realistically, most drivers aren't as good at using manual transmissions as they like to think they are, which also does a lot to cancel out the theoretical improvements a manual transmission offers.
bsder 13y ago
Not really, an automatic transmission always adds some amount of weight over a manual transmission. And this is why electrics are eventually going to win. A motor optimized for a single RPM speed driving a generator doesn't need a transmission. Even if the rest of the drive chain was as efficient, the loss of weight would drive the change over time.

coldtea 13y ago

For at least 15 years or so, that's just cargo cult BS Europeans who haven't tried automatic transmission cars say.

Marazan 13y ago
I drove a new Vauxhall Corsa with automatic transmission a couple of months ago. It was the second worst driving experience of my life.
- jarek 13y ago
  What an utterly un-useful statement without any detail. Why was it a bad driving experience? What vehicles are ranked first and third?
- grmarcil 13y ago
  Very low cost automatic transmissions are terrible - the gap between gear shifts goes on for ages. The Vauxhall Corsa is an example of this; for the American market check out a Smart Car. Is this really a good argument against automatics though? The worst example of anything is usually going to be pretty bad. As a matter of current economics, yes, if you have a very tight budget and want a good driving experience, manual is going to be better. But automatics are as fast and as efficient as manuals a little higher up the market. And it will trickle down soon enough.
  - Marazan 13y ago
    Well, I find the Vauxhall Corsa with manual transmission is lovely to drive so I am comparing the experience between the two. So sure, I might not have been looking at the best-of-the-best when it came to automatic gears but I was comparing like-for-like. Maybe in another 10 years the automatic experience at my price range will be better but at that point we're 25 years on from coldtea's period where European cargo-cult bullshit started. Apparently.
  - ahlatimer 13y ago
    Also worth noting that most of the modern super-cars don't even have a true manual (that is, a stick-shift and a user-operated clutch). They're mostly electronically controlled dual-clutch setups since a computer can shift faster than any human can. The 2015 BMW M3 was even rumored to not have a manual option at all, and it's known for being a driver's car. I believe they're keeping it around for now, but there's some worry that the clutch/stick-shift arrangement is going away in the future because the electronically controlled transmissions are that much faster.

dipth 13y ago

You should try a proper DSG gearbox, they will change your mind and they're even faster and more economical than manual gearboxes. I have one in my VW Golf!

driverdan 13y ago
But DSG isn't a traditional auto. It's still clutch based, you just don't control the clutch yourself.
- selectodude 13y ago
  Automatic transmissions have a clutch that's operated automatically. DSGs have two clutches for quicker gear changes. That's the only major difference.
  - jcromartie 13y ago
    Standard automatic transmissions don't have a clutch disc. They have a torque converter.
    - Shebanator 13y ago
      Virtually all modern automatic transmissions use a "lockup torque converter" for fuel efficiency. The lock-up clutch is activated once the transmission is fully coupled, and at that point the efficiency of the transmission is essentially identical to that of a manual transmission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque_converter#Lock-up_torque_converters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque_converter#Lock-up_torque...
  - acchow 13y ago
    Oh how I wish this were the language we all adopted.