[POLL] Manual or Automatic?

[culver]

CAFE test....
Do you actually mean that you are not allowed to shift gears in a manual in a different way than the CAFE test prescribes? Is it not enough if the manaul gearbox achieves the same test results as the autobox under laboratory conditions?

No, I can shift how ever I wish hence the reason why I typically beat the EPA numbers with my car. I short shift more that the test allows. But the car companies have to test the car to the test. While an automatic can shift at just the right time (say into second at 8mph) for best mileage a manual with the same ratio is required to shift into second no sooner than 15mph*. So let's take the new Porsche with the DSG and manual boxes. Let's assume that both boxes have identical ratios (no idea if that's true). The computer controlled box almost certainly will deliver better mileage because it will shift at the perfect time, not at 15, 25, and 40 mph.

The car companies are required to sell cars that meet fleet fuel economy averages that are based on those tests. So even if I can get say an average 32mpg out of a car, if the test says the car gets 28 then the manufacture records 28. With the new (and stupid) CAFE increases the car makers will have to look for every little advantage. The easy stuff (improvements in aero, fuel injection etc) have already been had. Now we have to go after the fruit at the top of the tree. Unlike the late 70s, these days a good auto will return better numbers than a manual which is an incentive for car makers to dump the manual. Not only do they have to pay to develop a second transmission, they also have to take a hit in their CAFE numbers.

*In searching for some up to date info I found an interesting post which I can't find again (will have to post it later). Anyway, it talked about the shift lights that make it into some cars. Those lights are a partial way around the standardized shift points. With the lights a manufacture can run the test with the speeds indicated by the lights instead of the ones I listed above. However, the manufacture, according to the post I read, must then study real life drivers and show what percent follow the lights (say 30%). Now they get to do a weighted average of the original test number and the presumably better mileage achieved by following the shift points. So you now have a CAFE mileage number that is .30*the shift light average + .7* the standard shift point average. Confusing huh.

[henk4]

in other words, the CAFE test determines the gear ratios for manuals.

[NSXType-R]

Isn't that like having a favorite movie you haven't seen yet?

Something like that I guess.

[culver]

in other words, the CAFE test determines the gear ratios for manuals.

Well the desire to do well on the test in part determines the ratios of both manuals and autos. However the car manufactures get to decide when the auto shifts. They lose this freedom with the manual transmission. Now that autos have just as many ratios it's not surprising that they can match and beat autos on the test even if often in real life the difference is smaller depending on how you drive the manual.

[Ferrer]

I'm not sure that it was ever smoother than a good traditional auto. The TC is a great system for smoothly transmitting power as the fluid absorbs transient vibrations. Also when done right a traditional auto will smoothly slip it's bands and clutches to change gears. The best a DSG can do is slip it's clutches.

I admit I've never driven a DSG so I can't say for certain but most of what I've read says they are more fuel efficient (and more mechanically efficient) but if you wanted the best of a traditional auto they aren't as good. Their advantages seems to be that they do a better job of impersonating a manual.

I must admit I have wondered if some of their sporting advantages are really advantages or simply that most people are coming out of older 4 speed autos into DSG boxes and finding much to like about the DSG compared to the older autos. I'm not as certain about their advantages when compared to a good 6+ speed traditional auto with either a lock of TC or the dry clutch MB showed with one of their autos.

I have driven modern torque converter autos and a car with a dual clutch gearbox (without flappy paddles, by the way). I thought that even if it was only slightly, the dual clutch gearbox was a little bit smoother and a little bit faster when shifting than (even modern) torque converter automatic gearboxes. I didn't see an advantages when it comes to said sportiness, for if there's no clutch pedal to be had, there isn't any sportiness at all in my opinion.

1. Manuals might also be going away in the US because CAFE rules are getting tighter. In general if we have basically the same ratios a manual should match the economy of an auto. However, the CAFE rules are strick about when you can shift gears. Even if the engine could shift early or skip shift (say 1st to 3rd or 2nd to 4th) the rules don't allow it. This is why GM added the skip shift feature to the Corvette. The original test said shifts happened at 15, 25 and 40 mph (not sure if that's still current). It was dumb to keep the Corvette's monster V8 in 3rd at 40 mph given that 3rd works great at 15mph (I typically shifted from 1st to 3rd at around 10mph). GM's skip shift feature allowed the company to claim 4th gear as a 2nd gear for the test. Anyway, while the Corvette is the most extreme example this applies to basically all cars. Most manual cars can be shifted earlier than the test allows thanks to the fact that most now have 5 at minimum and often 6 gears vs the 3-4 that was common when the test came out. Automatics can work around this because the EPA doesn't say when the computer can and can't shift. Net result the computer can short shift or even skip shift (I think Ford had a 5spd auto that would basically act like a 4 speed with a choice of 3rd gears for light or hard acceleration). Yet another place were CAFE rules screw the market.

It's curious you mention that because here the cars that are labelled as the more fuel efficient pretty much all use manual gearboxes, and 5 speed ones, not the 6 speeds. Also in the blog that I sometimes mention that does fuel consumption comparisons, dual clutches usually fare worse than manual equivalents.

2. I took a quick look at the new Focus today. At some point in the not too distant future I want to get a new (or newer) car. I want nicer than econobox interior and features, hatch back (or if I have to a more traditional wagon layout) and manual transmission. Well the Focus ALMOST fits the bill. The top end cars are nice. They get decent mileage and reportedly have decent handling. However, you can't get a manual in the top end cars. I don't want the auto even if it is a DSG. The cars with manual aren't as nice and feel to econobox to me. Net result I may have to skip the Focus unless the RS makes it state side. Too bad we can't get a Fusion hatch in the US (or even better a Mondeo hatch).

Here it's the other way round. In most cars (especially in generalist manufacturers) automatic gearboxes are usually reserved for some specific versions, and usually there's a very limited selection, some manufacturers even not offering an automatic gearbox at all in some cars.

[culver]

I'm at a bit of a disadvantage in that I haven't driven a DSG but I don't know which would even be considered the best. I can say that most modern autos, even 4 speeds, can be very smooth. Basically I would hold a modern auto up as the gold standard... especially one that isn't quick to do fuel saving tricks like lock the TC and shift quickly.

Traditionally in the US the manual would be the more efficient version. However, that has changed in recent years. The automatic version of the last gen Civic had better EPA mileage than the manual version. I suspect it was a combination of the auto could better follow the test and the fact that, like a Corvette, the Civic auto has a double overdrive thus can have really low revs on the highway. Since it's an auto it will happily down shift one or two gears to help you pass.

BTW, I think the latest US Focus and Fiesta are both returning better numbers with their autos. The Focus auto is a DSG kind. I'm not sure about the Fiesta. However, the Focus manual is a 5 speed so it may be at a disadvantage.

In the US autos have long been king. With historically large displacement engines and the extra torque those motors deliver vs a smaller displacement, similar HP motor autos fit well with both the driving demands and the power delivery of the motors. I believe it's now at the point that autos are generally no more expensive to manufacture than a manual assuming equal volume. A friend who worked for Ford in the 90s said that the Explorer's 4 speed auto was actually cheaper for Ford than the 5 spd in the base version. This might be just due to the low volume of the manual or perhaps even in volume the costs would still favor the manual.

I don't know enough about the manufacturing operations that made those parts but it wouldn't totally surprise me. It's quite likely that refinements in manufacturing and design have pushed the costs out of the autos. Certainly the advent of computer controls is probably much cheaper than the older hydraulic systems.

[henk4]

It's curious you mention that because here the cars that are labelled as the more fuel efficient pretty much all use manual gearboxes, and 5 speed ones, not the 6 speeds. Also in the blog that I sometimes mention that does fuel consumption comparisons, dual clutches usually fare worse than manual equivalents.

perhaps it takes more effort to drive a DSG in a fuel efficient way, and on top of that DSG has the word "sporty" attached to it, which attracts people who are less considerate using the throttle.

[Ferrer]

I'm at a bit of a disadvantage in that I haven't driven a DSG but I don't know which would even be considered the best. I can say that most modern autos, even 4 speeds, can be very smooth. Basically I would hold a modern auto up as the gold standard... especially one that isn't quick to do fuel saving tricks like lock the TC and shift quickly.

I agree with that. Modern torque converter automatics are very smooth changing, and even quite fast. But the dual clutch gearbox was even slithgly smoother and faster. However, I wouldn't necessarily turn down a conventional torque converter auto in favour of a dual clutch just for the slight gains of the latter.

In the US autos have long been king. With historically large displacement engines and the extra torque those motors deliver vs a smaller displacement, similar HP motor autos fit well with both the driving demands and the power delivery of the motors. I believe it's now at the point that autos are generally no more expensive to manufacture than a manual assuming equal volume. A friend who worked for Ford in the 90s said that the Explorer's 4 speed auto was actually cheaper for Ford than the 5 spd in the base version. This might be just due to the low volume of the manual or perhaps even in volume the costs would still favor the manual.

Here is the exact opposite, manual gearboxes still reign supreme accounting for far more than 50% of the market especially not considering premium manufacturers. I guess that small, low powered engines and roads with lots of corners were a natural terrain for the manual gearbox, especially in the days when choosing gears in autos wasn't as easy as it is today.

perhaps it takes more effort to drive a DSG in a fuel efficient way, and on top of that DSG has the word "sporty" attached to it, which attracts people who are less considerate using the throttle.

Well, maybe but if it even doesn't have advantage when you are driving sensibly, you've got to ask if the theoretical gains are really there in real life.

[culver]

Here is the exact opposite, manual gearboxes still reign supreme accounting for far more than 50% of the market especially not considering premium manufacturers. I guess that small, low powered engines and roads with lots of corners were a natural terrain for the manual gearbox, especially in the days when choosing gears in autos wasn't as easy as it is today.

I would also add that since autos have dominated the US market since perhaps the 1960s people here simply aren't used to driving or even thinking about driving manuals. In Europe manuals were the logical choice for getting the most out of the small displacement engines and high gas prices until only very recently. I would argue that only in the last 10-15 years have autos become "better" for the typical non-enthusiast driver in Europe. Better is being used very loosely in this context and I mean the autos return similar mileage, acceleration etc. Even if we take for granted that a modern auto has significant disadvantages (mileage, acceleration etc) in a typical European car, you have a whole population that largely grew up with manuals. They are comfortable and familiar with them. A manual does not, I assume, make a car harder to sell as it does in the US (with a few exceptions). The public perception might also be that automatics get worse mileage and are slower (a bias that largely exists here as well) thus a general favorable view on autos.

I'm curious what the take rate is in Japan. In many ways Japanese driving is like driving in Europe. Both have (generally) taxes that favor small displacement engines. Both have narrow twisty roads and high gas prices. When I was in Japan in 1999 I recall noticing that autos were rather common.

[Ferrer]

I would also add that since autos have dominated the US market since perhaps the 1960s people here simply aren't used to driving or even thinking about driving manuals. In Europe manuals were the logical choice for getting the most out of the small displacement engines and high gas prices until only very recently. I would argue that only in the last 10-15 years have autos become "better" for the typical non-enthusiast driver in Europe. Better is being used very loosely in this context and I mean the autos return similar mileage, acceleration etc. Even if we take for granted that a modern auto has significant disadvantages (mileage, acceleration etc) in a typical European car, you have a whole population that largely grew up with manuals. They are comfortable and familiar with them. A manual does not, I assume, make a car harder to sell as it does in the US (with a few exceptions). The public perception might also be that automatics get worse mileage and are slower (a bias that largely exists here as well) thus a general favorable view on autos.

I'm curious what the take rate is in Japan. In many ways Japanese driving is like driving in Europe. Both have (generally) taxes that favor small displacement engines. Both have narrow twisty roads and high gas prices. When I was in Japan in 1999 I recall noticing that autos were rather common.

You do have a point, many of the traditional manual gearbox advantages are sometime unfounded in people's minds against modern automatics. However in Europe the manual is still common place. Having a manual is expected in a wide range of cars, and many people simply can't fathom automatics, and it's not only old people but young people too. Of course I guess learning in manuals helps this too.

For many years the automatic has been the preserve of the big expensive car, many cheap car didn't even have an automatic option, and some still don't (like the Mazda 5, the CX-7, the Hyundai Elantra, the i20, the Genesis Coupé, the Fiat Freemont or the entire Dacia range to name a few for instance). What's more having a manual gearbox won't make us walking away from the showroom, and as such you still see plenty of big powerful cars with manuals (altough the number is rapidly coming down, admiteddly).

Finally the futher you go up north, the less unpopular the automatic is, altough the above is still stands for the whole of Europe more or less.

As for Japan, my reasoning would be that since public transport is even better developped than in Europe and they live in even bigger and more dense urban areas the combination of a small car plus automatic gearbox is a natural development. Their cars are also limited to 180km/h, something unthinkable here. Here, we do have public transport and urban areas, but not the extent of Japan, and when we get out of it there's a world of corners and high average speeds waiting for us out there.

[Matra et Alpine]

Autos ARE worse on consumption on Euro tests even if they dont on US - possibly because the autos are configured to be best for the us tests or maybe the Euro one isn't as skewed against manual as the US one so clearly is.

See Fuel, performance and emissions and compare the M6 and A6 transmissions. eg 44.1 versus 39.2 mpg, 3 mph clower and 1 sec slower to 60 for the 2l Duratorq engine. FOrd's own promo says that their auto transmission can eb as much as 10% BETTER economy than an ordinary auto.

So from Ford's numbers an "ordinary" auto is about 20% worse economy than a manual and an advanced dual clutch is about 10%. Thank you the slush-box

[RacingManiac]

FYI, just as a user of a DSG, they are smooth once you are going. The shift speed is pretty remarkable(infact, that is just about the first comment everyone made riding in my car). But their low speed behavior, in creeping up to a light to make a right for instance, or waiting to turn left trying to shoot for gap in traffic. Where the TC Auto will just let you build up rev and slowly roll away, the DSG is often hesitating and sometimes unsure of what you want. In those instance it is often jerky. The smooth transition between engine brake and free wheeling of the TC Auto is not able to be replicated with a DSG also, as you roll to a stop, a DSG(in VW's case), will down shift as the speed slow to the point it needs to, and right before it stops (say 5mph), the clutch will disconnect, and all of a sudden you have no engine braking and you need to get on brake quick....If you have never driven anything else, it might be a non-issue, but coming from a traditional auto it is definitely different...

[Matra et Alpine]

^^^^ Not the 458 Italia Have to say I was fully expectign it to be a PIA when I got stuck in traffic but it wasn't. REAL smooth in coming to stop and starting in slow moving traffic. Didn't expect it to be so smooth in those conditions as I'm used to fast cars being a real pain

[RacingManiac]

As an aside anyway, DSG is a tradename for VW's Dual Clutch Transmission, which is one of the first(if not the first) to market. I think in Audi Lingo its S-Tronic, and BMW calls their DCT, Porsche PDK...etc...

If I had to guess though, Ferrari's probably have a bit more money put in....VW's is the cheapest....

As with all these though, I am sure a ton of improvement can be found in the coding....right now the VW one is just not that fantastic...worse being that its not so great at the sort of things that its supposed to save people headache coming from manual...Also I don't have anything to offer that can remotely compare to a 458....not something I can jump in on a day to day basis....lol

[Matra et Alpine]

Good point RM, Ferrari can afford to spend a lot more in the control side of the double clutch 'box and thinkgin about it the engine has 4 times the torque of anything comparable which likely makes it easier