Automatics changing my view.

[Scott]

I just did a car review on the Chevy Malibu LT, the Solstice is out getting repaired and I had to get a rental while the door is being repaired. The Malibu has the same engine as the Solstice, the Ecotec 2.4 and it's the got the new 5 speed auto with paddle shift. So of course the first thing I want to do is test the Chevy claims of a 30 MPG car. So far with city combined heavy traffic and 50% highway I'm getting 28.8. It's currently beating the Solstice at 26-27.

The star of the car is the 5 speed transmission, this thing shifts at 2200 to 2500 RPM, I switched to manual mode and shifted at 3000 and managed to get 27 mpg. Here is a case of an automatic transmission beating a stick shift. I drive allot of city and have been considering an automatic and this car has really pushed me over. I shift into neutral at lights, feather the gas at start, and draft on the highway. So far so good with the only mod being driving style.

[VetteOwner]

id rather have a failproof normal manual tranny, why did automakers pretty much stop making them?

i will agree that the malibus are nice, my cousin has a malibu max and i like the looks ride and what its got.

bet if you did 100% highway the car would be way over 30

[Scott]

I know I would prefer a manual, but like the Grand AM, Grand Prix, Malibu, Alero, they dont offer a stick, plus with the days spent sometimes 8 hours in downtown D.C. traffic, my clutch and brake foot are exhausted. Especially the Grand Am GT and the Grand Prix GT, doesn't GT generaly mean a stick is an option if not the standard? So sticking to my number one choce of cost and durability, GM is my first brand choice, I have to deal with the fact they don't offer manual.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by VetteOwner

id rather have a failproof normal manual tranny, why did automakers pretty much stop making them?

You know the answer to this one...there's not enough demand. If more people wanted them, they'd be in more models.

[dkjones96]

I don't get what you mean by manufacturers not making manual transmission cars. Are you talking about the used or new market? The new market has plenty of choices, the used market, however, is mostly automatics because nobody buys the standard cars.

New cars available with manual transmissions:
Pontiac G5/G8/Vibe
Chevrolet Aveo/Cobalt/Corvette
Dodge Caliber/Viper
Ford Focus/Fusion/Mustang
Mazda 3/6/RX-8/Speed3
Honda Accord/Civic/Fit/S2000
Toyota Camry/Corolla/Matrix/Yaris
Hyundai Accent/Elantra/Sonata
VW EOS/GTI/Jetta/New Beetle/Rabbit
Nissan 350z/Altima/Sentra/Versa
Mitsubishi Eclipse/Lancer
Subaru Impreza/Legacy
Scion tC/xB/xD
Saturn Astra/SKY
Audi A3/A4/S4/S5/TT
Acura TSX
Volvo C30/C70/S40/V50
Mercedes SLK300/SLK350
and pretty much everything from BMW.

**EDIT** oh yeah, since I've been driving this Mazda 5 I've grown to like automatics a little more. It has that adaptive throttle-by-wire system and it's learned my driving habits very well!

[Minicity]

It depends on dealers as well. My father had to special order his jeep with a manual.
Personally, I don't like a lot of automation. I'm afraid of robot overlords, and I refuse to buy anything new because they all have computers.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by Minicity

I'm afraid of robot overlords

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

[Scott]

Well today I spent the entire day driving around Baltimore and managed to get my MPG down to 26 from 28.8. Tomarrow I have to go to D.C., so the MPG should pick up a bit. There is something I noticed after driving stick everyday for 2 years. The throttle blipping you have to do, timing your clutch release, lugging, or mildly overrevving is eliminated. I sat in neutral at each light, accelerated lightly, but not moving like a cement truck, I kept the car moving in one smooth non jerky motion and I noticed allot of the waste and inertia loss of a stick surging between gears was lost. This I believe gives the auto the advantage of better city mileage than the stick.

Now on the open highway, the lock up torque converter engages at 50 and I should be at the same rpm as the stick without slippage and the mileage loss of the automatics of old.

I mean this is a luxurious car, spacious, big and economical, I almost feel Im trapsing about in a Mercedes diesel. Luxury and MPG, who'd a thunk it.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by Scott

I kept the car moving in one smooth non jerky motion and I noticed allot of the waste and inertia loss of a stick surging between gears was lost. This I believe gives the auto the advantage of better city mileage than the stick.

With good manual control and obedience from the automatic, or good FE programming, it could certainly be possible to beat the manual's city FE.

Now on the open highway, the lock up torque converter engages at 50 and I should be at the same rpm as the stick without slippage and the mileage loss of the automatics of old.

It is probably far less than the RPM of a stick if it were available in that car. My unscientific observations have been that most cars have a much lower "high gear" in their manual transmission than their automatic. Automatics can get away with taller gears because of the torque converter, and because a lazy driver doesn't have to be annoyed by the need to downshift on the highway.

[Minicity]

Originally Posted by theholycow

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

DUDE, RUN!!

[BEEF]

come on man, bender is awesome....don't think I would make him the overlord but he is a cool guy

[Minicity]

Originally Posted by BEEF

come on man, bender is awesome....don't think I would make him the overlord but he is a cool guy

Ok, well as long as he is not, or does not ever plan to be robot overlord, or assist in helping others of his kind in becoming overlord.......

[trollbait]

He just wants to kill all humans.

[slurp812]

Originally Posted by VetteOwner

id rather have a failproof normal manual tranny, why did automakers pretty much stop making them?

i will agree that the malibus are nice, my cousin has a malibu max and i like the looks ride and what its got.

bet if you did 100% highway the car would be way over 30

My model doesn't have an automatic as an option at all, of course its a jap car.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by dkjones96

I
It has that adaptive throttle-by-wire system and it's learned my driving habits very well!

This is the key to the new generation of auto boxes.
The old days of the the "dumb and dumber" slush boxes are gone.

The new ones are faster smoother and more FE than some of the best manually driven cars.
Sad but true.

Let's face who these days even know you are meant to blip the throttle on the downchange to equalise revs?...apart from people on this board I mean.

Pete.

[RoadWarrior]

I dunno about failproof manuals, lazy driving and lack of maintenance will have it needing a clutch every 50k or less, and burn up the synchros in 100K, then just plain bad drivers will chip up the teeth, and they never seem to be particularly strong any more. The linkages wear bushings and pop off, or bend with heavy use and they get balky. Clutches always seem deperately undersized this side of the pond too, I swear the clutch size they put in a 150HP 3500lb car over here would only go in a 60HP 2000lb supermini in Europe, and with the stop-start city driving that's all too common over there, 60K is a normal lifetime for a clutch.

Some models of automatics have their problems, but the good ones go on and on with regular fluid changes.

I quite like the auto in Wile-E it's a 4 speed electronic one, the F4-EAT which gets a bad rap, which I think is all fluid and heat related. i.e. change the fluid and keep it cool and it's a winner. Ford the dumbasses never specified a fluid change interval apart from on the severe service schedule (30K)

Anyway when I was used to it last time he was in service, I got so I could do these little twitches of the foot on the throttle pedal and make it dance up and down the ratios as I liked. Only been driving him a few days again now, so still relearning that, and he might be relearning as well, since battery was off a lot.

edit: BTW when I firmed up Marvin's dumb as a plank hydraulic automatic I began to like that a lot too, became less vague, and more predictable, and thoroughly deslushed. I'm not exactly sure how I killed it yet, it was at 200,000 miles of service, 10 months previously I exploded an experimental LSD traction insert in the poor thing, and it might have been damage/debris incurred from that.

[Scott]

I just finished a review of the car in the review section. This car with the same engine and 500 pounds more weight beat the Solstice in city mileage coming out with 24 heavy city vs. 18 to 20 for the Solstice. The highway mileage came out to be the same 30, but the city stick vs. automatic just didn't have a chance. My only 2 tricks were shifting to neutral at lights, and feathering the gas, but keeping up with traffic, observing all traffic rules to keep speed down and that was it.

Now this Malibu had the F1 style paddle shifters, so I did do experiments trying to out shift the car to lower shift points in the city. Its rpm range in automatic mode were 1200 to 2000, it would shift to the next gear, and when I would hit cruise at 35-40 in the city, it would keep the rpms around the 1200 range. So I tryed to out shift it at lower rpms and wound up with my early shift putting the engine at 900 to 1000, creating a lug. Left in automatic mode, it just shifted great in the city. I also noticed that at highway cruise it did 2200 rpm at 70, vs. 2600 rpm on the Solstice, perhaps a higher diff ratio.

I have been a stick shift man for years and knew that auto's had draw backs and lower mpg. With the newer transmissions out there, the car companies have made great strides in an efficient automatic trans. So much so, I plan my next car to be an automatic.

Back in the 80's I rebuilt a number of auto trannies in my hot rod days, I rebuilt an turbo 400, power glide, Ford C4 and C6, and a Dodge torqueflight 727B. They are all so similar, in the mid 80's they came out with the lock up transmissions, that got rid of the slippage that occurs on the highway (poor mpg), since then they took the old 3 speed autos and gave them 4, 5, and now 6 speed automatics.

In the old day's auto trans were $800 for a rebuild, with manuals being higher due to the pressing of gears and sychro's taking so much labor. I have have had the newer transmissions costing close to 3000 for a rebuild. O.k. there are more planetary gears inside, but its much the same stuff. Take off the front cover and flip it over and out comes the pan cake. Clean it and put in new clutches and it's rebuilt. Modern transmissions rely on more computer imput than the old days of the transmission being controlled by the valvebody. So it seems to me that, there is less to the manufacture of modern automatic transmissions, with the exeption of a hybrid transmission.

I get what your talking about with the new stick shifts, I think from a production stand point newer manual transmissions are built cheaper. I remember GM's Borg Warner T5, it was a 5 speed, that used transmission fluid. A friend of my had one in a 6 cyl Camero and drove the car like a church lady and broke gear 2 and 4, making a funny 3 speed out of the thing.
I know the Solstic at 60K is clunking going into 2 and 3, I asked the Gm guys and they said Normal Wear and Tear. I hope this trans makes it to 100K.

Shifting to neutral at lights I believe is a gas saver, I once heard that to generate the 500 psi oil pressure required by an automatic, takes 15 to 20 hp, that relates directly into mpg and waste sitting at a light. Now you have to be carfull, always predict your lights, never shift an auto into drive while reving the engine. Time your lights, see if you can see the other street lights, when they turn yellow, go into drive. Or if your back in a pack, pay attension to the cars moving, so you give 3 seconds for drive to engage and prematurly wearing aout your drive clutch pack.

One thing I do with an automatic to relieve stress on my feet when driving for hours in heavy city traffic is double foot (left foot brake, right foot gas). I used to drive a van for deliveries and when I broke my foot in 93, I had to drive left foot for 6 month until the bones healed. It's been a while since I did that and took practice to get the braking right. If you want to double foot, practice in a residential till you get used to the brake pressure on the left foot. If you drive a clutch and double foot, the first time you hit the brake with your left foot, you'll send yourself right through the windshield.

So I am in love with the idea of getting a fuel efficient auto, with luxury. Now I would call it my Cadillac years, but Cadillac does't make a four cylinder. Yes I want to wear Hawaiian shirts all the time and have drinks with little umbrella's. Im really enjoying the idea of taking a break from all that shifting.

[Erik]

Originally Posted by Scott

Now I would call it my Cadillac years, but Cadillac does't make a four cylinder.

You need an 82-88 Cadillac Cimarron- it came with a 1.8 and 2.0 liter 4 cylinder

[dkjones96]

Originally Posted by Scott

Shifting to neutral at lights I believe is a gas saver, I once heard that to generate the 500 psi oil pressure required by an automatic, takes 15 to 20 hp, that relates directly into mpg and waste sitting at a light.

That just HAS to be an exaggeration. I can't (and won't) believe for a second that the engine has to create anywhere near 15-20 more hp if the car is in gear vs neutral.

In fact, if I remember correctly from my data logging on Tracker, calculated load was mostly unaffected(+-1%) by neutral vs drive. However, turning on the a/c yielded a 15% increase in calculated load.

Also remember that automatic transmissions do not disengage the hydraulic pump when it is in neutral. There are plenty that do in park, but not neutral so you are still having to create pressure. (That's why you can neutral coast in automatic cars but not all of them can EOC) My old Cressida did disconnect the hydraulic pump in park and if you revved the engine up and switch between neutral and park you could hear the difference... barely.

Just to clarify on pressure requirements I'm going to take numbers from my factory service manual for the Tracker.

Line pressure at engine idle:
Reverse range - 79-86psi
Drive range - 53-58psi

Line pressure at TC stall speed:
Reverse range - 188-233psi
Drive range - 136-156psi

[VetteOwner]

maybe theyve changed alot since 97 (newest car we have, tranny pisses me off 3.0v6 tarus) can accelerate lightly and you would expect ti to shift around 2-3K no this thing loves to hold onto gears(always have since we got it with 30k miles, now has 100k+). doesnt engine brake at all (well does but takes a friggin mile to do so)

the one car i loved and would have been my first car the tranny died a year before i got my license. car wasnt worth enough to get it fixed (1977 chevy caprecee) first reverse went out, drove it around for awhile like that till drive went out(ever try to push around a 2 ton car? )

our van 96 aerostar it behaves like a manual (in the sense of engine brakeing) let off the gas almost instantly starts to brake same deal with it with the slow shifting.

the junkmobile (86 chevy celebrity) that thing doesnt know when to downshift lol speed drops it just starts bogging the engine down.

i do know the chevette auto trannies are horrid (break often and kill what little getup and go the car has).
the manual trannies are pretty tough tho.

i belive my s-10 has the t-5 tranny in it. it hasnt given me any problems, still on the origional clutch (145K miles)

now the model AA tranny or shall i say trannies(does have 2 seperate ones) those are going to take some getting used to with the double clutching (straight gears, no synchros at all) then the dual high (1:1 ratio then something that slows it down even more) that you pretty much set it before you move (used on the commercial model A's hence why you can use about 35hp to move 1.5 tons)

i dunno i guess while im young i like being in control of all aspects of the car (hence why i hate ABS TCS whatever else) that manual trannies make 4 cyl cars fun and make em seem fast lol. when my dad buys cars he expects to keep them till they blow up (literally sometimes) or a major repair is more than the cars value. so when theres all these electronic trannies and all sorts of stuff that uses servos or actuators that will fail with time rather just have some mechanical linkage setup...or since we like to do our own service work that when a computer buggers up or something fails and throws the SES light were SOL since we dont own a obdII scanner or anything...

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by dkjones96

That just HAS to be an exaggeration. I can't (and won't) believe for a second that the engine has to create anywhere near 15-20 more hp if the car is in gear vs neutral.

In fact, if I remember correctly from my data logging on Tracker, calculated load was mostly unaffected(+-1%) by neutral vs drive. However, turning on the a/c yielded a 15% increase in calculated load.

Fuel rate is barely affected by D vs. N at a stop, but it is affected. Injector duty cycle might be ~1.3% in N and ~1.5% in D. That's a pretty significant difference comparing the two, but the amount we're talking about isn't much. It is enough to be worthwhile, IMO...you don't have anything to lose by doing it.

Originally Posted by VetteOwner

maybe theyve changed alot since 97

I believe that they have. I think in addition to adding gears (Many 2008 GM autos are 6 speed, vs. all being 4 speed in 1997), the computer control has been worked on and the programming improved. Most come with some kind of manual control, and I suspect that they have been made more robust to tolerate that combined with 100,000 mile warranties.

I don't know if this is attributable to 5 (or 15) years difference or just the difference in vehicles, but my 2002 GMC's transmission behaves way better than my 1997 Pontiac or 1987 Cadillac did. The Pontiac and Cadillac revved too high (and the Cadillac had a power curve like a diesel, really needing low-RPM high-torque driving), while the GMC shifts low and lets me put some gas pedal into it without jumping to redline at the drop of a hat...but if I drop the hammer, it downshifts right away and takes off.

doesnt engine brake at all (well does but takes a friggin mile to do so)

Most automatics should not engine brake automatically under most conditions. It is more efficient to go to the highest gear and unlock the torque converter when the driver lets off the gas pedal.

An automatic driver who wants engine braking is advised to make use of the different positions for the gear selector, or on late model vehicles, to use the tiptronic/paddle shifters/etc. That's one of the main reasons those things are included in the user interface.

since we like to do our own service work that when a computer buggers up or something fails and throws the SES light were SOL since we dont own a obdII scanner or anything...

You don't have to spend $200 on a ScanGauge to get an OBDII scanner. Harbor Freight sells a basic unit that will pull codes from any car for $40, or you can go to the nearest chain auto parts store like Auto Zone and get your codes pulled for free (make sure you insist on getting the code numbers instead of just the vague description) (illegal in California).

[VetteOwner]

yea weve thought about getting that cheapo scanner(not like we use it everyday) but then ya gotta consider ok it says X code, look it up find out its a camshaft position sensor. then theres 3 problems: 1: where the hell is that located 2: do i need arms like gumby and a lift to see it let alone get to it 3: is that really the cause? as we all know (yes this is true of old cars too) that one part can seem to fail when another one that is actually failing causing it to do so.

yea forgot about that whole downshifting to redline thing the tarus does, seems you press the pedal, seems to jump down 2 gears redline then go back up one.

6 speed wouldnt be too bad hell of alot better than the 80's 3 speeds lol

[theholycow]

Yeah, the scanner doesn't troubleshoot, identify, and fix the problem for you...it just alleviates the problem of being SOL without it. You get the code, and it gives you some direction. You check the sensor or try to figure out what might provide incorrect readings at that sensor.

[RoadWarrior]

Originally Posted by VetteOwner

6 speed wouldnt be too bad hell of alot better than the 80's 3 speeds lol

Going by what people report as highway RPM on some vehicles, yep, my 80's 3 speed is not bad. ~2500-2600RPM @ 60 with the TC locked up.

[VetteOwner]

i do wish my chevette had the 5 speed... its at 3K at 60mph...

[101mpg]

I can attest that some vehicles actually use a LOT of engine in neutral - because the torque converter converts SOME - all of the time.

You may try the Malibu Maxx - it is roomier than the Malibu, 6" longer wheelbase but 1/2" SHORTER than the Malibu! - and it gets better mileage.

Can get it over 40 in the right conditions. The Maxx just Roxx!

[theholycow]

How would the torque converter do any work if its output side is unloaded?

[101mpg]

That's the thing - it's not actually unloaded entirely! The Malibu Maxx & the Grand Caravan actually stay "in gear" when in neutral - keeps the fluid spinning to cool it I guess. And there is an audible as well as you can feel the vehicle slip out of gear once you get below 5 MPH if you coast to a stop!

Plus you can view it on the MPG readout as well - but it does not entirely go into neutral.

[RoadWarrior]

Park actually lowers the lube pressure or stops running the pump on some vehicles (Chrysler transmissions do it) so idling in Park should take less gas than idling in neutral. Might only notice this with a small motor though, hemi truck it might not make a difference.

[asjdkasj]

hemi truck it might not make a difference.yes