How bad are automatic transmissions?

[Ted Hart]

Originally Posted by psyshack

CVT's SUCK!!!

The idea is sound. And they are finally almost worth while. There claim to fame is keeping the car in motion on the torque curve.

What idiot college boy thought that one up?



My hips, knees and feet hurt alot now days. My right ankle is collapsing. Thats why they make tape, splints and surgery. If I get so bad I cant drive a mt. Its time to stop driving.

Cause AT's SUCK!!!!

psy

All college boys aren't idiots... my dad called 'em "boy engineers"! CVTs are still new on the scene (altho' Buick's Dynaflow worked pretty well!); just ask Jim Hall about the (secret) tranny in his Chapparels at Sebring (1965).
"ATs SUCK"? With what else are you gonna hit all those Northbound bulls in the South end ???

[rh77]

Well, I can say this.

With the exact same 1998 Acura Integra LS, in Manual form I'm told that you could get 34 mpg in mixed driving without trying, and in mine (auto-magic), I have to employ all of the Gassaving techniques or drive 100% highway.

There is a considerable amount of power loss in a traditional auto because of the torque converter. The engine has to work harder to accomplish the same work load.

What's curious is the new Civic. Although the 5MT is lean-burn as mentioned by psyshack, the EPA ratings are higher for the auto: reason -- better technology and communication between the emissions system and the transmission + different ratios.

I so badly want a manual again, to bump start and accelerate without slushing through that stupid converter. It never shifts when I want it to. ARGH!

CVTs seem to be more efficient than traditional autos. I drove a Nissan Murano AWD with the CVT and it got better mileage than the 2WD standard Auto. It keeps the engine at a lower RPM a majority of the time. Nissan seems to be going with this in nearly all of its applications from the entry-level Versa, to the loaded Murano. I would expect to see this as an evolution. Even the Ford 500 has a CVT option.

Since Americans refuse to learn or tolerate a standard shift, efficient automatics have been developed as a response.

RH77

[SVOboy]

Does the new civic have lean burn? I think not...I think it only has i-vtec, but then again, I'm not too sure. It wasn't advertised with it when the engine came out...

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by rh77

What's curious is the new Civic. ... the EPA ratings are higher for the auto: reason -- better technology and communication between the emissions system and the transmission + different ratios.

That may be what the EPA says, but in the hands of a skilled & determined driver, I suspect the manual transmission will beat the pants off the automatic at everything except constant speed top-gear cruising.

EDIT: "constant top-gear cruising above speeds at which the automatic engages top gear"

The autobox just won't let you push things as far.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Pretty much. In the last decade or so, auto manufs tend to gear manual trannys really high, because the largest segment that wants them is the "performance" driver or whatever.

[ELF]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

That may be what the EPA says, but in the hands of a skilled & determined driver, I suspect the manual transmission will beat the pants off the automatic at everything except constant speed top-gear cruising.

The autobox just won't let you push things as far.

Agree 100%. The average driver doesn't have a clue when it comes to a manual tranny. I have been a passenger in lots of different MT vehicles over the years, people ride the clutch at stoplights, way over rev the engine in each gear, leave the tranny in 4th for miles instead of shifting to 5th on the faster roads. I dearly wish I had purchased a car with a MT instead of my current auto.

[rh77]

OK, it seems I need to post interpretations for "the average driver" and "the hypermiler"

The automatic in the new civic will attain better FE over the manual variant for average driver. For gurus like MetroMPG, a standard will spank the automatic and CVT by leaps and bounds.

But what about a manual and CVT hybrid? Why did Honda go to CVT-only hybrids???

RH77

[SVOboy]

Honda had stick insights, got better mileage, but I imagine the CVT would get comparable mileage in the HCH and it would be easier to sell packaged that way.

[cfg83]

rh77 -

Originally Posted by rh77

OK, it seems I need to post interpretations for "the average driver" and "the hypermiler"

The automatic in the new civic will attain better FE over the manual variant for average driver. For gurus like MetroMPG, a standard will spank the automatic and CVT by leaps and bounds.

But what about a manual and CVT hybrid? Why did Honda go to CVT-only hybrids???

RH77

I blame the "Prius is better because it is a real hybrid" argument that you would read about in the press . Honda's first generation hybrid was a "mild hybrid" in the sense that it was an "ICE-dominant" hybrid, while the Prius has always been an "ICE-subordinate" hybrid.

I think that Honda's current Hybrids are closer to the Prius design, so maybe the MT is less feasible when the electric motor is dominant.

I pretty much despise all auto-trannys, so the only hybrid for me would be a used Honda 1st gen .

CarloSW2

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Manufacturers moved away from M/Ts because they can beat up the batt pack depending on how the owner drives. Iirc the M/T Insight has the highest percentage of pack replacements...