@TonyCarlos
A couple of things. First, most all transmissions still use torque converters like they have for decades and those torque converts all slip when in use during acceleration. Lock up does not occur in all the gears in most transmissions, only in the cruising gears. Energy is lost as heat though the slippage when it isn’t locked. Secondly, there are a lot of secondary gears being turned and automatic functions being activated by the hydraulic fluid in an automatic transmission. All the energy that the human right arm and left foot provided that in total are now lost. Most all automatic functions suffer some mechanical loss in efficiency. What is gained is the the choice of gears at the right time, the number of gears provided and the execution of that change, all done more efficiently by a computer. So, we really should not just get on the band wagon of “automatics are more efficient”, because for the most part THEY AREN’T but say "automatics have improved yes, but being computer controlled is the big advantage they hold…especially with CVTs.
Now, if you include other uses of the motor for electric power generation, power steering, brakes, stability and traction control etc. these all can be more effectively monitored by the computer. Bet many, me too, never thought years ago that the shift points on a car’s transmission should be affected by the air in the climate control system comming automatically on or delayed when you come down on the accelerator to pass. Do you actually think a driver of a manual transmission car knows how much less power is available to him when choosing a shift point like a computer does or can monitor terrain like the attitude indicator when climbing a hill etc. This is in part where the auto has the advantage…as an extension of the computer.
If you were comparing a three speed automatic to a four speed manual, the manual would be more efficient. Likewise, if you were comparing a five speed automatic to a six speed manual, the manual would be more efficient. However, today’s automatic transmissions often have the same amount or more gears than their manual counterparts, erasing the efficiency advantage manuals used to have.
A baseline 2014 Ford Expedition (the XLT) comes with a six speed automatic transmission. I doubt you want to do that much shifting manually, and even if you do, you’re not going to do it more efficiently than the automatic transmission does it on its own.
I got my driver’s license in the late 1950s. At the time, my parents owned a 1952 Dodge with the “lift and clunk” 2 speed automatic transmission and the 230 cubic inch 6 cylinder flat head engine. They also owned a 1954 Buick with a 3 speed manual transmission and a 264 cubic inch V-8 engine. The Buick could outperform the Dodge and got much better gasoline mileage to boot, even though it was slightly bigger and heavier than the Dodge. The Dodge transmission had a fluid coupling as opposed to a torque converter. The difference is that the fluid coupling does not multiply torque as does the torque converter. The Dodge soured my dad on automatic transmissions for a long time. However, the Buick clutch required quite a bit of effort to depress, so my mother thought the Dodge was easier to drive. For going out with “Little Iodine”, my girlfriend at the time, I preferred to take the Dodge. It was a coupe that was more cool than the Buick sedan, and, for obvious reasons, I didn’t care for shifting gears on a date.
Obviously, automatic transmissions have improved since the Dodge Gyro-Matic days. I think you would really have to work at it with a manual transmission today to exceed the mileage of the automatic.
Dag, you’re right, I missed your point. For that I apologize.
Tony, I would add a detail and say “if you have flappy paddles behind your steering wheel AND your car costs more than $100,000 you may well have a DCT”. Flappy paddles are becoming commonplace on lesser cars, and they’re really only a manual control over an automatic. I agree that it can get puzzling to the average driver. But, then, I doubt of the average driver cares!
“Now, the marine industry has long gone away from driving ships directly through gears for many large vessels from the motor to the prop because it’s so efficient using electric drive motors as the diesels can be run for months at a time continuously at it’s most efficient rpm with the speed control done by the electric motors”
Long gone away is an understatement. The use of diesel-electric drives dates back to the early part of the 1900s (1903-1925). Both ship and train propulsion have almost identical timelines for their development. The primary reasons originally were to overcome the issue with clutching such powerful motors to the drive wheels/props where high torque is required from 0 rpm on up. The use of a displaced engine also allowed more freedom in weight balancing and cargo hauling. Naturally, efficiency played a huge role as well.
The point is, the “genset” has been employed for more than 100 years now in heavy vehicle propulsion and something like 90 years commercially available. Hardly a new concept. I am constantly amazed at how long some technological innovations have been around before they become “new” in some more modern application (e.g. cars). I wonder if the wheel had some similarities; did you see, George just put wheels on that ox-cart over there and it moves so much easier than those skids! That’s nothing, my cousin Hercules had wheels on his chariot back in the day…
@twinturbo
You may tout that the technology for electric drive has been around for a long time, but the practical use of an electric car which has been around longer is still yet to be realized and will be new when it is. . The vast majority of ships still drove their hulls with diesel direct drive to the prop. They did not use electric drive. New technology is useful, affordable, practical as is the defining time of implementation on a large scale. You tell me how many or what percentage of ships have used electric propulsion from pods hung on the rudders and bow thrusters to allow them to dock and retrieve without the use of tug boats. In marine terms, it is newer technology in a way that was not available in the early 1900s. You need to take notice of how many large ships dock with and without this tugboat aid. There is a big difference in time in defining invention, available and practical use of technology. Practically using this technology is new and the use of it has come a long way. Not by the military which has your tax dollars, not by the rich who doesn’t need it, but it is by most commercial vessels. It’s new in every sense of the word and they have come a long way in actually using it. The patented use of electric drive in this capacity ( maneuverability) didn’t occur until 1955, was implemented in many ships over many years and in marine use now is still evolving. So, this technology has come a long way. Where it is now was never envisioned in the early 1900’s. SO, while electric drive has been used for a long time the fact remains, the majority of large ships are still driven by diesel power directly. They have a long way to go.
“You tell me how many or what percentage of ships have used electric propulsion from pods hung on the rudders and bow thrusters to allow them to dock and retrieve without the use of tug boats”
What does this have to do with the fundamental implementation of a diesel-electric drive for the main propulsion?
“New technology is useful, affordable, practical as is the defining time of implementation on a large scale.”
If I understand correctly, I disagree. What follows those reasons is large scale implementation and the timing of it achieving majority share depends on the cost of conversion and the longevity of the existing mechanism not the other way around. If they make sense, they make sense whether it’s the first one or the millionth one. Ships last a LONG time. Do you think every shipping company would run out and replace all their ships prematurely because of new technology? No, they get replaced as they no longer can do the work. To gain majority share in the shipping industry with some new implementation would take a very long time indeed. The railroad industry is similar.
I won’t get into an argument over how you define it as being new or when it was accepted. There are many places you can verify the use of diesel-electric locomotives on a widespread basis before 1950. Same with marine shipping vessels. Have they improved incrementally in performance over time? naturally. Every technology we continue to invest in does. But the fundamental design is the same and has been used for a long time by most people’s standards. To me, if they started putting a diesel-electric in my bass boat, I wouldn’t call it “new technology”…
So I make a statement that says ships have come a long way in the use of electric propulsion. Your response is that they had back in the early 1900’s. Of course some specific boats used electric propulsion like ice breakers many years ago as drive motors with diesel generation. But hanging motors from pods and using bow thrusters is a new ( relative to 1955) application that eliminates the need for tugboats for the largest of ships made. They have advanced in at least this aspect but need more advancement to make them practical for all boats.
The fundamental design of the internal combustion motor is the same as they were back in the 1900’s. It can’t be said with the internal conpmbustion motor hasn’t advance technologically. . No one is saying that the internal combustion motor hasn’t come a long way and no one show indicate the electric propusion hasn’t. Only today’s technology and not that over a hundred years ago would allow the electric motor and their generators to be used as they are today.
Btw,
When they put a diesel electric motor drive in your bass boat, it will have to be very advanced with lot’s of new technology. The technology that makes it affordable and practical for you to do it. You don’t think making a diesel light enough to be put into a bass boat isn’t advanced technology or making it affordable for an aluminum bass boat…or small enough or ? I hope you get the point. Just inventing the electric car over 100 years ago doesn’t mean there is little advanced technology required to make it functional for everyone. Heck, Einstein developed the basis for nuclear energy loooong before the Manhattan Project could advance technologically to use it as a weapon and much later as a practical electric generation power tool. You can’t say nulear energy advanced little from Einstein .
Somehow, I get the idea that you think once something is invented, there is little advancement needed to make it practical to use by everyone and in great numbers. It takes great technological advancement just to make inventions, affordable , practical and to actually find unintended uses.
Ah but the “Hybrid technology” there are so many ways it can help and augument an ICE engine I think its time has come,notice the sucess of the Toyota Hybrids,if I were shopping for a car tomorrow,I would certainly give the Toyotas a gander.My friend and cousin by marriage was dead set on Hydrogen propulsion a while back and putting a bit of time and money in a major institute of higher learning toward that end,my forecast to Him was that hybrids are the wave of the future,I stressed we already know how to burn Hydrogen,we need a better way to generate the stuff(H2) actually this institute He was working at was working on this very subject at the sametime(He didnt seem to have much interest in the generation of Hydrogen,ah well) At least His interest has went into a very promising line of research now.
But back to the subject,I would imagine an automatic would increase my mileage,because to be honest ,I lug the engine a fair amount.I know some Folks are always in top form,but not I.I’ve driven those Mack trucks so long,I’ve lost interest in shifting gears and I’ve seen first hand how well the new automatic trucks perform in traffic,with a good diesel engine.But the beauty of the hybrids is the freedom in drivetrain configuration and the recovery of a lot of lost energy upon deceleration,I like to refer to electromotive train engines and such as compound rather then pure Hybrid.An interesting note on the locomotives when the Dieselelectrics started ,they were soon adopted,not because they were cheaper,but because they were better for this application,it was hard to get a heavy train moving,with the furious torque of a mighty steam engine(FWIW)-Kevin
I looked at an electric deck boat a few years ago but the price was pretty high, the range limited, and I worried about the safety of charging it at the dock. Henry Ford kept things pretty simple though. I’ve always thought there had better be a pretty darned good reason for adding a second propulsion system on anything. ICE plus electric motors in the same vehicle better have something pretty good going for it. Then behind every electric device is a generator somewhere. You may not see it but its there running by water, steam, coal, nuclear, natural gas, or a combination, somewhere. Then the infrastucture and crew getting it from point A to B. Yeah you have to refine and transport gas too but I’m not ready to give up my ICE lawn mower, snow blower, car, or chain saw just yet.
I would give up the the infernal engines in a minute if there was a good substitute(of course I dont want a cordless ICE drill either,)some things are treated better by different engines and motors .we of course understand the need for a prime mover to turn the generatoe(MHD,anyone?)-Kevin
Mountainbike, one need not spend $100k just to get a DCT transmission (yeah, I know that is the “ATM machine” of car tech talk). You can buy a Jetta TDI with a dual clutch tranny for under $25k. And while they don’t always call them DCTs, you can get them on a wide range of other inexpensive cars. Ford Focus and Dodge Dart offer them, as well as many others.
Most of you know that the main limitation with electric cars is the battery, the electric drive portion performs very well.
An internal combustion engine driving a generator which powered an electric motor at each wheel (and no battery) would make for a very robust and controllable all wheel drive vehicle, outstanding for off road travel.
Unfortunately the market for that would be very small.
Tony, I looked up the specs on these and was unable to find anything referring to a DCT, however I was able to find automatics with flappy paddles. Are you certain these aren’t automatics masquerading as DCTs?
