Anyone want to guess on what car has an automatic cvt, and no dual clutches, and no torque converter?
An Arctic Cat SUV ?
John Deere Gator
A Prius ?-Kevin
Honda Accord Hybrid? Actually, it has no transmission at all!
Yes, the prius. The Accord may have the same setup, im not sure.
Its basically a CVT with a fixed gear ratio, no belts or chains, its a simple yet fascinating device.
Auto transmissions have had lock up torque converters since the mid-'80’s. At that point when cruising in top gear an auto was as efficient as a manual transmission. During the shifting period as a car builds up speed the manual shifting would be more efficient, but hardly noticeable from a mpg standpoint over the course of 300-500 miles of driving. The auto transmission would be about 2X the weight of a manual so there is some loss of mpg due to greater mass, but again negligible.
Since the mid-'80’s all transmissions have improved, but the development of automatic transmissions in terms of reduced weight, more ratios, and better internals has been much more dramatic. For a modern car a normal driver will get more efficient shifting with an automatic transmission.
I still prefer a manual transmission in smaller lighter cars because I feel more like I’m really driving the car. But that is simply preference, and not related to mpg or efficiency anymore.
That Accord has my interest along with the prius@Rick,whats the particulars on your prius hitch?-Kevin
Automatic transmissions that I’ve driven have varied widely in how well they make use of the engine’s power and get it to the wheels, and I haven’t found much rhyme or reason to it. I’ve driven some that look good on paper that drive like slugs, and I’ve driven some that didn’t look so good on paper but would really zip. Noting that your SUV is an Expedition, I will say that I’ve never been real impressed with Ford’s automatics.
@UncleTurbo–the Studebaker automatic transmission built by Borg-Warner had a lock up feature on the torque converter when the automatic transmission in the Studebaker became an option in 1951. Studebaker was 30 years ahead of its time.
As far as the original premise is concerned, there is a big difference between “can” and " does". Regardless of how much better some may feel that a manual can perform better then an automatic, it doesn’t in the hands of the tired, lest inclined and incapable. That pretty much includes everyone driving home from work after a hard day or carrying on conversations with passengers or halfway through a days trip or…
…or an old fart protecting a bad back, a bum shoulder, and/or a leg that doesn’t work as designed.
Those are the reasons I drive an automatic. As we baby boomers drive the age distribution curve further up the scale, I take solice in the fact that I’m not alone.
@same
You’re reading my mail. There are times when all of my limbs function perfectly. It just never happens at the same time.
Me too.
@Robert Gift
It depends. On my Honda Fit EPA rating is 29, 33 mpg city, highway.
In city I manage 41, on highway 44 mpg constantly with a manual transmission.
On my Ford Focus (2014) the manual gets worse gas mileage than the DCT automatic. I believe mostly because the Auto is 6 speed and the manual is 5. Ford probably put some old transmission in the manual since only dinosaurs buy them. Going over 65 kills my mileage, I am rev’ing well over 3k at 75MPH.
I’m dubious that an automatic is as efficient as a manual even when the torque converter is locked up. It still has an oil pump that generates hydraulic pressure for a number of clutches to keep the transmission in gear. Perhaps the transmission pump uses as much power as the power steering pump, which is becoming obsolete as it is another source of inefficiency.
When I drive a three pedal vehicle, I can attest that my hands and feet use exactly zero hp to stay in gear.
Also, multiplate wet clutches saps power even when they are not engaged as transmission fluid shears between the closely spaced, disengaged clutch discs. This is one of the reason why ZF designed an 8 speed auto that has only 2 clutches opened in any gear instead of using a Lepelletier setup that has 3 clutches opened.
@chunkyazain
As far as what you say, I could not agree more. My manual transmission tractor was much more efficient then the hydrostatic I have now, once in gear. But, like a car when it comes down to actually doing work with a tractor, in the same way as actually shifting with a manual, drivers, including test drivers cannot choose the correct gear and shift it as effectively as an automatic can, day in and day out, hour after hour.
Presently, I have made an offer on a used Venza with a 6 speed auto. The darn thing is always shifting to keep the car in the most efficient gear at low cruising speeds. Now, does that make an auto less durable ? Perhaps. But I would argue that Toyota transmissions, regardless of the number of gears they have, can easily top 200k miles with regular maintenance . If I plan to trade at 150k and or ten years which has been my pattern, it has never been an issue. In the mean time, the motor benefits as it’s ALWAYS operating in the more correct gear. Now, I would think that a motor coupled to an auto with enough gearing should have an advantage in longevity and overall economy over it’s life time then when coupled to a manual. Even though, once in gear, the manual IS I agree more efficient.
That is exactly how my tractor operates. Cruising continuously while grading, manual wins out. But working and shuttling between gears, the hydrostatic does three times the work in the same time showing a net gain in efficiency even though it’s constantly slipping. Gear shifting is that important and my motor is always protected.
With more gears, 6 to 8 speeds, even when cruising on the highway, your auto transmission will shift with the
slightestest addition throttle depression. Manual shifters could never keep up and still keep their sanity . The numerical mpg comparisons of auto vs manual don’t lie. Many autos equal or exceed their manual conterparts for the what I feel, are the reasons I have stated.
@dagosa: “As far as the original premise is concerned, there is a big difference between “can” and " does”. Regardless of how much better some may feel that a manual can perform better then an automatic, it doesn’t in the hands of the tired, lest inclined and incapable."
I’d take that a step further. When a driver manually operates a clutch and shifts, the lag between gears, where the engine is fully engaged, is far greater than any automatic transmission made in the last ten years.
I still like manually operating a clutch and manually shifting gears, but I’m not going to claim there is a benefit in efficiency anymore. Those days are long gone.
Save for sports cars, the only way to get a stick shift today is to get the lowest trim level available with the fewest options. Some might like those cars, many do not, which is why automatics are more popular. That, and who would want to be manually shifting gears in NYC or LA rush hour traffic?