Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.

No.

 

Not quite that much any more. This was true in the days of the
Oldsmobile Hydra-Matic (1940), and the Buick Dynaflow (1948). These days
it's almost 100% efficient.

And in any case, the inefficiencies have nothing to do with the
SHIFTING, but instead to do with the method of disconnecting engine
power from the gearbox PRIOR to shifting.

The gearbox setup is unimportant. You can have a selective-shift
sliding-gear box, constant-mesh dog-clutch box, or a planetary unit or
anything else, all automatically controlled.

You can have a non-automatic planetary unit too, like the Ford
Model-T's. (I'd be inclined to call that one a "manual", but the pedants
among us would insist on the more correct term "pedal".)

Bendix first developed an automatic clutch in 1932. This was offered on
regular manual-style transmissions on several US makes. These worked
well when set up properly, but were hideously high-maintenance, finicky
and unreliable.

The primary reason automakers eventually reverted to planetary gearboxes
for automatic operation was that it was practically impossible to impose
automatic control on a regular sliding-gear or constant-mesh
manual-style box with the technology of the day.

These days, with computer controls, there is no technical reason a
manual-style transmission cannot be used with an automatic (or
semi-auto) clutch and shifter. And so they do exist: SAAB had the
Sensonic in 1995. Ferrari's F1 team had the Selespeed unit around 1990.

The technology may eventually filter down to plebeian road cars one day,
but that day would have to come once the mainstream automakers decide to
replace their entire transmission tooling.

 

Not quite that much any more. This was true in the days of the
Oldsmobile Hydra-Matic (1940), and the Buick Dynaflow (1948). These days
it's almost 100% efficient.

And in any case, the inefficiencies have nothing to do with the
SHIFTING, but instead to do with the method of disconnecting engine
power from the gearbox PRIOR to shifting.

The gearbox setup is unimportant. You can have a selective-shift
sliding-gear box, constant-mesh dog-clutch box, or a planetary unit or
anything else, all automatically controlled.

You can have a non-automatic planetary unit too, like the Ford
Model-T's. (I'd be inclined to call that one a "manual", but the pedants
among us would insist on the more correct term "pedal".)

Bendix first developed an automatic clutch in 1932. This was offered on
regular manual-style transmissions on several US makes. These worked
well when set up properly, but were hideously high-maintenance, finicky
and unreliable.

The primary reason automakers eventually reverted to planetary gearboxes
for automatic operation was that it was practically impossible to impose
automatic control on a regular sliding-gear or constant-mesh
manual-style box with the technology of the day.

These days, with computer controls, there is no technical reason a
manual-style transmission cannot be used with an automatic (or
semi-auto) clutch and shifter. And so they do exist: SAAB had the
Sensonic in 1995. Ferrari's F1 team had the Selespeed unit around 1990.

The technology may eventually filter down to plebeian road cars one day,
but that day would have to come once the mainstream automakers decide to
replace their entire transmission tooling.

 

207.14.116.130:

....Plus slippage at idle and on acceleration. I forgot that.

Slippage at idle is a fundamental function of the fluid coupling, and the
reason it was adopted in the first place.

 

207.14.116.130:

....Plus slippage at idle and on acceleration. I forgot that.

Slippage at idle is a fundamental function of the fluid coupling, and the
reason it was adopted in the first place.

 

Don't worry, the US will ban it. They do not want to sell less oil.

 

Don't worry, the US will ban it. They do not want to sell less oil.

 

What on earth makes you think that? Zero consumption vehicles, like
bicycles, are popular and encouraged in the US. I have owned several myself
over nearly half a century and have never encountered a "not enough oil"
goon squad.

The consumption would not be an issue, but crash-worthiness and emissions
are showstoppers. ZEV and P-ZEV vehicles are in great demand by regulators,
especially in California, but AFAIK diesels are still not available in
passenger cars there because of the emissions. The safety info in the
referenced article is not encouraging either; side impact standards
(mandatory in the US) appear to be lacking: "as safe as a GT sports car
registered for racing". That's damning with faint praise; if they could say
it met US safety standards they certainly would have said so. Fuel economy
really doesn't matter to grieving families.

Mike

 

What on earth makes you think that? Zero consumption vehicles, like
bicycles, are popular and encouraged in the US. I have owned several myself
over nearly half a century and have never encountered a "not enough oil"
goon squad.

The consumption would not be an issue, but crash-worthiness and emissions
are showstoppers. ZEV and P-ZEV vehicles are in great demand by regulators,
especially in California, but AFAIK diesels are still not available in
passenger cars there because of the emissions. The safety info in the
referenced article is not encouraging either; side impact standards
(mandatory in the US) appear to be lacking: "as safe as a GT sports car
registered for racing". That's damning with faint praise; if they could say
it met US safety standards they certainly would have said so. Fuel economy
really doesn't matter to grieving families.

Mike

 

**** safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a
protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out the
competition. They WILL NOT make fuel efficient vehicles. Hybrids should
get over 100mpg by rights. Americans don't make a single car that gets
50mpg. Europe makes several, every car company makes 2 or 3 that get 50
to 80mpg. Diesel hybrids get 120 to 150mpg. The US will avoid these.
Give me a choice, my motorcycle don't have air bags, seat belts or crash
test and works just fine. I want a car WITHOUT seat belts and air bags.
I want to choose my safety devices, I don't want you to. We don't need
forced communist compliance at all.

 

**** safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a
protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out the
competition. They WILL NOT make fuel efficient vehicles. Hybrids should
get over 100mpg by rights. Americans don't make a single car that gets
50mpg. Europe makes several, every car company makes 2 or 3 that get 50
to 80mpg. Diesel hybrids get 120 to 150mpg. The US will avoid these.
Give me a choice, my motorcycle don't have air bags, seat belts or crash
test and works just fine. I want a car WITHOUT seat belts and air bags.
I want to choose my safety devices, I don't want you to. We don't need
forced communist compliance at all.

 

Interesting thread for a Honda site, like who cares.

 

hehe Yeah, but when you're sitting there with a broken neck, breathing
and eating through a tube, you'll want the Nanny State to take care of
you at no cost--which means taxpayers like me funding the rest of your
miserable life.

**** you.

 

hehe Yeah, but when you're sitting there with a broken neck, breathing
and eating through a tube, you'll want the Nanny State to take care of
you at no cost--which means taxpayers like me funding the rest of your
miserable life.

**** you.

 

a lot of the recent "safety" stuff is superfluous. it definitely ruins
gas mileage. is there a "conspiracy theory" connection?

my 2000 civic weighed over 1,000 lbs more than my 89. it takes a /lot/
of extra gas to lug that extra 1,000lbs up a hill, or accelerate from a
standstill. the 2000 should have been more economical based on more
advanced injection technology, but they're the same because of the extra
weight. it was /significantly/ slower. and based on junkyard crashed
vehicles i've seen, the 89, without the extra 1,000lbs, holds up just
fine in real world collisions, just as well as the 2000. given that
both vehicles have the same brakes and stock tires, the 89 will brake
more effectively as it's lighter, potentially avoiding more accidents in
the first place.

bottom line, there's a lot of myth and b.s. out there. joe's comments
in the "nothing goes to waste" thread, are a great example. somewhere
down the line, he'd read something improperly researched, and accepted
it at face value - as we all have a tendency to do. to get to the truth
however, you have to dig.

need another example? firestone vs. frod on the exploder rollover
fiasco. frod won that one, miraculously. there was no science or
analysis behind that. bottom line, a vehicle should not roll because of
a flat - tread separation or rocket propelled grenade should make no
difference - it should /not/ roll. tire manufacturer or tire failure
mode is /utterly/ irrelevant. yet a fundamentally unsafe vehicle, one
that was /known/ to be fundamentally unsafe before it even hit
production, was sold. in quanity. and when it rolled, it was also
known that the roof would collapse killing the occupants. yet because
there were no suv rollover safety standards, frod elected to not spend
the extra $10 on the materials that would have provided even that extra
safety. you talk about grieving families - a /lot/ of people have died
in that vehicle. safety? my ass.

 

a lot of the recent "safety" stuff is superfluous. it definitely ruins
gas mileage. is there a "conspiracy theory" connection?

my 2000 civic weighed over 1,000 lbs more than my 89. it takes a /lot/
of extra gas to lug that extra 1,000lbs up a hill, or accelerate from a
standstill. the 2000 should have been more economical based on more
advanced injection technology, but they're the same because of the extra
weight. it was /significantly/ slower. and based on junkyard crashed
vehicles i've seen, the 89, without the extra 1,000lbs, holds up just
fine in real world collisions, just as well as the 2000. given that
both vehicles have the same brakes and stock tires, the 89 will brake
more effectively as it's lighter, potentially avoiding more accidents in
the first place.

bottom line, there's a lot of myth and b.s. out there. joe's comments
in the "nothing goes to waste" thread, are a great example. somewhere
down the line, he'd read something improperly researched, and accepted
it at face value - as we all have a tendency to do. to get to the truth
however, you have to dig.

need another example? firestone vs. frod on the exploder rollover
fiasco. frod won that one, miraculously. there was no science or
analysis behind that. bottom line, a vehicle should not roll because of
a flat - tread separation or rocket propelled grenade should make no
difference - it should /not/ roll. tire manufacturer or tire failure
mode is /utterly/ irrelevant. yet a fundamentally unsafe vehicle, one
that was /known/ to be fundamentally unsafe before it even hit
production, was sold. in quanity. and when it rolled, it was also
known that the roof would collapse killing the occupants. yet because
there were no suv rollover safety standards, frod elected to not spend
the extra $10 on the materials that would have provided even that extra
safety. you talk about grieving families - a /lot/ of people have died
in that vehicle. safety? my ass.

 

Are automatic transmissions still more expensive to maintain (i.e. fluid
changes, belt/band adjustments, filter replacements, etc.)?

I know of many older vehicles where the manual transmissions have not been
serviced during the lifetime of the vehicle. Has this been changed for
modern day manual transmissions?

I'm not trying to rag on anyone; I just want to know what the manufacturers
are doing these days. It seems like a lot of companies are building things
that can be sold for very little, but the consumable parts are becoming more
expensive than the original item (like printers and 4-blade razors).

 

Are automatic transmissions still more expensive to maintain (i.e. fluid
changes, belt/band adjustments, filter replacements, etc.)?

I know of many older vehicles where the manual transmissions have not been
serviced during the lifetime of the vehicle. Has this been changed for
modern day manual transmissions?

I'm not trying to rag on anyone; I just want to know what the manufacturers
are doing these days. It seems like a lot of companies are building things
that can be sold for very little, but the consumable parts are becoming more
expensive than the original item (like printers and 4-blade razors).

 

Don't do that.

Rubbish, you can be killed by someone driving into you.

The problem is that the US idea of safety is 'make it big and heavy'. The proof
that this isn't necessary (or even particularly safe either btw) can be seen in
every car made outside the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_NCAP
http://www.euroncap.com/home.aspx

Graham

 

Don't do that.

Rubbish, you can be killed by someone driving into you.

The problem is that the US idea of safety is 'make it big and heavy'. The proof
that this isn't necessary (or even particularly safe either btw) can be seen in
every car made outside the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_NCAP
http://www.euroncap.com/home.aspx

Graham