Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 95585	2008-12-11 01:13:00	Manual or Automatic	Roscoe (6288)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
727720	2008-12-20 09:42:00	Ya beat me well, Billy! Perhaps with a good hand-rubbed wax job I can get my fuel economy up to yours. I can see your tongue firmly planted in your cheek SJ, and I don't think hand-rubbed wax jobs are suitable fare for a family forum, but anyway, I wasn't trying to "beat" anybody. I just wanted to see some realistic figures to establish whether there was any real improvement in auto fuel economy. For the record my last (round town) fill showed 5% better economy over my last figures, I don't quite know why but it does vary from excellent to outstanding from time to time. Back to the debate, I simply don't believe any automatic will give better economy than a manual driven at the same speeds over the same roads, especially around town. Of course if you insist on pushing a square-rigged barque into a headwind using a massive donk and tyres borrowed off a 747 you are naturally going to siphon your tank dry a bit faster than I do. My last experience of owning an auto put me off for life, but I did try an up to date version recently when Mrs T won a competition for a South Island holiday with rental car and return refill fuel included. The vehicle was a Subaru Forester (I think) 4wd and sports utility shape. It was nice to drive but I couldn't better 400km on a tank of gas, even on the easy run from Queenstown to Bluff and back. I was pleased to get back to my Mazda. Cheers Billy 8-{) :thumbs:	Billy T (70)
727721	2008-12-20 10:54:00	Not screechy noise. It was engine noise, more a humming or howling noise. Like the noise a manual car makes when you put gas but don't change gears :D B/c it is a compact sedan and auto .. it doesn't have the RPM in the instruments. Just the speed. But hey its a 1992 and it just keeps going and going, lots of good service and still going strong :D I'll try it with another automatic, 2.2L Toyota Camry, Station Wagon, that also just has D, 2 and L. Yeah it's the Ngaranga Gorge. Going down slope at 80km.	Nomad (952)
727722	2008-12-20 11:08:00	I frequently used to achieve 600 MILES on a tankful of gas. The tank and the speedo were a bit modified though.	R2x1 (4628)
727723	2008-12-20 19:51:00	Permanent 4wd tend to use more petrol,so that isn't a reasonable comparison. Mercedes say their 8 speed auto is more economical than their manual. The CVT is also more economical,that is an auto for those not in the know.	Cicero (40)
727724	2008-12-20 20:04:00	Subarus are not noin for there economy and a 4x4 to boot. :)	Trev (427)
727725	2008-12-21 08:44:00	:D [QUOTE=Cicero;738077]Could have been Ngaio gorge .[/QUOTENot screechy noise. It was engine noise, more a humming or howling noise. Like the noise a manual car makes when you put gas but don't change gears Nomad its the noise of an engine over revving primed and ready for the con rod to bash a hole in the block or for a piston to detach and fly into the head. In the old days autos were 2 stage then 3 stage. From mid 90s Christs knows how many stages they are now.	prefect (6291)
727726	2008-12-21 10:48:00	Permanent 4wd tend to use more petrol,so that isn't a reasonable comparison. Mercedes say their 8 speed auto is more economical than their manual. The CVT is also more economical,that is an auto for those not in the know. Not exactly your typical auto transmission though! I don't think you can really call it an auto for the purposes of this thread - I know it is, but it's so radically different that it messes up the whole debate :D.	Erayd (23)
727727	2008-12-21 12:32:00	manual for me, just my type and I like it, and by the way I think most of people who choosing auto cuz they can't drive manual	vnz (14399)
727728	2008-12-21 17:43:00	:D [QUOTE=Cicero;738077]Could have been Ngaio gorge .[/QUOTENot screechy noise. It was engine noise, more a humming or howling noise. Like the noise a manual car makes when you put gas but don't change gears Nomad its the noise of an engine over revving primed and ready for the con rod to bash a hole in the block or for a piston to detach and fly into the head. In the old days autos were 2 stage then 3 stage. From mid 90s Christs knows how many stages they are now. Olde ideas and British Engineering fears never die. <sigh> (TEST: See if you can find the oxymoron in that sentence HINT: The answer starts with "British" and the second word starts with: "Engineering", ) Roman-era oxcart cobbled round-a-bout'd superhighways have a somewhat crippling effect on needs and design, however, to be fair. In the UK, engines are taxed by bore; they build engines with long strokes that limited engines to not much more than a couple thousand RPM or they would throw a rod and you picked up your engine with a broom from the roadway. Rubbish bins are conveniently located every 30 metres for easy disposal. (TEST: How many Austin Healeys or Morris Minors would one have to buy to actually be able to drive a working model? ANSWER: TWO - one to drive and one for spare engine parts) PS: Knowing this limitation, they used LUCAS electrics that naturally limited driving at night (impossible) and to any distance greater than out of visual sight on one's home and hearth and point of departure, not to mention spare parts. Modern, post-1970s engines are well able to handle RPM into the 5K and 6K range with aplomb. It is not unheard of to allow some engines to be red-lined at 10K and 11K now, although they are exceptions. Really now prefect, if you have an engine/transmission made after the great potato famine you can rest assured that you will NOT harm the system by letting it do what it's designed to do. Oxen cart drivers (Et tu, prefect?) from that potato famine era however, will find it mentally challenging to exceed the personal blocks and psychological scars from experiences with metals that were smelted in wood fired braziers and open fire pits. (TEST: Complete the following musical lyric: "Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the..." 1) withering fusillade 2) Post-Modern Iron-Age 3) open pit mine 4) HMC/National Health's Olde Automotive Engineers' Home for the Mentally Deranged, llc, ddy, uya.) Intelligent designers will not allow your engine to downshift into a dangerous RPM with safety controls by the ECM, the governor and/or hydraulic bias-pressures in the valve bodies of the transmission itself, protecting you from damaging the engine with excessive RPM. DO NOT PERFORM THE FOLLOWING TEST WITH ANY ENGINE MADE OUT OF CONGEALED LONDONDERRY FOG, BRIT/IRISH ALLOYS (snicker!) AND/OR WITH A CRANKSHAFT YOU CAN TWIST WITH YOUR BARE HANDS. (TEST: What has more molecular stability:1) A Rootes-Group crankshaft and engine block, 2) A stiff upper lip? ANSWER: It's a toss-up, unless the upper lip is shaved) If you want to see these limits in action, just accelerate as hard as you can and allow the transmission to upshift automatically at the pre-set values designed into the system and get used to the sound of your engine as it operates as it was supposed to. Those who drive manual transmissions should not perform this test, however. Form a mental note of the sweet sound of RPM and horsepower and plug that into the equation as you use the retrograde properties of your transmission for engine braking down long or repetitive hills. Next week: We attack the use of leeches in medicinal blood letting for headaches and general malaise. In two weeks: We investigate DIY trephination to remove fears of modern engines and metallurgy.	SurferJoe46 (51)
727729	2008-12-21 19:57:00	manual for me, just my type and I like it, and by the way I think most people who choose an auto do so because they can't drive a manual I sir was brought up on a crash box,I assure you, you couldn't change gear in one of these(no syncromesh in those days),so don't tell me I can't drive a manual. If it's possible to design a car that auto does all you want in gear changing,why do you want to do it,I am sure ignorance prevails. I have a continuously variable transmission and find it the cats pyjamas.	Cicero (40)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17