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
727680 2008-12-13 08:59:00 Whatever. Asked my mechanic (spotted him over the road today). He said leave it off unless you need it.
Like I thought. Don't own one now anyway. 		pctek (84)
727681 2008-12-13 09:46:00 I aspire to square wooden wheels. These plaited grass ones are a bit geometrically unstable. Fred drives the projector now, Mercator ran off to sea and got woodened by a shark as he passed a car sales yard. R2x1 (4628)
727682 2008-12-13 19:27:00 Joe is right in my opine,I certainly leave mine on.
To complicate things I have CVT. 		Cicero (40)
727683 2008-12-14 05:41:00 Performance-wise and fuel economy-wise, the autos far out perform the manuals now.

Oh really? I drive a Mazda6 2.3 litre 5-speed manual and for a mix of around town, motorway and suburban driving I typically get 675 km on 60 litres of petrol, which is 11.25 km/L (31.5 miles/Imp gallon, 26.25 miles per US gallon).

On trips that goes up to 825km on 60 litres, which is 13.75 km/L or 38.5 Imp/32 US mpg. Obviously all this is on NZ's up and down terrain, and aircon is always on.

I'd be mildly surprised if you could show me an equivalent automatic that will achieve that fuel economy under the same operating conditions. I somehow doubt that anything other than a genuine sports slushbox (Porsche etc) on an equivalent vehicle would stand a chance performance wise either, unless you Yanks have a totally different meaning for performance and "far out".

Of course I could be wrong, but let's see some equivalent real world facts Joe.

Cheers

Billy 8-{):confused: 		Billy T (70)
727684 2008-12-14 06:08:00 I think we can say that autos are getting better all the time,the latest 6 speed jobbies would be as good as manual. Cicero (40)
727685 2008-12-14 06:42:00 Oh really? I drive a Mazda6 2.3 litre 5-speed manual and for a mix of around town, motorway and suburban driving I typically get 675 km on 60 litres of petrol, which is 11.25 km/L (31.5 miles/Imp gallon, 26.25 miles per US gallon).

On trips that goes up to 825km on 60 litres, which is 13.75 km/L or 38.5 Imp/32 US mpg. Obviously all this is on NZ's up and down terrain, and aircon is always on.

I'd be mildly surprised if you could show me an equivalent automatic that will achieve that fuel economy under the same operating conditions. I somehow doubt that anything other than a genuine sports slushbox (Porsche etc) on an equivalent vehicle would stand a chance performance wise either, unless you Yanks have a totally different meaning for performance and "far out".

Of course I could be wrong, but let's see some equivalent real world facts Joe.

Cheers

Billy 8-{):confused:


You are right Billy autos use more gas its because of slippage which causes heat. The heat is released into the atmosphere from the trans cooler or from the gearbox casing.
You cant create or destroy energy so that heat is petrol being burnt for no mechanical effort. 		prefect (6291)
727686 2008-12-14 21:41:00 You are right Billy autos use more gas its because of slippage which causes heat. The heat is released into the atmosphere from the trans cooler or from the gearbox casing.
You cant create or destroy energy so that heat is petrol being burnt for no mechanical effort.

That will depend on the type of journey. After a certain speed most autos will lock out the torque converter eliminating the slip and some car's autos have a higher top gear ratio than the equivalent manual saving 200-300 rpm at 100km/h. 		PaulD (232)
727687 2008-12-14 21:54:00 So you won't have a problem with her speeding either then.

It's a case of "Do as I say, not as I do" - like many things when bringing up kids.

But yet another reason for her to have an income (other than the Bank of Dad) to pay for fines, as well as contribute to running costs incurred. 		johcar (6283)
727688 2008-12-15 00:48:00 Oh really? I drive a Mazda6 2 . 3 litre 5-speed manual and for a mix of around town, motorway and suburban driving I typically get 675 km on 60 litres of petrol, which is 11 . 25 km/L (31 . 5 miles/Imp gallon, 26 . 25 miles per US gallon) .

On trips that goes up to 825km on 60 litres, which is 13 . 75 km/L or 38 . 5 Imp/32 US mpg . Obviously all this is on NZ's up and down terrain, and aircon is always on .

I'd be mildly surprised if you could show me an equivalent automatic that will achieve that fuel economy under the same operating conditions . I somehow doubt that anything other than a genuine sports slushbox (Porsche etc) on an equivalent vehicle would stand a chance performance wise either, unless you Yanks have a totally different meaning for performance and "far out" .

Of course I could be wrong, but let's see some equivalent real world facts Joe .

Cheers

Billy 8-{):confused:

Gee Billy, I can't beat that . . even though that vehicle you mention has a really low air drag/horsepower ratio, so I'll have to go with what I own and try to unfuddle you a little .

Let's see . . take my 1986 Full-sized inferior Detroit Iron Blazer by Chevrolet, 350/5 . 7 liter engine with a 400 stroker crank = 393 cubic inches (you do that math, I'm cooking dinner here) . Four barrel carburetor, oh . . and one of those pitiful automatic transmission too .

Where to start?


Very high wind drag factor, 33 inch diameter tires on wide rims, itself weighing over 5,200 pounds, towing 10,000 pounds of trailer and at 75 mph climbing ever so gently up to 5,800 feet sea level after leaving Hemet at 1,500 feet above sea level for a total of 600 miles one-way to my house in Arizona .

Um . . . back to particulars . . . . non-fuel injected, humongous four-barrel QuadraJet running the lowest octane fuel available in the US, oh . . . and did I say an "automatic transmission: - I think I might have .

So? I am embarassed to bring this to the table, but I only get 26 mpg at speed, and it drops off to about 22 mpg when I pull the hills and have to put my foot into it a little bit more to compensate . I try to never drop below 55 MPH though no matter how tall the hill or the headwinds, which can be equal to my forward speed in the canyons .

I just can't beat your economy though . . . or your low-riding Cadillac comfort, and of course, hauling 10,000 pounds on a three axle trailer makes for a little more work behind the wheel that you exert, so you can see that you really do beat me there in creature comfort and road comfort and AC and several other posted values . . . so NO . . . . I can't equal your grandiose achievements .

Ya beat me well, Billy! Perhaps with a good hand-rubbed wax job I can get my fuel economy up to yours . 		SurferJoe46 (51)
727689 2008-12-16 06:57:00 I prefer Autos for the following reasons:

1) Some people can't even drive manuals, so it means you can more likely lend your car to others or have other people drive when needed/desired

2) If I need to move out of the way of say an oncoming idiot FAST, I don't have to think or move quickly to change to the best gear - the power is there right away

3) I hate using the clutch in heavy traffic

4) They're easier to find and often cheaper to buy than manuals (used)

My first car was a manual, the next three have been autos.

However I dislike underpowered autos so would not buy a 1.3L or 1.5L. My first auto car was a 2.2L 4 cyl and my current car is a 3.0L V6. It went very cheaply at the auction and I calculated that the extra fuel I use would never compensate for the price of the car over the life of the car - also I prefer driving larger vehicles (6 cyl sedans over 4 cyl). 		george12 (7)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17