Ford and GM Join Forces

[MisterWhiskers]

Bass! WAWAWAWAWA *Insert rest of Bangarang with commercial here*

I see what you did there...

 

[Azuremen]

Camarang!

Manual is the answer, much more efficient if you drive them correctly.

Not really in this day and age, because of the increasing number of turbo cars and the greater frequency of 8 speed automatics.

 

[thelvynau]

The only thing I heard of having 10 gears is a truck but thats needed for hauling.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm amazed how little people seem to understand the concept of 7+ speed gearboxes.

An engine is at its most efficient, both in terms of minimal fuel use and power, across a finite rev range.

Any gearbox is compromised as to how much of that sweet spot you can use with any frequency. Four-speed gearboxes do the job, but the amount of time you'll spend in the sweet spot is small. Drive flat out and a change to the next gear might drop you out of the ideal power band. Stick it in a high gear for efficiency at a cruise, and you're compromising your acceleration.

So overdrive switches appeared, which let you space the gears for better acceleration but drop the revs at a cruise. And then five-speeds did similar, but without the added complication. And six-speeds did it even better, since you could space the gears pretty close for good acceleration but also enable you to cruise at high speeds at surprisingly low revs. I've driven modern petrol six-speeders that are doing 2k revs at 70-odd mph, and I've driven old four-speeders doing 4k revs at the same speed. Guess which one has better economy, yet more usable gearing?

7, 8, 9 and 10-speeders do the same job even better.

Now obviously, any of those numbers is going to be a pain in the ass as a manual. But as an auto, the sky is the limit. Modern autos are so smooth that you barely feel (or hear) it changing between gears anyway, so it's not like acceleration is being interrupted by continual gearchanges.

Yet economy improves, because you can now be in 5th or 6th gear at 30 mph instead of 3rd or 4th, yet still have decent acceleration (or the option of an imperceptible change down). And acceleration improves too, since when you boot it each gear keeps you well within the power band, rather than dropping you another 500-1000rpm down.

Theoretically, CVT is an even better option since the engine is always in the most efficient operating range depending on load. But as Keef has already said, many drivers simply don't like that (or don't think they like it, having never actually driven one but having played GT5 plenty of times...).

I've driven 7-speed DSGs and 8-speed torque converter autos and they work brilliantly. I see no reason why even more ratios wouldn't be even better.

 

[Liquid]

Now obviously, any of those numbers is going to be a pain in the ass as a manual. But as an auto, the sky is the limit. Modern autos are so smooth that you barely feel (or hear) it changing between gears anyway, so it's not like acceleration is being interrupted by continual gearchanges.

I think that's the key. The older the car with an automatic is, the more likely it is to have a few niggles and technological betamax players.

But I agree, with a new car an auto or DSG should be fine, given the seamless shifts now possible. Manuals, as much as I like them, are increasingly only for enthusiasts.

 

[ExigeEvan]

With bicycles having a large variety of gears and the vast majority of the population being able to utilise them (though not always correctly), I can see how a car would benefit.

Theoretically, CVT is an even better option since the engine is always in the most efficient operating range depending on load. But as Keef has already said, many drivers simply don't like that (or don't think they like it, having never actually driven one but having played GT5 plenty of times...).

This really, really does need to happen. But it sounds like some manufacturers have even introduced artificial "gear changes" into the CVT software, which I find absolutely baffling.

 

[Liquid]

I know very, very little about CVTs; I'd love to experience one.

 

[homeforsummer]

This really, really does need to happen. But it sounds like some manufacturers have even introduced artificial "gear changes" into the CVT software, which I find absolutely baffling.

Yup, artificial steps in a stepless transmission have been around for some time now. They're there so that morons aren't too scared by something new.

I know very, very little about CVTs; I'd love to experience one.

The best ones are actually the planetary gearsets used in cars like the Prius. Less complicated and more reliable than traditional belt-type CVTs. They behave in a similar fashion but are pretty much unbreakable.

 

[Slash]

The only thing I heard of having 10 gears is a truck but thats needed for hauling.

Depends on the truck. Semis have half gears while I've seen light duty pickups pull 37,000lbs + with 3 speed automatics no problem.

 

[tronrider345]

How cool would a Camaro/mustang cross over be!

 

[Luminis]

Not really in this day and age, because of the increasing number of turbo cars and the greater frequency of 8 speed automatics.

You'd be surprised. I just came home today from a 1,000 kilometre trip with my dad. His car is a W203 C-Class 220 CDI diesel. 150 horses and a six-speed manual gearbox. Now, that thing isn't a small car or anything, but he managed to average 4.2 litres per 100 kilometres - that's 58 miles per gallon, included a mixture of high-way driving at ~80 mph and quite a bit of driving in the crowded city of Hamburg. And that's not quite as low as he manages to get the fuel consumption on his daily commute to and from work, mind you.

A contemporary C-Class 200 BlueEfficiency 7G-Tronic doesn't match that. It, in fact, struggles to do a consistent 30 mpg during test drives - despite a decent seven-speed auto transmission. I have yet to see anything that can match his driving in terms of fuel efficiency. Even a Prius would struggle to match that. So, my personal opinion? Manuals can be pretty darn good in terms of efficiency, but most people wouldn't know how to get the best MPG out of them.

 

[homeforsummer]

You'd be surprised. I just came home today from a 1,000 kilometre trip with my dad. His car is a W203 C-Class 220 CDI diesel. 150 horses and a six-speed manual gearbox. Now, that thing isn't a small car or anything, but he managed to average 4.2 litres per 100 kilometres - that's 58 miles per gallon, included a mixture of high-way driving at ~80 mph and quite a bit of driving in the crowded city of Hamburg. And that's not quite as low as he manages to get the fuel consumption on his daily commute to and from work, mind you.

A contemporary C-Class 200 BlueEfficiency 7G-Tronic doesn't match that. It, in fact, struggles to do a consistent 30 mpg during test drives - despite a decent seven-speed auto transmission. I have yet to see anything that can match his driving in terms of fuel efficiency. Even a Prius would struggle to match that. So, my personal opinion? Manuals can be pretty darn good in terms of efficiency, but most people wouldn't know how to get the best MPG out of them.

I don't want to call you out on that as I don't know the full story, but that sounds awfully suspicious. Is that a tank-to-tank 58 mpg or is that a trip computer reading? It isn't unknown for trips to be as much as a third inaccurate before (I once had a car on test that said it was doing 60+ mpg - my calculations from filling up put it at mid-40s).

I know those Merc diesels are good but 58 mpg with 80 mph driving and heavy traffic sounds optimistic at best. It's also a good ten mpg better than the best reported figures for similar cars on Fuelly.

I'm fairly good at driving economically and the most I've ever got from any conventional diesel is around 60 mpg. And no more than mid-50s from a Skoda Octavia Greenline, which is probably among the most frugal of its type on the market. Manual, too.

I'd also like to see where you're getting the 30 mpg figure from for the modern Mercs. I've driven a manual trans version of that very model and had ~50 mpg on the trip in one of those. I can't for one second see the auto being 20 mpg worse...

 

[Luminis]

I don't want to call you out on that as I don't know the full story, but that sounds awfully suspicious. Is that a tank-to-tank 58 mpg or is that a trip computer reading? It isn't unknown for trips to be as much as a third inaccurate before (I once had a car on test that said it was doing 60+ mpg - my calculations from filling up put it at mid-40s).

That was trip computer stuff, I've got to admit as much. However, I do know that, all things considered, my father manages about 55 mpg on average over the course of a year - you know, he's quite, well, anal about stuff like that and makes sure to track his fuel consumption with Excel... Looking at the converter I used, though, it seems that it didn't take the decimals into account, so instead of converting 4.2 litres per 100 into mpg, it converted 4 litres That'd put him at 55 mpg, I think?

I know those Merc diesels are good but 58 mpg with 80 mph driving and heavy traffic sounds optimistic at best. It's also a good ten mpg better than the best reported figures for similar cars on Fuelly.

I know. It's pretty darn baffling to me and, I've got be honest, I drove his car more than once and no matter what, I couldn't get it down that far. Lowest I've seen him go, calculated by re-fuelling, was slightly above 3.5 litres on 100 kilometres (about 60 mpg, I suppose?), but that was for his daily commutes, where he usually drives at about 50 mph and usually catches drafts from trucks and stuff

I'm fairly good at driving economically and the most I've ever got from any conventional diesel is around 60 mpg. And no more than mid-50s from a Skoda Octavia Greenline, which is probably among the most frugal of its type on the market. Manual, too.

Well, he's perfected his eco-driving to the point that it's not surprising to see him coax ridiculous mpg out of basically anything... Comes with being stingy.

I'd also like to see where you're getting the 30 mpg figure from for the modern Mercs. I've driven a manual trans version of that very model and had ~50 mpg on the trip in one of those. I can't for one second see the auto being 20 mpg worse...

Just a quick google search, actually. Took the figures from www.autoplenum.de. I don't know whether these can be trusted 100%, but the website does have a pretty decent reputation, at least as far as German car sites go. I, of course, have no experience with these cars myself, at all.

 

[YSSMAN]

I've driven 7-speed DSGs and 8-speed torque converter autos and they work brilliantly. I see no reason why even more ratios wouldn't be even better.

I don't disagree with the notion, but I'm worried about the execution. Historically speaking, GM almost always does a bang-up job with their automatic gearboxes, and under the right circumstances, they have been by far and away some of the best in the industry. That's why BMW (gasp!) and Bentley (double gasp!) bought them for years. For the most part, it has carried over to the newer units.

But, they've got to hit the nail on the head for the programming. Ford really suffered early on with it's six-speed, dual-clutch Powershift units because they were indecisive and inclined to lurch. Over at GM, they got a lot of heat with their "hunting" six-speed units in their crossovers and sedans (interestingly enough, part of the previous GM-Ford partnership). If this is with only six cogs, extrapolating that out to 8, 9, or 10 units isn't great.

To the average person, they may never notice. But the press will. And bad press is the last thing these companies need on new units like this.

 

[homeforsummer]

That was trip computer stuff, I've got to admit as much. However, I do know that, all things considered, my father manages about 55 mpg on average over the course of a year - you know, he's quite, well, anal about stuff like that and makes sure to track his fuel consumption with Excel... Looking at the converter I used, though, it seems that it didn't take the decimals into account, so instead of converting 4.2 litres per 100 into mpg, it converted 4 litres That'd put him at 55 mpg, I think?

Well, here's where it gets confusing.

4.2 l/100km is 56 mpg US. Or 67 mpg imperial. That really is an unbelievable figure, as in I literally don't believe it. A 2+ litre Merc diesel doing a constant 40-50 mph on flat land with a warmed-up engine might get that, but a normal car on a normal commute, or one doing 80 mph, is absolutely not getting that. That, for the record, is a good 20 mpg above the best (not average - best) equivalent on Fuelly.

My prognosis is a completely fudged trip computer, or alternatively, an inaccurate sample. There are places around where I live that I'm confident I could get 60 mpg+ in the average diesel, but then that'd be over a one-way journey. Add in a return leg and it'd be back down to mid-40s.

55 mpg imperial is just about feasible for a Merc of that spec I'd think, but even then I'd be expecting low-ish average speeds.

I know. It's pretty darn baffling to me and, I've got be honest, I drove his car more than once and no matter what, I couldn't get it down that far. Lowest I've seen him go, calculated by re-fuelling, was slightly above 3.5 litres on 100 kilometres (about 60 mpg, I suppose?), but that was for his daily commutes, where he usually drives at about 50 mph and usually catches drafts from trucks and stuff

67 US, 80 imperial. Again, there's no way a C-Class of that vintage is getting anywhere near that without some highly optimised conditions. My aforementioned 60 mpg diesel result was in a modern Kia Rio 1.1 CRDi, over the course of a week.

On the trip computer in that car, I recorded between 65-70 mpg imperial (54-58 US, 4.3-4 l/100km) on a steady 60 mph motorway run with a tailwind. Going the other way with a headwind, you can knock 10 mpg off that.

You might get mpg in the high 60s (imperial) at 50 mph in top in a manual Merc C-Class diesel while drafting a truck, but doing so in regular driving would be a near impossibility.

Well, he's perfected his eco-driving to the point that it's not surprising to see him coax ridiculous mpg out of basically anything... Comes with being stingy.

Again, I don't doubt the man's talents as an eco-driver, but there are limits. I used to think people were idiots for not matching official figures in cars because I either matched or beat the official figures in my first three cars (Fiesta, MX-5, Panda) but having recorded figures in dozens more cars since then I've realised that some cars simply don't get close to official numbers, even if you drive them deliberately as economically as possible.

My best ever result from a diesel was the Smart CDi, which got about 72 mpg (60 US, 3.9 l/100km) on a steady 70 mph motorway trip. My best ever from a non plugin petrol was 76 mpg on a lowish-speed drive in a Yaris Hybrid, at 76 mpg (63 US, 3.7 l/100km). The highest from something remotely comparable to that Mercedes was the aforementioned Skoda, which couldn't beat 55 mpg in mixed driving. It'd do about 60 mpg at 70 mph on an empty, flat motorway.

It's worth pointing out that the general motoring press tend to get less than I do, too.

Just a quick google search, actually. Took the figures from www.autoplenum.de. I don't know whether these can be trusted 100%, but the website does have a pretty decent reputation, at least as far as German car sites go. I, of course, have no experience with these cars myself, at all.

I find Fuelly best, as it averages dozens of drivers and tens of thousands of miles for each vehicle, so tends to remove anomalies.

Ultimately I'm not outright disagreeing with your assertion that manuals can be more efficient than autos, because in the right hands they probably still can.

Though the important thing to note is that for 95 percent of drivers, possibly even more, an auto is probably more efficient these days. Heck, some people are so bad with a stick shift that even an older 3 or 4-speed auto is probably more efficient. By 9 or 10 speeds there's no contest for most.

To the average person, they may never notice. But the press will. And bad press is the last thing these companies need on new units like this.

I was speaking more conceptually, to be honest. Responding to those who were saying "LOL, WHY SO MANY GEARS BRO" (or words to that effect). Whether GM/Ford cocks it up or not, conceptually 9-10 speeds is an excellent idea.

 

[Tornado]

Maybe the tires aren't the original size, and it's screwing everything up?

 

[homeforsummer]

Maybe the tires aren't the original size, and it's screwing everything up?

Potentially. But those numbers are a good 30-40 percent higher than I'd expect one of those cars to get. Even with a fairly handy driver behind the wheel.

Coincidentally, I'm driving one of Merc's more economical models in a few weeks, an A200 CDI. Think it gets a claimed high-60s mpg (imperial) and it's also one of the more aerodynamic cars on the road. If anything is going to get good motorway mileage it should be that. Will report back as I find.

 

[Luminis]

Well, I can't prove the figures (or swear to have absolute faith in them, in the first place) - reporting what I was told (and saw on the trip computer) is all I can do, really.

I agree with you, homeforsummer, anyway: Most people would benefit from a good automatic transmission. I just had that impressive mpg figure on my mind, saw this thread and was like "well, manuals ain't bad if you know how to work'em"