frijoli

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <482ae912$0$7721$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> frijoli <crabman@dud.net> wrote:
>
>>>> I have seen some automatics that were close in mileage, but I would like
>>>> for you to point out one that surpasses the manual.
>>> Current generation Honda Civic.
>>>
>> The only one I see that get better mileage is the CNG version.
>
> Nope. Look again.
>
Okay, where am I to look? I didn't see it on Honda's' site, nor
Fueleconomy.gov

Elle

"Crabman" <C@dud.net> wrote
> Elle wrote:
>> "Newbie" <newbie@no.spam> wrote
>>> TWO, I am not sure if "apples to apples" is as fair a
>>> comparison as you
>>> make it sound. Corolla is available in cheaper versions,
>>> Prius is not.
>>> A manual CE would not only cost less but also have
>>> better mpg.
>>
>> Most of the reason a manual Toyota Corolla still gets
>> better mpg than an automatic Toyota Corolla is that the
>> manual has a 5-speed tranny while the auto has a 4-speed
>> one.
>>
>> For other makes and models, and in the last five years or
>> so, changes in auto tranny design have resulted in it
>> often surpassing manual trannies when it comes to mpg,
>> when comparing the same models whose only difference is
>> the tranny.
>
> Actually, this mileage is related to less transmission
> slippage, not gear selection.

Not to sound condescending or anything, but I am glad you
chimed in, because on further reading, I thought it should
be pointed out that a major factor in automatics
traditionally getting worse MPG is the torque converter. The
TC represents a "fluid coupling," whereas the manual
tranny's clutch etc. are a mechanical linkage. Energy
transmission losses are greater with the liquid linkage. As
many of the pros here know. (I am just an amateur who works
on her own car and reads like crazy to understand it.)

But this has changed somewhat with the advent of the "lock
up torque converter."

Optimal gearing is still said to be a factor, though.
Several other factors are said to play significant roles, as
well. So my post did not do justice to why older automatic
trannies were less efficient than manual trannies.

> I have seen some automatics that were close in mileage,
> but I would like for you to point out one that surpasses
> the manual.

Sure. www.fueleconomy.gov. Just sort of randomly, based on
checking this a few times in the last several years, and
using only the same engine size for a given model:

2007 Civic, same engine size, both five forward speeds:
Manual = 26 MPG city, 34 MPG highway
Auto = 25, 36

2007 Subaru Impreza (an all-wheel drive vehicle)
Manual (5-speed) = 19, 26
Auto (4-speed) = 20, 25

2007 Nissan Sentra
Manual (6-speed) = 24, 31
Auto (variable gear) = 25, 33

2007 Hyundai Elantra
Manual (5-speed) = 24, 33
Auto (4-speed) = 25, 33

2007 Kia Rio
Manual (5-speed) = 27, 32
Auto (4-speed) = 25, 35

From this survey, I think we could argue that newer
automatic trannies seem to do better at highway speeds, even
though it often has fewer gears. The lock up converter (used
only at higher speeds) is the first area I would explore to
explain most of this higher efficiency. I see the lockup
converter started gaining in popularity around the late
1970s but ISTM only recently did all models start having
them. I see the 1995 versions of the cars above never saw
the autos beating the manuals for miles per gallon. Granted
other improvements may have been implemented, like
continuously variable transmissions (CVT).

The Sentra is interesting, since for the two versions I
compared, the big difference is the variable gearing in the
auto. It's the only model that beat the manual version in
both city and highway.

Toyota OTOH seems to consistently have no models where the
auto does better than the manual under city or highway
conditions.

Again, just an amateur here.

Josh S

In article <GOFWj.12025$MQ1.9489@newsfe11.phx>,
"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote:

> From this survey, I think we could argue that newer
> automatic trannies seem to do better at highway speeds, even
> though it often has fewer gears. The lock up converter (used
> only at higher speeds) is the first area I would explore to
> explain most of this higher efficiency.

My Chrysler 4 sp automatic, which came out in the early 90s, has lockup
on the top 3 gears. In effect it has 7 gears.
The fuel mileage is excellent.

Tomes

"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
news:bCyWj.7144$3O7.6527@newssvr19.news.prodigy.ne t...
>
> "Tomes" <ask.me@here.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> I have read that the Prius mileage in cold winter weather is similar to
>>> the Corolla's.
>>
>> Grille blocking enhances the Prius' mileage significantly.
>> Tomes
>
> I'd think that Toyota would know that and have a thermostatic louver
> rather than risk having people block it when too warm.
>
Yep, I wish Toyota would have put that in as well. I a car as sophisticated
as this one is, it should also be automatically driven.
Tomes

AS

You are rightly concerned about the batteries.

These 270 or so volt batteries have a list price in the $2500 range.
They have 228 cells in series and only one needs to go bad to ruin your
battery assembly. Newer models only use 201.6 volt batteries,

Besides you have the $3400 list price for the inverter and $1100 for the
generator module.

Though the warranty should do good, imagine getting hit with the
prorated prices.

Think about all the dead weight you carry around, pollution issues
(disposing of the battery), and then, having your system repaired in
case of a failure. We all have heard the stories about a battery not
charging, alternator issues etc with conventional cars. Think about a
system many times more complex...

With all the problems fuel cells still have, I think hydrogen is the way
to go.



Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
>
>>Hmmmm. The Prius will get, over a year's time, no less than 45mpg. And
>>that's without any freaky driving techniques.
>>
>
>
> My concern is still the batteries. The OP had his present car for 12 years
> so I'm going to assume he wants long life from the next. Will the batteries
> become a nightmare or just another expense? Just something to be factored
> in for the total cost of driving over the years. I keep hearing about a
> five year life, so that would be two changes for the OP if he keeps the car
> that long.
>
>

Jeff

AS wrote:
> You are rightly concerned about the batteries.
>
> These 270 or so volt batteries have a list price in the $2500 range.
> They have 228 cells in series and only one needs to go bad to ruin your
> battery assembly. Newer models only use 201.6 volt batteries,


Yet, the individual cells can be replaced.

> Besides you have the $3400 list price for the inverter and $1100 for the
> generator module.
>
> Though the warranty should do good, imagine getting hit with the
> prorated prices.
>
> Think about all the dead weight you carry around, pollution issues
> (disposing of the battery), and then, having your system repaired in
> case of a failure. We all have heard the stories about a battery not
> charging, alternator issues etc with conventional cars. Think about a
> system many times more complex...

Yet, the technology has been proven and has been in use for over ten
years (although not in the US during the first few years).

> With all the problems fuel cells still have, I think hydrogen is the way
> to go.

Why? Hydrogen is used to power fuel cells. And there is almost no
infrastructure for fuel cells. Hydrogen has the problem that to make
hydrogen, CO2 is generated, as well (i.e., using hyrdogen as a fuel
still results in CO2 being produced).

Fuel cells have been used for year. In fact, the O2 tank that exploded
on Apollo 13 when I was about four was used in two different types of
fuel cells (mitochondria in the astronaut's bodies and the fuel cells
that supplied electricity to the Aquarius and Odyssey).

> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> Hmmmm. The Prius will get, over a year's time, no less than 45mpg. And
>>> that's without any freaky driving techniques.
>>>
>>
>>
>> My concern is still the batteries. The OP had his present car for 12
>> years so I'm going to assume he wants long life from the next. Will
>> the batteries become a nightmare or just another expense? Just
>> something to be factored in for the total cost of driving over the
>> years. I keep hearing about a five year life, so that would be two
>> changes for the OP if he keeps the car that long.
>>

Enrico Fermi

> Why? Hydrogen is used to power fuel cells. And there is almost no
> infrastructure for fuel cells. Hydrogen has the problem that to make
> hydrogen, CO2 is generated, as well (i.e., using hyrdogen as a fuel still
> results in CO2 being produced).

Hydrogen can be produced pollution-free with solar cells. Solar array
produces DC power. DC power is used to split water into H and O2. H is used
in fuel cells or whatever. Heck, it burns nicely in internal combustion
engines. Or externally in the Hindenburg. O2 is sold to NASA for their
monkey business. What could be simpler? Alternative methods to produce
energy are easy. All they require is our cleverness and industry. Tough part
is the politics. Here in Houston the normal grocery-getter is an F-350
dually towing a boat. It is easy to hear its one passenger muttering about
the high diesel prices to the clerk at HEB. The most gentle suggestion to
this poor soul that perhaps a smaller vehicle might be in their enlightened
self-interest and well.......you can imagine. We are talking about a driver
who has a Ph.D. in engineering here. From Texas A&M. The best damn school on
earth!
Light rail, interurban, bike paths, golf cart trails, abundant plug-ins for
the electric vehicles, efficient use of our rail freight system to keep the
use of 18 wheelers to a minimum and a zillion other schemes (no hyperbole)
will never come to fruition because we are too ignorant as a species. And
too stubborn.
On the topic of my 2003 Civic Si engine spinning too fast at 80mph: Is it
possible and affordable to put a 6 speed in that little car? I'd be happier
if its revs were closer to 2000 at 80 mph. Anyone have a referral for that
project?

Grumpy AuContraire

Elle wrote:
> "Crabman" <C@dud.net> wrote
>
>>Elle wrote:
>>
>>>"Newbie" <newbie@no.spam> wrote
>>>
>>>>TWO, I am not sure if "apples to apples" is as fair a
>>>>comparison as you
>>>>make it sound. Corolla is available in cheaper versions,
>>>>Prius is not.
>>>>A manual CE would not only cost less but also have
>>>>better mpg.
>>>
>>>Most of the reason a manual Toyota Corolla still gets
>>>better mpg than an automatic Toyota Corolla is that the
>>>manual has a 5-speed tranny while the auto has a 4-speed
>>>one.
>>>
>>>For other makes and models, and in the last five years or
>>>so, changes in auto tranny design have resulted in it
>>>often surpassing manual trannies when it comes to mpg,
>>>when comparing the same models whose only difference is
>>>the tranny.
>>
>>Actually, this mileage is related to less transmission
>>slippage, not gear selection.
>
>
> Not to sound condescending or anything, but I am glad you
> chimed in, because on further reading, I thought it should
> be pointed out that a major factor in automatics
> traditionally getting worse MPG is the torque converter. The
> TC represents a "fluid coupling," whereas the manual
> tranny's clutch etc. are a mechanical linkage. Energy
> transmission losses are greater with the liquid linkage. As
> many of the pros here know. (I am just an amateur who works
> on her own car and reads like crazy to understand it.)
>
> But this has changed somewhat with the advent of the "lock
> up torque converter."


Just a short anecdote here...

I'm not sure what manufacturer introduced "lock up converters," but
Studebaker began using its self designed automatic featuring a lock up
converter for the 1950 model year.

My 1955 President, a hefty 4,200 lb sedan with 259 V8/DG-250 tranny
achieved 21/28 mpg in real time road tests in that era. Not bad for a 4
bbl carb, auto and pretty good performance. My uncle used to really rub
it in to Chevy/Ford owners...

In a lot of ways, we really haven't advanced much farther.

JT

Roadrunner NG

Did you have a CAT on that Stude and run ethanol tainted gas?

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
news:3h5Xj.210482$D_3.80592@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Elle wrote:
>> "Crabman" <C@dud.net> wrote
>>
>>>Elle wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Newbie" <newbie@no.spam> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>TWO, I am not sure if "apples to apples" is as fair a comparison as you
>>>>>make it sound. Corolla is available in cheaper versions, Prius is not.
>>>>>A manual CE would not only cost less but also have better mpg.
>>>>
>>>>Most of the reason a manual Toyota Corolla still gets better mpg than an
>>>>automatic Toyota Corolla is that the manual has a 5-speed tranny while
>>>>the auto has a 4-speed one.
>>>>
>>>>For other makes and models, and in the last five years or so, changes in
>>>>auto tranny design have resulted in it often surpassing manual trannies
>>>>when it comes to mpg, when comparing the same models whose only
>>>>difference is the tranny.
>>>
>>>Actually, this mileage is related to less transmission slippage, not gear
>>>selection.
>>
>>
>> Not to sound condescending or anything, but I am glad you chimed in,
>> because on further reading, I thought it should be pointed out that a
>> major factor in automatics traditionally getting worse MPG is the torque
>> converter. The TC represents a "fluid coupling," whereas the manual
>> tranny's clutch etc. are a mechanical linkage. Energy transmission losses
>> are greater with the liquid linkage. As many of the pros here know. (I am
>> just an amateur who works on her own car and reads like crazy to
>> understand it.)
>>
>> But this has changed somewhat with the advent of the "lock up torque
>> converter."
>
>
> Just a short anecdote here...
>
> I'm not sure what manufacturer introduced "lock up converters," but
> Studebaker began using its self designed automatic featuring a lock up
> converter for the 1950 model year.
>
> My 1955 President, a hefty 4,200 lb sedan with 259 V8/DG-250 tranny
> achieved 21/28 mpg in real time road tests in that era. Not bad for a 4
> bbl carb, auto and pretty good performance. My uncle used to really rub it
> in to Chevy/Ford owners...
>
> In a lot of ways, we really haven't advanced much farther.
>
> JT

Elle

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote
Elle wrote
>> But this has changed somewhat with the advent of the
>> "lock up torque converter."
>
>
> Just a short anecdote here...
>
> I'm not sure what manufacturer introduced "lock up
> converters," but Studebaker began using its self designed
> automatic featuring a lock up converter for the 1950 model
> year.

Bravo. I read Wikipedia a few hours ago and I believe it
confirms Studebaker was first c. 1949.

> My 1955 President, a hefty 4,200 lb sedan with 259
> V8/DG-250 tranny achieved 21/28 mpg in real time road
> tests in that era.

They did MPG tests back then? What is the history of fuel
economy becoming important to car manufacturers?

Elle
Who pumped gasoline as a summer job when it was 59 cents a
gallon.

mjc13

Elle wrote:

> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote
> Elle wrote
>
>>>But this has changed somewhat with the advent of the
>>>"lock up torque converter."
>>
>>
>>Just a short anecdote here...
>>
>>I'm not sure what manufacturer introduced "lock up
>>converters," but Studebaker began using its self designed
>>automatic featuring a lock up converter for the 1950 model
>>year.
>
>
> Bravo. I read Wikipedia a few hours ago and I believe it
> confirms Studebaker was first c. 1949.
>
>
>>My 1955 President, a hefty 4,200 lb sedan with 259
>>V8/DG-250 tranny achieved 21/28 mpg in real time road
>>tests in that era.
>
>
> They did MPG tests back then? What is the history of fuel
> economy becoming important to car manufacturers?
>
> Elle
> Who pumped gasoline as a summer job when it was 59 cents a
> gallon.
>
>

There were a few small models with small engines that were designed
to be thrifty for just about as long as cars were built. It would be
hard to answer your question definitively, because it would depend on
how you defined it. Volkswagen used to boast about the 25 MPG Beetle
(although the heavier, faster, more robust Volvo Amazon would also
average 25). Models like the Nash Rambler (introduced in 1950) and
Plymouth Valiant were designed with fuel economy as a significant
factor. I'm sure that whenever there was a Depression or Recession, or
gas rationing, fuel economy was used as a selling point...

Enrico Fermi

>
> They did MPG tests back then? What is the history of fuel economy becoming
> important to car manufacturers?
>
> Elle
> Who pumped gasoline as a summer job when it was 59 cents a gallon.

In 1959 the Mobil Economy Run began running real-world gasoline mileage
competitions with "stock" automobiles. Mobil had sponsored the Economy Run
for years but hadn't used miles per gallon (MPG) to determine the winner.
Some sort of Rambler won, IIRC. GM, Chrysler and Ford complained since they
didn't have any dinky cars that could compete. The Economy Run then became a
2 tier event with Rambler, Studebakers and other little cars competing in
one class and the "Big Three" in the other. Popular Mechanics and Popular
Science covered this competition extensively and the winner got bragging
rights. The drivers were automotive engineers with pocket protectors, slide
rules and taped together glasses. Classic nerds. They'd put skinny
overinflated tires on the cars, install final drive ratios in the 2.20
vicinity and drive like Grandma. Any result over 25 MPG was a big deal.
I'll open Pandora's box with this one, but I remember paying 24.9 cents a
gallon for regular gas in Cape Girardeau in, I think, the Spring of 1971. By
1974 things had changed dramatically. 59 cents was considered obscene in
comparison by then.

Elle

"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> Elle
wrote:
>
>> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote
>>>My 1955 President, a hefty 4,200 lb sedan with 259
>>>V8/DG-250 tranny achieved 21/28 mpg in real time road
>>>tests in that era.
>>
>>
>> They did MPG tests back then? What is the history of fuel
>> economy becoming important to car manufacturers?
>>
>> Elle
>> Who pumped gasoline as a summer job when it was 59 cents
>> a gallon.
>
> There were a few small models with small engines that
> were designed to be thrifty for just about as long as cars
> were built. It would be hard to answer your question
> definitively, because it would depend on how you defined
> it. Volkswagen used to boast about the 25 MPG Beetle
> (although the heavier, faster, more robust Volvo Amazon
> would also average 25). Models like the Nash Rambler
> (introduced in 1950) and Plymouth Valiant were designed
> with fuel economy as a significant factor. I'm sure that
> whenever there was a Depression or Recession, or gas
> rationing, fuel economy was used as a selling point...

I imagine you are right, re the Depression etc. Maybe it's
not as obvious to historians because advertising back then
was not quite as developed as an industry. Nor were cars as
abundant, per capita. But surely a Depression-era salesman
used this as a selling point to the appropriate consumer
sector (those on a budget).

Wiki does indeed report fuel efficiency was a considered
factor for Volkswagen's, starting as early as the 1930s, and
possibly under orders from Hitler.

Another, lesser wrench to throw into this discussion, one of
which no doubt JT, you and others are aware: I see some
(fancier?) current car models give the driver some manual
control over when lockup engages.

Elle

"Enrico Fermi" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote
>> They did MPG tests back then? What is the history of fuel
>> economy becoming important to car manufacturers?

> In 1959 the Mobil Economy Run began running real-world
> gasoline mileage
> competitions with "stock" automobiles. Mobil had sponsored
> the Economy Run
> for years but hadn't used miles per gallon (MPG) to
> determine the winner.
> Some sort of Rambler won, IIRC. GM, Chrysler and Ford
> complained since they
> didn't have any dinky cars that could compete.

Ha, that would be so Ford.

> The Economy Run then became a
> 2 tier event with Rambler, Studebakers and other little
> cars competing in
> one class and the "Big Three" in the other. Popular
> Mechanics and Popular
> Science covered this competition extensively and the
> winner got bragging
> rights. The drivers were automotive engineers with pocket
> protectors, slide
> rules and taped together glasses. Classic nerds. They'd
> put skinny
> overinflated tires on the cars, install final drive ratios
> in the 2.20
> vicinity and drive like Grandma. Any result over 25 MPG
> was a big deal.
> I'll open Pandora's box with this one, but I remember
> paying 24.9 cents a
> gallon for regular gas in Cape Girardeau in, I think, the
> Spring of 1971. By
> 1974 things had changed dramatically. 59 cents was
> considered obscene in
> comparison by then.

Indeed. :-)

Gordon McGrew

On Wed, 14 May 2008 21:34:54 -0400, AS <donot@spame.com> wrote:

>You are rightly concerned about the batteries.
>
>These 270 or so volt batteries have a list price in the $2500 range.
>They have 228 cells in series and only one needs to go bad to ruin your
>battery assembly. Newer models only use 201.6 volt batteries,
>
>Besides you have the $3400 list price for the inverter and $1100 for the
>generator module.
>
>Though the warranty should do good, imagine getting hit with the
>prorated prices.
>
>Think about all the dead weight you carry around, pollution issues
>(disposing of the battery), and then, having your system repaired in
>case of a failure. We all have heard the stories about a battery not
>charging, alternator issues etc with conventional cars. Think about a
>system many times more complex...
>
>With all the problems fuel cells still have, I think hydrogen is the way
>to go.

Really? Have you priced out a fuel cell lately? And where do you buy
hydrogen? Or for that matter, a car that burns hydrogen? Of course
you can modify a piston engine to burn hydrogen, but I don't think you
will get a cost advantage and it certainly won't be convenient.

The Honda and Toyota hybrids have been on the road long enough to
prove the doomsayers wrong. Hybrid batteries are very reliable and
it appears that they could easily last the life of the car in many or
most cases. The batteries and other hybrid components have an 8 to 10
year warranty so they are all likely to last the life of the car for
most owners. AFAIK, the warranty is not pro-rated.

>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>Hmmmm. The Prius will get, over a year's time, no less than 45mpg. And
>>>that's without any freaky driving techniques.
>>>
>>
>>
>> My concern is still the batteries. The OP had his present car for 12 years
>> so I'm going to assume he wants long life from the next. Will the batteries
>> become a nightmare or just another expense? Just something to be factored
>> in for the total cost of driving over the years. I keep hearing about a
>> five year life, so that would be two changes for the OP if he keeps the car
>> that long.
>>
>>