Mr2001, I’m not an engineer by any stretch of the imagination, but that link is talking about what happens when you let off the accelerator whilst in low, which is the automatic equivalent of “first gear”, right?
It describes that an automatic WILL engine-brake when in “low”, but not in “drive”. This would make sense: when in low, the gearbox doesn’t shift up when no throttle is applied, because it’s programmed to remain in 1st. So, it engine-brakes.
Furthermore, note that the article says:
Underlining mine. It doesn’t say it shifts into neutral, it says it feels like it’s coasting in neutral.
Or is this link saying that I’m right (an automatic will shift up when the throttle is disengaged), except about first gear, in which case letting go off the accelerator means it shifts back into neutral?
How about tiptronic and other clutchless ‘manual’ trannies used by Audi, Porsche etc.? I drive a tip Audi as my SO would not consider a manual tranny when we shopped for our car (though she did drive stick shift cars). It is not as fun as a stick but I’ve come to appreciate the convenience of it.
They may not be as efficient as stick yet but I think I read somewhere that they are getting better (sorry, can’t remember where I read it) and if so, wouldn’t this render the argument about stick-shift superiority (eg., ability to downshift moot)? Aren’t F1 cars ‘clutchless’ and ‘stickless’? Can anybody shed a light more on this?
I do prefer stick myself but honestly I think clutch and traffic are a bad combination.
F1 cars do have a clutch. It doesn’t operate like a regular clutch, though. F1 cars have sequential gear boxes (either 6 speed or 7 [and 1 reverse], depending on the team), operated by a peddle shift system on the steering wheel. When shifting up and down whilst driving, the clutch works automatically when the driver shifts: there is no clutch pedal for him to engage. From standstill, though, an F1 car does require a clutch. Various solutions for the manually operated clutch exist. Some teams, or indeed drivers, prefer an oldfashioned foot pedal, whereas others opt for a clutch lever on the steering wheel.
The peddle shift system is already making its way into production cars. It started out with Ferraris, but now you can already get an Alfa Romeo 147 or Fiat Stilo with peddle shift. Thing is, these aren’t really as flashy as they look. In an F1-car, the peddle shift is so quickly, it would be impossible to outperform it with a manual version. Not so in the road cars, at least not the affordable ones: I test-drove an Alfa 156 with peddle shift, and it was dreadful. A shift took over a second, a time even a crap driver like myself can outperform in a manual. During a quick 0-100 dash, you’re constantly cursing at the &^%%^& gearbox to select the next gear already.
The reason these roadgoing systems are slower is reliabilty: a Ferrari F1 car only has to last 500 km’s or so. But you’d be pissed off if your $30,000 Alfa needed a new gearbox every 500 clicks.
You can get aftermarket kits that speed up the shift process, but it’ll increase the chance of a gearbox failure.
Thanks for the info. on Alfa. I heard also that they might be back in the US in '05?
In the case of the 0-100 performance, how bad does the peddle system compare to manual? The tip Audi is slower than its manual counterpart, but IMHO it does give a bit of the fun factor back by allowing to downshift.
I’m by no means a car enthusiast and I can’t believe I’m actually following this thread!
Alfa claims the 0-100 times for manuals and selespeeds are identical. But in the road tests I’ve seen (the Top Gear one for the Alfa 147 GTA comes to mind), they turn out to be somewhat slower.
I’m not sure whether Alfa is planning a return to the US. I saw a 164 when I was in California a couple of years ago, which surprised me greatly! I mean, buying a maintenance-intensive car like an Alfa, in the US, where there’s almost no dealers that can repair them? That’s guts!
There are different types of “automanuals”. Most (audi, VW, Chrysler…etc) are simply automatic transmissions, with all of their inherent inneficiencies as they are mechanically traditional auto trannies, but where you have the option to select the gear. They will override your decision sometimes as well.
The other type is found on a few Ferraris and also the BMW M3 (possibly some more cars). These shifters do have a typical clutch setup, but use a computer and electromechanical mechanism to operate the clutch and shift gears. They have computer settings for an optimal launch, aggresive driving…etc and they can also be driven without driver input like a traditional manal.
Here’s more info on the BMW system: http://www.germancarfans.com/news.cfm/newsid/2020324.001/bmw/1.html
I’d prefer the BMW system out of the two, but I’d still prefer to shift my own. A BMW M car with a stick = a lot of fun to drive.
The best stick shift I’ve ever driven would be the snappy little fluid filled toggle switch in the Mazda Miata though. Fantastic fun.
I know a couple of guys with M3’s. One has the SMG sequential gear box, which costs a huge amount of money on top of the already pricy M3. In fact, you could probably buy a small car for the money the gearbox costs.
I’ve tried both these cars, on a track. Now, I’m not a race driver by any stretch of the imagination, but I vastly prefered the regular gear box of the M3. Short throws, extremely precise, and as smooth as you can make it, once you get to grips with the quite agressive clutch.
The SMG is jerky, unrefined, unsmooth in switching gears, and a pain in the ass. The owner of the manual M3 is a part-time racing driver (Dutch touring cars competition), and races a track spec M3 with a different sequential gear box. He agreed that for most drivers, the manual is the best of the two road going versions. It’s quicker, easier to get to grips with, and offers more control if you like to let the car drift a little bit. Or in his case, a LOT.