manual tranny... a dying art????
#122
What say we all nominate Schalliol for almost single-handedly (as if on the shifter) keeping this thread alive? After all, without him as the "fly in the ointment," we'd all be "preaching to choir." I know I'm mixing metaphors here, but this ain't English class! By the way, ask yourself this question: what % of chics you think choose M/T? My guess is very very very few, and what exactly does that tell you? (Yeah, I know that's sexist, but also true.) Later, guys (and some girls, I think?).
#123
Originally posted by mrdoug What say we all nominate Schalliol for almost single-handedly (as if on the shifter) keeping this thread alive? After all, without him as the "fly in the ointment," we'd all be "preaching to choir."
By the way, ask yourself this question: what % of chics you think choose M/T? My guess is very very very few, and what exactly does that tell you? (Yeah, I know that's sexist, but also true.) Later, guys (and some girls, I think?).
#124
OMG!
So I was on the way home from work today and I pulled up to a light from a road where I would have been going a good 40 mph or so (at least 3rd gear) when I suddenly realized that I had NO recollection WHATSOEVER of any manual tranny shifting at all. It had just happened by itself. It did not even register in short-term memory like it would have if it was a conscious thought.
Then I was driving some more and shifting, but I was thinking about this discussion and shifting so that didn't count. But then I had to merge and was cruising in traffic and my thoughts had drifted elsewhere and back to the news and traffic report when I suddenly realized that OMG!! ...did I just shift from 3rd to 4th? Was it premeditated? Did I think about it beforehand? No...it...uh....just sorta happened again!
So all I can conclude is that driving a manual tranny really *IS* like breathing. It's going to happen whether you think about it or not. If you are thinking about it, you do have conscious control over it. But it really is just instinctual and second nature. Just like moving the steering wheel, or pressing on the gas or brake. No difference.
After that I stopped at the grocery store and then on the way home I was listening to this funny news report on the radio about interesting getaway vacations and odd things to see like 22,000 acres of mold or something. I don't recall any of my shifting from the grocery store to home either. It just sorta....happened. :P
So I was on the way home from work today and I pulled up to a light from a road where I would have been going a good 40 mph or so (at least 3rd gear) when I suddenly realized that I had NO recollection WHATSOEVER of any manual tranny shifting at all. It had just happened by itself. It did not even register in short-term memory like it would have if it was a conscious thought.
Then I was driving some more and shifting, but I was thinking about this discussion and shifting so that didn't count. But then I had to merge and was cruising in traffic and my thoughts had drifted elsewhere and back to the news and traffic report when I suddenly realized that OMG!! ...did I just shift from 3rd to 4th? Was it premeditated? Did I think about it beforehand? No...it...uh....just sorta happened again!
So all I can conclude is that driving a manual tranny really *IS* like breathing. It's going to happen whether you think about it or not. If you are thinking about it, you do have conscious control over it. But it really is just instinctual and second nature. Just like moving the steering wheel, or pressing on the gas or brake. No difference.
After that I stopped at the grocery store and then on the way home I was listening to this funny news report on the radio about interesting getaway vacations and odd things to see like 22,000 acres of mold or something. I don't recall any of my shifting from the grocery store to home either. It just sorta....happened. :P
#126
Originally posted by fdl
I am not bent out of shape at all. Just frustrated by your ignorance.
I am not bent out of shape at all. Just frustrated by your ignorance.
Another example is from photography: think about the frustration of an SLR guy with those "idiot-proof" cameras (without shutter/aperture/focus/lens controls).
#127
Originally posted by SteVTEC So all I can conclude is that driving a manual tranny really *IS* like breathing. It's going to happen whether you think about it or not. If you are thinking about it, you do have conscious control over it. But it really is just instinctual and second nature. Just like moving the steering wheel, or pressing on the gas or brake. No difference.
I don't recall any of my shifting from the grocery store to home either. It just sorta....happened. :P
I don't recall any of my shifting from the grocery store to home either. It just sorta....happened. :P
#128
Other than the difference of opinion, I'm not seeing the Win/Mac comparison...they both had the same control, are you addressing that?
Most of the pro cameras still do have an automatic mode, they just don't turn it on. I'm arguing that an SMG vehicle with an automatic mode (only on in heavy traffic, for example) is better than the conventional manual transmission. You still have the control, but with benefits of increased performance and shifting with your hands on the wheel.
Do you still want a conventional transmission over an SMG if the conventional transmission is much less responsive? It's already somewhat less responsive in the market (again with the Aston Martin example), but technology is only going to increase that and allow the technology to filter down to cheaper cars.
Originally posted by algorithm Another example is from photography: think about the frustration of an SLR guy with those "idiot-proof" cameras (without shutter/aperture/focus/lens controls).
Do you still want a conventional transmission over an SMG if the conventional transmission is much less responsive? It's already somewhat less responsive in the market (again with the Aston Martin example), but technology is only going to increase that and allow the technology to filter down to cheaper cars.
#129
Yeah I have a fully automatic transmission.
It's a manual transmission with some inner part of my brain subconsciously controlling the clutch, gear selection, and shift mapping that is all left to its own devices if you don't think about it. But the really neat thing is that it can all be dynamically re-programmed on the fly instantaneously to my own liking if I choose to intervene via an advanced neural network called "the brain"!
We'll call this advanced "automatic" transmission a "standard"
Now compare that to the latest and most advanced automatic gearboxes. You have no dynamic reprogramming ability to control shift speed or firmness and they are also less efficient. We'll call this an "automatic". The next best thing after that is an "SMG". This utilizes the "manual" architecture and allows you to at least control shift speeds and shift logic through various modes. But the problem is that you cannot control it on the fly through each and every shift. You must manually switch modes via a mechanical switch or lever to indirectly tell the "SMG" what you would like to happen.
The neural network controlled "standard" transmission is far more advanced in this respect allowing instantaneous control over all aspects if you so desire, or simply fully automated sub-conscious default control. It's great to be on the cutting edge. :P
It's a manual transmission with some inner part of my brain subconsciously controlling the clutch, gear selection, and shift mapping that is all left to its own devices if you don't think about it. But the really neat thing is that it can all be dynamically re-programmed on the fly instantaneously to my own liking if I choose to intervene via an advanced neural network called "the brain"!
We'll call this advanced "automatic" transmission a "standard"
Now compare that to the latest and most advanced automatic gearboxes. You have no dynamic reprogramming ability to control shift speed or firmness and they are also less efficient. We'll call this an "automatic". The next best thing after that is an "SMG". This utilizes the "manual" architecture and allows you to at least control shift speeds and shift logic through various modes. But the problem is that you cannot control it on the fly through each and every shift. You must manually switch modes via a mechanical switch or lever to indirectly tell the "SMG" what you would like to happen.
The neural network controlled "standard" transmission is far more advanced in this respect allowing instantaneous control over all aspects if you so desire, or simply fully automated sub-conscious default control. It's great to be on the cutting edge. :P
#130
Originally posted by schalliol
Other than the difference of opinion, I'm not seeing the Win/Mac comparison...they both had the same control, are you addressing that?
Most of the pro cameras still do have an automatic mode, they just don't turn it on. I'm arguing that an SMG vehicle with an automatic mode (only on in heavy traffic, for example) is better than the conventional manual transmission. You still have the control, but with benefits of increased performance and shifting with your hands on the wheel.
Do you still want a conventional transmission over an SMG if the conventional transmission is much less responsive? It's already somewhat less responsive in the market (again with the Aston Martin example), but technology is only going to increase that and allow the technology to filter down to cheaper cars.
Other than the difference of opinion, I'm not seeing the Win/Mac comparison...they both had the same control, are you addressing that?
Most of the pro cameras still do have an automatic mode, they just don't turn it on. I'm arguing that an SMG vehicle with an automatic mode (only on in heavy traffic, for example) is better than the conventional manual transmission. You still have the control, but with benefits of increased performance and shifting with your hands on the wheel.
Do you still want a conventional transmission over an SMG if the conventional transmission is much less responsive? It's already somewhat less responsive in the market (again with the Aston Martin example), but technology is only going to increase that and allow the technology to filter down to cheaper cars.
#132
Originally posted by SteVTEC This utilizes the "manual" architecture and allows you to at least control shift speeds and shift logic through various modes. But the problem is that you cannot control it on the fly through each and every shift.
The neural network controlled "standard" transmission is far more advanced in this respect allowing instantaneous control over all aspects if you so desire, or simply fully automated sub-conscious default control. It's great to be on the cutting edge. :P
#133
Originally posted by Dan Martin
I would pick SMG over conventional manual any day but I didn't think that was the point of this thread. SMG is faster than MT. Period. I'll take anyone up on this challenge.
I would pick SMG over conventional manual any day but I didn't think that was the point of this thread. SMG is faster than MT. Period. I'll take anyone up on this challenge.
#134
Originally posted by Dan Martin
I would pick SMG over conventional manual any day but I didn't think that was the point of this thread. SMG is faster than MT. Period. I'll take anyone up on this challenge.
I would pick SMG over conventional manual any day but I didn't think that was the point of this thread. SMG is faster than MT. Period. I'll take anyone up on this challenge.
http://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/sh...ght=SMG+manual
#135
Originally posted by SteVTEC
The bimmerforum guys and my buddy who runs a different German car site are all saying differently.
http://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/sh...ght=SMG+manual
The bimmerforum guys and my buddy who runs a different German car site are all saying differently.
http://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/sh...ght=SMG+manual
…off to do some real driving
#136
Originally posted by SteVTEC
The bimmerforum guys and my buddy who runs a different German car site are all saying differently.
http://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/sh...ght=SMG+manual
The bimmerforum guys and my buddy who runs a different German car site are all saying differently.
http://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/sh...ght=SMG+manual
#137
Originally posted by SteVTEC
The bimmerforum guys and my buddy who runs a different German car site are all saying differently.
http://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/sh...ght=SMG+manual
The bimmerforum guys and my buddy who runs a different German car site are all saying differently.
http://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/sh...ght=SMG+manual
But even still....driving a MT is not just about shift speed. And besides..the smg is still a manual IMO.
#138
From one of the bimmerforums.com thread, here is a post by SilverStreak, one of the moderators of the site...
I trust that a moderator of a big site like that would tend to be well-informed and know what he's talking about, so take that for what you will.
Originally posted by SilverStreak
There's a guy from MM&FF a few mos back, it was a Cobra article, but he has a manual E46 M3, and up at Englishtown he managed some 12.7's in his car.
And in the summer of 2001, I managed a 12.56 at 109.1 at Atco in an S54 M Roadster, bone stock, OEM tires, etc. I know the S54 Roadster is a few ticks quicker than the S54 M3, given the power to weight ratio advantage despite the lesser power, lower redline, and less favorable gearing, but still....
I don't think I've seen any SMG times anywhere near the 12's yet... let alone 12.5-12.7...
There's a guy from MM&FF a few mos back, it was a Cobra article, but he has a manual E46 M3, and up at Englishtown he managed some 12.7's in his car.
And in the summer of 2001, I managed a 12.56 at 109.1 at Atco in an S54 M Roadster, bone stock, OEM tires, etc. I know the S54 Roadster is a few ticks quicker than the S54 M3, given the power to weight ratio advantage despite the lesser power, lower redline, and less favorable gearing, but still....
I don't think I've seen any SMG times anywhere near the 12's yet... let alone 12.5-12.7...
#139
Originally posted by schalliol
The journalists' writing, so highly prized earlier, seem to like it a lot, and my buddy with an M3 SMG (former manual M3 driver) won't ever go back.
The journalists' writing, so highly prized earlier, seem to like it a lot, and my buddy with an M3 SMG (former manual M3 driver) won't ever go back.
#140
Originally posted by Dan Martin
Maybe I'm missing something but they said that SMG was faster overall and more consistant than stick. One guy belives that it is possible to be faster on the 1/4 with a stick but you would be better off in a mustang. This isn't anything new to me...
Maybe I'm missing something but they said that SMG was faster overall and more consistant than stick. One guy belives that it is possible to be faster on the 1/4 with a stick but you would be better off in a mustang. This isn't anything new to me...
#141
Originally posted by fdl
Actually I think he may be right about teh SMG being faster. The second gen SMG in the M3 shifts in about 80 ms. Thats pretty dam fast....I may even guess close to f1 speeds. Can a human shift faster? Maybe.
Actually I think he may be right about teh SMG being faster. The second gen SMG in the M3 shifts in about 80 ms. Thats pretty dam fast....I may even guess close to f1 speeds. Can a human shift faster? Maybe.
Originally posted by fdl
But even still....driving a MT is not just about shift speed. And besides..the smg is still a manual IMO.
But even still....driving a MT is not just about shift speed. And besides..the smg is still a manual IMO.
#142
Originally posted by SteVTEC
They said it was more consistent overall, like an automatic. They did not say that the SMG is quicker from what I read. The software limits how aggressively you can launch which slows it down in the 1/4 mile overall. There is no such limitation in the conventional manual version.
They said it was more consistent overall, like an automatic. They did not say that the SMG is quicker from what I read. The software limits how aggressively you can launch which slows it down in the 1/4 mile overall. There is no such limitation in the conventional manual version.
#143
Here is a published article on the subject (not sure this will show up properly)
So the overall conclusion was there is no conclusion, but the manual still did win 2 of the 3 races. And it also won the race with the SMGII using the "Launch Control" which is supposed to give you an optimal launch I guess.
I say, if you want it done right, you've just got to do it yourself.
So the overall conclusion was there is no conclusion, but the manual still did win 2 of the 3 races. And it also won the race with the SMGII using the "Launch Control" which is supposed to give you an optimal launch I guess.
I say, if you want it done right, you've just got to do it yourself.
#144
Originally posted by SteVTEC
So the overall conclusion was there is no conclusion, but the manual still did win 2 of the 3 races. And it also won the race with the SMGII using the "Launch Control" which is supposed to give you an optimal launch I guess.
I say, if you want it done right, you've just got to do it yourself.
So the overall conclusion was there is no conclusion, but the manual still did win 2 of the 3 races. And it also won the race with the SMGII using the "Launch Control" which is supposed to give you an optimal launch I guess.
I say, if you want it done right, you've just got to do it yourself.
#145
Originally posted by schalliol
Other than the difference of opinion, I'm not seeing the Win/Mac comparison...they both had the same control, are you addressing that?
Other than the difference of opinion, I'm not seeing the Win/Mac comparison...they both had the same control, are you addressing that?
#146
Originally posted by SteVTEC
So if the first gen was slower, that means it's still not as good as a human. Maybe SMGII is in fact as quick if not quicker now. That post I quoted was from 2002 so maybe there is more recent real-world data to look at. I still think a conventional would be quicker though because you are still limited by what the computer says you're allowed to do on launch, which is critical in 1/4 mile racing.
So if the first gen was slower, that means it's still not as good as a human. Maybe SMGII is in fact as quick if not quicker now. That post I quoted was from 2002 so maybe there is more recent real-world data to look at. I still think a conventional would be quicker though because you are still limited by what the computer says you're allowed to do on launch, which is critical in 1/4 mile racing.
I have an M3 SMG at my disposal so if anyone wants to settle this debate, find a standard M3 and we'll swap cars at Mosport. It's only like $300/hr during open sessions.
#147
Originally posted by Dan Martin
I still can't see why everyone is hung up on 1/4 mile racing as the defacto standard of how fast a car is. I'm sure you can find a Civic that is faster than an Enzo on the 1/4 if you look hard enough.
I have an M3 SMG at my disposal so if anyone wants to settle this debate, find a standard M3 and we'll swap cars at Mosport. It's only like $300/hr during open sessions.
I still can't see why everyone is hung up on 1/4 mile racing as the defacto standard of how fast a car is. I'm sure you can find a Civic that is faster than an Enzo on the 1/4 if you look hard enough.
I have an M3 SMG at my disposal so if anyone wants to settle this debate, find a standard M3 and we'll swap cars at Mosport. It's only like $300/hr during open sessions.
#148
Whoa, when did this become a BMW M3 SMG II comparison? At least I was contending that we weren't at this inflection point yet, the feedback here shows that this (first mainstream) SMG is showing promise for SMGs.
Ok, so the consensus is that SMGs will be faster, and they will get smarter, but if you want the ultimate control of what the engine does, you can still do a pure manual tranny. My contention is that in fact the manual is in the process of dying and that some people will be holding out, but ultimately the car manufacturers are going to stop offering them. Don't agree? I'd guess a standard un-assisted manual will be a hard find in 2010. You'll be able to get one, but not that many.
BTW, amazing the kind of response this thread gets. I still can't get a response from the thread dealing with an RCA mount for AUX in. sniff sniff
Ok, so the consensus is that SMGs will be faster, and they will get smarter, but if you want the ultimate control of what the engine does, you can still do a pure manual tranny. My contention is that in fact the manual is in the process of dying and that some people will be holding out, but ultimately the car manufacturers are going to stop offering them. Don't agree? I'd guess a standard un-assisted manual will be a hard find in 2010. You'll be able to get one, but not that many.
BTW, amazing the kind of response this thread gets. I still can't get a response from the thread dealing with an RCA mount for AUX in. sniff sniff
#149
Originally posted by schalliol
My contention is that in fact the manual is in the process of dying and that some people will be holding out, but ultimately the car manufacturers are going to stop offering them. Don't agree? I'd guess a standard un-assisted manual will be a hard find in 2010. You'll be able to get one, but not that many.
My contention is that in fact the manual is in the process of dying and that some people will be holding out, but ultimately the car manufacturers are going to stop offering them. Don't agree? I'd guess a standard un-assisted manual will be a hard find in 2010. You'll be able to get one, but not that many.
Of course you might equally say that CVTs will replace regular automatics with torque convertors.
One other point I'd like to make is that in other parts of the world (I'm thinking Europe here) MT is the norm, not the exception. So there'll still be MTs, it'll just be a matter of whether there's sufficient US market demand to import them.
C. <-- still owns vinyl records too, and yes, they sound better than CDs on the right equipment.
#150
Originally posted by Dan Martin
......where did you get "you can never break even" from the second law of thermodynamics? I definitely don't have a degree in physics but I always thought that the second law was that the entropy of a closed system increases with time. Maybe you can clear this up...
......where did you get "you can never break even" from the second law of thermodynamics? I definitely don't have a degree in physics but I always thought that the second law was that the entropy of a closed system increases with time. Maybe you can clear this up...
If I understand your question right, you've got the facts right, but you're putting them together wrong. When entropy increases, the amount of disorder (so to speak) increases, and you've lost some efficiency. So, with entropy increasing, indeed it is the case that you can't break even, you're always falling behind at least a little bit more.
OK, back to your regularly scheduled program.
#152
Originally posted by larchmont
.....OK, back to your regularly scheduled program.
.....OK, back to your regularly scheduled program.
Dan, There's many ways to interpret the second law. The most basic statement of it is: heat only flows spontaneously from a body at a hot temperature to a body at a cold temperature. It sounds simplistic, but you really can derive every other statement of the second law from this (including that the total change in entropy for any real process is greater than or equal to zero--what you were getting at, I think). What I said earlier was just a "slangy" interpretation of it. Regardless of the quantity of energy you need to run something, you'll always have to "pay" more to actually run that thing because of things like entropy generation, heat transfer across finite temperature differences, non-conservative forces (like friction), etc. Basically, nothing is perfect and you'll always have to deal with some kind of dissipative loss. The only processes that are truly loss-less are "irreversible" processes and every single one of these requires an infinite amount of time (i.e., they don't happen). The second law is kinda nice. It's way more elegant than the first law. It shows you more about how things work. The "arrow of time" analogy is pretty cool. And most of all: "entropy" sure is a lot easier to define than "energy".
I don't have a degree in physics, but I do have one in mechanical engineering (we care more about thermodynamics than anyone because energy conversion is our thing), and I'm working on more. But I digress....
#153
Originally posted by chrisalberts That's a fair enough point of view, but I would suggest that as long as purchasers want them, they'll be offered by the manufacturers that offer them now.
Of course you might equally say that CVTs will replace regular automatics with torque convertors.
One other point I'd like to make is that in other parts of the world (I'm thinking Europe here) MT is the norm, not the exception. So there'll still be MTs, it'll just be a matter of whether there's sufficient US market demand to import them.
#154
Originally posted by ClutchPerformer
You got it, Larch. Thanks.
Dan, There's many ways to interpret the second law. The most basic statement of it is: heat only flows spontaneously from a body at a hot temperature to a body at a cold temperature. It sounds simplistic, but you really can derive every other statement of the second law from this (including that the total change in entropy for any real process is greater than or equal to zero--what you were getting at, I think). What I said earlier was just a "slangy" interpretation of it. Regardless of the quantity of energy you need to run something, you'll always have to "pay" more to actually run that thing because of things like entropy generation, heat transfer across finite temperature differences, non-conservative forces (like friction), etc. Basically, nothing is perfect and you'll always have to deal with some kind of dissipative loss. The only processes that are truly loss-less are "irreversible" processes and every single one of these requires an infinite amount of time (i.e., they don't happen). The second law is kinda nice. It's way more elegant than the first law. It shows you more about how things work. The "arrow of time" analogy is pretty cool. And most of all: "entropy" sure is a lot easier to define than "energy".
I don't have a degree in physics, but I do have one in mechanical engineering (we care more about thermodynamics than anyone because energy conversion is our thing), and I'm working on more. But I digress....
You got it, Larch. Thanks.
Dan, There's many ways to interpret the second law. The most basic statement of it is: heat only flows spontaneously from a body at a hot temperature to a body at a cold temperature. It sounds simplistic, but you really can derive every other statement of the second law from this (including that the total change in entropy for any real process is greater than or equal to zero--what you were getting at, I think). What I said earlier was just a "slangy" interpretation of it. Regardless of the quantity of energy you need to run something, you'll always have to "pay" more to actually run that thing because of things like entropy generation, heat transfer across finite temperature differences, non-conservative forces (like friction), etc. Basically, nothing is perfect and you'll always have to deal with some kind of dissipative loss. The only processes that are truly loss-less are "irreversible" processes and every single one of these requires an infinite amount of time (i.e., they don't happen). The second law is kinda nice. It's way more elegant than the first law. It shows you more about how things work. The "arrow of time" analogy is pretty cool. And most of all: "entropy" sure is a lot easier to define than "energy".
I don't have a degree in physics, but I do have one in mechanical engineering (we care more about thermodynamics than anyone because energy conversion is our thing), and I'm working on more. But I digress....
#155
Since you're setting the record for a lengthy thread I thought I might as well add to it.
First to answer the physics/electrical issue. While the alternator in any car may put out the same voltage the extra current taken by actuating an SMG puts a greater load on the engine. The extra current does not come free - yes it's a very small extra load on the engine but it's there.
Now as for the demise of the conventional manual. Has anyone noticed that the new TL is available with one? I'd venture to guess that over the past 30 years the percentage of manual cars in the US has actually gone up or has been steady. But for the engineering and marketing of the big three US car makers in the 60s and 70s the US would also be like the rest of the world where a MT is the norm. Unfortunately this issue will not be solved/driven by consumers as much as by bean counters and marketing types. Even if everyone on this board jumped up and down, screamed and yelled, wrote to their congresssman asking for a MT, if Honda doesn't forsee making money on it they will do away with it. There's more money to be made from an AT, both at time of the sale and during the lifetime fo the car.
I started driving and have owned nothing but MT cars and therefore always look for one when it comes time for a new one. This is not because of what I'm used to (I drive my wife's AT Civic almost as much as my car - which is very little since I'm usually on the two wheeled MT variety of vehicle) or the control, but because I'm a very practical person who will probably keep a car for 10 years and during that time I don't any transmission problems. While I might swallow hard and accept an SMG as a manual substitue, anything with more complexity and parts is liable to break down sooner - so I rather not if possible.
Given the rather lackluster sales numbers it's rather unfortunate that this forum will probably disappear before the MT does when Honda pulls the plug on the TSX. I hope my wife gets an MT Accord loaner when she takes her Civic in for service at the local Swiss Honda dealer.
First to answer the physics/electrical issue. While the alternator in any car may put out the same voltage the extra current taken by actuating an SMG puts a greater load on the engine. The extra current does not come free - yes it's a very small extra load on the engine but it's there.
Now as for the demise of the conventional manual. Has anyone noticed that the new TL is available with one? I'd venture to guess that over the past 30 years the percentage of manual cars in the US has actually gone up or has been steady. But for the engineering and marketing of the big three US car makers in the 60s and 70s the US would also be like the rest of the world where a MT is the norm. Unfortunately this issue will not be solved/driven by consumers as much as by bean counters and marketing types. Even if everyone on this board jumped up and down, screamed and yelled, wrote to their congresssman asking for a MT, if Honda doesn't forsee making money on it they will do away with it. There's more money to be made from an AT, both at time of the sale and during the lifetime fo the car.
I started driving and have owned nothing but MT cars and therefore always look for one when it comes time for a new one. This is not because of what I'm used to (I drive my wife's AT Civic almost as much as my car - which is very little since I'm usually on the two wheeled MT variety of vehicle) or the control, but because I'm a very practical person who will probably keep a car for 10 years and during that time I don't any transmission problems. While I might swallow hard and accept an SMG as a manual substitue, anything with more complexity and parts is liable to break down sooner - so I rather not if possible.
Given the rather lackluster sales numbers it's rather unfortunate that this forum will probably disappear before the MT does when Honda pulls the plug on the TSX. I hope my wife gets an MT Accord loaner when she takes her Civic in for service at the local Swiss Honda dealer.
#156
Originally posted by biker
Since you're setting the record for a lengthy thread I thought I might as well add to it.
First to answer the physics/electrical issue. While the alternator in any car may put out the same voltage the extra current taken by actuating an SMG puts a greater load on the engine. The extra current does not come free - yes it's a very small extra load on the engine but it's there.
Now as for the demise of the conventional manual. Has anyone noticed that the new TL is available with one? I'd venture to guess that over the past 30 years the percentage of manual cars in the US has actually gone up or has been steady. But for the engineering and marketing of the big three US car makers in the 60s and 70s the US would also be like the rest of the world where a MT is the norm. Unfortunately this issue will not be solved/driven by consumers as much as by bean counters and marketing types. Even if everyone on this board jumped up and down, screamed and yelled, wrote to their congresssman asking for a MT, if Honda doesn't forsee making money on it they will do away with it. There's more money to be made from an AT, both at time of the sale and during the lifetime fo the car.
I started driving and have owned nothing but MT cars and therefore always look for one when it comes time for a new one. This is not because of what I'm used to (I drive my wife's AT Civic almost as much as my car - which is very little since I'm usually on the two wheeled MT variety of vehicle) or the control, but because I'm a very practical person who will probably keep a car for 10 years and during that time I don't any transmission problems. While I might swallow hard and accept an SMG as a manual substitue, anything with more complexity and parts is liable to break down sooner - so I rather not if possible.
Given the rather lackluster sales numbers it's rather unfortunate that this forum will probably disappear before the MT does when Honda pulls the plug on the TSX. I hope my wife gets an MT Accord loaner when she takes her Civic in for service at the local Swiss Honda dealer.
Since you're setting the record for a lengthy thread I thought I might as well add to it.
First to answer the physics/electrical issue. While the alternator in any car may put out the same voltage the extra current taken by actuating an SMG puts a greater load on the engine. The extra current does not come free - yes it's a very small extra load on the engine but it's there.
Now as for the demise of the conventional manual. Has anyone noticed that the new TL is available with one? I'd venture to guess that over the past 30 years the percentage of manual cars in the US has actually gone up or has been steady. But for the engineering and marketing of the big three US car makers in the 60s and 70s the US would also be like the rest of the world where a MT is the norm. Unfortunately this issue will not be solved/driven by consumers as much as by bean counters and marketing types. Even if everyone on this board jumped up and down, screamed and yelled, wrote to their congresssman asking for a MT, if Honda doesn't forsee making money on it they will do away with it. There's more money to be made from an AT, both at time of the sale and during the lifetime fo the car.
I started driving and have owned nothing but MT cars and therefore always look for one when it comes time for a new one. This is not because of what I'm used to (I drive my wife's AT Civic almost as much as my car - which is very little since I'm usually on the two wheeled MT variety of vehicle) or the control, but because I'm a very practical person who will probably keep a car for 10 years and during that time I don't any transmission problems. While I might swallow hard and accept an SMG as a manual substitue, anything with more complexity and parts is liable to break down sooner - so I rather not if possible.
Given the rather lackluster sales numbers it's rather unfortunate that this forum will probably disappear before the MT does when Honda pulls the plug on the TSX. I hope my wife gets an MT Accord loaner when she takes her Civic in for service at the local Swiss Honda dealer.
#157
Originally posted by larchmont
Great, great first post.......
Great, great first post.......
Lackluster TSX sales? "This forum will probably disappear before the MT does when Honda pulls the plug on the TSX"? What planet are you on?
Welcome to the board, anyway, biker.
#158
Originally posted by biker
Since you're setting the record for a lengthy thread I thought I might as well add to it.
First to answer the physics/electrical issue. While the alternator in any car may put out the same voltage the extra current taken by actuating an SMG puts a greater load on the engine. The extra current does not come free - yes it's a very small extra load on the engine but it's there.
Since you're setting the record for a lengthy thread I thought I might as well add to it.
First to answer the physics/electrical issue. While the alternator in any car may put out the same voltage the extra current taken by actuating an SMG puts a greater load on the engine. The extra current does not come free - yes it's a very small extra load on the engine but it's there.
Given the rather lackluster sales numbers it's rather unfortunate that this forum will probably disappear before the MT does when Honda pulls the plug on the TSX. I hope my wife gets an MT Accord loaner when she takes her Civic in for service at the local Swiss Honda dealer.
#160
Originally posted by ClutchPerformer
Not really.....
Lackluster TSX sales? "This forum will probably disappear before the MT does when Honda pulls the plug on the TSX"? What planet are you on?.....
Not really.....
Lackluster TSX sales? "This forum will probably disappear before the MT does when Honda pulls the plug on the TSX"? What planet are you on?.....