Will 6 Speed ever be the norm?

Mint Sauce

Remember a time when most cars had 4 speed gear boxes, and the fancier cars had 5 gears. Then ever new car for years now has 5 speed gear boxes, with recent years the fancier cars, and higher speced ones now coming with 6 gears. Will there ever come a time when every new car has 6 gears as the norm or standard?

Rackstar

Is it not the norm already?

Mint Sauce

Rackstar wrote: »

Is it not the norm already?

Does every new car now have 6 gears? Still thought some came with 5.

If this the case, mods please close, move on, nothing here to see.

aujopimur

Auto petrols will be the norm in a few years.

ongarite

Its all about automatics these days, that's where the technology and R&D is going.
Used to be that back 20 years ago 3-4 speed autos were horrible yokes and manual was the way to go.
Now 8-9 speed autos are readily available and transform the driving experience, especially in diesels.

I expect autos to only improve in next 20 years with 11-12 boxes with seamless gear changes for maximum fuel efficiency.

visual

there is still plenty of 5 speed about but if at all possible it is better to go for 6 speed.

driving at motorway speed at 3500 revs isn't very efficient at all.
Autos even of 10 years ago will have you in the 2K rev range for motorway speed

6 speed is probably the upper limit for practical use with a manual gear shift leaver
autos or semi autos with 7 + gears are the future

Cabaal

Automatic in the shape of electric etc is the way things will go eventually, ICE cars won't be the norm in a few decades

Indricotherium

I'm just hoping to be able to afford a car with working electric windows at this stage, never mind 6 gears

savagethegoat

the number of gears is pretty irrelevant.. what's important is the highest ratio . Thus a 4 speed box and a 6 speed box with the same ratio top gear give the same RPM on motorway cruising. That's what matters and constantly going up and down the box on a 6 speed is pretty annoying.

It's basically a marketing tool to sell cars to people who would be impressed by it.

grogi

aujopimur wrote: »

Auto petrols will be the norm in a few years.

Electrics will be... I give it 20 years...

9935452

savagethegoat wrote: »

the number of gears is pretty irrelevant.. what's important is the highest ratio . Thus a 4 speed box and a 6 speed box with the same ratio top gear give the same RPM on motorway cruising. That's what matters and constantly going up and down the box on a 6 speed is pretty annoying.

It's basically a marketing tool to sell cars to people who would be impressed by it.

but what about acceleration . If the manufacturer spreads out the ratios on a 4 speed box so top gear of both match, the 4 speed box will be a lot slower to accelerate which i would find more annoying than changing gear an extra few times.
To be fair i drove a 1.6 tdi 90bhp focus with a 6 speed gearbox and found it annoying changing gear the whole time as i found the car was underpowered and to be any bit lively you were constantly changing gear.
I jave an a4 now with 140hp which i find a joy to drive with a six speed gearbox. The car has the power and torque to accelerate quickly in nearly any gear at low rpms whereas the focus would just be dead and bog down.

shietpilot

savagethegoat wrote: »

the number of gears is pretty irrelevant.. what's important is the highest ratio . Thus a 4 speed box and a 6 speed box with the same ratio top gear give the same RPM on motorway cruising. That's what matters and constantly going up and down the box on a 6 speed is pretty annoying.

It's basically a marketing tool to sell cars to people who would be impressed by it.

This!

There are some diesel cars with 6 speed gearboxes where you can cruise in 6th gear at 60 km/h. Meanwhile on my car (Focus 1.8 TDCI) you are pretty much labouring the engine at 60 km/h in 5th gear.

It's similar with trucks - they can have like 14 gears but do a similar top speed as cars. The gears are used to help with acceleration on different weight trailers and on different kinds of inclines.

Although I think having 6 speed on a modern diesel makes it a bit more fuel efficient as you have more options of gears for a particular speed/load.

Henry Ford III

9935452 wrote: »

but what about acceleration . If the manufacturer spreads out the ratios on a 4 speed box so top gear of both match, the 4 speed box will be a lot slower to accelerate which i would find more annoying than changing gear an extra few times.
To be fair i drove a 1.6 tdi 90bhp focus with a 6 speed gearbox and found it annoying changing gear the whole time as i found the car was underpowered and to be any bit lively you were constantly changing gear.
I jave an a4 now with 140hp which i find a joy to drive with a six speed gearbox. The car has the power and torque to accelerate quickly in nearly any gear at low rpms whereas the focus would just be dead and bog down.

Nah. My 1979 Ford Escort RS2000 has a 4 speed gearbox and is still pretty quick when pushed. You can fit a later type 9 box from a Capri/Sierra into it, but the only difference is that 5th gear is an overdrive and better on a motorway.

p.s. Focus TDCI is min. 95bhp when fitted with a 6 speed box. The gear changes required is more to do with a lack of torque than lack of power.

grogi

shietpilot wrote: »

This!

There are some diesel cars with 6 speed gearboxes where you can cruise in 6th gear at 60 km/h. Meanwhile on my car (Focus 1.8 TDCI) you are pretty much labouring the engine at 60 km/h in 5th gear.

And that's the whole point of the 6th gear - to make motorway cruising much more relaxed and economical with low rpms. Newish diesels have enough power when in the low rpm range, hence the 6th gear.

With underpowered car a very long 6th gear does not make any sense - because the engine would be to weak to drive it.

shietpilot

grogi wrote: »

And that's the whole point of the 6th gear - to make motorway cruising much more relaxed and economical with low rpms. Newish diesels have enough power when in the low rpm range, hence the 6th gear.

With underpowered car a very long 6th gear does not make any sense - because the engine would be to weak to drive it.

Well if you can drive comfortably at 60 km/h in 6th gear then it's a pretty short gear. I would consider 60 km/h 4th gear territory. It makes sense though when they put those 1.6 diesel engines into the current "crossover" SUVs.

AMGer

I'm up to 7 forward gears myself. 7th is grand for long journey cruising, fairly useless in day to day around town situations. But I would have thought must cars nowadays have 6 forward gears.

H3llR4iser

It's funny that on a motoring forum people say "driving recent automatics is a joy" or "they change the driving experience"...outside of a track and when no limits are explored, managing the transmission is driving, all the rest is steering and avoiding the lollygaggers! You'd expect a place theoretically full of enthusiast to be seeing auto transmissions as the killer of joy, but whatever, really.

Anyway, having a 6th (or 7th, or 8th, or whatever) is completely irrelevant on fuel consumption at cruise speeds. In most cases (if not all, I would say), the 6th is simply geared to be what the 5th would be - you get no difference whatsoever. So, say, you have a car that cruises on the motorway at 4000rpm in 5th? Rest assured that, if it had a 6th from the manufacturer, it'd be cruising at 4000rpm in 6th - the extra gear doesn't just get "tacked on" the 'box, but studied. This is one of the reasons, for example, why it's rare that manufacturers give the option of "any engine, any gearbox", but they come in pairs - so say, the 1.8 petrol has 5 gears, the 2.0 has 6, but you can't get the 1.8 with 6 or the 2.0 with 5; Their engineers aren't exactly stupid nor clueless. The reason to have more gears is to allow the driver to make an easier use of the engine in its ideal torque range; This is especially valuable on NA engines.

Another fallacy is the assumption that lower cruising RPM=lower fuel consumption: it's not necessarily the case. Check your car's owners manual, and you'll find something odd: the RPM in top gear at 120-140km/h fall within of very near the maximum torque RPM stated. This way it is possible to accelerate to complete an overtake staying in gear, or to only have to nudge the pedal down a tiny bit if the road goes uphill. Put in an extremely long gear, say cruising at 1500 RPM less, and the car will be more or less just hanging on the speed, working the engine harder; Any acceleration will require the driver to floor the pedal, take much longer, and the same would happen going uphill - where a downshift will be inevitable even for the smallest gradients; this will ultimately use more fuel.

Ionised

H3llR4iser wrote:

It's funny that on a motoring forum people say "driving recent automatics is a joy" or "they change the driving experience"...outside of a track and when no limits are explored, managing the transmission is driving, all the rest is steering and avoiding the lollygaggers! You'd expect a place theoretically full of enthusiast to be seeing auto transmissions as the killer of joy, but whatever, really.

Just wondering if you class the dsg boxes as autos?
I would have been a staunch manual box defender for your reasons above but since owning 4 dsg equipped vehicles I find they allow the best of both worlds.

To get back to the thread, my current car has 7 forward gears (Polo BlueGT). My experience would lead me to feel that modern engines, especially small turbo ones, have a rather narrow power band and hence work well with the multiple gear choices. In some ways much like a diesel engine.

I'm old enough to remember when 4 speed was the norm and only very expensive cars had more. I recall my brother getting a Ford Sierra as a company car and being shocked at the 'new fangled' 5 speed box!

H3llR4iser

Ionised wrote: »

Just wondering if you class the dsg boxes as autos?
I would have been a staunch manual box defender for your reasons above but since owning 4 dsg equipped vehicles I find they allow the best of both worlds.

If used with the auto option, yes. Used via the paddle control, acceptable - I'd be ok with a manually controlled semi-auto box, tried a 156 Selepseed a long time ago and it was ok.

It does require less skills - when you travel as a passenger you realize how many people, even after 20 or 30 years of driving, never really learnt how to manage the clutch, nor how to make downshifts without getting the car to "jolt"; Yet, at least a semi-auto leaves the control of which gear you travel in at any given point to the driver, avoiding having to fight with an utterly stupid piece of software which tries to force you into a "driving model" (coming from a software engineer, I guess it's interesting...but then again, I'm also a fierce opposer of self-driving cars and not only just from the driving enthusiast standpoint!).

ShadowHearth

I don't know about this whole gear thing. I wander if it's just a penis enlargement thingy.

My Scooby was 5 gears amd it was plenty for me. I never said: you know what, I could really use that sixth one right now"
Alfa gt has 6 gears and I find very little difference between 5 and 6. Most of the time it's just annoying doing that extra shift.

I guess difference in 75hp would have something to do with it too. In the end of the day it's not how many gears, but what are gear ratios and what engine it is combined with.

CJhaughey

I know the 6 speed Accord diesel is a lot different to drive between the 5 speed and the 6 speed versions, in the 5 speed there is a big difference between 3rd and 4th in slowish driving, the 6 speed box tightens the whole lot of ratios up and makes it much easier to drive.
6th is probably fairly similar to the old 5th maybe very slightly taller.

shietpilot

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Anyway, having a 6th (or 7th, or 8th, or whatever) is completely irrelevant on fuel consumption at cruise speeds. In most cases (if not all, I would say), the 6th is simply geared to be what the 5th would be - you get no difference whatsoever. So, say, you have a car that cruises on the motorway at 4000rpm in 5th? Rest assured that, if it had a 6th from the manufacturer, it'd be cruising at 4000rpm in 6th - the extra gear doesn't just get "tacked on" the 'box, but studied. This is one of the reasons, for example, why it's rare that manufacturers give the option of "any engine, any gearbox", but they come in pairs - so say, the 1.8 petrol has 5 gears, the 2.0 has 6, but you can't get the 1.8 with 6 or the 2.0 with 5; Their engineers aren't exactly stupid nor clueless. The reason to have more gears is to allow the driver to make an easier use of the engine in its ideal torque range; This is especially valuable on NA engines.

I agree with you that there is no difference in fuel consumption at cruising speeds no matter if it's a 5 or 6 speed box. Having a 6 speed box over a 5 speed box DOES actually make a difference in fuel consumption though.

The idea of the 6 speed box is that you can keep the engine in the torque range for a longer period of time as you are accelerating up to your cruising speed. This will save fuel and is a more fuel efficient way to drive. The most important thing for fuel efficient driving is being in the right gear as opposed to the highest gear possible and a gearbox with more gears does allow you to be in the "right" gear for the longest amount of time, if you are not cruising.

9935452

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Nah. My 1979 Ford Escort RS2000 has a 4 speed gearbox and is still pretty quick when pushed. You can fit a later type 9 box from a Capri/Sierra into it, but the only difference is that 5th gear is an overdrive and better on a motorway.

p.s. Focus TDCI is min. 95bhp when fitted with a 6 speed box. The gear changes required is more to do with a lack of torque than lack of power.

Hah?
I reponded to a post that said number of gears is unimportant.
See below.

savagethegoat wrote: »

the number of gears is pretty irrelevant.. what's important is the highest ratio . Thus a 4 speed box and a 6 speed box with the same ratio top gear give the same RPM on motorway cruising. That's what matters and constantly going up and down the box on a 6 speed is pretty annoying.

It's basically a marketing tool to sell cars to people who would be impressed by it.

Of course your 4 speed car will be quick as it has the same ratio as 4th in a 5 speed car. Would you not agree that the acceleration would be slower if you got a new gearbox for it with different gear ratios so in 4th it would be at the same RPM at 60mph as a 5 speed box in 5th at 60mph

Yeah you are right about the focus it was 95bhp. I was doing my best to forget that car. Didnt like it at all
I agree with you about the torque as well, thats why i said the audi has the power and the torque . Lack of both causes you to have to change gear more often

H3llR4iser

H3llR4iser wrote: »

It's funny that on a motoring forum people say "driving recent automatics is a joy" or "they change the driving experience"...outside of a track and when no limits are explored, managing the transmission is driving, all the rest is steering and avoiding the lollygaggers! You'd expect a place theoretically full of enthusiast to be seeing auto transmissions as the killer of joy, but whatever, really. ............

How do you feel about brake servos, power steering, ABS, traction control etc?

pa990

8 speed autos, that's the way forward

punisher5112

My motors moves off of love and hippies ....

Don't needs any gears in an ev.

AMGer

Read somewhere a few weeks back that some model of Lexus that's on the way will have a 10 speed auto.....don't see the point myself

grogi

AMGer wrote: »

Read somewhere a few weeks back that some model of Lexus that's on the way will have a 10 speed auto.....don't see the point myself

Why not? It is not you who shuffles them...

AMGer

grogi wrote: »

Why not? It is not you who shuffles them...

seems excessive

savagethegoat

I thought to a large extent the gears on modern autos are artificially existant.

grogi

savagethegoat wrote: »

I thought to a large extent the gears on modern autos are artificially existant.

Majority have regular gears.

Dual clutch gearboxes are very similar to manual gearboxes, regular gears there. Torque converter based autos also have fixed number of ratios.

There are a few types of CVT gearboxes, currently in virtually every Nissan for instance. Those can have virtual gears - but only for making the driver feel better. Because they do nothing else but reduce performance and decrease efficiency.

stefan.kuntz

Indricotherium wrote: »

I'm just hoping to be able to afford a car with working electric windows at this stage, never mind 6 gears

Electric windows? Well la de da for you.

Sh1tbag OToole

Twould be nice to see the 7-speed manual getting more common, preferably with a dog leg

savagethegoat

I miss double de clutching

H3llR4iser

shietpilot wrote: »

I agree with you that there is no difference in fuel consumption at cruising speeds no matter if it's a 5 or 6 speed box. Having a 6 speed box over a 5 speed box DOES actually make a difference in fuel consumption though.

The idea of the 6 speed box is that you can keep the engine in the torque range for a longer period of time as you are accelerating up to your cruising speed. This will save fuel and is a more fuel efficient way to drive. The most important thing for fuel efficient driving is being in the right gear as opposed to the highest gear possible and a gearbox with more gears does allow you to be in the "right" gear for the longest amount of time, if you are not cruising.

Exactly what I meant, in more words

Augeo wrote: »

How do you feel about brake servos, power steering, ABS, traction control etc?

They are completely different things - none of these are automation in the sense that they completely take control of a task from the driver; They all are systems that manipulate actions, rather than take total charge of them.

In some cases, they're necessary evil - modern cars tend to be heavy and over-equipped: many 4 door saloons are near or beyond the 1.5 tonnes marker with 2 people on board and mount wide tires; Moving the steering wheel of such a car with no power steering would require the arms of a weightlifter. Same goes for the brake servo. Yet, what you do on the wheel or on the pedal still transmits to the wheels.

ABS is something that is right on the edge - it essentially becomes useful when the driver panics. It does kill the art of threshold braking, but we're already talking about something a bit more of an advanced technique, with very limited road use.

Traction control is mostly useless on average road cars, not many have so much power that it becomes a must - and if somebody can't manage 120 HP, they should probably have their license taken away or stick to a 1.0L.

Automatic transmissions on the other hand take away the skill to basically make the car move; That's why somebody passing their exam on an auto vehicle essentially has "half a license" and can't drive a manual car.

I could understand their use on buses and taxis due to the urban use and long working hours, or on ultra-high performance track vehicles where the human could simply not keep up (e.g. the only reason F1 only uses semi-auto boxes instead of auto is due to regulation), but on personal cars it's just a matter of sheer laziness, they do nothing but allow the driver to "not do" something; It baffles the mind when "recommended" by what are supposed to be enthusiasts.

Afterall, every single European driver has giggled a bit and thought "how pathetic!" in front of an American declaring he or she "can't drive stick"

Sh1tbag OToole

H3llR4iser wrote: »

I could understand their use on buses and taxis due to the urban use and long working hours, or on ultra-high performance track vehicles where the human could simply not keep up (e.g. the only reason F1 only uses semi-auto boxes instead of auto is due to regulation), but on personal cars it's just a matter of sheer laziness, they do nothing but allow the driver to "not do" something; It baffles the mind when "recommended" by what are supposed to be enthusiasts.

Afterall, every single European driver has giggled a bit and thought "how pathetic!" in front of an American declaring he or she "can't drive stick"

I find sitting in a bus with a PRNDL box nauseating, much prefer to be in one with a manual box, even though I'm only a passenger. Not sure why

visual

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Exactly what I meant, in more words




They are completely different things - none of these are automation in the sense that they completely take control of a task from the driver; They all are systems that manipulate actions, rather than take total charge of them.

In some cases, they're necessary evil - modern cars tend to be heavy and over-equipped: many 4 door saloons are near or beyond the 1.5 tonnes marker with 2 people on board and mount wide tires; Moving the steering wheel of such a car with no power steering would require the arms of a weightlifter. Same goes for the brake servo. Yet, what you do on the wheel or on the pedal still transmits to the wheels.

ABS is something that is right on the edge - it essentially becomes useful when the driver panics. It does kill the art of threshold braking, but we're already talking about something a bit more of an advanced technique, with very limited road use.

Traction control is mostly useless on average road cars, not many have so much power that it becomes a must - and if somebody can't manage 120 HP, they should probably have their license taken away or stick to a 1.0L.

Automatic transmissions on the other hand take away the skill to basically make the car move; That's why somebody passing their exam on an auto vehicle essentially has "half a license" and can't drive a manual car.

I could understand their use on buses and taxis due to the urban use and long working hours, or on ultra-high performance track vehicles where the human could simply not keep up (e.g. the only reason F1 only uses semi-auto boxes instead of auto is due to regulation), but on personal cars it's just a matter of sheer laziness, they do nothing but allow the driver to "not do" something; It baffles the mind when "recommended" by what are supposed to be enthusiasts.

Afterall, every single European driver has giggled a bit and thought "how pathetic!" in front of an American declaring he or she "can't drive stick"

I've driven manual 4 5 and 6 speed and each was improvement with more gears.
I've switch to autos now and while I agree those doing tests in little autos never develop the same skills as those in manuals. Those that progressed on from manuals to automatic with large engines can really appreciate the benefits
Most will have tiptronic or sports mode and no stupid clutch pedal to worry about. Gear changes are quicker acceleration quicker car more stable during gear shifts.
It's also why most big engine cars are autos over manual.

Once you get use to autos the advantages out way any disadvantage. The disadvantage is actually at very low speed on ice where too much power is applied with little traction

It's all about getting the best out of the engine and autos do allow this.

Years ago I drove very early auto and it lacked the extra gearing being 3 speed with overdrive but those very old autos are long gone and is what most people compare to manuals and people where right they weren't as good.

Modern autos and even autos of the last 15 years are vastly improved so much so that they are much better than manual.

H3llR4iser

H3llR4iser wrote: »

...........

I could understand their use on buses and taxis due to the urban use and long working hours, or on ultra-high performance track vehicles where the human could simply not keep up (e.g. the only reason F1 only uses semi-auto boxes instead of auto is due to regulation), but on personal cars it's just a matter of sheer laziness, they do nothing but allow the driver to "not do" something; It baffles the mind when "recommended" by what are supposed to be enthusiasts.............

Some of the nicest cars on the planet are auto only and that's not a recent development.

Fair enough you can't understand the benefit

H3llR4iser

Augeo wrote: »

Some of the nicest cars on the planet are auto only and that's not a recent development.

Fair enough you can't understand the benefit

Which are, beyond not having a "stupid clutch pedal to worry about"?

vintagevrs

My car sits at 3k rpm at motorway speed. It 100% could do with a long 7th gear. Max torque starts at 1800 rpm so there is no need at all. I know it wasn't designed for economy but sitting at 3k rpm is excessive.

savagethegoat

vintagevrs wrote: »

My car sits at 3k rpm at motorway speed. It 100% could do with a long 7th gear. Max torque starts at 1800 rpm so there is no need at all. I know it wasn't designed for economy but sitting at 3k rpm is excessive.

or a higher ratio on 6th gear? or a higher ratio on 4th gear and no 5 and 6 and 7?

grogi

H3llR4iser wrote: »

They are completely different things - none of these are automation in the sense that they completely take control of a task from the driver; They all are systems that manipulate actions, rather than take total charge of them.

You don't expect the driver to manually regulate the air-to-petrol ratio and increase it when the car is cold. You don't expect she or he to make sure enough air is getting through the butterfly when idling, adjust spark ignition angle under heavy load etc.

All the above is crucial for the engine, but automated to the point that all but few drivers don't even realize they happen.

Gearbox is the same. It is not fundamental feature of an automobile - is a just workaround of a limitation of the Otto engine technology. We simply weren't able to build an engine that had enough of torque to satisfy various traffic conditions, so gearbox was added.

The technology is good enough to automate that too, even for the very CO2 aware Europeans ;-) Or even render it completely unnecessary. I won't cry.

grogi

vintagevrs wrote: »

My car sits at 3k rpm at motorway speed. It 100% could do with a long 7th gear. Max torque starts at 1800 rpm so there is no need at all. I know it wasn't designed for economy but sitting at 3k rpm is excessive.

Where is that fixation on torque coming from?

At 1800rpm that engine has only 60% of power available at 3000rpm - that simply might not be enough to make the drive acceptable.

vintagevrs

Fixation? Because the car could easily maintain 80mph at 2000rpm rather than 3000rpm if it had an appropriate gear.

Sh1tbag OToole

grogi wrote: »

You don't expect the driver to manually regulate the air-to-petrol ratio and increase it when the car is cold. You don't expect she or he to make sure enough air is getting through the butterfly when idling, adjust spark ignition angle under heavy load etc.

All the above is crucial for the engine, but automated to the point that all but few drivers don't even realize they happen.

Gearbox is the same. It is not fundamental feature of an automobile - is a just workaround of a limitation of the Otto engine technology. We simply weren't able to build an engine that had enough of torque to satisfy various traffic conditions, so gearbox was added.

The technology is good enough to automate that too, even for the very CO2 aware Europeans ;-) Or even render it completely unnecessary. I won't cry.

In a few years they'll be saying the same about the steering wheel and the accelerator and the brake, and we'll all be expected to give those up too in the name of safety and efficiency.

We'll be all ferried around in robotic pods owned by some company like Uber and nobody will give a damn about what kind of engine is in them or how they're powered. Maybe you'll still be allowed to drive a few laps around a track if you're lucky

We're headed towards a world that isn't much craic

grogi

vintagevrs wrote: »

Fixation? Because the car could easily maintain 80mph at 2000rpm rather than 3000rpm if it had an appropriate gear.

Yes, if it has enough POWER at 2000rpm.

H3llR4iser

grogi wrote: »

You don't expect the driver to manually regulate the air-to-petrol ratio and increase it when the car is cold. You don't expect she or he to make sure enough air is getting through the butterfly when idling, adjust spark ignition angle under heavy load etc.

All the above is crucial for the engine, but automated to the point that all but few drivers don't even realize they happen.

Gearbox is the same. It is not fundamental feature of an automobile - is a just workaround of a limitation of the Otto engine technology. We simply weren't able to build an engine that had enough of torque to satisfy various traffic conditions, so gearbox was added.

The technology is good enough to automate that too, even for the very CO2 aware Europeans ;-) Or even render it completely unnecessary. I won't cry.

You do realize we're talking from the point of view of enjoyment, right? No one doubts that automated gearboxes can be quicker and more efficient than manuals, 'even though sometimes the stupid and limited nature of the software shows its ugly head. As I said before, Formula 1 uses semi-auto boxes only because the regulations forbid fully automatics; They would decrease lap times, as human drivers simply can't keep up with the electronics.

However, ask any of those guys if they'd like to go back to manual 'boxes, and the reply would be a resounding, unanimous "hell yeah!".

That's the whole idea, not "which is better" from a technical standpoint.

Sh1tbag OToole

H3llR4iser wrote: »

You do realize we're talking from the point of view of enjoyment, right? No one doubts that automated gearboxes can be quicker and more efficient than manuals, 'even though sometimes the stupid and limited nature of the software shows its ugly head. As I said before, Formula 1 uses semi-auto boxes only because the regulations forbid fully automatics; They would decrease lap times, as human drivers simply can't keep up with the electronics.

However, ask any of those guys if they'd like to go back to manual 'boxes, and the reply would be a resounding, unanimous "hell yeah!".

That's the whole idea, not "which is better" from a technical standpoint.

Still plenty of manual boxes that are more efficient than the PRNDL

Only CVT really has the potential to be more efficient than a manual box in any significant way but they have reliability problems. Most cases where you see the PRNDL being more efficient is because the manual box is badly matched and is missing a gear or two

Sam Russell

grogi wrote: »

You don't expect the driver to manually regulate the air-to-petrol ratio and increase it when the car is cold.

I regret that they removed the choke. It gave you something to fiddle with when the car refused to start - or when it flooded.

H3llR4iser

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Which are, beyond not having a "stupid clutch pedal to worry about"?

Most of us realise that we are no better than competent day to day commuter drivers.

Take a Golf GTi in DSG and manual guise, get Johnny Average to take both for a spin on a decent backroad, most Johnny Averages have enough to do with steering and braking, DSG looks after the gears, hugely advantageous.

Now you get many chaps who think they are Eddie Irvine but for the most part they are just Johnny Averages.

No doubt your brilliant though.

H3llR4iser

H3llR4iser wrote: »

..... No one doubts that automated gearboxes can be quicker and more efficient than manuals...........

You asked a few posts ago what was adantageous about auto boxes?
Seems like you knew