Originally Posted by DesertFox
You have a point, automatics have gotten better, but automatics are still not as efficient at power transfer as manuals, and don't let those EPA numbers fool you. The manufacturers will sometimes use more aggressive gear ratios (usually on the axle) for the manual version, and a more highway-friendly ratio for the automatics. This accomplishes a few things:
- It makes the manual "feel" much faster than the automatic
- It gives the automatic better fuel economy, at the expense of that "kick".
- It also gives people the impression that automatic is equal to, if not better than, manuals in fuel efficiency (to counter the ingrained beliefs of an older generation that was raised in an era where automatics were always seen as inferior mileage-wise, as well as in other aspects)
The manufacturers seem to want to ween the general public off automatics, and I've heard that while automatics are still not prevalent in Europe, the numbers are rising quickly.
I hadn't thought of that. But should have.
I know from past experience that the auto mfgs often engineer their vehicles to pass the tests not actually perform better. This is especially true of safety crash tests.
Remember Lee Iacoca's comment, "all this over a little door beam?"
Another issue about auto vrs manual. The EPA requires "donation" of vehicles for milage testing. therefore it may not be economically feasable or reasonable for someone like Benz to provide cars (and dealer support for cars) that will have limited sales in the U.S.
So why would they provide a 300 SEL with a 140HP 6 coupled to a manual shift? Americans barely purchased the automatic version of the 6 yet were quite happy to go for the gas guzzling 228HP V/8. (The european version went to 330 HP, 16 miles to the gallon but an awesome ride for a 4,600 lb sedan).
roadster with a stick