Why automatic? Well to me because all AMG cars only come with the auto! So they must have done something right. Besides, being at full boost through out the entire powerband gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling!

 

Which is probaly why the AMG folks don't think a manual shifter would be popular. Not the same as being "right."
Comparing the SRT Auto stick to the NA manual is unfair. I think that creates some confusion in our discussions and some unneccesary disparagement.

However, when comparing NA's auto vrs manual, it comes down to preference. Especially about driving styles.

A good crisp auto can be driven as, an auto, and optimized for it's contribution to the process by a skillfull driver who then concentrates on steering and braking inputs more than clutch. There is an advantage to having both hands on the wheel. Especially with rack and pinion which, sadly, our Xfires do not have.

A manual shifter offers a dimesion that is different. And preferred by many.

Including.....


roadster with a stick

 

I was trying to find this info, too, but I haven't come across a clear source. What I do know is that mileage dropped to 15/23 for the 2008 xFire manual, and you don't just lose MPG for no reason. It's likely to be a different axle ratio.

The numbers that you pulled are the top gear ratios. This isn't to be confused w/ the final drive ratio or axle ratio (rear end ratio). That's a ratio for the actual 5th/6th gear, not the rear end ratio we're used to seeing. IIRC, the rear end ratio for the SRT-6 is 3.08:1, I'm not sure what the N/A xFire's is, but I'm guessing it changed for 2008.

Also, I've heard that the xFire's torque converter never locks up completely, even when warm and in top gear. Is this true? It could be part of the reason for our ****-poor gas mileage.

 

I agree. IMO, it's also about brand placement... When you compare BMW vs. MB, BMW has generally had the brand image of being more of a driver's car, while MBs are known more for their luxurious (read: soft) ride. Until recently (i.e., the release of the C63 AMG), the AMGs were always critically panned when compared to their BMW M counterparts, and reviewers always said that the M had better response and feel. To me, the MG auto trannies, as built as they are, were used partially b/c MB wanted AMG to have the image of refined brutality... mild or wild, depending on your mood.

 

[quote=DesertFox]I was trying to find this info, too, but I haven't come across a clear source. What I do know is that mileage dropped to 15/23 for the 2008 xFire manual, and you don't just lose MPG for no reason......[/quote

The EPA revised their mpg testing to more accurately reflect how cars are actually driven. All cars had their ratings dropped.

Hairydalek, I'm guessing that you've gotten your impression of the US having an automatic dominated society because of Hollywood. This is misleading because I'd think that movies/TV shows etc. would use auto cars for ease of filming. If you'd watch older stuff from 10 - 15 years ago you would see that none of the movie or TV characters would put on seatbelts. It would have been easy to conclude that Americans didn't wear seatbelts. Now characters wear seatbelts, and don't smoke anymore in their cars. Unfortunately they now give the impression that Americans always leave their keys in the ignition since these characters never actually dig around for their keys prior to starting their cars.

I think another factor in the popularity of automatic transmissions here in the US is that an auto tranny is considered upscale and is a desired feature to have. When I was learning to drive going on 35 years ago, cheaper, stripped down model cars were offered with, and frequently bought with a manual transmission. This wasn't for driving pleasure or fuel economy, but simply to keep the cost of the car as low as possible since manual transmissions were less expensive. So now what happens when an owner of such a budget car is finally able to afford something better? Think another car with manual steering, manual brakes, and manual transmission is still appealing? Or do you think our intrepid new car buyer is going to treat him or herself with power steering, power brakes, and yes, an automatic transmission?

The predominance of automatic transmissions here (read that only 10% of all cars sold here have manual trannys) have led to an interesting development. Many car today that are equivalent to the stripped down models of yesteryear are not offered with a manual transmission or are not bought with one. However, many higher end cars are offered with a manual and are bought with such. Maybe we are reversing our preferences and one day a manual will be considered the upscale transmission.

 

Good to know. I know that before, the Scions used different rear end ratios (I believe it was the xB).

To be honest, I kinda thought that Hollywood usually glorified the manual transmission, until recently. Then again, I was raised with a bit of a manual tranny, so I've always seen it as both the cheap solution as well as the performance solution. I thought that most people saw it the same way, but they just didn't care enough to lose the convenience of an automatic.

 

[quote=Brent]Brent, I would say we have arrived as some upscale vehicles add an upcharge for manual trans.


Given this discussion, and the hundreds like it that have preceeded, one has to ask this question. If manuals aren't the best way to drive a sports car or even a sporty sedan, then why has so much time and money been spent trying to make an automatic perform like a manual?

roadster with a stick

 

To appeal to the old fuddy-duddies who were raised on the superiority of the manual transmission, and now have more money to spend on sports cars?

 

actually, in the NHRA Pro Stock class all of the tranny's are manuals, they are just very close ratio and don't have to be moved but a fraction of an inch to shift gears, and Top Fuel and Funny cars don't have transmissions, they have clutch packs and are set up direct drive.

 

I have a feeling it wasn't any of the scions, they are all FWD.

 

I read/saw/heard somewhere that AMG Corp did a survey targeted to it's demographic and those individuals replied that they'd prefer an auto vs. the stick. the Tremec T-56 can be reinforced to handle the power.

 

What those ratios mean is the engine is spinning (arbitrarily) 2000RPM, in 5th gear multiply that by the trans ratio (.838) then multiply by the rear end ratio. That gives you the RPM of the differential.

With a 3.27 rear the math equates to 5480.42 RPM then take the tire size into account to find the mileage that you're traveling


Justin

 

D'oh! Axle ratio, I meant, lol.

 

Made my day.

thanks for posting.

roadster with a stick

 

[quote=Franc Rauscher]I wonder if it is now more expensive to build a manual transmission in limited numbers and that's the reason it incurs an additional charge.

Aren't there some developments to make manual transmissions more like automatics, such as clutchless manuals? Or, this being a stretch, the first to fourth gear skip of Corvettes?

 

[quote=Brent]I really don't know Brent. But anything that takes the foot actuated clutch out of the loop is just, well .....loopy as far as I'm concerned. I see a concept for efficiency in a "clutchless" manual but where's the fun of controlling the engagement of the engine on the operation of the wheels?

roadster with a stick

 

I like the Automatic. My wife can drive the car if I had to many brews during a GTG.

 

History and tradition. This goes back to the 50s when the automatic first became available as an extra cost option on mainstream American production cars.

Back then a clutch disk was worn out at 25-30,000 miles. As the suburbs expanded the commute got longer and the need to replace the clutch got more frequent. This was in an era when you knew that a Ford water pump would fail at 25,000 miles, a Chrysler starter would fail at 20,000 miles and a GM timing gear would come apart at 23,000 miles. Generators and brake linings had similar life spans. The time between rebuilds for automatics started to be longer than the life of the car (about 7 years in the late 50s) so the automatic looked like a better financial deal.

Wives and teenagers started driving. There were few driving schools so the family patriarch had to teach them how. This uncomfortable situation led more men to buy automatics so they didn't have to teach the subtle feel necessary to get a manual transmission car started.

Before WW2 most men grew up on farms or in trades and were familiar with machinery and it's operation. After WW2 the percentage of men who never got their hands dirty grew rapidly and their unfamiliarity with machinery made automatics a natural choice.

As the number of car buyers who had never learned to drive manuals dropped the cost to car makers of offering the manual option rose to the point that they dropped it.

 

Automatic, stick....either is great , I think it all depends on your preference and your situation. Sports cars really are neat in standard but I got an automatic because my wife can't drive a standard and we both wanted to be able to drive it...so compromise. But I will tell you if it had just been for me Iwould have went to for an automatic anyways...it makes the ride in the moutains really comfortable and smooth.

If I really want the standard thirll...it has the auto stick which makes it pretend to be a standard.

 

Any one remember the Chrysler Fluid Drive transmissions made back in the 1950's ? It had a clutch pedal but you didn't have to use it if you didn't want to. You could shift through the 3 gears using the column mounted shifter and clutch like a regular stick shift, or, just leave it in third and not shift at all. But man was it a dog.

The car that I learned to drive in was my dad's 1957 Chevy Bel Air convertible. It was all black with a red and silver interior. Boy do I wish he would have kept and stored that one. It would be worth a mint today. Anyway it had a funky automatic transmission that Chevy called Turbo Glide, anyone remember it? It seemed that no matter how fast you went, the engine had the same rpm. You would floor it from a stop and the engine would race and keep the same droneing sound and not shift all the way to top end. Another dog.

And who can remember the shifter on the column? What a piece of crap they were. I couldn't wait to remove it and go to a Hurst floor shifter on my mid 50's Chevy V8's.