Honda Car Forum

Elle wrote:
> "Crabman" <C@dud.net> wrote
>
>>Elle wrote:
>>
>>>"Newbie" <newbie@no.spam> wrote
>>>
>>>>TWO, I am not sure if "apples to apples" is as fair a
>>>>comparison as you
>>>>make it sound. Corolla is available in cheaper versions,
>>>>Prius is not.
>>>>A manual CE would not only cost less but also have
>>>>better mpg.
>>>
>>>Most of the reason a manual Toyota Corolla still gets
>>>better mpg than an automatic Toyota Corolla is that the
>>>manual has a 5-speed tranny while the auto has a 4-speed
>>>one.
>>>
>>>For other makes and models, and in the last five years or
>>>so, changes in auto tranny design have resulted in it
>>>often surpassing manual trannies when it comes to mpg,
>>>when comparing the same models whose only difference is
>>>the tranny.
>>
>>Actually, this mileage is related to less transmission
>>slippage, not gear selection.
>
>
> Not to sound condescending or anything, but I am glad you
> chimed in, because on further reading, I thought it should
> be pointed out that a major factor in automatics
> traditionally getting worse MPG is the torque converter. The
> TC represents a "fluid coupling," whereas the manual
> tranny's clutch etc. are a mechanical linkage. Energy
> transmission losses are greater with the liquid linkage. As
> many of the pros here know. (I am just an amateur who works
> on her own car and reads like crazy to understand it.)
>
> But this has changed somewhat with the advent of the "lock
> up torque converter."


Just a short anecdote here...

I'm not sure what manufacturer introduced "lock up converters," but
Studebaker began using its self designed automatic featuring a lock up
converter for the 1950 model year.

My 1955 President, a hefty 4,200 lb sedan with 259 V8/DG-250 tranny
achieved 21/28 mpg in real time road tests in that era. Not bad for a 4
bbl carb, auto and pretty good performance. My uncle used to really rub
it in to Chevy/Ford owners...

In a lot of ways, we really haven't advanced much farther.

JT

So my slipping clutch in my old mustang 3 on the floor effectively meant I
had a six on the floor kinda maybe? Or did I miss a imaginary gear or 2?


"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote in message
news:0S2Xj.3757$xr1.1144@trndny04...
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> "mjc13<REMOVETHIS>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"@verizon.net> wrote in
>> news:a01Xj.5699$GK4.5024@trndny01:
>>>Jim Yanik wrote:
>>>
>>>>"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"@verizon.net> wrote in
>>>>news:x4OWj.2122$za1.807@trndny07:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jim Yanik wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Josh S <Josh@clean.spam> wrote in news:Josh-
>>>>>>D0B8B7.16053514052008@news.telus.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <GOFWj.12025$MQ1.9489@newsfe11.phx>,
>>>>>>>"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>From this survey, I think we could argue that newer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>automatic trannies seem to do better at highway speeds, even though
>>>>>>>>it often has fewer gears. The lock up converter (used only at higher
>>>>>>>>speeds) is the first area I would explore to explain most of this
>>>>>>>>higher efficiency.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My Chrysler 4 sp automatic, which came out in the early 90s, has
>>>>>>>lockup on the top 3 gears. In effect it has 7 gears.
>>>>>>>The fuel mileage is excellent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"lockup" doesn't change gear ratios,it just eliminates torque
>>>>>>converter slippage. it "locks" the input turbine to the output
>>>>>>turbine.
>>>>>>No "7 gears".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Overdrive" would be "extra" gears.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When he wrote "in effect" he was probably right. Unless the RPM
>>>>> at lockup happens to match between one or more of those
>>>>> combinations,
>>>>>you get seven different "ratios" of crankshaft to ouput shaft speed,
>>>>>even though it doesn't happen because of gear ratios changing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>nope. wrongo.
>>>>when the converter locks up,the crank RPM equals the converter output
>>>>RPM,because they are -locked together-. No slippage.
>>>>
>>>>after that,it's all gear ratios determining output shaft RPMs. fixed
>>>>ratios.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you deliberately misunderstanding us? Nobody claimed an
>>> overdrive type shaft speed ratio. What is being said is that when the
>>> lockup engages, you do in fact get the geared ratio - which you
>>> *weren't* effectively getting with the converter unlocked. So for each
>>>gear in which the lockup works, you have two different shaft speed
>>>ratios: one with the lock off and one with the lock on. The *effect*
>>>is the same as having seven gear ratios, with *none* of them being an
>>>overdrive. I don't know how much clear I can make it...
>>>
>>
>>
>> It's still not any "effective gear ratio".It's just slippage.Wasted
>> energy.
>>
>
>
> Whatever you have to say. Usenet never changes...

Did you have a CAT on that Stude and run ethanol tainted gas?

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
news:3h5Xj.210482$D_3.80592@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Elle wrote:
>> "Crabman" <C@dud.net> wrote
>>
>>>Elle wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Newbie" <newbie@no.spam> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>TWO, I am not sure if "apples to apples" is as fair a comparison as you
>>>>>make it sound. Corolla is available in cheaper versions, Prius is not.
>>>>>A manual CE would not only cost less but also have better mpg.
>>>>
>>>>Most of the reason a manual Toyota Corolla still gets better mpg than an
>>>>automatic Toyota Corolla is that the manual has a 5-speed tranny while
>>>>the auto has a 4-speed one.
>>>>
>>>>For other makes and models, and in the last five years or so, changes in
>>>>auto tranny design have resulted in it often surpassing manual trannies
>>>>when it comes to mpg, when comparing the same models whose only
>>>>difference is the tranny.
>>>
>>>Actually, this mileage is related to less transmission slippage, not gear
>>>selection.
>>
>>
>> Not to sound condescending or anything, but I am glad you chimed in,
>> because on further reading, I thought it should be pointed out that a
>> major factor in automatics traditionally getting worse MPG is the torque
>> converter. The TC represents a "fluid coupling," whereas the manual
>> tranny's clutch etc. are a mechanical linkage. Energy transmission losses
>> are greater with the liquid linkage. As many of the pros here know. (I am
>> just an amateur who works on her own car and reads like crazy to
>> understand it.)
>>
>> But this has changed somewhat with the advent of the "lock up torque
>> converter."
>
>
> Just a short anecdote here...
>
> I'm not sure what manufacturer introduced "lock up converters," but
> Studebaker began using its self designed automatic featuring a lock up
> converter for the 1950 model year.
>
> My 1955 President, a hefty 4,200 lb sedan with 259 V8/DG-250 tranny
> achieved 21/28 mpg in real time road tests in that era. Not bad for a 4
> bbl carb, auto and pretty good performance. My uncle used to really rub it
> in to Chevy/Ford owners...
>
> In a lot of ways, we really haven't advanced much farther.
>
> JT

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote
Elle wrote
>> But this has changed somewhat with the advent of the
>> "lock up torque converter."
>
>
> Just a short anecdote here...
>
> I'm not sure what manufacturer introduced "lock up
> converters," but Studebaker began using its self designed
> automatic featuring a lock up converter for the 1950 model
> year.

Bravo. I read Wikipedia a few hours ago and I believe it
confirms Studebaker was first c. 1949.

> My 1955 President, a hefty 4,200 lb sedan with 259
> V8/DG-250 tranny achieved 21/28 mpg in real time road
> tests in that era.

They did MPG tests back then? What is the history of fuel
economy becoming important to car manufacturers?

Elle
Who pumped gasoline as a summer job when it was 59 cents a
gallon.

Elle wrote:
> "mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> >
>
>> Are you deliberately misunderstanding us? Nobody
>>claimed an overdrive type shaft speed ratio. What is being
>>said is that when the lockup engages, you do in fact get
>>the geared ratio - which you *weren't* effectively getting
>>with the converter unlocked. So for each gear in which the
>>lockup works, you have two different shaft speed ratios:
>>one with the lock off and one with the lock on. The
>>*effect* is the same as having seven gear ratios, with
>>*none* of them being an overdrive. I don't know how much
>>clear I can make it...
>
>
> From my reading, the typical auto tranny's lockup does not
> fully engage until cruising at speeds upwards of 40 mph. At
> 40 mph, it is probably in 3rd or 4th gear. At lower speeds,
> the lockup is disengaged. But the gear should alway be lower
> at lower speeds, too. So I am not sure that I buy Josh's
> characterization of doubling the top three gears to yield
> effectively seven gears on a 4-speed automatic tranny.
>
> On the other hand, I see that "partial lockup" is possible
> and occurs under many conditions, too. This is per the 95-97
> Civic's description at
> http://media.honda.co.uk/car/owner/m.../pdf/14-34.pdf.
> Partial lockup has to be better than no lockup, as far as
> overall fuel efficiency is concerned.
>
> So I would say it is not exactly two gears for one that
> lockup on/off gives. It's more that lockup is often active
> in degrees, being neither fully on nor fully off. When it is
> "on" even partly, I expect it usually helps fuel efficiency
> compared to no lockup at all.
>
>

Agreed. I have no idea if the transmission cited engages the lockup
at low speeds or not. I could see it helping at 30MPH on level ground in
third, though...

Elle wrote:

> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote
> Elle wrote
>
>>>But this has changed somewhat with the advent of the
>>>"lock up torque converter."
>>
>>
>>Just a short anecdote here...
>>
>>I'm not sure what manufacturer introduced "lock up
>>converters," but Studebaker began using its self designed
>>automatic featuring a lock up converter for the 1950 model
>>year.
>
>
> Bravo. I read Wikipedia a few hours ago and I believe it
> confirms Studebaker was first c. 1949.
>
>
>>My 1955 President, a hefty 4,200 lb sedan with 259
>>V8/DG-250 tranny achieved 21/28 mpg in real time road
>>tests in that era.
>
>
> They did MPG tests back then? What is the history of fuel
> economy becoming important to car manufacturers?
>
> Elle
> Who pumped gasoline as a summer job when it was 59 cents a
> gallon.
>
>

There were a few small models with small engines that were designed
to be thrifty for just about as long as cars were built. It would be
hard to answer your question definitively, because it would depend on
how you defined it. Volkswagen used to boast about the 25 MPG Beetle
(although the heavier, faster, more robust Volvo Amazon would also
average 25). Models like the Nash Rambler (introduced in 1950) and
Plymouth Valiant were designed with fuel economy as a significant
factor. I'm sure that whenever there was a Depression or Recession, or
gas rationing, fuel economy was used as a selling point...

>
> They did MPG tests back then? What is the history of fuel economy becoming
> important to car manufacturers?
>
> Elle
> Who pumped gasoline as a summer job when it was 59 cents a gallon.

In 1959 the Mobil Economy Run began running real-world gasoline mileage
competitions with "stock" automobiles. Mobil had sponsored the Economy Run
for years but hadn't used miles per gallon (MPG) to determine the winner.
Some sort of Rambler won, IIRC. GM, Chrysler and Ford complained since they
didn't have any dinky cars that could compete. The Economy Run then became a
2 tier event with Rambler, Studebakers and other little cars competing in
one class and the "Big Three" in the other. Popular Mechanics and Popular
Science covered this competition extensively and the winner got bragging
rights. The drivers were automotive engineers with pocket protectors, slide
rules and taped together glasses. Classic nerds. They'd put skinny
overinflated tires on the cars, install final drive ratios in the 2.20
vicinity and drive like Grandma. Any result over 25 MPG was a big deal.
I'll open Pandora's box with this one, but I remember paying 24.9 cents a
gallon for regular gas in Cape Girardeau in, I think, the Spring of 1971. By
1974 things had changed dramatically. 59 cents was considered obscene in
comparison by then.

"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> Elle
wrote:
>
>> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote
>>>My 1955 President, a hefty 4,200 lb sedan with 259
>>>V8/DG-250 tranny achieved 21/28 mpg in real time road
>>>tests in that era.
>>
>>
>> They did MPG tests back then? What is the history of fuel
>> economy becoming important to car manufacturers?
>>
>> Elle
>> Who pumped gasoline as a summer job when it was 59 cents
>> a gallon.
>
> There were a few small models with small engines that
> were designed to be thrifty for just about as long as cars
> were built. It would be hard to answer your question
> definitively, because it would depend on how you defined
> it. Volkswagen used to boast about the 25 MPG Beetle
> (although the heavier, faster, more robust Volvo Amazon
> would also average 25). Models like the Nash Rambler
> (introduced in 1950) and Plymouth Valiant were designed
> with fuel economy as a significant factor. I'm sure that
> whenever there was a Depression or Recession, or gas
> rationing, fuel economy was used as a selling point...

I imagine you are right, re the Depression etc. Maybe it's
not as obvious to historians because advertising back then
was not quite as developed as an industry. Nor were cars as
abundant, per capita. But surely a Depression-era salesman
used this as a selling point to the appropriate consumer
sector (those on a budget).

Wiki does indeed report fuel efficiency was a considered
factor for Volkswagen's, starting as early as the 1930s, and
possibly under orders from Hitler.

Another, lesser wrench to throw into this discussion, one of
which no doubt JT, you and others are aware: I see some
(fancier?) current car models give the driver some manual
control over when lockup engages.

"Enrico Fermi" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote
>> They did MPG tests back then? What is the history of fuel
>> economy becoming important to car manufacturers?

> In 1959 the Mobil Economy Run began running real-world
> gasoline mileage
> competitions with "stock" automobiles. Mobil had sponsored
> the Economy Run
> for years but hadn't used miles per gallon (MPG) to
> determine the winner.
> Some sort of Rambler won, IIRC. GM, Chrysler and Ford
> complained since they
> didn't have any dinky cars that could compete.

Ha, that would be so Ford.

> The Economy Run then became a
> 2 tier event with Rambler, Studebakers and other little
> cars competing in
> one class and the "Big Three" in the other. Popular
> Mechanics and Popular
> Science covered this competition extensively and the
> winner got bragging
> rights. The drivers were automotive engineers with pocket
> protectors, slide
> rules and taped together glasses. Classic nerds. They'd
> put skinny
> overinflated tires on the cars, install final drive ratios
> in the 2.20
> vicinity and drive like Grandma. Any result over 25 MPG
> was a big deal.
> I'll open Pandora's box with this one, but I remember
> paying 24.9 cents a
> gallon for regular gas in Cape Girardeau in, I think, the
> Spring of 1971. By
> 1974 things had changed dramatically. 59 cents was
> considered obscene in
> comparison by then.

Indeed. :-)

On Wed, 14 May 2008 21:34:54 -0400, AS <donot@spame.com> wrote:

>You are rightly concerned about the batteries.
>
>These 270 or so volt batteries have a list price in the $2500 range.
>They have 228 cells in series and only one needs to go bad to ruin your
>battery assembly. Newer models only use 201.6 volt batteries,
>
>Besides you have the $3400 list price for the inverter and $1100 for the
>generator module.
>
>Though the warranty should do good, imagine getting hit with the
>prorated prices.
>
>Think about all the dead weight you carry around, pollution issues
>(disposing of the battery), and then, having your system repaired in
>case of a failure. We all have heard the stories about a battery not
>charging, alternator issues etc with conventional cars. Think about a
>system many times more complex...
>
>With all the problems fuel cells still have, I think hydrogen is the way
>to go.

Really? Have you priced out a fuel cell lately? And where do you buy
hydrogen? Or for that matter, a car that burns hydrogen? Of course
you can modify a piston engine to burn hydrogen, but I don't think you
will get a cost advantage and it certainly won't be convenient.

The Honda and Toyota hybrids have been on the road long enough to
prove the doomsayers wrong. Hybrid batteries are very reliable and
it appears that they could easily last the life of the car in many or
most cases. The batteries and other hybrid components have an 8 to 10
year warranty so they are all likely to last the life of the car for
most owners. AFAIK, the warranty is not pro-rated.

>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>Hmmmm. The Prius will get, over a year's time, no less than 45mpg. And
>>>that's without any freaky driving techniques.
>>>
>>
>>
>> My concern is still the batteries. The OP had his present car for 12 years
>> so I'm going to assume he wants long life from the next. Will the batteries
>> become a nightmare or just another expense? Just something to be factored
>> in for the total cost of driving over the years. I keep hearing about a
>> five year life, so that would be two changes for the OP if he keeps the car
>> that long.
>>
>>