Autoblog

I still don't understand why more automatic gears are better, other than some kind of marketing tactic.

As far as I can tell, slush boxes are usually in the wrong gear at the wrong time (i.e. when you need the power to accelerate), and adding more gears just increases the chance you'll be in the wrong gear.

In my 07 Mazda3 they upped the auto gears to 5 , 1 over the 06's 4 gears. It's cruses at 40mph in 5th gear with absolutely no power. If you smash the gas (and you have to push it far), how does it know how much power, and what gear you want? It doesn't do it well.

And both cars are rated 25/31 mpg, so there's no gain in fuel economy from more gears.

I'd just like someone to explain how this "more gears are better" has perpetrated.

↓↑report

VinceP: slushboxes cruise in the wrong gear because of the EPA testing regime, not because of an intrinsic problem with the concept of an automatic. (full disclosure: I prefer a good manual transmission to an automatic any day of the week.) Modern automatics are programmed to start off in 2nd gear where possible, and to upshift as soon as possible to get the best scores on the EPA fuel mileage tests.

In many vehicles with a "sport" mode, the automatic sucks much less because it'll hold a gear a bit longer and kick down with more alacrity. It's a pretty good bet on the part of the manufacturer that people who buy an automatic won't really notice what the transmission is doing anyway, so most of their customers will just keep plodding along without ever thinking about the fact that the transmission isn't in the "right gear" for fun driving.

↓↑report

GM has the 3.6 V6 with the old 5L40 5 speed auto & 2.92 axle ratio, top gear is 2.19:1 reduction

With 6L50/3.27 top gear would be 2.20. That would not change mileage, because the jump from 6th to 5th (2.79), is smaller than 5th to 4th (2.92) (of the 5 speed auto)

So no mileage loss on EPA highway test, and a small improvement in city driving, moving to a 6 speed automatic confers other benefits.
Like acceleration!
The 3.6 V6 Pontiac G8 is slow. Doesn't 1st gear go to 45mph, 2nd to 75, 3rd to 110
With a 6 speed auto, 1st can to to 30mph (short shifting somewhat), 2nd to 60, 3rd to 100.

The problem with the '5 speed auto' in the Mazda3, is that it is still a 4 speed auto + underdrive. 1,2,3,4 (in UD) then 4th + direct drive.
Also the gearing on the 2.3 / 5 speed auto is too short. Isn't a real 80mph 3K on the tach?

↓↑report

"I still don't understand why more automatic gears are better, other than some kind of marketing tactic." - VinceP

It's more than just marketing. The idea is to reduce jumps in the engine rev band between gear shifts - this improves acceleration because it keeps the revs closer to the engine's peak torque curve. Since the engine wouldn't have to work as hard to build speed on the next gear, you'd also wind up using less fuel (all other conditions being equal). This is why more gears tend to equal better performance without sacrificing fuel economy. (In some cases, fuel consumption is reduced.) 6 gear ratios seem to be the magic number though - diminishing returns are huge for multispeed automatics that add lots of complication and cost for little additional benefit.

"In my 07 Mazda3 they upped the auto gears to 5 , 1 over the 06's 4 gears. It's cruses at 40mph in 5th gear with absolutely no power. If you smash the gas (and you have to push it far), how does it know how much power, and what gear you want? It doesn't do it well." - VinceP

Respectfully, I don't think you know what you're talking about. The drivetrain upgrades were launched for the '06 model year in response to the upcoming Civic which was all-new for '06. The 2.0 engine got VVT and the 2.3 started shipping w/the 5-sp auto. The feature content upgrades and appearance refresh were delayed until the '07 model year because of parts sourcing issues. I drive an '08 3s GT w/auto and I can relate to the cruising @ 40mph thing, but there's very little drama to get the transmission to shift for more power. Sometimes I think it downshifts needlessly to accelerate faster than I wanted, but you and I are just talking opinion at this point. The 3 has awesome transmissions - both the manual and the auto are very good for their class and then some. Remember, you're driving around a 2.3L engine putting out 156bhp and 150ft-lb of torque.. which you cant get to until about 6K RPM anyway (the joys of DOHC). This a mass-market commuter, not a street racer. If the auto tranny isn't doing what you want, Mazda did provide a manual mode for you to tell it exactly what gear to be in - I don't know of any other c-segment vehicle with this feature on their automatics.

"And both cars are rated 25/31 mpg, so there's no gain in fuel economy from more gears." - VinceP

Wrong again. Where did you get these numbers? Unless you're talking about the lower trim 2.0 engine, these ratings have never appeared on any window sticker for the Mazda3 in the USA. The ratings for the 2.3 were previously 26 cty, 34 hwy. The updated ratings are now 22cty/28hwy per the recently revised EPA testing regimen. (I've kept the window stickers for my 2004, 2006,and 2008 MZ3s.) Again, the point of upgrading the transmission was to improve performance without compromising fuel economy. In this way, Mazda was able to keep the 3 fresh and competitive.

↓↑report

How 'bout a six speed manual first? "Sport truck" my ass!

↓↑report

Yes, if you have the gears & the ratio spread.

GM had a wide ratio 4 speed auto: 3.059, 1.625, 1, 0.696. 4.4:1 is plenty wide for only 4 gears.

Honda just touted wider ratio spread in the new TL
http://www.worldcarfans.com/9080819.002/page7/2009-acura-tl-in-depth
5.5:1 is second to the '5 speed auto' in the RAV4 5.6:1
The CVT in the Maxima in only 5.4:1

↓↑report

Re: P.S.

Um, hit "Returning", stick in your email and password, and check the "remember me" box.

You still have to click "Returning" each time, though.

↓↑report

With only 5% of the population buying manual cars, it makes little financial sense to offer it. I too would prefer it, but a good automatic is fine by me.

Go back to when the new Dodge Charger was introduced. I forget who said it, but ''The one's crying the loudest are the same people who wouldn't buy it even if it was a carbon copy of the original''

↓↑report

I love a good manual transmission myself, but I tell you I'd be much more likely to buy a G8 Sportwagon with a slushbox than to buy this ridiculous imitation truck with a 6spd manual.

↓↑report

But that is the issue. In MOST cars you are charged $1,000 extra for something that 90% of the public wants (automac) and can use.

I mean i know that automakers are trying to squeez as much as possible but come one, offer automatic for free and see people lining up for your car.

Also GM can offer Auto for free instead of cash on the hood or employee discount or whatever else.

↓↑report

I'm not saying manuals are the end-all-be-all of transmissions. I just think they'd have an easier time marketing it as 'sport truck' by at least offereing one.

↓↑report

I never sat in G8, i suppose that G8 and this will be similar, but my god G5-or G6 whatever Pontiac calls it has the worst interior i ever saw in a car.

That G was leather clad and all, the best trim level, just so happened only a few minute before that i was in Honda dealership.


Believe me when i say this Fit has a nicer interior than leather clad G.

↓↑report