Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.
The classification of an automatic transmission depends on whether or not you have to shift it. If you don't have to shift, it's an automatic.
|
Well that is one "working" definition. However, 99.9% of folks will adopt a definition similar to mine based on the DESIGN of the transmission, not the most coarse description of how a user interacts with the transmission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.
As a for instance, are CVTs not automatics?
|
No it is not an automatic; based on its fundamental design and operational principles it is it's own category, the CVT category. It is so crystal clear to me that a CVT is not an automatic. Another case and point as to why your definition is neither useful nor a standard definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.
As a comment on lightness and efficiency, you're going to be hard-pressed to find a lighter, more efficient transmission than the automatic in the Toyota Prius.
|
The exception does not the rule make, ugh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.
PS - You and I are going to disagree forever on this point, and also on your opinion of the "lossy nature" of an automatic. That's yesterday's news when you take a look at the current offerings. Probably the best evidence of this is that autos typically hold their own in the EPA ratings. Some are a little better, and some are a little worse, but they're certainly efficient.
|
It is likely that I (and 99.9% of others) will disagree with you.
I have not done a detailed statistical study of the mpg variations between autos and MTs. If one did and removed confounding variables I'd be willing to be you would find mpg MT > mpg AT. Just use some common sense, all the mechanisms, all the hydraulics and pumps, the multiple clutches, the extra weight. All compared to a few directly engaging shafts with gears, bathed in some lubricant. Hmmm ... which is more efficient???