[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Good post (all of it). I continue to enjoy the discussion.

Thanks, yeah, its a good debate.

I did ask the mods to move all of this to another thread which has obviosuly not been done. Seems a bit odd as they are usually quite responsive to reports made with the "!". Maybe you should report yourself as well!

I think it is time consuming to go through and break off some posts into a new thread. That's probably why they are slow or hesitant to react.

Absolutely, there is no debate that transmissions can be characterized by only 2 attributes. It is not that your convention is wrong or incorrect. However, the question is should they be?

Perhaps not, but the fact remains that this is how the originators of the terms we use to describe transmissions today decided to do it. We could just throw out the terms automatic and manual today. Maybe its time. But again, this means we must now refer to the traditional "automatic" as a planetary gearbox, since that's what it is. And a traditional manual becomes, well, whatever term best describes its internals (I don't like my earlier one that much). Good for the goose, good for the gander.

In fact the only thing similar about them is that they both can select ratios automatically, your key differentiator.

This is about as clear of a "disservice" as I can describe. This is again why journalists and manufacturers typically do refer to dual clutch units as such and CVTs as such. It would only be foolish for me to argue that these two transmissions can not select their own ratios obviously they can.

Right, but again, for the average consumer the real disservice would be to get into the details unnecessarily. And for the enthusiast who does care, well, what I said in the above paragraph applies. We have to get specfic about all transmissions, not the just the new and exciting ones.

Let's look to another automotive area for inspiration and relevance. Is the only important thing about an engine its number of cylinders?

...
Claiming that we only need to describe gasoline vs. diesel is not entirely dissimilar to your scheme for transmissions!

Not quite. I would say both are important and which we use depends on the context of the discussion.

For fun, let's assume someone comes up with never before seens type of combustion engine. Maybe it has variable displacement, HCCI, and an electromagnetic valvetrain. This engine, however, still has pistons (i.e. its not rotary, or turbine) and furthermore these pistons are arranged in a V. We'll call the engine ATCE (Advanced Technology Combustion Engine).

Using that hypothetical, here's my best attempt at analogy to our debate, using engines:

Person A: Boy, that new ATCE is a great V6, eg?
Person B: Yep, it's awesome. It's not a V6 though. It's an ATCE.
Person A: Well, yeah, ok sure, but it is still a V6 though. There are six pistons and they are arranged in a V shape.
Person B: Yeah, but this thing is amazing! It uses HCCI, so its sort of like a diesel, but it burns gasoline instead. Very efficient. And no cam shafts either. You can't really group it in with today's V6 engines.
Person A: Sure you can. Just because it offers a new design doesn't mean it can't be grouped in with previous technolgy. Otherwise we'd have to brake out all other engines based on different tech too - like direct injection, overhead cams vs. pushrods, etc.
Person B: No because this is new and to gloss over all the advancements would be to miss the whole point of the engine.
Person A: V6 engines have come a long way too, you know. What about all those advancements over the years?
Person B: We still have to call this an ATCE.
Person A: Then we can today's direct injected V6 something else too, maybe a GDI-DOHC.

...etc, etc, etc.

Originally Posted by swamp2

What do you say mkoesel, 3.5l we are hearing again?

I still say it is not practically possible using the current I6 architecture. And to come up with a new architecture now - unless it were to be the start of a new family to be used across all BMWs - makes no sense for a car that needs to hit the expected price point.