Why we should be thankful for automatics...and hybrids too!

[Shadow]

Read a few good comments on Jalopnik today. The article was about how the Fiat Abarth will now be available with a slushbox.

http://jalopnik.com/the-fiat-500-abarth ... 1560405350

Anyway, here are some quotes that I find 100% accurate:

...Manuals don't sell cars. Plain and simple. If we jalops want to enjoy the control and connectedness of a manual transmission, then we need the slushbox folks to subsidize our manual habit by buying the same cars.

Bingo. We need the automatic for the same reason we need hybrids and EVs. It allows the companies to conform to federal standards and requirements, while still leaving room for the manufacture of enthusiast-driven (no pun intended) models. Enthusiasts get what they want, the government gets what they want, and the company sells cars. Everyone wins.

Think about that the next time you feel like bashing on a manufacturer for putting a slush into a car that was once manual transmission only. It truly makes me wonder if a car like the S2000 would still be with us if it were for the higher sales numbers that come with offering an optional automatic transmission. Ten years is still a good run, but I can't help but wonder what could have been....

[potownrob]

you're welcome

[potownrob]

Think about that the next time you feel like bashing on a manufacturer for putting a slush into a car that was once manual transmission only.

[ClutchFork]

Bingo. We need the automatic for the same reason we need hybrids and EVs. It allows the companies to conform to federal standards and requirements, while still leaving room for the manufacture of enthusiast-driven (no pun intended) models. Enthusiasts get what they want, the government gets what they want, and the company sells cars. Everyone wins.

It is a twisted relationship anytime the government gets involved.

...Manuals don't sell cars. Plain and simple. If we jalops want to enjoy the control and connectedness of a manual transmission, then we need the slushbox folks to subsidize our manual habit by buying the same cars.

Kind of like the bumper sticker I recently saw on a big pickup truck. Was something like this:
"Drive a hybrid and save the gas for me." But we need them only in the fact that they exist and the market is "automatically" driven by them in that their desires are preyed upon by the automakers in their quest for the bottom line.

I don't hate slushboxes so much as I hate complexity in them. I really like the 3-speed slushbox in my 1999 Plymouth Voyager, but my choice is always to drive manual so my personal vehicle will be a manual. The Voyager is pretty peppy for a 7 passenger minivan and a 2.4L. I always wish it had a stick so I could see how it really could perform.

[tankinbeans]

Is that 2.4 a dog in the Voyager or is it able to move about fairly easily?

Having driven primarily automatics until 2011 I have no hatred toward them. The auto in my 03 Accord was very competent and didn't feel taxed at all.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I appreciate the skill I've learned and that many of my friends can't drive my car. I don't have to feel guilty about not allowing them to borrow my car.

The automatic in Olie is terrible though. He constantly hunts going up even a slight grade and revving around 1100 at 45 mph sounds like somebody choking on gravel. I know part of the last is due to an abbreviated exhaust system aft of the rear wheel. I've started getting in the habit of keeping him in selector position 3 around town because I can't stand him hunting all the time.

[ClutchDisc]

No, the 2.4 has a ton of power. Not sure why anyone would need a V6 in that van. It sure would be nice to see what it could do with a manual though!

[watkins]

That 2.4 is wheezy and sluggish. Theres a reason so few vans were ordered that way. Nearly every third and fouth generation Chrysler minivan was ordered with a 3.3L or 3.8L.

[ClutchFork]

No, the 2.4 has a ton of power. Not sure why anyone would need a V6 in that van. It sure would be nice to see what it could do with a manual though!

A manual and a lighter weight vehicle would be nice too.

The 2.4 is not as hot as my higher revving 2.3L Ford 16 valve DOHC in the Ranger, but the 2.4 runs strong and probably has much more bottom end. (ClutchDisc's 2.2 in the S10 has better bottom end (below 2000-3000 rpm) than the Ranger. I have had all seats full in the 2.4 Plymouth Voyager (1999) and did not notice any need for more power. The only place I ever found a need for more power is at one particular abrupt freeway entrance ramp if traffic is heavy because that ramp has a very short lead distance to get up to speed.

Allpar.com shows the 1999 2.4 at 150 hp @ 5200 RPM and 167 tq @ 4000 RPM.

[ClutchFork]

That 2.4 is wheezy and sluggish. Theres a reason so few vans were ordered that way. Nearly every third and fouth generation Chrysler minivan was ordered with a 3.3L or 3.8L.

Regardless, if I were buying another one, I would go out of my way to get a 2.4.

[Shadow]

Kind of like the bumper sticker I recently saw on a big pickup truck. Was something like this:
"Drive a hybrid and save the gas for me." But we need them only in the fact that they exist and the market is "automatically" driven by them in that their desires are preyed upon by the automakers in their quest for the bottom line.

Well, no matter how you slice it, we need economical cars to offset all the gas guzzling cars/trucks out there. My car falls into the middle ground...it's not a gas guzzler by any means, but it's also not a gas sipper either. Most of the cars I've owned over the years were more towards the gas guzzler side, so it is nice to see all of these 40-mpg cars out now, even if that magic 40 number is often optimistic. The more cars like that on the road, the better the odds are that manufacturers will continue to offer performance-oriented cars. CAFE keeps going up and up and up. I'm curious to see how car manufacturers are going to meet the current requirement of nearly 38 mpg by 2016. The only way I see that happening is if manufacturers sell far more of their economy cars and fewer of their "gas guzzling" cars. Think of all the Fiestas and Focuses Ford will have to sell to offset each F150 they sell.

[Rope-Pusher]

No, the 2.4 has a ton of power. Not sure why anyone would need a V6 in that van. It sure would be nice to see what it could do with a manual though!

I drove one for about 5 miles on I-96 (Express Lanes, of Course!) with my foot to the floor, but it was so long ago that I can't remember now if it went 94 or 96 mph.

On the other hand, I drove a 2.0L 5-Speed to Holland, drove around town for the weekend, and drove back and averaged 36 mpg for the trip. On the way out there I was getting something like 41 mpg @ 65 mph.

2.5 T/C was fun, but I never checked top end or fuel smileage.

[ClutchFork]

I drove one for about 5 miles on I-96 (Express Lanes, of Course!) with my foot to the floor, but it was so long ago that I can't remember now if it went 94 or 96 mph.

Probably 96 mph since you were on I-96. Now on I-94 you would go 94. But the real test is on I-275!

On the other hand, I drove a 2.0L 5-Speed to Holland, drove around town for the weekend, and drove back and averaged 36 mpg for the trip. On the way out there I was getting something like 41 mpg @ 65 mph.

What year and vehicle? If a van, was it powerful enough. I only get 22 mpg out of my 2.4.

2.5 T/C was fun, but I never checked top end or fuel smileage.

That is the one you should take on I-275 or I-696!

[Rope-Pusher]

I drove one for about 5 miles on I-96 (Express Lanes, of Course!) with my foot to the floor, but it was so long ago that I can't remember now if it went 94 or 96 mph.

Probably 96 mph since you were on I-96. Now on I-94 you would go 94. But the real test is on I-275!
I'm thinkin' that if it had gone 96 on I-96, it would have been a more memorable event, so I bet 94 mph is all I got out of it.

On the other hand, I drove a 2.0L 5-Speed to Holland, drove around town for the weekend, and drove back and averaged 36 mpg for the trip. On the way out there I was getting something like 41 mpg @ 65 mph.

What year and vehicle? If a van, was it powerful enough. I only get 22 mpg out of my 2.4.
The 2.0L was a 1997 model that, like all the other Amish minivans at that time, were only sold to a broad.

We built up one 2.4L van with the trans from a 2.0L - the higher final drive ratio made it quite the performer. Also, by merely changing the gearing, the ratings of the clutch operation went up 2 points. With the normal gearing, the vehicle didn't have enough launch ratio and people were always complaining of how difficult it was to modulate the clutch. Think of how you might rate your clutch if launching in 1st felt more like launching in 2nd does.

2.5 T/C was fun, but I never checked top end or fuel smileage.

That is the one you should take on I-275 or I-696!

I was once at a gathering outside of work that featured three (3) 2.5 Turbo Amish Minivans - but two (2) were company owned. Those three vans and a Ryder rental truck made short work of moving my friend's household furnishings across town.

[ClutchFork]

I was once at a gathering outside of work that featured three (3) 2.5 Turbo Amish Minivans - but two (2) were company owned. Those three vans and a Ryder rental truck made short work of moving my friend's household furnishings across town.

The turbo 2.5 was hot! I am sure they didn't hold up any traffic even fully loaded.