Honda to "ditch" conventional automatics

failboat wrote: I dont think it matters. Lets not forget Honda's cars are so awesome that they pretty much sell themselves.

USED to be, they are just sucking off of the name they built for themselves in the 90's any more. Their lineup now is pretty much garbage across the board.

I think if people want to have a manual trans option in the future, we should all use our influence as 'car guys' to convince anyone who is looking for a new auto to buy one that is an automated version of a conventional single clutch manual. What cars fit this? My thinking is thats the easiest one to offer both a manual and auto version of.

When the manual version of a car is the auto trans with less expensive stuff bolted to it, i see the manuals survival chances (in our regional market) being much better. In a sense current manuals are already the same car with less expensive stuff bolted to it, but the economies of scale are in grave danger for the manual version. Whereas if the auto version of a car is an automated manual and the manual version uses the same basic transmission.. the economies of scale are built in.

In reply to Vigo:

The problem is that the DSG versions are not the same as the manual boxes. Gear style is the same, and I'm sure the syncro's share some design.

But modern DSG boxes have dual inputs, manuals only have one. DSG boxes are more expensive than a normal manual box, ignoring the electronics.

I think Vigo is talking about true automated manuals, not DSG boxes. Unfortunately, I don't think you'll find any on cars made for the masses.

e_pie wrote:

failboat wrote: I dont think it matters. Lets not forget Honda's cars are so awesome that they pretty much sell themselves.

USED to be, they are just sucking off of the name they built for themselves in the 90's any more. Their lineup now is pretty much garbage across the board.

They currently have a snarky commercial on TV stating exactly what I said, which was really all I was joking about.

I agree that they are relying on their brand loyalty and reputation lately, far more than actually having an innovative super awesome product that is far superior to the competitors.

It looks like what Toyota has been doing for many years now, Honda is going down that path.

failboat wrote:

e_pie wrote:

failboat wrote: I dont think it matters. Lets not forget Honda's cars are so awesome that they pretty much sell themselves.

USED to be, they are just sucking off of the name they built for themselves in the 90's any more. Their lineup now is pretty much garbage across the board.

They currently have a snarky commercial on TV stating exactly what I said, which was really all I was joking about. I agree that they are relying on their brand loyalty and reputation lately, far more than actually having an innovative super awesome product that is far superior to the competitors. It looks like what Toyota has been doing for many years now, Honda is going down that path.

Ah, I haven't watched broadcast TV in a long time so I guess I'm out of the loop on commericals. Don't mind the wooshing sound, that's just the joke going over my head.

ProDarwin wrote: I think Vigo is talking about true automated manuals, not DSG boxes. Unfortunately, I don't think you'll find any on cars made for the masses.

I know that- the current automated manuals are ALL dual clutch boxes.

So it's not as if a single clutch manual that's automatically shifted is going to fall out of a tree and be almost as good as a DSG, which is not quite as good as a real automatic- in terms of shift quality.

I once drove a single clutch auto shifting manaul. Terrible car. Happened to be an M3, and the trans totally ruined the car.

I'll bet money that outside our market, automated conventional manuals still are sold.

As far as shift quality, you have a point but there are ways to get around it (like better software and a torque converter). I really think the rush to dual clutch boxes was mostly in an attempt to be 'cool by association' with the exotic marques and their X-milliseconds shift speed bragging, and not a judgment of the single clutch box as being impractical to make smooth.

And, just because it is tickling my memory, what type of auto trans is in a smart for-two? I dont THINK it's a dual clutch design. I do seem to remember it doesnt shift that nicely.

Im pretty sure that if you ran a torque converter and a software function that would rev match downshifts like a 370z you could make an automated conventional box shift smoothly in both directions. Would it be measured in milliseconds? I guess that depends on how long you want it to last.

In reply to Vigo:

Considering how much more expensive a dual clutch set up is over single, the reason isn't to be "like the exotics"- people who drive autos don't care at all about that. It's all about smooth, fast shifts. I'm sure it costs at least $10, which it a lot when we are talking 100k cars.

You can have smooth or you can have fast, but I've yet to see both on an single clutch auto. The dual clutch puts them a lot closer, but still has issues, such as lack of creep and slow speed operation.

alfadriver wrote: lack of creep

Isn't that a good thing?

93EXCivic wrote:

alfadriver wrote: lack of creep

Isn't that a good thing?

Stunningly, no. People expect to be able to crawl around a parking lot without using the gas.

That, and if this is ever put on a large truck, owners like to back slowly into trailers to hitch them up.

You can have smooth or you can have fast, but I've yet to see both on an single clutch auto. The dual clutch puts them a lot closer, but still has issues, such as lack of creep and slow speed operation.

I cant argue with your experience but i dont think this is an insurmountable challenge. As for the lack of creep, that is symptomatic of the lack of a torque converter, which i listed as being crucial to getting smooth pull-away and soft shifts.

If you put a regular old torque converter in front of a manual transmission, you get the slow speed smoothness and ease of modulation of an 'auto' trans.

It also allows you to smooth shifts by releasing the converter clutch during shifts. Most people do not notice the unlocking of their torque converter clutches in conventional planetary-based autos , and locking them back up is now usually a pulse-width modulated affair so it can vary from imperceptibly slow to neck-snapping, all based on the software.

As for the speed of shifts, an automated single-clutch manual could be shifted just as fast as a manual manual (hehe), and practiced drivers are able to upshift normal manual trans faster than a normal driver would complain about. You could use software to double-clutch rev-match downshifts so that synchro wear under downshifts at any speed would be minimal. Im convinced that an automated single clutch manual would be able to shift just as quickly as your average modern planetary-based auto box can under most driving conditions.

But i admit.. It's a dead horse to be beating. It wont happen.

In reply to Vigo:

And is a god honest proposal. But it, like a wet clutch, requires a pump, which lowers the efficiency of the trans...

It is a good idea, though. Especially since the required pump can be quite small, and you still have a clutch set up to lock it up. Lots of good things that people don't seem to want to solve for...

(the pump is one of the CVT issues, too. Infinite gears isn't really that big of a benefit over, say 6 or 7... For that matter, with modern lock up clutches, the pump is what hampers modern autos, since planetary sets are pretty much as efficient as side by side gears....)

IMHO, it's one thing that nobody has a firm hold on what the future will bring. CVT vs. DSG vs 6/7/8 gear traditional autos. They all have great things and they all have issues. We'll see.

Isn't Porsche running their 7 speed conventional manual on the 991 as a 7 speed DSG without the expensive stuff bolted on?

If it has to be an auto, I'm rooting for the DSGs. If it doesn't have to be an auto, I would like to see sequentials. This will never happen, but I think it would be awesome to combine a quick shifting planetary auto with a foot operated clutch and flappy paddles.

I wonder if they bought the CVT from Nissan and redesigned the controls or if it is a clean slate. I know they have been working on a mechanical lockup hydro-static but I don't know/care the status. I have driven plenty of the Maxima/Murano setups and find them quite comfortable, if you aren't hooning them.

Vigo wrote: I'll bet money that outside our market, automated conventional manuals still are sold. As far as shift quality, you have a point but there are ways to get around it (like better software and a torque converter).

Bah! Automatics don't suck because they shift automatically or because of planetary gearsets. They suck because of that berkeleying torque converter.

Honestly, that's one thing I don't think the DSGs or anything else are going to fix. Sometimes when I'm going for it I want my shifts to be fast, sometimes I want them to be slow and sometimes I want the clutch to slip a little bit. I might even want to clutch kick. Hard to get a computer to read my mind that quickly, pretty easy to get a foot to do it though.

They suck because of that berkeleying torque converter.

Well, the way torque converters are used is changing a lot. They are in lock-up clutch mode a lot more now, than in olden days.

But i dont really know why someone would hate torque converters. When the stall speed is too slow (OFTEN on small-motor cars), that's irritating. But when it's right, it's very gratifying.

The thing i hate about planetary-based autos is that you need ten lbs of E36 M3 to do a five lb job. If you compare the internals of one of those to a manual, it is MASSIVELY more heavy and complex. The pump does have a significant role in parasitic loss, but the rest of it is in the sheer WEIGHT of the trans internals themselves! People are pretty well aware of the difference a light flywheel can make, but most people dont know enough about what's inside an auto trans to realize that at any given time you are spinning a LOT of weight in there, on top of the torque converter (which are a lot heavier in stock cars than they need to be because of 'meh' cooling systems).

So if you hook a torque converter to a manual, you do lose some power running the pump, but you also get seamless (or hard) launches (and brake boosting for turbos!) and shifts and still arent spinning as much weight as a planetary auto.

Vigo wrote: But i dont really know why someone would hate torque converters. When the stall speed is too slow (OFTEN on small-motor cars), that's irritating. But when it's right, it's very gratifying.

Because it disconnects the power from the wheels in an unpredictable and hard to manage way. If I want to creep, I'll creep. If I want to launch hard, I'll launch hard. If I want smooth shifts, I'll shift smoothly. I don't want a fluid coupling berkeleying up my intentions.

FlightService wrote: I wonder if they bought the CVT from Nissan and redesigned the controls or if it is a clean slate. I know they have been working on a mechanical lockup hydro-static but I don't know/care the status. I have driven plenty of the Maxima/Murano setups and find them quite comfortable, if you aren't hooning them.

I'm pretty sure Honda had a CVT before Nissan did. They started using one in the Civic in the late 90's.

These can't be any worse than the piles of metal that honda calls a transmission now. Although, that would make my profits shrink....

Because it disconnects the power from the wheels in an unpredictable and hard to manage way. If I want to creep, I'll creep. If I want to launch hard, I'll launch hard. If I want smooth shifts, I'll shift smoothly. I don't want a fluid coupling berkeleying up my intentions.

I dunno, that sounds pretty much like what a torque converter does too. A torque converter with a lockup clutch can go from soft to 'broke your trans' shifts depending on how you manage the lockup clutch.

And if you want to autocross something like a civic hatch whose handling balance is very affected by engine braking, you just..leave the lockup clutch engaged. Most cars dont do this, but im not talking about what cars already do, im talking about what they could do if enough people wanted them to.

My manual/auto split is about 50/50 (i currently have 6 manuals, 2 of which i converted from auto) and while i personally appreciate the control of the clutch pedal, it is pretty much the exact thing that dooms the manual in the market at large. You dont see a lot of people complaining about the dual-clutch boxes not having that control, either.

Basically if you dont have a torque converter you have a start clutch. A start clutch is like a torque converter that wears out and isnt as variable. A torque converter is like a start clutch that lets you launch or part-throttle accelerate from higher rpm with no wear and also locks up completely when you want it to (like a start clutch).

I really don't think manuals are going to completely disappear. There are enough people who want manuals to keep manufacturers making them.

Bobzilla wrote: These can't be any worse than the piles of metal that honda calls a transmission now. Although, that would make my profits shrink....

As far as I know, the only auto they have had trouble with is the Accord/TL/Oddysee trans. For all the internet whining about it, the failure rate of that trans is 5%.

bravenrace wrote: As far as I know, the only auto they have had trouble with is the Accord/TL/Oddysee trans. For all the internet whining about it, the failure rate of that trans is 5%.

HOLY E36 M3!!!! 5% FALLOUT IS berkeleyING ABSURD!!!!!!!!!! I work in a Japanese company and the maximum acceptable fallout for a unit is 0.5%.

A 5% on one unit is not acceptable.

Did Chrysler buy Honda?