Wait a minute, I now have to prove why a known faulty testing method doesn't produce numbers that support my argument??? Next I will have to prove that hot water doesn't make ice cubes faster than cold water.

The particular paper I referenced was specifically on the ability of a modern automatic to turn fuel into work. It discussed a range of vehicles from light delivery trucks to inermediate trucks to big long haul trucks. The discussion was primarily centered on hauling loads, not running empty.

It may very well be that a Honda Civic or Toyota Carolla are more efficent with a manual. I don't know. The SAE has a number of papers on this subject. The papers often note a number of characteristics of efficiency. The most significant of which is that the engine operate at its torque peak, which of course an automatic does better than a manual. These papers focus primarily on increasing fuel mileage and most all conclude that automatic transmissions and CVT transmissions are superior to manuals.

One of the more interesting papers on the subject reported on a study/project where by they tried to improve a manual's efficiency and found, to no one's suprize that the driver had a significant effect on mileage and efficiency. They also found that it was difficult to train a (typical) driver to improve their efficiency.

There was another important item that I was curious about that I found in one of the papers that the acceleration loss on a heavily loaded manual transmission that occurs during gear changing is quite significant. An automatic has only a small fraction of that loss and that is even dependant on the shift characteristic of the automatic.

Steve
'95 Clubwagon XLT

 

Did I say prove?

No, I didn't. I just said explain. I don't think it's reasonable to ignore a huge set of data that pertains directly to the discussion because of a flaw that doesn't impact the results we care about. If you think it does impact the results we care about, then I'll listen to what you have to say.

With a couple rare exceptions, any vehicle that undergoes EPA fuel economy is more efficient when equipped with a manual transmission.

 

i prefer stick in any situation but one-plowing snow. when dad first got a '77 F250 years ago with a C6 i thought, oh no, at least we can swap it out later. that first winter he got a used western plow for it. this truck had a 400 and 4:10 gears in it, full-time 4wd. 6 mpg no matter what. in 3rd gear by 15 mph. but what a puller, and after plowing snow with it, id never want to do that with a standard. i had drove a auto equiped truck before that was geared too high, 2.73s i think it had. talk about sluggish and no power. im sure it got reasonable fuel milage, but it was useless hooked up to two wagons of wet corn. dads current truck is a '94 F250 4x with the 351, E4OD & 3.55s i havent plowed with it yet but im sure its nowhere as good as the '77 was. i cant beleive they put 3.55s in a 3/4 ton from the factory. 3.73s would have been ok.

 

Andy, the EPA even admits their data is faulty. I don't know of anybody that thinks their data is accurate. So why do you give it any credibility. It has no place in this discussion whether it supports somebody's argument or not. Its innaccurate, and everybody knows its innacurate. Sure we don't need to argue of how innaccurate it is relative to this topic?

I don't even know why I got sucked into this argument/discussion. I have a number of friends that I race with that work in Ford and GM powertrain divisions designing automatic transmissions. I also occasionally work as a consultant to various vehicle manufacturers, their suppliers and various tire companies doing product evaluations and testing. It was in this capacity that I regularly read SAE published engineering white papers to familiarize myself with the systems I will be dealing with. I also worked with these companies engineers discussing such things regularly. I even owned a fairly large transmission shop for a few years. That's my backgound. I am not relating personal opinion based on anicdotal information or what someone told me or what I am assuming. If you don't want to consider my statements that's fine with me. The reasources are available at the SAE website, if you want you can read them and decide for yourself.

I just posted the information because somebody asked about it. Personally, I prefer driving manual transmissions in performance cars. Their more fun. I prefer automatics in luxury cars and my daily drivers as modern automatics are move relaxled and comfortable. I really don't care if they get better mileage or not.

After towing with both manuals and automatics I prefer modern automatics. I had an F350 PS diesel with a ZF 5 speed that I towed a 44 Pace racecar hauler. I did just fine with it. I replaced that truck with an almost identical truck equipped with a 4R100W automatic towing the same trailer. I much preferred the automatic. I also know that the little 5 liter in my current Clubwagon that I tow my open trailer with works much better with the automatic as it allows the motor to work in its ideal rpm range much more of the time.

I grew up on a horse farm and learned was towing horse trailers before I had my offical drivers license. We used manuals back then because the one automatic truck we tried drove us crazy. My dad swore he would never own another automatic. I too hated it. But that was more than 25 years ago.

In my experience towing my racecars, the one instance that the manual worked better was in the mountains out west. The long steep climbs at altitude required the auto to run in 2nd gear for extended periods of time which cause them to run quite hot. The manual, which also had to run in 2nd, didn't have the overheating problem. In the case of the truck or the van, starting from a dead stop on an incline and accelerating to speed is much easier with the automatic. And as a point of reference, I have logged about a half million miles towing racecars all over the US.

Steve
'95 Clubwagon XLT

 

We should fire the EPA and hire you to rate the cars instead Steve.

Driving style with a manual is a very good point and is a big factor in gas mileage and transmission longevity. I think you're way off base when you refer to late model manuals as being as expensive as a late model auto to rebuild. They are not. Transmission shop owner or not. I'm a plain Jane machine shop owner with not many connections in the auto industry and I can get most any NV4500 back in top shape for under $250 and a few hours of work. If synchros need help or the mainshaft is damaged the price can triple, but you can very easily buy a good running wrecking yard tranny for that price and put new bearings in it.

I can't fix a late model auto, shoot, I almost killed somebody trying to change the auto tranny oil in a friends late model mountaineer. You're the first and only person I've ever, ever heard from whose owned a psd auto truck and towed with it and didn't absolutely hate the auto tranny and blow atleast one of them up before spending major bucks on having a fancy super tranny built or selling the truck in favor of getting a manual truck.

I have two friends that work as field mechanics for Pape. That company has a huge fleet of F-450 PSD service trucks. They got rid of all thier auto tranny trucks in favor of ZF 6 speed trucks as they were averaging a tranny replacement every 60K miles. The clutches go out in the manual trucks at 50-70K as most of the guys pound on the trucks, but a clutch job is alot cheaper than an auto tranny replacement and the 6 speeds actually hold up very well.

 

I don't know what you are getting for $250 but that's R&R Labor for an NV4500.

A ring and seal kit for an NV4500 runs $250 my cost when I owned my shop. Book labor is going to run $1000 and a bearing and ring kit retail is over $600. Add an inputshaft, a slider or two and a gear or two and your over $2000. A remanufactured NV4500 or ZF for an F350 is $1300 wholesale. Retail on the transmission is going to be $1800 - $2000 plus R&R Labor.

An average rebuild on a 4R100W is $2000 - $2400.

Those are the numbers I was using when I said a manual isn't any cheaper to overhaul. Yes, they will probably last longer but add a clutch job and an overhaul to the rebuilt auto over their service life and you end up pretty close on operating cost. We did lots of fleet work and the fleet managers watched those costs damn closely. We did a lot of that work because we were big enough to turn the trucks quickly (10 bays) and our pricing was inline. Most importantly, our work didn't come back.

Steve
'95 Clubwagon XLT

 

I'm saying a trained monkey can rebuild an NV4500. Anybody with the capability to remove thier transmission and possesses big snap ring pliers and and a big puller can do it. I take the tranny apart I'm working on and order just the parts I need from the local bearing and seal house. I've done a couple diesel NV's with worn 5th gear splines that needed mainshafts, but both had around 300K miles on them. If the tranny has major problems inside I have always been able to find another complete working tranny for less than the parts would have cost. This is apples to oranges of what you're talking about with book rate and quick turnaround, paying for the big overhead of a 10 bay shop. I'm saying I personally can repair my own late model manual tranny as well as the vast majority of people that enjoy working on thier own vehicles can. There aren't many individuals that can repair thier electronic automatic by themselves.

 

Can't argue with that.

Nor are you dealing with the warranty issues. But few people will want to try a transmission. Even those with above average mechanical ability. Its not that they are particularly hard but its unfamiliar territory and most people don't know what they are looking at once inside. Let alone how to tell what needs replacing.

I should note that ZFs are a far cry from an NV4500. It takes way longer to do the rings in a ZF as you will spend a couple of hours with a press getting it apart. Then the same amount of time going back together. ZFs part are way more expensive too. And since this is the _Ford_ truck forum...

Ever tried a Getrag from a Chevy 1500 pickup or S10? We used to get about one a week where a truck owner or small shop tried to rebuild one and couldn't put it back together. They would bring us the parts in a box after having given up. "You can't put this thing back together. Its impossible!" Actually no, but you have to know how to do it. And it ain't easy.

Steve
'95 Clubwagon XLT

 

Perhaps I am missing something. Every year I take a 28' trailer full of bikes from Cincy to Myrtle Beach. That trip involves climbing Indian Mountain, just inside Tennessee. Of the seven vehicles that have made that trip, only the manuals have made it up the hill with ease.

The best example would be a 1995 Explorer with the 5.0 auto (with tow) and a 1994 150 5.0 M5. My truck is slightly heavier and the trailer makes my vehicle the larger of the two. This auto, as with the others, would constantly bog down on the hill when towing. Even with the tow package, they all jump around in RPMs shifting anywhere from second all the way to OD. My truck requires a shift between second a third twice on that mountain.

Perhaps I am better suited for a stick, but it cannot be stated that an auto keeps the engine at peak RPM. A trip through West Virginia under load will quickly dispell that myth.

Mike

 

My mustang's a 4 speed manual.

My last three rangers were stick.

I drive fire trucks and ambulances for a living.

Do I prefer stick over auto? Not only no, but HELL NO!! I guess I'm getting to the age were you begin to consider luxuries (heck, I'm only 40-still a kid!). For everyday driving, I could care less what I drive, and I believe you really meant that people who don't know how to drive a stick; whether through preference or refusal to learn, are less complete drivers. Just because you can row a boat, doesn;t mean you can pilot the ship, either. I've seen many a stickshift vehicle wadded up by dummys.

 

Real world:

My '01 ranger 4.0 with 5 speed manual tranny DRANK gas.

My '03 ranger 4.0 with 5 speed auto DRINKS gas as well; the difference is neglibible. Both ran around 2500 rpm in OD on the highway; where is the difference?

You want to lug your engine and carbon up your heads, be my guest. I can tromp the gas pedal and go.

Fact: despite which version you drive, you are basically pouring gas into the tank and through a hole onto the ground!

Fact: wear and tear is just like death and taxes; you'll get it whether you baby it or beat it. Nothing lasts forever, but the ranger, no matter what you got, lasts a helluva lot longer than anything else in its class!

Cheers

 

Sounds to me like the auto in the explorer was geared too tall for the load. Or whoever was driving it didn't know how to tow with an automatic. I don't know what your bike trailer weighs, but Explorers aren't light so I wouldn't expect that it was any lighter than your F150. My Clubwagon is a 5 liter and at 5300 lbs empty I would think it weighs more than either of those trucks. Not to mention my racecar and trailer together are about 4000 lbs plus the 1000 lbs of gear in the back of the van.

I have towed through West Virginia many times. I used to run at Connelsville, PA and the return trip was south to Morgantown where I picked up I-79 to Charleston, then I-77 to I-81. I have towed over the mountains at Waynesboro, VA on I-64 between I-81 and Richmond. I have towed the stretch of I-40 between Greensboro, NC and Knoxville, TN over the smokies. I towed Monteagle mountain between Chattanooga and Nashville on I-24. Heck, I have towed I-70 between Denver and Grand Junction across the continental divide.

The thing is, once you hit the max stall rpm, the converter won't let the engine turn any more rpm without accelerating. So there is an upper limit. But the manual has the motor's rpm always tied directly to road speed. When towing with an auto, especially with a 5 liter that needs to turn rpm to make power, you have to downshift early to keep it in the powerband. Once you lug it, you're done regardless. The only thing to do then is downshift. You have to plan ahead with ether transmission. The auto doesn't think for you.

I had little trouble towing east of the rockies. Only on the longest and steepest climbs did I have to use 2nd gear. My van is geared well for the load I haul and the little 5 liter has had some minor upgrades to help in towing.

Steve
'95 Clubwagon XLT

 

Perhaps it isn't people that prefer manuals are better drivers. Just seams to me that those people that know how to get the most out of a vehicle for towing, gas mileage, longevity, etc. because they understand how the vehicles mechanicals come together to make it go down the road and get the task at hand done in the most efficient manner prefer to drive a manual.

I think another overlooked angle on the auto VS manual keeping the engine in it's powerband debate is that for a manual to be efficient you have to have an efficient driver controlling it. When I tow or just drive daily I keep the engine right at it's "sweet spot". For me, I don't drive 60 because it's the speed limit, I drive 60 because my engine turns 1800 and that's where it gets the best mileage. When towing, I keep the engine at 2500-2800 and the gear I'm in determines how fast I go. It's that simple.