Re: Re[2]: Fuel economy (was Re: Pressure Acummulator Discoverie

[Eliot Lim <eliot@u.washington.edu>]

> In addition, it is, to my mind, the biggest drawback of automatics.  

*some* automatics.. :)

>If you open the throttle, the d*@$ thing will downshift on you.  

the smarter ones will sense the *speed* at which you depress the
throttle.  i can get full throttle openings without downshifts if i
press the pedal down slowly enough.  to trigger kickdown there's a
switch that you have to further depress into.  however, if one kicks
or "mashes" the pedal, kickdown can be triggered with as little as
half throttle.  speaking from personal experience.

the other thing is the "M" switch that is available on some cars.  in
"M" the transmission functions as a clutchless manual with a torque
convertor-coupling.

>It is not possible to 
> drive an automatic in a fuel efficient way.

trip computer says i get 24 mpg without using a/c, about 23.5 with a/c.
accurate to about 1 or 2 mpg.

>  I'd bet that if the EPA tests were 
> re-run using the full throttle early upshift technique you would see a greater 
> disparity between manual and automatic fuel economy figures.

the EPA tests are so flawed that this doesn't even matter.  e.g. want to
get a really good hiway number?  gear the car astronomically high in top.
does the EPA take into account the % of time the car can actually *use*
the hyperdrive top gear?  nope.  that's why some of those 6 speed muscle
cars such as corvettes and vipers have such BS EPA numbers..

the 6th gear is largely to sidestep fuel economy requirements.


eliot