Michigan Short Track Racing Club: Attn: Mad Mike - Michigan Short Track Racing Club

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Attn: Mad Mike

#1 Guest_webracer_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 20 May 2003 - 08:49 AM

I am just wondering, what is it about manual transmission road-cars that saves more fuel than an automatic transmission car?
0

#2 User is offline   w8rca Icon

  • Touring series champion
  • Icon
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 1,481
  • Joined: --

Posted 20 May 2003 - 12:06 PM

That explanation works for me....Don't get anymore technical than that...you'll give me a headache :?
0

#3 Guest_HRT187_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 20 May 2003 - 01:28 PM

Yeah the torque converter is what kills the efficiency of an automatic car. Even a locking torque converter gives up some to a manual. I believe most street manuals have a drivetrain efficiency in the 95% range and autos are down in the 85% range.

In high gear a manual is direct drive, the input and output shafts are directly coupled. This makes less internal friction which is what Mr. McPherson is leading to. I'm sure a racing auto is more efficient than the one in your moms Buick though.
0

#4 User is offline   rj3331 Icon

  • Touring series rookie
  • Icon
  • Group: Senior Members
  • Posts: 619
  • Joined: --
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:vassar,mi

Posted 20 May 2003 - 01:50 PM

I think when it comes to the saving gas part of the story was also that the driver controlled when the transmission was shifted on a stick allowing for the possibilities of fewer rpm's which lead to gas savings.Is the theory that a stick will save gas over an auto in todays computer assisted car still valid?? Or is this one of those that got left by the side of the road..rj
0

#5 Guest_HRT187_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 20 May 2003 - 07:01 PM

I dunno, thats a possibility RJ. By efficiency I meant the amount of power lost turning one though, not that that can't be spun back into gas mileage.
0

#6 User is offline   MaddMike Icon

  • Touring series champion
  • Icon
  • Group: Senior Members
  • Posts: 4,265
  • Joined: --
  • Interests:adrenaline

Posted 31 May 2003 - 12:48 PM

Sorry I missed this post with my name on it...

Auto transmissions have come a long way in recent years and they are approaching the efficiency of a manual, but then the manual stuff is improving as well...

Automatic transmissions have more rotating weight and a loss of efficiency through the torque converter just like Gavin said. The "lockup" converters make them very similar, but they still have to "unlock" under moderate to hard acceleration.

WE all give too much credit to the engineers that design motors. We say such and such motor will get a certain amount of economy... Really it should be the drivetrain engineers that get all the credit for recent increases in fuel economy.

One good example would be the new chevy trucks. My numbers may be off a bit, but not by much. You can get a 300 hp truck with 2 different drivetrain options. one is the normal 4L60 trans and the other a heavy duty 4L80. The truck with the light duty trans will smoke the tires and get 17+ mpg, the one with the heavy duty trans can't get out of it's own way and will get 11-14 mpg. Then theres the new high performance SS truck that WOULD be fast and economical, but the fulltime 4wd kills everything. If you get one of those super high performance SS trucks, I don't think you should expect to win many street races with it...I'll beat you with my '96 half ton 2wd. (unless it's wet out...lol.)

Mike
0

#7 Guest_HRT187_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 31 May 2003 - 01:48 PM

Slicker shapes of the trucks make a difference in economy too, if I could just get the Cd of my cube van down I think I could get double digit mileage, I'm thinking air dam and taking the mirrors off. :P

Them SS trucks are charp though.
0

#8 User is offline   MaddMike Icon

  • Touring series champion
  • Icon
  • Group: Senior Members
  • Posts: 4,265
  • Joined: --
  • Interests:adrenaline

Posted 01 June 2003 - 12:52 AM

they look awesome. IMO they need to be lowered a bit.

Sorry your cube van won't fit in the trailer tunnel for CD research. Could you bring a 1/2 scale mockup?

Maybe you could get a deal on Bill Davis Racing's tunnel time they lost at Daimler Chrysler...
0

#9 Guest_webracer_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 01 June 2003 - 12:35 PM

thanx mike that helped alot.
0

#10 Guest_RacinRob17g_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 01 June 2003 - 03:56 PM

yeah I sent my app to Chrysler for all thier factory backin they took from BDR...I'll take it in the form of a MODIFIED!!!!!!! :wink:
0

#11 Guest_HRT187_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 06 June 2003 - 06:29 PM

Yeah but that 360 has to work a lot harder than my 454 :D

Using the cube as a windtunnel would work 'cept you'd have to make it a roadster to prevent cutting the wind from in front. Not to mention you'd need a crane to get the car in the back of that danged thing.
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users