So the EPA has been lying about fuel economy. I noticed this recently during my research on fueleconomy.gov, which is run by the US Department of Energy. These results have also spilled over into Canada where the NRCAN is showing basically the same thing.
In some cars they show CVT transmissions as having better fuel economy then those with manual transmissions, sometimes by a considerable margin. While CVTs are nice on paper, anyone who has owned or tried one will tell you that they are not more efficient than a manual trans. The most obvious indicator of this is 0-60 times. Manual trans always wins 0-60 vs a CVT on the same car. If the car has the same engine, and the CVT is slower, that obviously means something is adding drag to slow it down. Heat is also a big indicator; does a manual have a transmission cooler? No sir. Does a CVT have a transmission cooler? You bet it does, and it's because of all the waste heat generated by inefficiency. How anyone with a brain could surmise that the car with MORE drag would take LESS fuel is beyond me.
I suspect some level of government corruption here. Maybe automakers are paying off the feds in order to make CVT transmissions more attractive and generate more sales. What do you all think?
What about the CVTs ability to cruise at optimal rpm vs the fixed gearing oa traditional transmission.
Grayson Roberts
Dude I'll be honest with you. This is the most retarded analysis I have ever seen. A manual transmission can be manipulated to meet certain circumstances. Autos and CVTs are pretty much programmed from the factory to optimize fuel efficiency. It's not some conspiracy that a manual which wrings out the gears to their fullest is going to be less efficient than some CVT which prioritizes low RPMs
Andrew Bennett
this
Jose Diaz
>mfw driving around my daily with no cats (knocked em out because they melted) kaka
t. ausfailia
Hunter Smith
It's quite sad that you typed all this out without realizing your autism. If this is bait, congrats.
Asher Harris
First I'd like to point out that I don't of the EPA-like agencies or their foreign counterparts, there is so much common interest in an industry of this size, it leaves no doubt that it is infected with corruption. Second thing I'd like to point out is that with a president who denies global warming combined with an industry that invested massively in taking steps to improve the fuel efficiency of their engines and every subcontractor involved in creating more efficient and modern cars, is bound to clash. These are political matters and I hope there will be no shitstorm avalanche after this, keeping it Veeky Forums related which is hard since automotive industry is a huge political deal but I'll try.
So, I'm too lazy to look up the actual numbers but what you are saying seems perfectly logical. Although it is very necessary to study and publicly report these numbers, I doubt the usefulness of time and money being wasted trying to fix such a huge non issue, on the subject of climate change and efficiency of fuel I don't believe the marginal difference in measured CO2 emission caused by CVT's is a matter of life and death.
Newer, better transportation methods are available and are willingly being held up by other industries. Stop making mountains out of molehills and sending the bill of this ecological process to the consumer.
My 2 cents
Jeremiah Reed
bingo!
Jackson Scott
>It's not some conspiracy that a manual which wrings out the gears to their fullest is going to be less efficient than some CVT which prioritizes low RPMs Senpai can you even read? The manual transmission is MORE efficient than the CVT, not less.
Oliver Green
Does not offset the energy required to power and cool the CVT, except maybe at very high speeds.
Andrew Powell
>Autos and CVTs are pretty much programmed from the factory to optimize fuel efficiency
What the fuck am I reading? Automatics always have shorter gear ratios than a manual gearbox. They are programmed for faster acceleration, not fuel efficiency.
Jason Bailey
>being so sure of yourself, yet so wrong Automatics have different gearing because first gear won't have to be as aggressive (some automatics even take off in 2nd), and they can shift more frequently without constant gear changing annoying the driver.
Automatics can also change shift points based on load, RPM, etc., so they are "programmed for" whatever you want them to be doing at that moment
Jaxson Barnes
the problem isn't the EPA lying. The problem is is automakers know how the EPA tests for emissions and fuel economy. In the lab, there are perfect conditions so the fuel economy they achieve is a lot higher than what the public could ever hope to see, so after testing, they use an algorithm to adapt it to more believable numbers. This algorithm is always being modified to keep up with the times. It was redone in 2008, and again in 2012..
As I said, the problem is automakers know the process. This allows them to specifically set up their cars so that, after the algorithm is applied, gives them a higher gas mileage rating the the car is capable of in the real world. It varies car to car. Example: My Saturn Ion is rated as 25 mpg city, and 35 highway. I have personally achieved both those numbers and can say the algorithm is pretty accurate. On the other hand, a mutual friend of mine was bragging about 4 years ago that her new Hyundai Elantra was rated at over 40 MPG highway. She never achieved the rated city MPG or the highway MPG, and Hyundai eventually got in trouble for lying about the gas mileage of the Elantra. torquenews.com/1081/hyundai-sued-lying-about-elantras-fuel-economy
Hyundai eventually settled and paid customers the money they would've saved had the car gotten the claimed gas mileage.
TL;DR: government corruption is not the problem, lying corporations is
Xavier Foster
>I suspect some level of government corruption here.
There is a LOT of that in all government branches. That's because people work for the gov't and when they get close to retirement, they curry favor with private industry to get a job there. Then they retire from the gov't with their pensions and move to private industry to double dip. You see that with politicians too only their retirement is much more cushy due to no need for a full 20 years.
Cameron Cruz
What in gods name are you talking about. Have you even driven an automatic car in your life? You think all autos short shift into 5th gear by the time you're going 15mph because it's geared for acceleration?
Brandon Sullivan
>Automatics have different gearing because first gear won't have to be as aggressive (some automatics even take off in 2nd), and they can shift more frequently without constant gear changing annoying the driver. Ok. They still have shorter gear ratios which means they will run at higher RPM when cruising.
>Automatics can also change shift points based on load, RPM, etc., so they are "programmed for" whatever you want them to be doing at that moment They also need to be hydraulically powered, which draws power from the engine. And they need to be cooled because of the heat they generate. All of this costs more energy than could be gained from mitigating excess RPM in a gearbox.
>As I said, the problem is automakers know the process. This allows them to specifically set up their cars so that, after the algorithm is applied, gives them a higher gas mileage rating the the car is capable of in the real world. You may be right, but what I've also noticed is that the MPG they report for manual transmissions is way lower than what owners actually report getting, by as much as 10MPG. So while the automatic numbers are being inflated, the manual numbers are being deflated.
Do you know what gear ratios are? Take the GM 6T40 and M32 transmissions for example. Compare their gear ratios and final drive. Which one has shorter gears? Protip: it's the automatic.
Jace Morgan
They have shorter gears because the tourque converter can act as a gear reduction itself. A manual transmission has 5 gear ratios (in a 5 speed) and that's it. An automatic with 5 speeds has 5 ratios plus a lot of slip from the tourque converter which can act as a gear ratio in itself
Sebastian Morgan
That would mean they should have taller gears you dingus.
Dominic Evans
EPA itself doesn't determine the fuel efficiency of a vehicle. They, along with USCAR have the efficiency of the engine / transmission / vehicle calculated independently, then simply verify the results on a dyno. They use a very predictable cycle, which is also how VW managed to get past it without raising any red flags, until a third party noticed the whole emissions thing.
Secondly, CVTs are inefficient / hot because of the high pressures the fluid pumps inside run at. This is upwards of 40 bar at times. This is why an electrically-actuated CVT is pretty much the key to this problem.
0-60 times are not part of the testing cycle which determines fuel economy, as it would be simply nonsensical for them to test the fuel economy while under WOT.
Michael Rogers
>M32 transmissions
Holy shit a 4 speed Auto.
You realize that most makers are moving up to 7-8 speed automatics.
Julian Miller
just get out of this thread. you're making yourself look bad
Benjamin Hill
>Ok. They still have shorter gear ratios which means they will run at higher RPM when cruising. What is final drive? Manual and automatic cars don't share final drive ratios often at all.
>They also need to be hydraulically powered, which draws power from the engine. And they need to be cooled because of the heat they generate. All of this costs more energy than could be gained from mitigating excess RPM in a gearbox. That's not true, look at the numbers here. Automatics are more fuel efficient. The main inefficiency in manuals comes from the loading that occurs under torque, as well as the lack of torque multiplication, meaning the engine must rev out further than it would have to in the comparable auto car.
Tyler Evans
>Why amerifats are the laughing stock of the world, the post.
EPA tests are not real world by anymeans, so stop touting them like they are. They're fucking lab tests where the vehicles average mileage is tested.
M/T options win because CVT design on most cars is shit, they've been engineered to work more like automatic transmissions because people were freaked out by them. If you've even tried to drive a car recently with a CVT you would understand how sluggish and weird they can act under heavy acceleration. However, at cruising highway speeds they can be more efficient. Also >Manuel master race
>I suspect some level of government corruption here. Maybe automakers are paying off the feds in order to make CVT transmissions more attractive and generate more sales. What do you all think?
I think you're a goddamn cucked moron who doesn't know shit, get back to fucking /pol/
Thomas Clark
M32 is a 6 gear manual transmission user.
Gabriel Collins
>You may be right, but what I've also noticed is that the MPG they report for manual transmissions is way lower than what owners actually report getting, by as much as 10MPG. So while the automatic numbers are being inflated, the manual numbers are being deflated. I think the problem is they're using the same algorithm for manual and automatic cars. There SHOULD be a separate algorithm for each transmission.
Jordan Sanchez
And who's going to pay for the creation of all these algorithms? I certainly don't want any more of my tax dollars going to these EPA voodoo magic tests.
Julian Miller
The automakers.
Carter Edwards
>automakers paying for custom fuel efficiency algorithms for their own vehicles EPA tests
Yeah, sure, nothing could go wrong there.
Gavin Thompson
How do you think it has been done up to this point? Consumers aren't going to pay for new algorithms to realize that their cars suck down more fuel than they had expected.
Luis Long
>And who's going to pay for the creation of all these algorithms? The taxpayers dumbass. Who already funds the EPA.
