RobY Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 They are putting taller gears in. I rode in a 7spd CLK 350. The car would have been better with a basic 5 speed automatic. My friend took me for a spirited drive. The thing would shift way too much. It seemed to hunt between gears when a single gear would have sufficed. The scariest part is when it started hunting gears in a highway cloverleaf. Anybody will tell you that upsetting the car during a high G turn is bad news. We would have ended up with some gaurdrail rash if it wasent for the ESP. Im convinced that 8 speeds would just be f*in annoying. You can short shift with a 5 speed too. It will actually tach lower between shifts than a 8 speed. Hence the Logic behind CAGS which forced a 1-4 short shift to improve gas mialage in Camaros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLegacy99 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Then Im gonna have to reccomend that you stay away from CVTs. I think you would be frightened. ....I wouldnt want one as my DD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Then Im gonna have to reccomend that you stay away from CVTs. I think you would be frightened. ....I wouldnt want one as my DD. I guess you need to learn about CVT. It works continuously (haha) so gear shifting and resulting momentary lack of traction like in a conventional slushbox would not be an issue. Not that I would want one. MT ftw every day of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobY Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Then Im gonna have to reccomend that you stay away from CVTs. I think you would be frightened. ....I wouldnt want one as my DD. Im old fashoned... Its not like I dont like new things. Its just that some of these new things are just retarded IMHO. The Idea of a CVT does not annoy me as much as a 8speed auto tranny. At least the transition is seamless. Although the idea of any auto tranny on a performance oriented car annoys me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLegacy99 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Im old fashoned... Its not like I dont like new things. Its just that some of these new things are just retarded IMHO. The Idea of a CVT does not annoy me as much as a 8speed auto tranny. At least the transition is seamless. Although the idea of any auto tranny on a performance oriented car annoys me. Its not as seemless as claimed. It kind of "searches" I guess is the word I wanna use. So if you are varying the the throttle it will move around like its confused and you don't get optimal acceleration (or at least IMO) as you would just having a car in second gear and varying the throttle to your heart's content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Bleh, the IS is cramped even for me, they seemed to intentionally design the car with little to no head room. Furthermore, the body kit and exhaust look like something strait out of JC Whitney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLegacy99 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 I guess in the end I would rather have a good ole shift stick at my side so that I can pick the gear and throttle response I want. However, that seems like its becoming less and less popular with Americans. I do laugh at my redneck, gun loving F-150/Mustang driving friends and classmates who don't have a clue how to drive a manual. So perhaps, the IS-F will be available in a MT next year. The IS 300 wasnt available in MT until its second year. Though, the SC has never been available in MT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWDxBOOST Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 looks great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el scorcho Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 . The car does not know the diffrence between being in 5th gear 60mph at 2000 rpm vs. 8th gear 60mph at 2000 rpm. wouldn't that be the same gear ratio? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickeyd2005 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 I agree with RobY. Highway mileage is all about the tallest gear and final drive ratio. it doesn't matter how many increments in between. More gears allow for smoother transitions especially with torque curves that aren't flat. Even then, usually a 5 speed is all that is needed. I know that my Odyssey is very smooth and it only has a 5 speed auto. 6 speed, 7 speed, 8 speed transmissions are all about marketing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xjoecool85x Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 i've always wanted a Lexus Is 350 those are nice cars. But the Is-F I'm not digging it even with the V8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HansGT Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLegacy99 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 6 speed, 7 speed, 8 speed transmissions are all about marketing. Well the proof is in the pudding. http://www.autotrader.com/research/compare/index.jsp?restype=used edit: Well since my link didnt work. If you compare the Lincoln Navigator. Same 5.4L engine and power output. 2003: 4 spd auto 11 city, 16 hwy. 2005: 6 spd auto 13 city, 18 hwy. Not a dramatic improvement, but an improvement nonetheless. And it isn't just about highway miles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabydanimal Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 That's a beautiful car, sans the "quad" exhaust. I'd consider it as one of my unattainable but still desirable cars except for the fact there seems to be no MT. Interesting move Toyota. Dumbasses. that blue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLegacy99 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 there seems to be no MT. Interesting move Toyota. Dumbasses. :lol: Thats why they wanted a stake in Subaru. MT limiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HansGT Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 I'd consider it as one of my unattainable but still desirable cars except for the fact there seems to be no MT. Interesting move Toyota. Dumbasses. not really. that auto trans shifts gears faster than any drivers foot hand combo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeTrout Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 No comment on the airplane-propeller wheels?! I want some! Ich bin echt viel netter, wenn ich nuechtern bin. Echt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickeyd2005 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Well the proof is in the pudding. http://www.autotrader.com/research/compare/index.jsp?restype=used edit: Well since my link didnt work. If you compare the Lincoln Navigator. Same 5.4L engine and power output. 2003: 4 spd auto 11 city, 16 hwy. 2005: 6 spd auto 13 city, 18 hwy. Not a dramatic improvement, but an improvement nonetheless. And it isn't just about highway miles. That's not a good comparison because gear ratios changed as well as a host of other things. I don't know what you're arguing. Read RobY's posts carefully. The number of gear ratios has nothing to do with the top gear ratio. You can have a 4 speed with a tall final gear than a 5 speed. In 1998, I remember distinctly seeing a Honda Accord 4 speed auto get better highway fuel economy than a similarly equipped Honda Accord 5 speed manual on the freeway. It was because the 5MT had a shorter final gear ratio. Of course, the city EPA favored the manual because the torque converter losses in the auto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLegacy99 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 In 1998, I remember distinctly seeing a Honda Accord 4 speed auto get better highway fuel economy than a similarly equipped Honda Accord 5 speed manual on the freeway. It was because the 5MT had a shorter final gear ratio. Of course, the city EPA favored the manual because the torque converter losses in the auto. Yeah, but which is geared to reach 60 mph faster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Yeah, but which is geared to reach 60 mph faster? The SRT-4 of course. That's a silly question.:lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tytek Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Bleh, the IS is cramped even for me, they seemed to intentionally design the car with little to no head room. Try taking the turban off before you get in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickeyd2005 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Yeah, but which is geared to reach 60 mph faster? The 5MT was geared for good quarter-mile times. Gearing for 60 mph is a little more complicated because sometimes if you don't have to make one more shift to hit 60 then it will end up faster. Of course the 5MT was faster because a good driver will shift a MT faster than an auto with a torque converter especially on a NA car so even if they were both geared identically, the MT will be faster. Turbo charged cars are a different matter because they can benefit from the auto since it is similar to flat - footed shifting which prevents losing boost. I've driven the Audi A3 with dual clutch. That thing shifts faster than any auto I've driven and definitely shifts faster than I can on a manual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLegacy99 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 The 5MT was geared for good quarter-mile times. Gearing for 60 mph is a little more complicated because sometimes if you don't have to make one more shift to hit 60 then it will end up faster. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 ^ No turban in real life. Just a 5'10" blond haired blue eyed guy that doesn't fit in an IS with any degree of comfort. I even worked at a dealership that sold Lexus, and tried to like the car and make it fit. Played with the seats for 20 minutes. Couldn't make it work. The back was even worse. Now they are going to put in a V8, and a body kit from JC Whitney so the IS can get ass raped by the M3, C63, and RS4. Yawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickeyd2005 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Exactly. I think you misunderstood. Sometimes, fewer taller gears are faster to 60 mph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.