eftychia: Me in kilt and poofy shirt, facing away, playing acoustic guitar behind head (Default)
Add MemoryShare This Entry
posted by [personal profile] eftychia at 04:07pm on 2004-07-17

My car has a button on the transmission lever to select between "sport" and "economy" settings. (Yeah, it's an automatic; not my first choice, but beggars can't be choosers and driving an automatic isn't really bad enough to complain about.) When I took possession of the vehicle it was set to "economy", and since the performance failed-to-suck I just left it there. But on the most recent tank of gas I figured I'd experiment, and drove the entire tank with the button on the "sport" setting. I wondered just how much difference to fuel economy the button made.

The car does feel different when I change the setting, and yes, it does feel more "sporty" or "sportscar like" in a mostly subjective, partly describable way. In some ways choosing "sport" made it feel a little more like a manual-transmission car despite my not having to shift. I expected the big change to be the shift points, that it would shift a little later in "sport", but I noticed a difference when not accelerating as well. Taking my foot off the gas resulted in more engine drag and a more noticeable drop in speed than when the button is set to "economy" ... making me think, "clutch instead of torque converter?"

My gas mileage for this tank was slightly better than average. Not so much that it couldn't be random variation (and there was that one weekend when I didn't drive as fast as usual, but the rest of the time I've been driving normally), but it's a smidgen better than the highest fuel economy I'd gotten in this car to date. I found this a little surprising.

Of course, this also has me thinking, "using the clutch more and the torque converter less?" -- that would explain both the sensations and the slight increase in fuel economy. But it wouldn't explain why the clutch (assuming my car actually has one, which I suspect but have not confirmed) isn't used more often in "economy" mode. After all, wasn't the whole reason for adding clutches to four-speed electronically-controlled automatic transmissions to improve gas mileage?

(What I don't know is whether all four-speed automatics have clutches or not. The first four-speed I drove, a Pontiac, was the first time I'd heard of any automatic having a clutch, and the only reason I knew about it was that it was misadjusted so that the transitions were more abrupt -- and more noticeable -- than they should have been, and I noticed six state-transitions instead of the three I'd expected (the clutch never engaged in first gear, so the transmission had a total of seven states when in "drive"). Now I'm driving a 1990 Honda, and haven't found out the details of the transmission, and the transitions are smooth enough that I could easily believe I'm simply not noticing clutch/torque-converter transitions or that it has no clutch.)

In the "sport" setting the shift points are a bit later -- the engine almost never gets up to 6000 RPM in "economy", but winding it up that far is a pretty nice option to have on a short merge-apron at the end of a tight ramp -- so perhaps if I drove like a peak-testosterone 17-year-old drag-racer-wannabe the mileage would drop way off in "sport" mode, I dunno -- I'm not going to start peeling out at traffic lights just to find out. But for folks who drive reasonably, I wonder whether the difference is not so much "performance vs. economy" as it is "remind you subtly of a sports car vs. feel as though you're being good even if it costs more gas".

Interestingly, other aspects of the car's performance feel more "sporty" in sport-mode as well. I'm not sure whether this is purely psychological (my guess), or perhaps an actual subtle change in the steering since it is, after all, a front-wheel-drive car, so changing the transmission might conceivably affect handling. Again, I wonder.

But if (with the way I drive) there is no fuel penalty to using the "sport" switch, and not a really huge penalty for using so-called-economy mode, I think I'll start switching between the two modes depending on conditions and situation. It turns out I prefer some aspects of the feel of "economy" mode and other aspects of "sport" mode, and as long as switching between them while the car is in motion harms nothing, I'll take the best of each. (In particular, cruising at [mumble] MPH over the speed limit feels more comfortable in "economy".) And my guess is that the switch merely signals an embedded controller to use different constants in its algorithm, not to make an immediate change to the mechanism when the button is pushed, I think it shouldn't cause increased wear or other damage. I hope.

Of course I'm still left with a lot of guesswork. If more concrete clues fall into my lap as a result of my posting this, I shall not be unhappy about that. Or other guesses than mine, for that matter. :-)

There are 9 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 
posted by [identity profile] keith-m043.livejournal.com at 01:19pm on 2004-07-17
I think you should call it the "Eleven switch"
 
posted by [identity profile] dglenn.livejournal.com at 07:07am on 2004-07-19
Or the "oscillation overthruster" ...
ext_4917: (Default)
posted by [identity profile] hobbitblue.livejournal.com at 01:49pm on 2004-07-17
Forest always drives our Ford Mondeo in sport - when we first tried the switch on my dad's model it was stunning, like unhitching a racehorse from the milkcart and giving it its head.. takes a bit of adjustment between modes we found, but as we don't get to drive out much the sport mode with its lighter, more responsive feel and a tendency to go vroooom even at a low speed is much more *fun*, and we're not using much gas either way.
 
posted by [identity profile] dglenn.livejournal.com at 07:21am on 2004-07-19
There is that -- if you hardly drive, you use hardly any gas regardless of fuel economy. I can't use that reasoning though, as I go through about a tank a week, more or less. (Less if I'm not feeling well, miss one or both of my rehearsals, and don't do much of anything else either.)

I've seen that as a justification for a really large vehicle as well: "It's only used for the times we need to haul big things, or when the smaller vehicle is already in use and someone else needs to make a short trip. Most days it burns no gas at all."

Me, I drive what I can get. My first car was a hand-me-down from my parents. Most of the rest have been "what I could afford". My current car, my mother bought for me from my uncle's estate, and the two before that were hand-me-down gifts from friends. So my last few cars have been smallish, ecologically-responsible-appearing cars, but I can't help feeling that 24-26 mpg feels a little inefficient when I got 18 mpg in an unstreamlined 1978 car with more than twice the mass, and 30 mpg two cars ago. (Then again, two-cars-ago was a manual transmission. Just how much difference does a standard transmission make to fuel economy?)
 
posted by [identity profile] buubala.livejournal.com at 03:40pm on 2004-07-17
That had an accelerator switch for cruising over 50 mph. When I did which was alot (and at very fast speeds), I would hit the switch and suddenly I had a sportscar. It was like night and day. If I didnt hit the switch I could tell the difference almost immediately. Got great gas mileage when I used it. Driving at speeds under 50 my gas mileage was not too good. I know what you mean. Now I have a sportscar and it just does it automatically and quite frankly gets better gas mileage over 80 er 75 er yeah 65 mph thats it. City driving in Baltimore really takes it toll on my car now. Glad you tried the switch! Hope that you will begin to see bigger differences with gas milage.

Dena
aka speed demon
 
posted by [identity profile] dglenn.livejournal.com at 02:30am on 2004-07-18
Do you mean an overdrive gear? When I had a car with automatic overdrive and a switch to disable it, I never figured out the point of turning off the automatic overdrive. (I don't remember driving a car with manual overdrive unless it was a standard transmission where 5th was really overdrive and not explicitly labelled as such ... but I do remember hearing about manual overdrive switches.)
 
posted by [identity profile] buubala.livejournal.com at 06:38pm on 2004-07-18
Thwap on the head. That was what it was called. You are so right. Sorry. I know that when I was living in FL. it was somehow connected to the "planetary gear" in the transmission. This was amusing to me and I really couldnt explain that one. The funny thing is although I know alot about cars I cant explain this one. I dont know alot about the maxima transmissions or engines specifically. Sorry. Feel kinda silly right now.
 
All automatic transmissions have clutches of sorts. I think what you mean
is when the torque converter locks, so it emulates a solid shaft instead of
a lossy fluidic coupling.
 
Yeah, that's almost certainly what I mean. The mechanic who first explained it to me called it a clutch, whether from his own ignorance, laziness of speech, or (most likely) "baby talk for the layman customer". I got in the habit of thinking of it that way, a habit I'll now try to replace with the proper term.

My understanding is that the 3-speed automatics I grew up with did not have that feature.

Links

January

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31