It should be fairly obvious that when you combine a .67 top gear with a 2.56 rear end you've got a car that's obviously built for fuel economy - not uncompromised performance. Is that a good thing? When you're talking about a $55K coupe, fuel economy doesn't really matter.If GM was truly concerned about "economy" they shouldn't have inflated the price of an inevitably loaded Corvette coupe to $55K!

At this point, I should point out that Daimler-Chrysler chose to give the SRT-8 models a 3.06 rear end (with a .83 rear end) compared to the normal 282 rear end of "plain Jane" Hemis. Why didn't DCX chose higher gearing for fuel economy? Because they were building performance cars.

The great irony is that despite the bigger engine, lower gearing, the loss of the (worthless?) cylinder deactivation feature and an EPA "gas guzzler penalty," a Chrysler 300C SRT-8 gets better real world fuel economy than a stock 300C/Magnum RT. Go figure!

 

Let me re-phrase my previous comment. Feel free to make paddle shifters and whatever available as options. For those who want an AT and want to have fun sometimes, be my guest.

My fear is if the manufacturers really think of supplanting a true manual transmission with these types of technologies. No thank you.

 

redzed, it "should be fairly obvious" that there is such a thing as too short or unnecessarily short gearing. Put a 3.42 behind that 4.02 first gear and you get a 13.75:1 ratio. Kinda like a "granny gear" or "creeper gear" (not really, but pretty short for a torquey V8)...As I just illustrated rather completely, the first gear ratio is now significantly more aggressive than the current automatic (with or without the performance axle), and indeed more aggressive than the six speed manual's first gear (Z51 or regular six speed). At the same time, they are able to offer the taller overdrive for improved economy and quieter cruising.

Overall gear ratio between the engine and the wheels is what matters, not the axle alone.

And again, it has just been released. Perhaps there will be a more aggressive transmission/axle combination available, if necessary. I'd imagine, though, that for most Vette buyers the new gearing is plenty aggressive enough. It is far more aggressive (and yet taller at the top end) than the current four speed auto, and the four speed auto still counts for a huge percentage of happy Corvette owners. Somehow I doubt they'll be pissed about the new "base" transmission that will be both faster and more efficient than the current automatic with either the base or the "performance" axle ratio.

And you are dreaming if you think fuel economy does not matter. CAFE matters, and even though the Vette is low volume, it still counts. Plus, GM needs to advance the idea that it can make vehicles both powerful and fuel efficient. If the Vette gets faster for '06 AND shows a 2 or 3 mpg increase in hwy fuel economy, that is another point or two for GM. It all matters. The gas guzzler tax matters, whether or not it affects the buyer's ability to afford the car. The fact that the Z06 gets 26 mpg highway, with over 500 hp, is pretty nice to talk about (considering the Vipers/Ferraris/Lambos are in the teens or just hit 20 mpg). Does the owner of a Ferrari care? Of course not. But it makes the company look more impressive, especially for the misguided idiots out there who think Toyota is the green company and GM builds guzzlers...

EDIT: Oh yeah, the SRT-8 analogy doesn't really fly, either. The SRT-8 is a higher performance version of a standard vehicle. Whereas, the Vette IS the standard vehicle. The higher performance version (the Z06) does have a 3.42, if it makes you feel any better. Though that still means that first gear in the six speed auto is more aggressive than the Z06 gearing.

Again, you need to think of overall gearing to the wheels, and get over the hangup on the differential ratio alone.

 

What is your "real world" fuel ecomony source for the information you supplied about the SRT-8 getting better gas mileage than the base Hemi model. Something isn't jiving here. The base hemi displaces less, runs on 4 cylinders when cruising, and has a taller final drive gear. I cannot see this as a reality, and I know the CAFE numbers don't support it, not that they are very real world mind you.

 

Apparently logic will get us no where.

Here are some numbers that anyone can find at Car and Driver...

300C SRT-8 (city: 14 hwy: 19 observed: 14)

300C Hemi (city: 17 hwy: 25 observed: 17)

The only irony here is that redzed is confusing fact and fiction.

 

Thank you for posting that. I was skeptical of his about the SRT-8 doing better (hmmm, bigger, more aggressively tuned engine, shorter gearing, no variable displacement...), but didn't look up the numbers.

I wouldn't say it is ironic, though, since redzed's posts seem to be often like that (confusing fact and fiction).

 

Exactly what about the BMW and ferrari SMG is window dressing? They are real SMGs, almost identical to what you'd find in a F1 car. They are far from the fake 'paddle shift' and 'manumatic' POS's that have started creeping into eveyrthing, including corvette apparently. They have clutches and manual gearboxes, it just has a computer doing all the work. An SMG M3 with the settings cranked to the max definitely shifts as fast as any human i have seen, if not faster. I still think it takes a lot of the fun out not having true manual access to the clutch and gears, but i can see why it would be a big advantage in a racing situation

 

Why argue with a retard? It annoys you and the redtard doesn't ever change.

Sorry, just a random question that popped into my headzed.

 

I guess you didn't notice that Car and Drive got 13 MPG from an AWD Magnum R/T and Road & Track got 12.4 from a Magnum R/T.

Overall, I'd say that 16 MPG from a Chrysler 300C is more than reasonable.

 

I'd say that BMW and Ferrari have pretty much proven that a SMG is a poor substitute for a conventional automatic when it comes to actual automatic shifting - and far worse than a manual when it comes to quick and smooth manually controled downshifts. Much like the CVT, the SMG is a dead end.

 

If you bother thinking for yourself, you'll find that C&D reported that a Chrysler 300C SRT-8 got 16 MPG - a "real world" figure, not a bogus EPA test cycle!

 

Okay good point about the 0.67 6th gear and 2.56 ratio BUT if you floor it ---it will downshift and "BAM"! your gone

I wouldn't say a Corvette offers totally uncompromised performance anyhow---they have had that damn skip shift in the 6 speed for over 10 years.

 

There really are too many variables in these so-called comparisons. IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE DRIVER and DRIVING ENVIRONMENT!! If you disagree than I'd really have to say you're just argueing for arguments sake. I really shouldn't even get drawn into this since it's IMPOSSIBLE to compare "real world" numbers.

Now you're pulling numbers from AWD and RWD cars. By all accounts the AWD has more drivetrain loss, yet using you're numbers it looks like the opposite. In addition, the AWD also has a lower final drive ratio. So, to use you're argument, not only should a car get better milage with an AWD system, but the cylinder deactivation system also nets WORSE gas milage??? And the more economical final drive ratio also uses more gas??

Gimmee a break...

 

Oh, ok. Your initial post seemed to imply they weren't real SMGs. I agree 100% about it being **** poor as an automatic. The computer is just not as smooth as a human when it comes to sliding the clutch when casually shifting. Didn't mess around too much with downshifts when i had the chance to drive one since i didn;t want to beat on the guy's car with him shotgun, but it seems good at matching revs, although again, without YOUR control of the clutch, the computer can't properly guess exactly how to grab the clutvh depending on whether you are downshifting for a turn or going to for more gear to accelerate.

 

Isn't it amazing how some people can just ruin a perfectly good thread?