|
I would prefer Jake or someone similar with knowledge jumping in on this since they were the experts I was paraphrasing and subsequently called nonsense.
I'm glad R2.0 jumped in.
My understanding on the efficiency part was a five-speed doesn't fully take advantage of the torque curve a Type IV (presumably Jake's Type IV's). If a driver is shifting more often, that's less efficient.
A recent Wall Street Journal article reported on the "Transmission Wars" where today's manufacturers are experimenting with six, seven, and even eight speeds. Basically, two main reasons were sited.
The article quotes many of the manufacturers view this war as being tantamount to the cubic inch displacement wars of the muscle car era. In other words, it is to some degree marketing one-ups-manship.
The other and more practical reason is the necessity to have more gears for fuel efficiency -- which is not what I meant by efficiency.
The fifth gear -- wherever it is placed in the H-pattern -- forces one of two things in the 30-plus year old cars we are driving. (Remember, today's manufacturers build their cars from scratch; not retrofit something different into something which already exists.) It either forces there to be thinner (weaker) parts such that the extra gear won't increase the size of the transmission, or it forces other fabrications (outlined beautifully by R2.0) to become necessary.
Given the extra cost versus extra return of the five-speed renders this into being a personal choice. To say one choice versus another is nonsense is nonsense.
(By the way, I'm still looking for the post which warrants the defense of the German Look scene in Germany. I hope this wasn't meant to imply there is only one valid opinion.)
|