Why The Future Is The Automatic Transmission

A few weeks ago I was driving a Proton with a 4 speed automatic gearbox. This automatic gearbox was de rigueur of the 1980s and only became really common in the 1990s in smaller economical cars. About three decades ago I was a tiny little tot. I remember my dad looking at a brochure of the then current Honda Civic. It was equipped with a Hondamatic 2 speed automatic gearbox. This was the first automatic gearbox that Honda made and in a period where there weren't any traffic jams, dad bought the 4 speed manual version for mum. Being eight years old, a new car was more important than the actual specification of the car at that point in time.

The Hondamatic however, was not the norm then either as everyone in the world was using torque converter-type automatic gearboxes. This was because by the 1960s, the automatic gearbox had graduated from fluid coupling transmission units to those using torque converters and by the 1970s, the torque converter automatic transmission with 3 speeds became the norm.

One other totally unimportant fact unless you are a whale loving environmentalist is that in the days of the Hydra-matic (a General Motors trade name for the fluid based automatic transmission), fluid based transmissions used whale oil as part of the transmission fluid mix. So basically the torque converter system must have played a big part in saving a billion or so large ocean-going mammals as an afterthought.

Anyway, the point is that we have made our way from 1 speed, 2 speed, 3 speed, 4 speed, 5 speed all the way through to 6 speed, with it now being the norm for automatic transmissions nowadays. We have automatic transmissions with 7 speeds and a torque convertor. We have them with 7 speeds and a dual clutch gearbox (DSG). We have 7 speeds without a torque convertor but with a computer-controlled wet clutch (by Mercedes in its AMG SL63 model). Or we have an 8 speed gearbox like the one above.

There are also Continuously Variable Transmissions, or CVTs, which are basically a rubber band, belt or a chain that seamlessly changes ratios but irritatingly keep the revs high while the speed climbs. Certain Volkswagen and Audis have a fabulous version of the CVT which isn't drony at all. I think this is due to added refinement lacking in econoboxes with the CVT gearbox. But we all know that for extra smooth refinement, a slushbox with a torque converter is the best for wafting. Even DSGs can be jerky at times, hence you still see the normal automatic gearboxes in Rolls Royces, Bentleys, Mercedes Benzes, Audis, BMWs, Jaguars and other challengers to the throne.

Now the argument that manual transmissions generally offer better fuel economy than automatic torque converter transmissions has been diminished with the introduction of more efficient automatic transmissions with a whole lot more gears. The higher number of gears allows close gear ratios giving more tractability of the engine's power band, allowing for higher fuel economy, emissions and power output, even with that power robbing torque convertor (actually not by much, a measly 3-5% nowadays compared to a manual and almost nothing if its an AMG 6.3l engine).

With a bog-standard 4 speed automatic, yes, the economy suffers a little. But with a 5 speed automatic (at the very least), there are no torque holes in the powerband of the car as it would have ratios like any other 5 speed manual.

So the question now is how many gears are too many? A 6 speed manual to some is plenty enough. Formula 1 drivers change through 7 gears in an instant with their semi-auto gearboxes. According to Mercedes Benz (a cut out of their automatic gearbox below), a 9 speed automatic is apparently the limit that customers can handle as they are starting engineering on these, and Mercedes believe that this is the limit that is technically possible.

I somehow doubt both of these premises. Firstly, some human beings, especially sports cyclists, can handle a 21-speed bicycle without any problems whatsoever. This shows that the limit for human beings to actually change complicated gear systems is very possible although I myself find it difficult to do so. Maybe it is because when it comes to bicycles I haven't the patience to read the darn manual that comes with the bicycle. Or understand simple logic and common sense sometimes.

And secondly, if you've ever seen the size of a Formula 1 transmission unit (like the one by Xtrac above) you'd know that it packs 7 gears into something the size of a shoebox. And since the size of our current transmission units are usually at least 3 or 4 shoeboxes in size, miniaturizing and efficient packaging will ensure that automotive engineers will produce 11,12 or 13 speed gearboxes before you know it.

Of course, all these extra gears in an automatic would mean an end of an era is coming soon. The traditional manual stick shift gearbox with a clutch will be replaced by the automatic due to the rising number of gears feasible in an automatic, the ultimate pursuit for smoothness in shifting, fuel and performance efficiency and also emissions control. Even if car manufacturers make a 10 speed manual transmission for a supercar, the revs climb so fast until you'd hit the rev limiter so quickly that you'll be trying to change gears more than you have the time to clutch or de-clutch or row through those gears.

And that is why we will then have automated clutches with flappy pedals behind the steering to change gears in a manual; or something supposedly manual but with an electronic motor or solenoid replacing the need for your left foot to do all the clutch work for you. Thus, the basic manual will be dead pretty soon in all but the cheapest and most basic means of transport. Right above walking, cycling and riding a Honda Cub.

We will then be forced to live with being a little more lazy and dependent on a lot more electronics and computers (like those I-Drives, MMIs etc. etc.) that would be needed to control such an intelligent transmission. This means more running costs unless these automatic transmissions never break -which I seriously doubt since nothing is overbuilt nowadays due to all those bean counting by those accountants. And heck, even our laptops hang and crash in the middle of work sometimes, so what makes car manufacturers think our intelligent software based transmissions won't do the same?

I suppose when the electronics do get wonky it means that its time to trade in that car of yours for a new model. Then it tells you that it is a way for automobile manufacturers to get you to buy a new car every few years. Our quest for efficiency leads to laziness and a continuation of endless consumer consumption - an actual necessity for a manufacturer's mass production survivability. So why don't we all just buy one of those old Mercedes Benz W124s that don't seem to ever break down and forever be your trusty set of transport everywhere? Because we're motorheads and we like something new every once in a while. Ironic isn't it.