We're greatly enjoying our 2007 Odyssey EX. One thing I'm confused
about, however, is the transmission 'activity'.... By that I mean that
it seems to downshift when you take your foot off the gas and are
slowing down. This is confirmed by watching the tachometer tick upwards
as you feel the transmission downshifting. Since our last van was a '99
Windstar (I was happy when it would simply UPshift!) and my other car
is a 6-speed Audi A4, I guess I'm not used to the electronics in the
latest transmissions. Is this really the case - that the car
downshifts? Or is my transmission about to fall out!
Central NJ USA
'07 Odyssey EX
Dano58, wrote the following at or about 1/2/2007 2:29 PM:
I noticed the same thing with my 2006 Accord EX. Read the owner's
manual, at least I think that's where I read it, and there was an
explanation that made sense to me. It DID take some getting used to
though. No doubt about it.
IIRC, the computer senses a number of things including braking, incline,
etc and decides whether to just let you coast or to downshift to provide
extra braking. Now, with 8,000 miles under my belt on the car, I rarely
I would think that it would hurt your gas mileage though. At least it
would if you are anticipating a stop and just want to coast until the
light changes. Is it possible that it waits for you to touch the
brake pedal before it downshifts? That would make more sense.
On the upside, completing the downshift earlier makes it ready to
accelerate on short notice. All-in-all, that is one reason why I
prefer manual transmissions. The AT will never have enough sensors
until they put in one that can read my mind.
My understanding is that the cars do learn how you drive. Now, I'm not
really a car guy, but I'm a computer programmer. I can certainly see
how the computers could learn how you drive and act on it, but it
would also need to understand that a car can have more than one
driver. Until you actually have to log-in, it might get confused. Now
is this the guy with the lead foot or the lady with the sweet
Perhaps they'll start using retinal scans or fingerprint detectors on
the steering wheel. It should be a good theft-prevention model, until
you try letting your designated driver take you home and it won't
start. And then it won't start for you because you're drunk.
Maybe we'd best forget the whole idea.
Well, I'm sure they have improved somewhat since they made the one for
my '98 Ody, but I would be surprised if they now know in which gear I
want to do compression braking. I'm pretty sure they don't downshift
in anticipation of me wanting to do hard acceleration two seconds
before I touch the gas pedal. How does it know that, even though I am
doing a steady 40 mph, I want to stay in second gear to be ready to
make a move in traffic? Does it know not to downshift just before we
crest the hill? For my Ody, I would be happy if it just didn't
downshift when I hit Resume on the CC 4 mph below the target speed. I
would hope they have at least fixed that.
Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
but don't say it can't hold a gear because it can! you can leave it in
full auto or you can manually over-ride - the ultimate in choice. i
agree with you about column shifts however - i can't stand them.
dude, you said auto's couldn't hold a gear - they can. and grade logic
means they select the right gear, certainly a good deal better than some
of the individuals that pop up here from time to time putting their
sticks into neutral and coasting down hills. modern autos are not only
programmed to shift right, they also learn what the driver likes.
eh? how does criticizing [without basis] driver skill address the
ability of a computer-controlled transmission to shift faster than a
stick? makes no sense.
bottom line, you're welcome to drive whatever you want, but don't
criticize autos on the basis of fud - it's simply not justified.
Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you were saying that the ATs
were *selling* faster than the MTs.
My preference for MT is not based on how fast it shifts but rather the
ability to integrate the shifts seamlessly into driving. This
requires decisions based on information that the computer cannot
possibly know. May not matter much for a minivan, but it is
fundamental for a sports car.
The problem with most (virtually all) ATs is that they are biased
toward automatic operation and discourage manual operation. Also, I
don't particularly care for the slippage of the torque converter. I
understand that VW has a paddle shift AT that is actually built like
an MT. This has potential if the AT function can be completely
disabled, i.e. it never makes a shift without a command from the
driver. (Not that I would buy a VW under any circumstances.)
that's your perception. unless you've driven a modern auto, especially
a sports auto, you're just making uninformed assumptions and using them
as your basis for criticism.
how? my auto has the shift in exactly the same place as where the stick
would be. i see no difference. the transmission even has a no-lock
gate between 3rd & 4th [commonest manual override] especially so you
/can/ flip up and down at will.
eh? what "slippage" is that? how does its mechanical function differ
from a clutch [other than it has a much better efficiency range and is
much smoother of course]?
as are a lot of the euro "autos".
dude, have you ever driven an auto? you have pretty much full control
over everything except clutching action - except for the fact that it
won't let you select wrong gears of course.
fear. uncertainty. doubt. if there is no technical argument against
something, people resort to fud.
here's another nugget for you - automatics are banned from f1. like
certain types of ground effects, they gave too much advantage to the
[better funded] teams that had them. the compromise is paddle shift,
but even then, interpretation of the ban has been taken to the limit
since a lot of the control functions are still automatic.
If you put it in 4, will it ever downshift into 3 by itself? When you
shift into 3 does it effectively double clutch?
Well, as you point out, I don't have any experience with modern high
end luxury cars, but I note that at least more modest cars generally
have a significantly greater 0-60 speed and a lower mpg rating. Since
they now mostly have five gears, I would assume that means they are
slipping. Actually, the slipping is partly by design, the so-called
torque multiplier effect. Basically, if you are cruising along and
you give it a little gas, but not enough to force a downshift, you
will see the rpms jump up immediately.
The ultimate "torque multiplier" is a CVT. A lot of people don't like
them at all, but others say they get used to it. (The perception
problem is so bad that some manufacturers program virtual gears into
them thereby defeating the chief advantage of the CVT.) I only rode
in one CVT car, a Nissan luxury sedan in Japan and it wasn't bad in
that application. He drove it fairly aggressively too - we hit almost
180 kph on the expressway. I would like to try one of these. I don't
know if I would like it or not.
Will it let you start out in 5th gear? Not that I want to do that,
but the point is I don't like it downshifting or upshifting without my
Well, I would certainly prefer an MT to the AT in my 98 Ody, but of
course that was not an option.
Perhaps newer, high dollar vehicles are better set up for manual
shifting, and have fewer compromises but then that raises the point:
Why not just have an MT? They are cheaper, more durable and I like
the way they work just fine. For my purposes and preferences, I see
no benefit to an AT whatsoever.
I presume I will never again be able to buy a large, cargo carrying
vehicle (eg. my old Volvo 245 station wagon) with an MT so I assume I
will have to go with 2007 technology sooner or later. I will let you
know what I think.
I would first point out that torque converters are not banned AFAIK,
but they are not used either. I would be curious to know whether and
how ATs would be used in F1 if they were not banned. I can imagine
the programming: if rpm >= redline then upshift, if downshift RPM <
redline then downshift. The situation is a little different on the
road and the technology is bound to be different and more compromised.
I seem to recall Ferrari had an AT at one time in F1. I dont' recall
if it was a clear advantage but I do recall that on a couple of
occasions it decided to downshift into 2nd when it should have been in
5th. That was exciting. Not relevant to the argument but an amusing
story. It may have been an early paddle shifter rather than a true AT
yes, absolutely. it does it on "kickdown" acceleration /and/ it does it
on braking. not gentle braking, but harder braking.
pointless exercise on an automatic. but even then, on the modern autos,
in conjunction with electronic throttle, yes, the engine revs /are/
meshed to the gear on shift.
there's no slipping unless the lock-up clutch is released. see below.
yes, that's what a torque converter does.
that's because the lockup clutch is released to allow more torque. more
flexibility than a stick where you'd have to shift.
that's different - it's not a torque multiplier. if is however a great
way of achieving absolute optimum gear for all conditions.
absolutely! i drove a "real" cvt one when i was in europe years ago,
and yes it is /real/ weird at first. but it's amazing how much you can
get out of a small 2-cylinder engine when it's got perfect gearing.
quite fun! this particular model had 2 independent drives too, so not
only did you have optimum gearing, you had limited slip diff benefits in
snow & ice too.
if you're not used to traditional automatics, the transition is easy.
if you're used to traditional autos, its weird for a few minutes because
it doesn't "shift", but beyond that, they're actually very impressive.
no, but it'll start in 2nd. mine will anyway. useful in snow.
regarding shifting, it'll shift down any time on command, providing
doing so doesn't over-rev the engine - it won't let you do that.
regarding up-shifting, you can hold it back until you're ready, and even
then, it'll wait until it's certain you mean it - if you have your foot
down. if you're not driving hard, it's academic.
i used to think that. then i had a knee injury that prevented me
driving a stick for some months, so i bought an auto. and every time
i've driven a stick since, it's been a real chore. that was nearly 20
years ago. it may be that there's some bad autos out there, but the way
i have my civic set up [the shift pattern is adjustable], the shift
points are pretty much dead on where i'd have them manually, and for
other stuff, i over-ride.
correct - they're heavy.
i think in due course, semi autos will replace sticks. at least in
sports cars. they offer faster, more accurate shifting, and computer
control knows more about the potentials of the system than the driver
does a lot of the time. a friend has a tiptronic carrera - hold the
shift lever and put your foot down, and it'll select the lowest gear for
the speed to give fastest acceleration, and you can revert to auto from
there so it shifts up through in the fastest possible time. trust me -
It is not a bad thing, I just don't care for it. If I want to
downshift, I can do that. If I don't want to, I don't like the car
doing it on its own.
That is what I mean. I figured they had fixed that aspect which is
the worst part of the older ATs.
But that is the slippage. The engine speeds up races up ahead of any
change in vehicle speed. It is like a slipping clutch. As for more
torque (horsepower really) a lot of that is eaten up by the
inefficiency of the torque converter. On cars where you can get a MT
or AT with the same engine, the MT is almost always faster and gets
Neither is the conventional AT, it just has a clever design to let the
engine speed up ahead of the vehicle speed without shifting. It is
basically like a limited range CVT.
I agree that it has a big theoretical advantage, especially compared
to a conventional AT.
That was the original CVT. Do you remember who offered the first CVT
in the US. (I don't think they ever sold the Daffodil here.)
Again though, I am not sure they are any faster or more efficient than
a good MT. Consumer Reports tested the Versa with MT and with CVT.
The MT version was 0.6 seconds faster to 60 and got one more mpg. (And
CR panned that MT.) They also tested MT and (conventional) AT
versions of Fit, Rio, Accent and Yaris. In each case the MT was 2 - 3
seconds faster and got 2 more mpg, so the CVT was clearly better than
an AT but not as good as even a mediocre MT, at last on raw numbers.
And yet, there is hardly a proliferation of CVTs on the market. Most
of them seem to be on hybrids in fact.
I appreciate that many people prefer AT, and if you have a bad knee,
there isn't much choice. But I really enjoy driving the MT. I
haven't encountered an AT yet that I could actually say I enjoyed, but
I certainly haven't driven many new ones.
It was a computer glitch. As they say, to error is human. To really
foul things up requires a computer.
I am open to that, but it has to come down to Civic level before it
will have any relevance to me. I am sure that a Porsche would be fun
no matter what kind of transmission it has.
BTW, you might want to review my post in this thread from 2005:
I had no idea they would work that way, it just seemed like the
logical way to do it.
but i don't understand the problem - what's wrong with it? engines are
not perfect across all rev ranges - why not let a computer manage the
efficiency curves - for that's what's happening.
how is a slipping clutch more efficient? [it's not.]
not so with the modern autos. and that's one of the big things about
honda autos - it's basically a standard transmission with clutch packs
instead of synchros. inherently more efficient than planetary gears.
no dude, they're totally different. "torque multiplier" is something a
torque converter can do - hence its name. everything else is ratio
control, be it continuously variable or discrete.
compared to /any/ transmission. there are mechanical efficiency issues
with the friction interface, but that is more than outweighed by ratio
flexibility and ability to keep the engine at its most efficient.
well, the daf was only 650cc iirc, and 0-30, that wasn't much to touch it.
that depends on the management system. the modern cvt's "simulate" gear
shifts which is the dumbest damned thing since it's not utilizing the
inherent benefit of the system! on that basis, i'm not surprised.
that's consumer and mechanic inertia - nothing to do with benefits or
reliability. trust me on that one - i've driven the daf for an extended
period and it's a great system.
Interesting discussion I started here, I guess....!
I've driven the CVT in an Audi A4 loaner and thought it was weird at
first (as someone else noted). But it also had 'sport' settings where
it would 'shift' thru seven 'gears'. There are more CVT's out there
than you think - off the top of my head, I can think of the Audi (A4
non-quattro auto models), Ford Freestyle cross-over, and Nissan Altima,
Murano, Maxima and Versa.* I think some version of the Ford Five
Hundred has it as well. So, they are becoming more popular.
The best compromise seems to be the automated manual transmissions -
they are a true manual trans with an automated clutch. No torque
converter. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-Shift_Gearbox )
Audi's DSG is commonly considered the best example, although BMW has
one (whch regularly gets panned for poor auto shifting). Porsche may
have one as well. I've driven the DSG and it is excellent, very fast
shifting and a decent auto mode as well. But I still prefer a
conventional manual transmission.
For the Ody, I'm prefectly happy with an automatic.
*Oh, Wiki has a list of CVT equipped autos world-wide.
* Audi A4 2.0/1.8T/2.4/3.0/2.5 TDI
* Audi A6 2.0/1.8T/2.4/3.0/2.5 TDI
* Dodge Caliber
* Fiat Punto 1.2 L
* Ford Escape Hybrid 2.3 L 4 cyl
* Ford Five Hundred 3.0 L 6 cyl
* Ford Focus C-MAX 1.6 L TDCi 110 PS
* Ford Freestyle 3.0 L 6 cyl
* Honda Civic HX 1.7 L 4 cyl
* Honda Civic Hybrid 1.3 L 4 cyl
* Honda City 1.5 L
* Honda HR-V 1.6 L
* Honda Insight 1.0 L 3 cyl
* Honda Jazz 1.4L / Honda Fit 1.3 L/1.5 L
* Hyundai Azera 3.8 Lambda
* Hyundai Sonata 3.3 Lambda
* Jeep Compass 2.4 L
* Lexus GS450h 3.5 L 6 cyl
* Lexus RX400h 3.3 L 6 cyl
* Mercedes-Benz A-Class
* Mercedes-Benz B-Class
* Mercury Montego 3.0 L 6 cyl
* Microcar MC1/MC2 505cc 2 cyl diesel or petrol
* Microcar Virgo 505cc 2 cyl diesel or petrol
* Mitsubishi Colt 1.5 L MIVEC 4 cyl with INVECS-III CVT
(Asian-Oceanian version only, 72 kW)
* Mitsubishi Lancer 1.6 L/1.8 L MIVEC 4 cyl with INVECS-III CVT
(Asian version only)
* MG F/MG TF 1.8L
* BMW MINI One and Cooper.
* Nissan Altima (from 2007)
* Nissan Cube
* Nissan Maxima (from 2007)
* Nissan Micra 1.0 L/1.3 L
* Nissan Murano 3.5 L
* Nissan Primera 2.0 L
* Nissan Sentra (from 2007)
* Nissan Serena 2.0 L
* Nissan Skyline 350GT-8
* Nissan Tiida / Versa
* Opel Vectra 1.8 L
* Rover 25
* Rover 45
* Rover Streetwise
* Saturn ION Quad Coupe (2003-2004)
* Saturn VUE 2.2 L AWD (2002-2005), 2.2 FWD (2002-2004)
* Subaru R1
* Subaru R2
* Subaru Stella
* Toyota Highlander Hybrid 3.3 L 6 cyl
* Toyota Camry Hybrid 2.4L 4 cyl
* Toyota Prius 1.5 L 4 cyl
'04 A4 1.8Tq 6-speed
I would really prefer that Honda would make a Volvo 240 wagon with
performance suspension and an MT, but I have pretty much given up
See my comments below. Few of these are currently available in the
US,. If you eliminate the hybrids, I think there are only about
three. Partly this is due to most CVTs being designed for small
Most CVT designs seem to be reliable and the efficiency improvement is
significant compared to conventional ATs. I really think that the
test drive turns off a lot of buyers because it is so unconventional.
Honda is apparently selling a "7-speed CVT" - talk about an oxymoron.
This is a sure sign that buyers are turned off by normal CVT
operation. Hybrids may be the thing that brings CVTs out of the
See comments below.
The only US Civic currently offered with a CVT is the Hybrid.
I haven't heard of a Honda City in a long, long time. Are they still
Never sold in US.
Discontinued - will probably be replaced.
No CVT in US market.
I am a little skeptical of those dates. I didn't think they were on
the market that long before it was discovered that every single one of
them breaks. And GM wonders why it is going out of business. LOL
Subaru Justy (probably equals one of above models) was sold with a CVT
in the US for a few years in the 90's. Subaru hasn't sold a CVT in
the US since.
Not sure I understand. My GS-R never downshifts on its own.
It is just a personal preference. I like the engine to be positively
coupled to the wheels.
No, I understand that (unlike a slipping clutch) there is a benefit to
the slip designed into the AT. I just don't like the feel of it and
the benefit is more than eaten up by the inefficiencies that come with
Looking at the differences between the ATs in the econo cars tested by
CR, Honda looks about as good as the other ATs (except for the CVT.)
OK, explain it to me. My understanding is that it is just a trick to
get the engine running at a slightly higher rpm to produce more power.
Kind of like a mini downshift. All car transmissions are torque
multipliers. They take high rpm/low torque and turn it into low rpm
high torque. If it were perfectly efficient, the power output would
be equal to input but of course it is always less. No way to get more
power out unless you put more power in, i.e. run the engine at higher
The why doesn't the Versa with a CVT get better mileage or accelerate
faster than the Versa with an MT? Unfortunately, there are few cars
which allow you to directly compare CVT vs. MT.
That is what I recall. The car was called the Justy.
I think the Honda 600 would have blown its petals off. ;-)
Does the Versa do that? CR didn't mention it.
Maybe. I would gladly trade the AT in my Ody for one if it was proven
reliable. Not all are. The on in the Saturn Vue was a disaster, but
I guess you have to expect that from GM. The Japanese units don't
seem to have any problems.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.