2005 Saturn Preview

quote: "4-speed automatic transmission replaces current 5-speed unit"

What the crap? GM and manual transmissions are getting more and more rare every year. I wouldnt mind a 5 speed Ion with these improvements they speak of. Not gonna happen it seems. :(

Anyone else hear about GM and Ford pulling together in developing an 6- speed automatic transmission? GM spent 350 million and Ford spent 375 million.

Blah blah wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news-server.woh.rr.com:

Here is a story about the 6 speed joint venture from the industry website The Car Connection

The short story, it is basicly a new design GM transmission. Ford came in and provided engineering and prototyping facilities that were in short supply at GM at that time. The shipping products will be identical internally with each brand having its own case and electronic control modules.

Joe

Hm, this would be a nice American alternative to the Aisin auto tranny Saturn currently uses, right Blah Blah?

It would also be nice to have the same crisp manual shifting in an ION that one gets from a mustang, that would make manual driving even more fun. marx404

Huh? I think the quote ment that there will be no more manual transmissions in Ions. The next part of that was unrelated refering to GM's a 6-speed auto. Ions probably wont ever be getting that I dont believe. More gears = more money and Ions = less money.

Did I misunderstand the posting about the 2005 Ion? Would they really do away with a manual tranny?

The way I took it was that they wouldn't offer 5 speed *automatic* trannies anymore [that was an option I was faced with when I bought my Ion - I went for the VTi and got the nifty notice, but the VTi has been great so far...] - but only a four speed automatic. (Strange to "downgrade' (if indeed it could even be considered that), but were there flaws in the 5 speed automatic?)

Oh oh ok my mistake then. The site didnt specify what the 5 speed unit was. I dont know much at all about saturns transmissions to say if the 5 speed auto was good or had problems. Maybe their shutting down or re- tooling the plant that made those. The VTi is still new tech so I dont know how good those are. I havent had a chance to drive anything with a variable transmission yet. The VTi should be a good transmission for a Ion.

EPA.

As in, automatics burn less fuel/higher MPG? Or automatics are controlled by computer, so they're more easily manipulated to produce output and have gear ratios designed specfically to reduce emissions, torque and hp be damned? While automatics have done some serious catching up to manuals because of PCMs, etc the 5sp manuals are still listed with higher MPG than 4sp automatics.

Antecdotally, I had to call Briggs/Stratton about a problem with my lawn mower engine and the rep explained how the EPA had put strict emissions requirments on their engine designs forcing them to give (take) control of the throttle position on the model I'd purchased over to a centrifical clutch - that they had set my engine to run at the proper (low) RPMs as to produce X amount of emissions. From a friggin push mower. What I felt like was that they (EPA) are more interested in attacking the little things which they can get to (my piddly lawnmower or an already relatively (H2 anyone?) fuel efficent saturn), than figuring out why the dumptruck in front of me on the road is spewing out thick black smoke which I can't see through.

*sigh*

*ding*

Oh yes, and now the TC locks up in the lower gears, same reason.

Sounds about right.

I'm waiting for a decent EFI that's cost effective for these things. It'd be a lot better in many ways. Oh yeah, I hear Cali is gona require cats on mowers. Surprisingly, lawn mower engines are actually quite dirty, far far more than cars. But, they should be able to be cleaned up a bit easier... *shrug* IMHO, it's the acient B&S design that's flathead and will run on anything flamable, than any inherent issue. Not so for Lawn Boy and that goddammed 2 stroke POS they use. But It's a POS anyway.

Because enforcement of vehicle emissions issues after the sale is the state's problem. It's pre sale that it's the EPA's problem. Though I agree it's stupid anyway. AFAIK, there's also nothing that the EPA can do to force a state to enforce the emissions regulations, besides threatening to do bad things to highway funding, etc. But not much otherwise.

Of course, the local cops arent paid to enforce some regulation written by a paper pusher in DC. Though in NY, they can smog larger trucks by the side of the road. I've not seen it done, though.

The EPA also does what the enviros tell them to, so naturally cars are the big target, no matter what.

Interestingly, in an EPA study done in the early 90's, they determined that

1 hour of lawnmower use produced the same amount of emissions (primarily volatile organic compounds) as an "average in-use passenger car that was driven for 50 miles. This figure is most likely much worse today given the continuing improvements that were made since that time to automotive emissions controls and the fact that many of the older vehicles that were on the road at that time are no longer in use. Per the EPA, non-road source emissions (lawnmowers, boats, other) constitute approximately 14.5-17.3% of total VOC emissions and approximately 20% of benzene emissions with road sources - cars/trucks/etc constituting 45% and stationary sources the remaining 35%.

You can read more about the health affects (primarily carcinogenic) of these emissions at:

The EPAsite also provides many additional studies and facts which are veryenlightening. My reason for responding is solely to help to explain why our"piddly" 3.9HP (the average used nationally) is of interest to the EPA andrequires emission controls. Bob

I keep thinking I'll get a B&D battery mower however the old gas model from Builder's Emporium (pre Home Depot) just doesn't die. The city (San Diego) had an offer if you brought your old mower in they'd sell you the battery model for less that half of what you would normally pay. The line to get one went around the block and I aborted that idea... (not my idea of a nice way to spend a Saturday)

The electricity to recharge such a device (and all-electric cars (ie not hybrids)) has to be generated somewhere. If the power plant burns anything (coal, gas, etc) to generate and deliver that power aren't you creating greater net pollution?

The question isn't baited, I really don't know the answer.

In terms of CO2 (is that pollution today?) you may be right, especially after taking into account multiple conversion losses.

But in terms of all the other emissions, a small lawnmower engine will make 100x more emissions than even an unscrubbed coal power plant (which there aren't any of anymore) for the same power. For everything but CO2, local measurements usually matter more to the regulators than any global picture, so just moving the emissions to a different state is a solution.

Tim.

Great point - the pro electric position I've heard is that the emissions are generally less per unit of energy because there are tighter controls that regulate emissions output on an industrial source of energy. But is that nuclear, coal, gas turbine or photovoltaic? The con electric position is similar to your point added to the waste of energy to produce the batteries and then ultimately recycle and or dispose of them...

...things that make you go hmmmm??