This might be an odd question... - Page 2

noflers · #16 05-26-2015, 08:05 AM

I do think the manual is more reliable. Would this be a bolt and go type deal, or would the computer get thrown out of whack?

99Ranger376 · #17 05-26-2015, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noflers

I do think the manual is more reliable. Would this be a bolt and go type deal, or would the computer get thrown out of whack?

The computer needs to be reprogrammed, or replaced with the one from the manual transmission otherwise you'll have an engine light, because it will be trying, and unable to connect to the auto trans.

noflers · #18 05-28-2015, 07:43 PM

Would it need to be reprogrammed for the 5R55e too? Or is that only if manual is being swapped in?

99Ranger376 · #19 05-29-2015, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noflers

Would it need to be reprogrammed for the 5R55e too? Or is that only if manual is being swapped in?

I'm not sure.

GSF1200S · #20 06-01-2015, 12:31 AM

I cant imagine a 4 popper with anything other than the manual. From what ive heard the autos like to get in high a gear as possible as fast as possible.

In town mileage is hard to compare- the manuals seem to be better by about 1-2mpg in town (from what ive read), but that could just be because of coasting, the fact that there are no torque converter losses, etc. Perhaps an auto could be coaxed to be on par with an manual (or very very close).

From what ive seen the manuals do seem to do better on the freeway by at least 3mpg. Mine will pull 28-30mpg all day and I live in hill country. THIS I do not understand. From what I understand the 5 speed auto has a converter lockout AND its overdrive is even higher than the manual (engine spins less rpms at a given speed). It would seem to me the auto would get better mileage on the freeway, or at least the same. Can someone explain this to me?

While the 3.0 may not seem much better by the numbers than a 2.5, I think driving the two would be a different story. Below that max torque curve the 4 falls off quickly. I dont know but im willing to bet with the displacement and extra 2 cylinders the vulcan prolly pulls alot better. With the 4s- especially the duratec- you have to spin it to move it. However, if you spin it, watch the mpgs drop like a stone. You might be better off throwing a manual in your 3.0.

Manuals definitely have the autos beat on acceleration. I imagine the 5 speed auto is better than the 4 speed auto for sure- Ranger engines (except the 4.0) need all the help they can get from the tranny..

GLH · #21 06-01-2015, 01:38 AM

The 5 speed auto is very efficient as far as how it manages torque. If you want to shift down, all you need to do is put more pressure on the skinny pedal. It does not shift out too fast. Faster if you are grandpa-ing around, sure, but that is what it is supposed to do and you can lock out overdrive. You can even put it in 2nd gear and it starts out in 2nd, for traction control, and will stay in 2nd until you return the selector to D. Also, contrary to popular belief, the 3.0 is alot more powerful than the 2.3 or the 2.5. Not as powerful as the 4.0, but not near as far behind and some exxagerate it. The 4.0 isn't a hotrod either.

mrmoerder · #22 06-01-2015, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GLH

The 5 speed auto is very efficient as far as how it manages torque. If you want to shift down, all you need to do is put more pressure on the skinny pedal. It does not shift out too fast. Faster if you are grandpa-ing around, sure, but that is what it is supposed to do and you can lock out overdrive. You can even put it in 2nd gear and it starts out in 2nd, for traction control, and will stay in 2nd until you return the selector to D. Also, contrary to popular belief, the 3.0 is alot more powerful than the 2.3 or the 2.5. Not as powerful as the 4.0, but not near as far behind and some exxagerate it. The 4.0 isn't a hotrod either.

i like my 5 speed auto alot. As he said, very easy to control shifting. Mines mated to a SOHC 4.0 so i cant speak if youre putting another engine on it. Consider swapping a 4.0. Theyre funnnnnn

noflers · #23 06-01-2015, 07:31 PM

Haha, if I had the 4.0 I'd be more interested in getting it mud worthy. My engine is strong is great for what I need.

RangerMike01 · #24 10-24-2015, 08:18 PM

Ditto on liking my 5 speed auto a lot. As the head of Porsche said recently "there really is not a need for manual shifting in modern cars:"

Garfield · #25 10-24-2015, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerMike01

Ditto on liking my 5 speed auto a lot. As the head of Porsche said recently "there really is not a need for manual shifting in modern cars:"

It's a preference thing.

I know I sure as hell wouldn't want my truck in an auto version.

RangerMike01 · #26 10-24-2015, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garfield

It's a preference thing.

I know I sure as hell wouldn't want my truck in an auto version.

Why?
No human can shift as fast or efficiently as an auto trans.

GLH · #27 10-24-2015, 09:24 PM

Should read - ...as efficiently as a computer controlled automatic made in the last 5 years.

GSF1200S · #28 10-24-2015, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GSF1200S

I cant imagine a 4 popper with anything other than the manual. From what ive heard the autos like to get in high a gear as possible as fast as possible.

In town mileage is hard to compare- the manuals seem to be better by about 1-2mpg in town (from what ive read), but that could just be because of coasting, the fact that there are no torque converter losses, etc. Perhaps an auto could be coaxed to be on par with an manual (or very very close).

From what ive seen the manuals do seem to do better on the freeway by at least 3mpg. Mine will pull 28-30mpg all day and I live in hill country. THIS I do not understand. From what I understand the 5 speed auto has a converter lockout AND its overdrive is even higher than the manual (engine spins less rpms at a given speed). It would seem to me the auto would get better mileage on the freeway, or at least the same. Can someone explain this to me?

While the 3.0 may not seem much better by the numbers than a 2.5, I think driving the two would be a different story. Below that max torque curve the 4 falls off quickly. I dont know but im willing to bet with the displacement and extra 2 cylinders the vulcan prolly pulls alot better. With the 4s- especially the duratec- you have to spin it to move it. However, if you spin it, watch the mpgs drop like a stone. You might be better off throwing a manual in your 3.0.

Manuals definitely have the autos beat on acceleration. I imagine the 5 speed auto is better than the 4 speed auto for sure- Ranger engines (except the 4.0) need all the help they can get from the tranny..

To answer my own question, manuals manage better mpg on the freeway despite a lower overdrive value (.79:1 manual vs .75:1 auto) because a manual has lower rotational mass and lower frictional losses. To give an analogy as to why this matters, consider your truck loaded down versus empty- it takes more fuel to haul 4500lbs at 50mph than to haul 3500lbs at 50mph assuming the same engine RPM. Since an auto has higher rotational and frictional losses, its essentially adding load. So even though the engine turns slightly lower RPM, it requires more fuel to do so hence the lower mpg.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerMike01

Why?
No human can shift as fast or efficiently as an auto trans.

True, but no modern automatic has rotational/frictional losses as low as a simple manual does. A car with 500hp isnt barely going to notice this difference, and certainly not as much as it would gain with the instant-shift computerized automatics. However, gutless 4 bangers will notice those losses much more, and a skilled driver can still net better mpgs with a manual (assuming ratios are the same) than an auto. Power/acceleration? Its prolly a wash and possibly favors the automatic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GLH

Should read - ...as efficiently as a computer controlled automatic made in the last 5 years.

Yeah, and this too. Automatics have come a long way in the last 5-10 years. Autos used to not be able to compare to manuals driven by capable drivers (short of drag racing perhaps). Now its the other way around!

RangerMike01 · #29 10-27-2015, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GSF1200S

To answer my own question, manuals manage better mpg on the freeway despite a lower overdrive value (.79:1 manual vs .75:1 auto) because a manual has lower rotational mass and lower frictional losses. To give an analogy as to why this matters, consider your truck loaded down versus empty- it takes more fuel to haul 4500lbs at 50mph than to haul 3500lbs at 50mph assuming the same engine RPM. Since an auto has higher rotational and frictional losses, its essentially adding load. So even though the engine turns slightly lower RPM, it requires more fuel to do so hence the lower mpg.

True, but no modern automatic has rotational/frictional losses as low as a simple manual does. A car with 500hp isnt barely going to notice this difference, and certainly not as much as it would gain with the instant-shift computerized automatics. However, gutless 4 bangers will notice those losses much more, and a skilled driver can still net better mpgs with a manual (assuming ratios are the same) than an auto. Power/acceleration? Its prolly a wash and possibly favors the automatic.

Yeah, and this too. Automatics have come a long way in the last 5-10 years. Autos used to not be able to compare to manuals driven by capable drivers (short of drag racing perhaps). Now its the other way around!

Lol - there is a reason one of the most popular transmissions for drag racing is a two speed powerglide auto.

SavageSalad · #30 11-06-2015, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GSF1200S

I cant imagine a 4 popper with anything other than the manual. From what ive heard the autos like to get in high a gear as possible as fast as possible.

In town mileage is hard to compare- the manuals seem to be better by about 1-2mpg in town (from what ive read), but that could just be because of coasting, the fact that there are no torque converter losses, etc. Perhaps an auto could be coaxed to be on par with an manual (or very very close).

From what ive seen the manuals do seem to do better on the freeway by at least 3mpg. Mine will pull 28-30mpg all day and I live in hill country. THIS I do not understand. From what I understand the 5 speed auto has a converter lockout AND its overdrive is even higher than the manual (engine spins less rpms at a given speed). It would seem to me the auto would get better mileage on the freeway, or at least the same. Can someone explain this to me?

While the 3.0 may not seem much better by the numbers than a 2.5, I think driving the two would be a different story. Below that max torque curve the 4 falls off quickly. I dont know but im willing to bet with the displacement and extra 2 cylinders the vulcan prolly pulls alot better. With the 4s- especially the duratec- you have to spin it to move it. However, if you spin it, watch the mpgs drop like a stone. You might be better off throwing a manual in your 3.0.

Manuals definitely have the autos beat on acceleration. I imagine the 5 speed auto is better than the 4 speed auto for sure- Ranger engines (except the 4.0) need all the help they can get from the tranny..

This is true, mine will shift into 3rd before I even reach 30mph...