<VENOM>

Interesting fact the 8 speed Lexus unit is 210lbs, the 6 speed it replaced was 10% lighter not bad, can't seem to find the weight on the MB 7speed, or the 5speed they still use in some of their cars

IS-SV

All things being equal is the equivalent of internet hearsay, lol, punctuated with stuff like "potentially" and "hopefully".

The fact is the multispeed Lexus and Mercedes trannys of recent years are factually proven to be very reliable. Yes progress in the form of good engineering and materials does make a difference, agreed 100%.

IS-SV

9 is just a number, the key is that industry leaders deliver good design and engineering for a more efficient and reliable transmission.

I8ABMR

I think we all know that a 9 speed transmission is just hype. The manufacturers have gone from HP wars to gear wars

LexFather

No we don't know that, it hasn't even been produced yet. What we do know is that real luxury marque continue to make better trannies and they are including more gears. Cars like the M5 etc have 7 gears then many different settings. Its the way of the future.

It is PROVEN that more gears give two HUGE benefits. Better acceleration AND better MPG. There is no counter argument here. Those brands that are stuck in the past get worse MPG and get laughed at for not being up to par in the area of transmissions.

If 9 speeds allows Benz to build 500hp cars with better MPG what is not to love?

rominl

iTrader: (4)

but then to some point, going with cvt is a better idea. problem with more gears is shifting. i am not saying it can't be done of course, but it's a lot of work. with lexus 8 speed, what i notice is there is a lot of shifting, especially from stop, but i always have a feeling the car tries to get to 4th gear "asap"

RXSF

I thought the Lexus 8 speed was actually lighter than the 6 it replaced.

Im all for more gears. Imagine cruising at 80mph and still turning over at 1500 rpm. Imagine the fuel savings and engine noise reduction.

KA8

iTrader: (1)

Wow And I thought our 7 speed auto had 1 too many gear. Not complaining though since our heavy ML can get 22 mpg hwy...not bad at all for heavy awd suv.

RXSF

kind of off topic, but the 3.5 liter that MB has been using for the past decade isnt very efficient. the 7 speed helps, but the newer DI engine they will premier next year will be lightyears ahead.

as for Lexus, they have 6 and 8 speeds...will they even come out with 7 for their lower models?

IS-SV

Yes, somewhat OT but I will reply:

1. The 3.5L (DOHC) has not been used by Mercedes for the last decade, the previous SOHC was less powerful and less fuel efficient which is the dated engine of early 2000's.

2. The current DOHC 3.5L is reasonably fuel-efficient and I agree would benefit from DI. I have actual experience for thousands of miles while owning a 2006 ML350 and found it to be very powerful and fuel efficient considering it was a tall boxy 4800 pound AWD SUV. The 7 speed tranny was a major contributor in it's strong (instrumented-tested by C&D) performance capabilities.

mmarshall

I'm with Henry on this one. I don't own an LS like he does, but my limited experience with them bears some of this out.

One thing interesting, Mike. Some MT Corvettes, Camaros, and GTOs (and the old Firebirds, before that) had a forced 1-4 skip-shift feature in their manuals (the new Camaro SS still has it). It was something done more or less to satisfy EPA....going directly from first to fourth gave better MPG than including 2nd and 3rd. So, while of course this is a manual and not an automatic, here is a case of engineers deliberately NOT using extra gears, and getting better economy. Of course, the big GM 5.7L V8 has the torque to allow it.

Some M-B automatics also are programmed to start in 2nd instead of first, unless you floor it. First gear is essentially a max-performance gear, and not used for MPG.

IS-SV

Sorry to drift off topic regarding the GM SHIP-SHIFT, but that is certainly an example of how the GM of the past came up with crappy and cheap designs to achieve better economy. It contributed to improved economy (for a dated iron block pushrod, 2 valve motor of the past) and was very noticeable and very annoying to astute drivers, not a good comprimise. In short here is a great example of how not to win the transmission war where both good performance/good drivability/good economy is required.



Back on topic, the multispeed auto trannys and CVT trannys have advanced tremendously in the past decade.

STIG

Me too. Quick and snappy yet pretty smooth.

I think 9 speed should be fine. LS has 8 speed right? I don't even notice the shift points beyond the 3rd gear.

mmarshall

It is not necessarily the GM of the past. Some models still use it, including the Camaro SS....and the new Camaro V8 is aluminum, not iron. And the term is Skip-Shift, not Ship-shift. (no problem...I sometimes make typos, too)

Well, they've certainly advanced in the number of gears. Yet, it's still surprising how many vehicles with 4 and 5-speed automatics still continue to sell very well. That doesn't seem to be an issue for many buyers.

And, of course, there is usually more difference between a 4 and a 5-speed, in gear ratios, than between a 5 and 6-speed....and so on up the line. In general, the more gears, the narrower the ratio beteen gears.....but also the less difference between the transmisions correspondingly. That is why, if you look at the opening post, even the engineers feel that they are now at or past the point where you start to get diminishing returns, so any more gears are unlikely. And, the better that CVT's get, that will tend to discourage more gears even more.

IS-SV

Let me clarify it just for you, without trivia:

"Regarding the GM SHIP-SHIFT, but that is certainly an example of how the GM of the past came up with crappy and cheap designs to achieve better economy." <---- The fact remains it is a poor design from the past, even if it's still in production.

This was not necessarily a design of the present, in fact it was a design of the past which is exactly what I said.

None of the nitpicking changes the facts that it contributed to improved economy (for a dated iron block pushrod, 2 valve motor of the past back then when it was invented) and was very noticeable and very annoying to astute drivers, not a good compremise.

Again I'm sorry for allowing this to drift off topic, and the crappy feature is not how any of the top automakers chose to "up the ante", therefore not applicable.