Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzmitry
Not that it matters to me (I prefer MT), but I see they went to a 3.9 final drive for the auto now. The gear ratios match the previous auto, which were already longer than the manual, and now the final drive is longer too. Easily explains why auto still falls behind the manual a decent bit on top of the added weight. But also pretty impressive. I recall several folks complaining about the auto being slow for modern times, but this should explain why.
Many auto Gen1 owners that wanted improved acceleration bumped up to a 4.3, 4.56, or even higher for quite a noticeable acceleration improvement. This will be even more noticeable now coming from a 3.9 and having a greatly improved torque curve. Shouldn't be much to complain about for the auto-choosers this time around. Or for those that keep it stock, it will probably get somewhat similar MPG's to current gen, which is also nice.
|
These are the real sacrifices made to keep NA. You need long gearing to get the desired fuel economy vs a smaller turbo motor. Auto customers are more likely to care about MPGs so the autos get the long gears.
That said, I wouldn’t trade an NA 2.4 for let’s say a boosted 1.6. In this kind of car the throttle response is just so worth it.