2009 Mazda 6 i Grand Touring: Zoom-Zoom? Try Boom-Roar.

That's interesting. The 2.3L, while gutless, is as smooth as silk. Perhaps the extra displacement destroyed the refinement.

do they make aftermarket mufflers for this?
or how bout a simple cold air intake...

Yeah that's usually how it goes, does the engine sound good? Wait it doesn't.. off the list and into a Camry! Most 4cyl engines are coarse and rough. Especially the LX Accords 4cyl.

The engine in my Mazdaspeed 3 sounds like the two cylinder Kawasaki fitted to my ZTR mower. In contrast, the M10 in my 2002 and the M42 in my 318ti sound considerably better. Not as refined as a good inline six, but close. I think that it helps that both of those engines displace two liters or less. This is a bit OT, but one of the coolest sounding engines is the Triumph 885cc triple from the early '90s. The one in my Speed Triple is fitted with a Triumph/Sebring "Off-Road/Racing" 3-into-1 exhaust. Wind it towards the nine grand redline and if the sound doesn't raise the hairs on the back of your neck you are either deaf or dead.

I wish manufacturers would spend more time and money refining their smaller engines.

I've found the GM Ecotecs to be pretty smooth four-bangers. The mileage was never that great, but the new six-speed autos seem to have fixed that.

Overall I agree with Orangutan above: Not only should today's smaller engines be more refined, but none should have a tranny with fewer than five gears.

Interesting how different folks have different ideas of loud. When I test drove the auto 6i, and had to punch it while merging, not only was I surprised how it pounced, but I barely heard the engine at that high rpm. And it certainly sounded better at high rom than the altima's droning 2.5.

But as always, never mind that; what's fine for nis-hon-yota, is a sin for Mazda.

The engine is loud and thrashy all the time because when you've got a normally aspirated 4 pot trying to motivate a purportedly sporty family sedan this BIG and HEAVY it's going to working its tail off at all times.

ShouldagottheV6. Relevant, or not.

I'll say what everyone else is saying... Shoulda' got the V6! Has a much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much better sound. Oh... and it's faster...

sound clip, please :)

The 4 cylinder in my 2006 Acura TSX is smooth as silk, and very quiet until you rev it up. I drove an Accord LX with the same 2.4 liter 4 cylinder, albeit with less power, but it sounded significantly worse. I've always tried to avoid 4 cylinder engines because they usually are thrashy, but the TSX puts most 4 cylinders to shame.

I'm glad they got the 4 cylinder. We all know the 6 is smoother and has more power. However it's also more money and gets worse mileage.

Since this a long term test, I think it's important to know if the 4 is good alternative engine. I want to know if it's boomy or doesn't get any better mileage then the 6... or maybe it's almost as good as the 6 and you shouldn't waste your money on the 6.

It's tough to get a long enough test drive to really tell yourself.

I agree with firstwagon. Also, Edmunds has already tested the 3.7 V6: in the CX-9. This 2.5 is the new four-cylinder that has or will end up in the Mazda6, Mazda3, Mazda5, Ford Escape, Ford Fusion, and clones thereof.

"I mean, if this were a Camry, then whatever. I expect a Camry to sound like an appliance"

Man ,what an ASS!!

Ummm, have you driven a Camry? It's really is a soul-less appliance.

It's fine for those who sole requirement for a car is that it goes and is comfortable.

Everyone else should drive a Mazda... or some Hondas... or a BMW... or a Jeep...certain Nissans.... a Mini...anything European... point made

T4L, no sane person would ever consider any current Toyota sporty, passionate, or interesting. Calling a Camry an appliance isn't being rude (though you are, FYI) it is stating a very commonly accepted opinion.

First of all , he made a comment about the sound of the engine,what the hell does that have to do with the camries driveability?

what kind of appliance are we talking about?all i have ever about the camries engine is that it's smooth and silky.again what kind of appliance are we talking about?

@ stovt001

so my 2002 4runner is'nt interesting or fun or passionate? tell you what,meet me in the snow ,on the trail or anywhere other than a paved road,oh! i forgot you'll beat me to the next stop light,oh yea!! like i said ,anyone who makes a comment like that is indeed an ass.

"I mean, if this were a Camry, then whatever"

I'll have to agree with toyota4life, the Toyota engines are as smooth as silk. Toyota has the smoothest sounding engines of all.

the Mazda engines (epically the 2.3L) was never as refined as the Toyota and Honda equivalent (IMHO). That' why they came out with this new 2.5L, to up the performance and overall quality, but it looked like they failed. mazda still makes darn good cars, so I don't think it's a big deal.

The Toyota 2.4L is very smooth and quiet. The Camry hybrid I drove some time back was amazing.....you could not tell when the engine was running.

As it exists in the Milan/Fusion, the 2.3 is anything but smooth..its gruff and noisy, and like the previous poster stated, gutless.

It doesn't sound that bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLqidkO0rSQ

Uh, estreka, that's the V6, not the I4.

Here's a clip I found of the I4:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkj-mNifS0c

Doesn't really sound that bad.

Those are nice clips, but I drive an '07 Milan I-4 every day, and it certainly does not sound pleasant, and its not a 'thrilling' loudness either....it just sounds wheezy, overworked, boomy.

I was hoping the new 2.5 would be smoother and more refined, but I would settle for the extra low-end torque for the '10 model.

Oh sorry, I thought those youtubes were for the 2.3.

I'm pretty sure the 2.5 is more refined than the 2.3l as found in the Fusion and old 6. I test drove a 2009 6 and the engine wasnt bad at all. I dont think there are many unrefined 4 cylinders on the market these days. I drove an Aveo (not the refreshed 2009 version) and its engine was pretty smooth.

There's no way you can tell what an engine sounds like from a youtube clip... the low quality encoding turns the sound quality to whatever dissimilar thing it wants to...

@ Camry complaints,

My point was that the Camry isn't trying to be anything more than an appliance, so I don't expect its four banger to please my enthusiast ears (though as it happens, the Camry's V6 is the best-sounding family sedan powerplant in my book). However, the 6 is marketed toward people who enjoy driving, so naturally I was hoping to find its engine note invigorating -- and was disappointed to find that it's actually boomy and grainy.

Incidentally, I agree that the Accord's base 2.4-liter four sounds pretty unrefined. How the mighty have fallen. I remember test-driving a manual-shift '95 Accord EX sedan back in the day, and that 2.2-liter VTEC engine sounded cool at higher rpm. It was the uplevel engine, sure, but is it too much to ask that today's base engine sound at least as good as the uplevel choice of 14 years ago?

-S.B. True

So you guys went with a weak, noisy 4 cylinder to save a few bucks on the price of the car and for better mileage. But now you've got a car that is slow, not all that economical (compared to the V6), and sounds crappy too. Would you make the same choice again?

It's substantially more economical than the Mazda V6, just not that much more than the Camry's V6. Part of the problem is the fact that this engine is mated to a five-speed automatic while the Camry's V6 is mated to a six-speed automatic. Consider that in the 2010 Fusion the same 2.5 I4 is mated to a six-speed automatic and achieves 33 miles per gallon compared to 30 for the Mazda6i and its five-speed automatic. Let's look at the competition and their fuel economy figures.

Camry? 21/31 for the I4 and 19/28 for the V6. Accord? 21/30 for the I4 and 19/29 for the V6. Altima? 23/31 for the I4 and 19/26 for the V6. Mazda6? 21/30 for the I4 and 17/25 for the V6.
Aura? 22/33 for the I4 and 17/26 for the V6.

The four cylinder is the volume seller for every one of them. Besides usually being saddled with transmissions that use fewer gears and manufacturers who spend their time and money refining the larger engines, these sedans are simply large and heavy. Small engines have to work much harder to move and keep moving these vehicles than larger engines. 3.5 liters seems to be the sweet spot for most midsize-ish vehicles today in terms of acceleration and fuel economy. The highway is where large engines can shine and demonstrate excellent economy whereas small engines do best in the city. Let's look at a really small (for the U.S.) four-cylinder and its economy.

Honda Fit. 27/33.

Significantly better in the city but only marginally more efficient (or even equal) on the highway than the sedans above. Going with the four-cylinder Mazda6 would save the average consumer about $200 a year at current gas prices (15k miles a year with 55% highway driving). At $4/gallon the average consumer would save $500 a year. That's in addition to the initial price difference between the two engines, which is about $2500 for the Grand Touring. The price difference only increases as you move to the lower trims. Many people would prefer to have amenities than a more powerful engine, especially when the difference in mileage is as large as it is on the Mazda6 and gas prices have been so high as of late.

"Consider that in the 2010 Fusion the same 2.5 I4 is mated to a six-speed automatic and achieves 33 miles per gallon compared to 30 for the Mazda6i and its five-speed automatic. Let's look at the competition and their fuel economy figures."

Here is the problem which nobody ever seems to mention....assuming the extra 3 mpg is true, that would usually mean a significantly taller O/D gear (6th), and with a small engine, anybody who lives in the northeast is going to be treated to (1) constant lockup disengages, (2) 6-5 or even 4 downshifting, (3) and of course, lots of unpleasant noise apparently, to maintain speeds up interstate grades, or for another example, the Parkways here in New York.

I can say that even with a 5 speed automatic, I curse the day that Ford/Mazda engineers decided that 2100 rpm @ 60mph in fifth was "good enough" for a motor (2.3) that has absolutely no power below 2500rpm. A sixth gear would likely mean an even lower rpm @ 60, for what will almost certainly be a heavier car. I worry this means the 2.5's advantages will largely be neutralized in another jerking, droning mess for those of us who have hills on their highways.

I've had two Mazda3s with the 2.3L and found that engine as smooth as any other four banger I've witnessed. It definitely needs more torque and power but smoothness has never been an issue. My friend has a Fusion 2.3L so I will have to drive it to see if the Mazda and Ford have different characteristics.

Any four banger larger than 2.4L is gonna have it's work cut out for it to remain smooth and revvy- that's just a fact. If you noticed, the redline has dropped from the 2.3 to 2.5l due to the larger displacement. I've frequently taken both my cars to the 7100rpm fuel cut-off with no issues or vibrations.

orangutan- good post. The Fit's mileage is sub par do to it's tiny engine, large frontal area and high drag. Small engines reach a point of diminished returns for vehicles with too much drag or weight. Can someone explain why the new 6 i gets better mileage than the new 3 s? lol

blppt: I'm a bit confused by your criticism. One of the major benefits in having more forward gears is that the transmission can keep the engine in the meat of the powerband when needed while also allowing more relaxed cruising. Indeed, having a transmission with fewer gears (and/or wide gear spacing) can result in more drone and ending up being flat-footed, basically having your car caught with its pants down when power is needed. Six speeds means it's far more likely that your engine will be able to provide the correct amount of power. Good transmissions shouldn't be hunting for gears nor jerking you around when they shift. You seem to be more upset with poor transmissions than ones that have lots of gears.

chavis10: Thanks. Even the highest mileage small cars only hit about 35 mpg (Yaris, Cobalt XFE). Like you said, diminishing returns. And have you noticed how the 2.5 in the new Mazda3 is also less powerful than in any other application?

Debating whether the 4-banger delivers a smooth sweet sound or a loud thrashy cacophony is pretty pointless because: a) it's pretty subjective anyway and b) most of those offering an opinion haven't driven this car with this engine yet and lack any factual basis whatsoever for their opinion.

Debating whether the Camry is an appliance is clealy is pointless as well because it clearly is an appliance. (What appliance? I say dishwasher - you are glad it's there when you need it but you sure don't look forward to your next opportunity to use it.)

The dude who wrote the review actually drove the 4 cyl. Mazda 6 and reported his impressions. That's his job. If you hold a different opnion, that's fine - tell us how great it sounded when YOU drove the same version of this car.

So far, it seems like the choice of the 4 cyl. wasn't the best, purported relevance aside. The car still looks great, but is slug-slow, sounds terrible (at least in on wrter's opinion) and is returning poorer combined fule economy than a V6 Camry. Seems like the only relevant reason to pick the 4 cylinder is a cheaper purchase price.

jaeger1: It's significantly cheaper initially and yearly compared to the available V6. Compared to a Camry V6 the cost difference is much less over the life of the vehicle, though the initial difference between this 6iGrandTouring and a Camry V6 XLE is about $3,000.

"blppt: I'm a bit confused by your criticism. One of the major benefits in having more forward gears is that the transmission can keep the engine in the meat of the powerband when needed while also allowing more relaxed cruising. "

Or, in the case of some, more gear shifts, which ultimately leads to more transmission wear.

"Indeed, having a transmission with fewer gears (and/or wide gear spacing) can result in more drone and ending up being flat-footed, basically having your car caught with its pants down when power is needed."

And having more gears, for mainstream family sedans at least, means that small 4 cylinders sit in O/D & lockup below the engine speed necessary to maintain speed up grades, which means every time you ascend a moderate grade, its downshift time. As tall as the 5th is in my Milan, the Accords is even taller (CR said approx 2000 rpm @ 60) as well as the Camry.

Now, for people who live in relatively flat areas, this is perfectly fine. But go take a ride up the Taconic State Parkway in New York, and tell me you dont get irritated at how often the car has to ditch overdrive for moderate grades.

"Six speeds means it's far more likely that your engine will be able to provide the correct amount of power. Good transmissions shouldn't be hunting for gears nor jerking you around when they shift. "

Six speeds in and of itself just means that there will be MORE gear changes. Especially with the inherently taller O/D gear, which to me is poor engineering. Sure, a couple extra MPG is nice, but you will pay dearly for it in short transmission life if the transmission has to shift out of O/D and lockup every time you need to ascend a moderate grade on a daily commute.

These fours just dont have the low end power to handle these tall O/D ratios in heavy cars (my car is actually fairly LIGHT for its class @ 3250lbs).

"You seem to be more upset with poor transmissions than ones that have lots of gears."

Incorrect. If my car had any of the current 6 speeds from any manufacturer, it would be even WORSE off, because the O/D gear would be almost certainly taller, exasperating the problem of lack of power below 2500rpm and engine noise. I dont know of a single six speed auto that has a shorter O/D gear than my 5 speed.

Its just bad design IMHO for manufacturers to put these 4 cylinders in heavy cars, and saddle them with transmissions that leave them loafing along at very low rpms in overdrive. Maybe you could get away with that with a decent displacement six.

"I've had two Mazda3s with the 2.3L and found that engine as smooth as any other four banger I've witnessed. It definitely needs more torque and power but smoothness has never been an issue. My friend has a Fusion 2.3L so I will have to drive it to see if the Mazda and Ford have different characteristics."

They may not have the same sound insulation, motor mounts, etc, but the motors are very similar....what Ford calls the Duratec23 is pretty much the Mazda 2.3 in the 6 and 3.

Bear in mind part of what you bring up (needs more low end power) will be far more noticable in a heavier car (Fusion/Milan are usually around 3200-3300lbs or so, 3 is usually around 2700-2900). Also, your 3 is turning approx. 2250rpm @ 60 (according to CR) which is more friendly to the 2.3s strength than the 2050-2100 in my car at the same speed, which is amusing since your car, being lighter, wouldnt need that extra power as much.

The engine sound is subjective so this post is pretty pointless. I submit that blindfolded the average person wouldnt be able to tell the difference between competing midsize cars with four cylinder engines. I dont think anyone is going to rule out the 6 based on how the engine sounds at redline.

"I dont think anyone is going to rule out the 6 based on how the engine sounds at redline."

I agree. I really don't think anyone buying this car is fooling themselves, thinking they are getting a Ferrari - including so called "enthusiasts". Its a 4 door family sedan that tries to be a little more engaging then a Camry/Accord/Malibu. This doesn't mean its BAD, just that Zoom-Zoom needs to be taken in context.

Also, interesting that everyone here badmouthing the 4-cyl would most certainly also have bashed the 6-cyl in the event that Edmunds had recieved that model. Its a no win situation for the bloggers.

bblt: please cite specifics to back your claims.

"Six speeds in and of itself just means that there will be MORE gear changes. Especially with the inherently taller O/D gear, which to me is poor engineering."

Perhaps what's poor are your facts and logic. A torque challenged four cylinder in a heavy vehicle cannot have an "inherently" taller O/D gear- powertrain engineers are not dumb. You may be confusing these tranmission with six speed units mated to larger engines that have much higher torque and multiple overdrive gears.

The trend is to offer a super short 1st gear while shrinking the steps to a direct drive ratio (1:1) and offering a single overdrive gear that's akin to a four speeds.

In the case of GM's midsized sedan tranmsissions, you assertions are invalid. The 2.4L Ecotec engine can be mated to either the 4T45 or 6T40 in the heavy Mailbu, G6 and Aura. The 4T45 has ratios of 2.95:1 1.62:1 1.00:1 & 0.68:1 with axle ratios of either 3.05:1 or 3.29:1. This means the final drive ratio can either be 2.07:1 or 2.24:1. Meanwhile, the 6T40 has ratios of 4.55:1 2.96:1 1.91:1 1.45:1 1.00:1 and 0.75:1 with a single axle ratio of 2.94:1. This leaves our final drive at 2.21:1 which splits the difference between the two four speed transmission final drives. Therefore, the gearing of the six speed at top gear is virtually identical to the four speed it replaces.

Also, I cannot imagine a six speeds life being any shorter than a four speeds. Automatic transmission are designed to shift gears and transfer torque. If anything, a six speed would theorectically extend the life of the engine as the engines revs are reduced during acceleration to given rate of speed. That's like saying a V8 won't last as long as an I-4 because it has more cylinders. There's nothing even resembling evidence to lend credence to your claim.

"The engine sound is subjective so this post is pretty pointless. I submit that blindfolded the average person wouldnt be able to tell the difference between competing midsize cars with four cylinder engines."

Taken in context (i.e. the cars they reside in) if nothing else, people would definitely be able to tell the 2.3 in Milan/Fusion is louder than the Accord or Camry 2.4s.

I should note that it sounds like I hate my car....not true. I chose it because it simply handles better than just about everything in its class. The motor and tranny are sub-par IMHO though.

"Perhaps what's poor are your facts and logic. A torque challenged four cylinder in a heavy vehicle cannot have an "inherently" taller O/D gear- powertrain engineers are not dumb. You may be confusing these tranmission with six speed units mated to larger engines that have much higher torque and multiple overdrive gears."

Find me ONE car with a shorter O/D gear than my car with a 4 cylinder and a six speed auto. Just one. The new Malibu 4 cylinder (now available with a 6 speed)? CR says a RIDICULOUS 1600rpm @ 60. 1600 rpm for a 4 cylinder engine in a 3350lb car. Unfreakingbelievable. VW Passat 2.0T---6 speed, 1950rpm @ 60. That motor can probably handle it though, since VWs turbo 4s are widely renowned for being unusually torquey down low.

You might THINK they arent dumb, but thats exactly what they do---give you an even taller top gear. Trust me; I have looked into this issue. When my lease is up, this is one of my primary concerns for my next car.

"The trend is to offer a super short 1st gear while shrinking the steps to a direct drive ratio (1:1) and offering a single overdrive gear that's akin to a four speeds. "

That has so far been proven to be false. I cant think of a single 4 speed O/D in a 4 cylinder non-turbo that has turned anywheres near 1600rpm@60 in O/D & lockup.

IF things had gone like you said, with the additional 2 gears filling in acceleration ratios and topping out with similar o/d ratios, then maybe I would be more open to 6 speed autos, although personally the much more frequent gear changes would still bother me somewhat. Engineers (or maybe its the suits wanting that extra 2mpg highway) on the other hand have taken 6 speeds and taken license to put stupidly tall O/D gears.

" There's nothing even resembling evidence to lend credence to your claim. "

Of course not---we all know that more gear shifting is perfectly healthy for your transmission.

C'mon man, use some common sense. The more a transmission has to shift, the more heat, the more wear, its as simple as that. Now, there is always the possibility that the designers took this into account when building the 6-7-8 speed autos, but one wonders how much stronger/wear-resistant internal parts you can put into the torque converter before you start reaching size limits and high prices. All to save a couple mpg.

blppt: I don't think I've ever driven or ridden in a car or truck -- 4 to 6 gears, auto or manual -- that didn't have to downshift while going up a grade. What you apparently consider to be an annoyance is something the rest of us call "driving".

You need to drive torquier engines. My old 95 Grand Cherokee with a 4.0 6 cyl will go up all but the steepest mountain grade without downshifting. Neither did our old 3.8 Buick.

It's one thing I always loved about American cars and trucks. The lower reving engines don't need to be constantly downshifting.

"blppt: I don't think I've ever driven or ridden in a car or truck -- 4 to 6 gears, auto or manual -- that didn't have to downshift while going up a grade. What you apparently consider to be an annoyance is something the rest of us call "driving"."

Wow, perhaps you should drive a few more cars before making such a snide comment. The following are the list of cars I've owned and whether or not they exhibited the same issues as my Milan. May have not owned as many cars as other people on here, but its a decent sampling IMHO:

1. 2007 Milan 5 speed auto

2. 1996 Subie Legacy wagon 2.2 auto---this is the most damning evidence of all. A car that weighed nearly as much as my Milan, had AWD so it loses more power to the wheels than a FWD car, had 24 less hp, worse aerodynamics, and yet, thanks to the shorter O/D ratio rarely if ever needed to leave O/D on the highway (~2500rpm @ 60).

3. 1995 Ford Taurus 3.0 Vulcan 4 speed auto---pretty much the same as the 93 below.

4. 1993 Chrysler Lebaron coupe 3.0 4 speed auto. No tach, but people on allpar showed me theirs, and the engine was loafing along @ 1950rpm in 4th/lockup. Did downshift from time to time, but nowheres near as often as the Milan, and only on immediate steep grades.

5. 2003 Subie WRX wagon 4 speed auto---had an unusual amount of power in O/D, kept the turbo on as long as you were doing 60 or greater (~2350rpm), never had to downshift on ANY grade....even the steep, immediate ones on the Taconic.

6. 2001 Ford Taurus 3.0 Vulcan 4 speed auto. Despite the added horsepower, less peppy than the 1993 & 1995s I had. I *think* the O/D gear was slightly taller than the 95 and 93 models. Downshifted more often than the Milan on steep grades (like Taconic north of Putnam Valley), but for Taconic commute south, stayed in OD all the time, unlike the Milan.

7. 1979 Mustang 2.8 V-6, 4 speed manual. Rare motor for this year, total of about 109hp when new. Despite having rather tall gearing (~2050 rpm @ 60, IIRC) never had problems ascending grades in O/D. Could've used a gear between 2-3 though.

8. 1993 Ford Taurus 3.0 Vulcan 4 speed auto. This V-6 even had a shorter o/d gear than my Milan 4 cylinder.

9. 2004 Sentra SE-R Spec V 6 speed manual---huge motor for a small car, tons of torque for a 4. Never had to leave 6th on the highway.

10. 1993 Maxima GXE 4 speed auto---even running with one BAD injector for most of its life, didnt require as many downshifts on hills as the Milan. V-6 though.

11. 1994 Dodge Shadow 2.2 3 speed auto. Only had 3 speeds, so I expected it to not need to downshift due to the higher than normal highway rpm (~2500-2600rpm @ 60). Had a total of 93 horsepower.

12. 1988 Plymouth Reliant, 2.5, 3 speed auto. Weighed next to nothing (~2350lbs), boxlike aerodynamics. See above for 3 speed comments (same transmission/ratios from what I could tell). 100 ground-pounding horses, baby.

13. 1987 Plymouth Horizon, 2.2, 5 speed manual. 96hp (maybe). Despite the rather tall gearing for the times (about 2000rpm @ 60 in 5th), the car weighed nothing (~2200lbs) and had a huge motor for its class. Even with the touchy carb, it would require less shifts out of 5th than my Milan.

blppt: I just gave you evidence and PROOF that your logic is flawed yet your rebuttal are CR RPMs @ 60 mph? And you are telling me to use common sense? Give me a break. You can calculate RPMs at speed yourself with the gear information I provided along with the circumference of the tires. In GM's case, the six speed is NO taller in top gear O/D than the four speed it replaces, that is a FACT. The same goes for the 6T70-E that's mated to the 3.6L V6. Overall final drive ratio is nearly identical to the 4T65-E (with 3.29 axle) it replaced.

I will look into the Fusion's transmission ratios when I get a chance.

The implication that addtional gear ratios will somehow shorten the life of a transmission has zero validity. The input shaft force from the torque converter is the same regardless of the transmission's gearset and the multipled torque output shaft force is dependant on the product of the highest gear ratio by the axle ratio- not the amount of gears in the transmission. Example: a four speed automatic from say a truck equipped with a 4.10:1 trailer towing axle ratio will experience greater output shaft torque (implying increased wear) than a six speed auto mated to the same engine with a tamer 3.05:1 axle in first gear. Also, transmissions are designed with maximum gearbox torque and input torque hard limits in place. For example, there are various version of the a transmission that are meant to for different applications. Some are heavy duty to withstand towing and hauling with these stresses in mind.

"blppt: I just gave you evidence and PROOF that your logic is flawed yet your rebuttal are CR RPMs @ 60 mph? And you are telling me to use common sense? Give me a break."

How exactly is my logic flawed? You gave me one transmission, here's one example of the opposite:

2002 Camry -- 2005 Camry 2.4 4 cylinders

Same tire size & diameter

the 02 had a 4 speed, the 05 a 5 speed.

The 02 was turning 2265 @ 60. The 05? 1920.

RPMs at 60mph is no less valid than a bunch of gear ratios. Its a fixed speed that is reasonable in determining if the O/D is too tall for a heavy 4 cylinder car. I fail to see how you have a problem with that. Its just easier to use as a reference than a bunch of gear ratio numbers, all else being equal.

On another note, that 4 speed automatic from GM must have been a nightmare to drive in a 4 cylinder, heavy car. No wonder it lasted less than a year.

Oh, and I meant "use common sense" as it pertains to transmissions shifting more often causing more wear and heat.

Your logic is flawed in that you impugn transmissions for shifting because it shortens their lifespans. You might as well say that cylinders firing shorten an engine's lifespan, tires rolling shorten their lifespans, and using headlights shortens their lifespans.

Your "overdrive is too tall" is also wrong in that if the gearing were actually too tall then the car would not be able to maintain its forward progress in that gear at a given speed.

You seem to have a problem with components doing their jobs.

"The implication that addtional gear ratios will somehow shorten the life of a transmission has zero validity. The input shaft force from the torque converter is the same regardless of the transmission's gearset and the multipled torque output shaft force is dependant on the product of the highest gear ratio by the axle ratio- not the amount of gears in the transmission. Example: a four speed automatic from say a truck equipped with a 4.10:1 trailer towing axle ratio will experience greater output shaft torque (implying increased wear) than a six speed auto mated to the same engine with a tamer 3.05:1 axle in first gear. Also, transmissions are designed with maximum gearbox torque and input torque hard limits in place. For example, there are various version of the a transmission that are meant to for different applications. Some are heavy duty to withstand towing and hauling with these stresses in mind."

Ummm, I never argued ANY of that...what I argued is the mere fact that a 6 speed will be shifting more throughout its life than a 4 EVEN IF the O/D gears are identical (putting aside for a moment the argument of the lack of power on moderate highway grades), you still have more gears to go through on upshifts.

As for heavy duty transmissions in family sedans, at least in Chrysler's example, their family sedans never got the "heavy duty" transmission, 47RE, they got the much weaker 42LE/41TE/40TES (Neon). I dont know if/how much of this heavy duty engineering (like the 47RE) goes into the new family sedan automatics just because they add more gears.

Moving on, from my research, almost every 6 speed from 4 speed transition has a taller overdrive gear, wheel size being equal. Is it IMPOSSIBLE to have the same overdrive? Of course not. I never said that.

But with the new high MPG standards corporations have to meet, it seems just about all of them are taking those 2-3 mpgs any way they can get them. The people who live in relatively flat areas will have no problem loafing along all day @ 1600rpms with their torqueless 4 cylinder 3500lb car, but for the couple of people who live in northeast in the US, this is a very poor decision IMHO.

"Your logic is flawed in that you impugn transmissions for shifting because it shortens their lifespans. You might as well say that cylinders firing shorten an engine's lifespan, shorten their lifespans, tires rolling shorten their lifespans. "

Oh come on now, you are taking things to extremes.

"tires rolling shorten their lifespans"

Tires are replaced many times throughout a car's lifetime. Transmissions should not be.

"and using headlights shortens their lifespans"

Not applicable. A more apt comparison would be headlights that have a variable brightness setting, with the default factory setting causing a shorter lifespan for the bulb, without offering much in the way of increased vision.

And when you get a bill for a set of headlights that cost as much as a 6-7-8 speed transmission rebuild, please tell us of that. Although I'm sure those new annoying HIDs are pretty expensive ;-)

"You might as well say that cylinders firing shorten an engine's lifespan,"

You cannot control explosions significantly enough in the combustion chamber, unless you take the extreme example below:

Heres a more relevant comparison: Do you think a Honda S2000 will last as long if you spend your days doing 6000rpm in 4th all day long, than if you drove it properly, shifting into overdrive and staying within a reasonable area around the speed limit? Likewise, if Honda geared the car from the factory (all else being equal) to do 5000rpm @ 60mph in top gear, do you think that just *might* cause significantly greater engine wear? (again this is NOT a direct analogy to transmissions, but closer than what you were suggesting)

My problem with these tall overdrive gears is basically these two things:

1. Too much shifting
2. #1 being the case on highways for people who have moderate grades, you already negate the couple of mpg advantage of a tall overdrive anyways, since the car is forced to downshift to a lower gear to maintain speed.

and in my specific case:

3. Extra, unpleasant engine noise due to 2.

Cherry Cherry Cherry Cherry BOOM-BOOM!

Ahhh, forget it. I'm sure the engineers have considered all of these possiblities, its not like this is some subtle flaw that nobody would have thought of, and somehow compensated for it.

I'm sure not as smart as a transmission designer, so I doubt anything I have posted here hasnt been considered and handled by somebody a good deal smarter than I, and I'm sorry if this discussion got a little heated.

It just annoys me, thats all.

blppt

You need CVT equipped car. That seems like it would solve all your problems.