2009 vs 2010 manual transmission

Pelican18TQA4 said:

I have to make a correction. Today, maintaining 65 mph in 6th gear, the tach needle hovers right between 2000-2100 RPM so maybe 2050 RPM. Originally I think '09 owners were reporting 2200 RPM in 6th at 65 mph, including me, but that's not the case for my car anyway. Still, 6th gear is useable at speeds anywhere from 50 mph (tach sits right at 1600 RPM) on up, depending on road conditions of course. This IS NOT lugging the engine and in fact, it cruises at that RPM (1600) in 6th gear just fine and is making very little boost (i.e., hardly working at all) to maintain the speed. Boost (almost full boost) can be had in this situation too if you put your foot into it.

Click to expand...

my observations:

2050 rpms = 65 mph indicated
2100 rpms = 68 mph indicated
2200 rpms = 70 mph indicated

Overdrive doesn't really concern the RPM of the drive wheels. As long as the output shaft is turning faster than the input shaft in a particular gear, that gear is an overdrive.

Also, I don't know why but I don't fancy the idea of twin output shafts just for transmission compactness in a transversal drivetrain. I mean, if it were an I5 or I6 I'd get it but for a 2.0 litre, four pot engine I don't see the benefit of the added complexity. It makes sense for a DSG cause that's basically two mechatronic manual trannies in the same box, with concentrical clutch packs and input shafts and separate, parallel output shafts.

Click to expand...

The manual transmission in the '09/'10s is probably the least complex part of the drivetrain, in my opinion.

Were the direct drive transmissions you speak of before the advent of synchromesh?

Click to expand...

No, synchromesh transmissions use(d) direct drive for high gear. GM Turbohydromatic automatic transmissions also use a 1:1 for "Drive".

But, whether automatic or manual, these transmissions still had to transmit power power through the final drive in the rear axle. So there is still reduction going on.

If you look at the window sticker of a brandnew pickup truck, it'll list the axle ratio, and you may have a few choices, as higher/lower axle ratios are suited to different types of driving.

There must be some forum members who can remember having the option of ordering a "rear end" back in 60-70's. The lower the number, say 2.76:1, the better for highway cruising and gas mileage, as this is a "high" gear. A "Low" rear end ratio, say a 4.10:1, would give better acceleration or towing ability but the engine would be screaming on the highway.

SonyAD said:

Yeah but I was meaning to say there is no such thing as "overdrive" gears in the sense that the engine spins slower than the wheels.

Were the direct drive transmissions you speak of before the advent of synchromesh?

Click to expand...

You're correct that no street cars have gearing such that the engine spins slower than the wheels. The only case I can think of would be an electric car like the Tesla, even then I doubt it. Strictly speaking, overdrive simply means the output shaft of the transmission spins faster than the input shaft. The terminology came into being when transmission makers broke with the tradition of top gear being a 1:1 where the output shaft is locked to the input shaft. No gears are engaged at all, and thus wear and parasitic losses are minimized. This is possible in a longitunal transmission and most such transmissions have a 1:1 "gear" to this day (usually 4th). The arrangement doesn't work in a transverse layout.

Syncronizers serve a completely separate function, they simply help equalize the speeds of two components (shafts or gears) so they can be locked together rigidly.

I used the imprecise term "true overdrive" to describe a cruising gear which is too tall to achieve top speed. Given that most cars spend substantial time cruising at constant speed I think a cruising gear makes sense. Five gears is plenty for acceleration, give us a gear for cruising!

and if your cruising at 70-75 what would you rather be doing with a torque diesel, 2200RPM or 2000RPM?

740GLE said:

and if your cruising at 70-75 what would you rather be doing with a torque diesel, 2200RPM or 2000RPM?

Click to expand...

With a tall sixth, you can choose!! Flatland with calm wind, 2000. Hilly, windy, 2200.

thats why i enjoy my 2010 gearing!

740GLE said:

and if your cruising at 70-75 what would you rather be doing with a torque diesel, 2200RPM or 2000RPM?

Click to expand...

Bottom line: They have upped the power (155 # ft vs 236 # ft), which as a consequence, cuts the mpg's to pose a less serious logical threat ( to keep it more "competitive" with other cars in the classes mpgs). It counterintuitively effects/affects a very small % of folks (aka VW TDI's WITH 6 speed MANUALS) less than 25% of the population of VW TDI owners.

Unless you start to customize gearing, those decisions are already made for you. If you do it during the warranty period, VW could use that as one basis to deny warranty.

However, perhaps some background using a 2003 5 speed manual might be of some use. To make a long story short, when it was new, a trip was made from the San Jose area and refueled in Santa Monica, CA for 50 mpg !!! The cruising speed was 90 mph in literally a driving rain. How many folks get/got 50 mpg (in 2003) let alone at ANY speed? The VW TDI with a SCANT 90 hp and 155 # ft of torque was literally a game changer. As such it posed/poses serious threats.

But wait, the 2003 VW TDI European model came standard with 6 spd manual and slightly bigger injectors (.205 vs .184) this let the TDI Euro put out 100 (to 110 hp?) hp and more like 175 # ft of torque?

The bottom line: (not only did it provide more power but...) it was capable of getting 1 to 2 mpg BETTER !! Seeing it as an even greater (serious) threat, the specifications were "dumbed down" to meet the overseer's (EPA's, etc) requirements.

In hindsight, if I had done that exact same trip @ say 65 mph, the mpg would easily hit 59 mpg ( I have cruised it @ 75 mph with bursts to 80/85 mph and gotten 59 mpg) and with the Euro version would probably have been more like 60-62 mpg.

740GLE said:

thats why i enjoy my 2010 gearing!

Click to expand...

What are your mpg's?

who's talking about 2003 vs 2009? yeah we all know we can't get the same mpgs as previous years, were talking 2009 vs 2010 gearing. If you want to play that game what kind of emissions does that 2003 put out? how many air bags do those 2003s have?

Calculated, right around 45 since new, with a slight hit in winter. I have yet to do a straight out highway burn to see if i can hit the 50 MPG i commonly see on the MDF.

I love the tall gearing in my 2010. My 70 mile commute to school is pretty much all 75, with some 65 zones. 6th gear is great. I set the cruise at 77 and she it just a click below 2200rpms. And I feel comfortable using 6th at 60mph+. It is all flat road, so at 77mph it nets low 40'smpg. 65 nets low 50's.

MayorDJQ said:

......................There must be some forum members who can remember having the option of ordering a "rear end" back in 60-70's. The lower the number, say 2.76:1, the better for highway cruising and gas mileage, as this is a "high" gear. A "Low" rear end ratio, say a 4.10:1, would give better acceleration or towing ability but the engine would be screaming on the highway.

Click to expand...

Yea.... and you don't even have to go back to the 70's. Just find somebody with a 90 something Jeep Wrangler with a 4cyl and 4:11 gears in it..... try that on the highway. Can you say sloooooooow! But man can that truck 4 wheel!

gpshumway said:

Syncronizers serve a completely separate function, they simply help equalize the speeds of two components (shafts or gears) so they can be locked together rigidly.

Click to expand...

I know but I thought you were talking about some tranny from before the advent of constant mesh gearboxes or their wide adoption.

In my mind "synchromesh" and "constant mesh" are practically interchangeable. I don't know of any car without constant mesh, fully synchronized forward gears round these parts at least since the Renault 12. Possibly the Renault 10 or even 8. Some 30~50 years ago.

I love French cars.

I suppose a direct drive gearbox has some method of mating the input and output shafts together but it's simply bound to be ungainly engineering and probable weakpoint. And it's useless, as far as eliminating losses is concerned, because in a constant mesh tranny the layshaft and pinions will still spin and churn the oil. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. If no gears were spinning no oil would climb the gears but no oil would be pumped to the bearings either.

SonyAD said:

I suppose a direct drive gearbox has some method of mating the input and output shafts together but it's simply bound to be ungainly engineering and probable weakpoint.

Click to expand...

It's really not that complicated. As long as the input and output shafts are on the same plain, "dog" gears are used. Basically, gears cut into the ends of the shafts.

Theoretically, driving at a 1:1 ratio to the wheels is possible, but impractical. You would need an engine with LOTS of torque, think steam locomotive. The old steam engines didn't have any gearing, the power was applied directly to the wheels. The result, slow acceleration. Think of trying to move from a dead stop in 6th gear. It's possible, but you would need to burn the clutch up just to get moving, because the engine can't spin that slow, and still run.

I agree with what was said earlier about geographic location. While it wouldn't work as well back home in the rolling hills of PA, I put a TDI .71 5th in our Corrado, and wow is it nice on the desert highways. I would def not mind slightly taller gears for the 75 & 80mph limit zones up through Utah. If anyone with a '10 in the Salt Lake City - L.A. corridor wants to swap when it comes time to do a clutch job, let me know! I'll do the clutch job and accept your taller geared tranny as payment!

MayorDJQ said:

It's really not that complicated. As long as the input and output shafts are on the same plain, "dog" gears are used. Basically, gears cut into the ends of the shafts.

Click to expand...

And that's not ugly? Because there's a break in the shafts there's bound to be flexing. Certainly more than with a solid, continuous shaft. You can't support the shafts' ends cause that's where the dog gears come in. In fact, the dog gears need to be able to slide apart.

Nope. I prefer the layshaft. Care to wager that transmission losses are less when maintaining speed? The internals' inertia isn't sucking up torque when you're not accelerating (as you invariably are when measuring engine performance on a dyno). So only the frictional and (oil) pumping losses are left.

MayorDJQ said:

Theoretically, driving at a 1:1 ratio to the wheels is possible, but impractical. You would need an engine with LOTS of torque, think steam locomotive. The old steam engines didn't have any gearing, the power was applied directly to the wheels. The result, slow acceleration. Think of trying to move from a dead stop in 6th gear. It's possible, but you would need to burn the clutch up just to get moving, because the engine can't spin that slow, and still run.

Click to expand...

You'd need a truck engine to move a puny 206.



Did I mention I love French cars?

You know, I have a hunch of an idea (that needs a lot of maturing) of an automatic tranny far simpler than even a standard. Very few moving parts, no slippage like in a CVT yet infinite number of reduction ratios.

I need to work this out in my head, whether it's in any way feasible, or just a pipe dream.

i wonder if we were to change the tire size on 09 TDI manual trans. to 205/60/16, what percentage of RPM drop we would get? Would fuel economy suffer since the diameter of the tire has increased and you are rotating more mass now?

Use one of the online RPM/Speed calculators. Moving up or down one size probably won't net to more than a hundred RPM in either direction.

isa540 said:

i wonder if we were to change the tire size on 09 TDI manual trans. to 205/60/16, what percentage of RPM drop we would get? Would fuel economy suffer since the diameter of the tire has increased and you are rotating more mass now?

Click to expand...

This will give about 3.16% increase in diameter of the tire. At 60 mph true speed your RPM will be down a similar % (1800 rpm to 1744 rpm), and your speedometer will read incorrectly by an additional approx. 2 mph.

http://www.1010tires.com/tiresizecalculator.asp

thanks dr61, although the reduction in RPM is a mere 3.1 % @60 mph, one may consider this option. So insted of making 70 mph @2200 rpm, with this size of tire, the rpm would be 2135 and the higher the speed, greater the percentage reduction in rpm.

This is very exciting to me. My usual highway speed is 75, faster when traffic and the law allows.

Next question, how accurate is the speedometer? I hope it's better than my '06.

Can this new ratio handle cruise control at 68 mph with minor hills )e.g. the NY Thruway, I-80 in PA and NJ)?

Can't compare gearing as I don't have access to an '09, but I can tell you there is a huge gap between third and fourth on my 2010. Oddly enough, in my real world experience this works. First through third get me around town nicely.
On rural roads and urban highways, fourth feels perfect, keeping the revs right in the meat without feeling busy.
Fifth is a nice highway gear, giving good economy while still capable of climbing and strongly pulling into the fast lane. Under 65 mph, sixth is useless. When I hit a nice long and fast road, sixth is a very nice thing, knocking the revs way down.
BTW, technically "overdrive", refers to a ratio taller than 1:1, so my 2010 has an overdrive 4th, 5th and 6th gear. This would be unacceptable in a sports car, but makes sense in a oil-burning mile eater.

I bet $1 all the 2009 owners posting in this thread about how they prefer the higher gearing, would say the opposite if they owned a 2010.

No one in their right mind says they want a car that has a higher geared 6th. Within reason, you want it as possible while still being functional.

The lower ratio on the 2010 may not be as suitable in the mountains....but my son's 2010 Jetta with manual got 51.1 on his first tank of highway driving at regular highway speeds...70mph....my 09 auto has never done that...even after 25000mi....I have to drive below 65 to get the best highway mileage...

That's still not an advantage for 09 drivers. Shift into 5th if 6th is too tall!

I have driven my TDI all over...MN to PA to VA to MA and everywhere in between. The PA Turn-Pike...I am sure some know it...I can go through Summerset in 6th doing 65 with a full trunk, wife, black lab and my normal survival gear and a full tank. I pull 43MPGs average. If I really want to pass someone fast...like a BMW I did one time, I put it in 4th and layed on it. I would not care if I had to take the hills in 5th. So long as it get over 40MPGs, have fun doing it and feel safe as I can in a car that weighs 3200lbs...I am quite happy. I can pull over 50 doing 55.

Bottom line...drive how you want, just do it safely. If you do not like your gears, switch them or buy a new car. I think 1st could be a bit higher, but its no big deal. Just my opinion.

IndigoBlueWagon said:

This is very exciting to me. My usual highway speed is 75, faster when traffic and the law allows.

Next question, how accurate is the speedometer? I hope it's better than my '06.

Click to expand...

I tested my '10 Golf 6M a few days ago and found:

analog speedo: 71-72mph
digital speedo: 71mph
Garmin GPS: 71mph

analog speedo: 78-79mph
digital speedo: 77mph
Garmin GPS: 77mph

rich8450 said:

The lower ratio on the 2010 may not be as suitable in the mountains....but my son's 2010 Jetta with manual got 51.1 on his first tank of highway driving at regular highway speeds...70mph....my 09 auto has never done that...even after 25000mi....I have to drive below 65 to get the best highway mileage...

Click to expand...

Have no troubles what-so-ever with my Golf doing 70mph in WV.

I know this is an old thread..but has anyone with a 2009 6M swapped out the 6th gear set for the 2010 updated ratio?

If so..what parts are needed???

Would be nice to drop the RPMs a little further for cruise @ 75mph.