Transmission i-Shift? - Read this.......

[Doubtingthomas]

Featured in the "First Drive" column of the In Gear Section of the Sunday Times, 1st June, 2008, is an article on the Maserati Gran Turismo S Coupe. This car has a 4.7 ltr V8 engine, weighs a heavy 1,880kg, does 0-62 in 4.9seconds, a top speed of 183 mph and costs a mere £89,900! Interestingly the coupe is a six-speed electro-actuated manual with shift paddles. The car receives 4 out of 5 stars. The reviewer finds fault with the gearbox. Maserati call the gearbox "MC-Shift" and claim it has been calibrated for quick changes. However the review states the system is nowhere near as seamless as other manufacturers' dual-clutch setups. (No mention of the Honda i-shift). It goes on to say 'if you're not caning the car, you still get cavernous pauses between shifts (these flappy-paddle gearboxes work best when you're going flat out).
So the point I am making, if I may, is that if Maserati cannot get it quite right, who are we to complain about the idiosyncracies of the Honda i-shift?

[allan40alt]

Exactly Dt; use the 'auto' mode for every-day and relaxed driving, or the manual paddles when going like the clappers.

Great system; best of both Worlds!

[Brodick]

Compared to Vauxhall's, Toyota's and I'm sure a few other manufacturers
semi auto gearboxes the I-shift is as good if not better than them

The semi-auto boxes will eventually replace the full automatic gearbox
they give better fuel economy and pump out less emissions

We can only cross our fingers and toes that other manufacturers such as Honda will produce a similar twin clutch system to the VW group one (which is just supreme)

[Kremmen]

if Maserati cannot get it quite right, who are we to complain about the idiosyncracies of the Honda i-shift?

Me !

The above quote about the 'cavernous pauses' echo's my disatisfaction with the gearbox.

It's starting to look like single clutch boxes are not going to mimic a 'proper' auto box for some time to come and should be abandoned (IMHO). If it takes a twin clutch then Honda should swallow some pride and switch to this system for the next model or better still, the facelift.

I have been driving auto boxes since the late 70's and this is the worst I have come across due to the gaps between changes when you have no power. I have had occasions when the car behind looked like it was about to come into my boot as my car slowed down between the first couple of low speed changes.

[Doubtingthomas]

Originally Posted by Kremmen

It's starting to look like single clutch boxes are not going to mimic a 'proper' auto box for some time to come and should be abandoned (IMHO). If it takes a twin clutch then Honda should swallow some pride and switch to this system for the next model or better still, the facelift.

I think there is a trend towards automated manual gear boxes that are replacing conventional automatic gearboxes for the reasons that Brodick states above.
I think the majority of i-shift owners would agree with you on a twin clutch system if that is going to improve the existing i-shift.

I have a friend who has an '04 1.6 automatic Toyota Corolla. He renewed his Vehicle Excise Licence recently and it cost him £210! (12 months). I put this down solely to emissions.

[Kremmen]

Emmisions are probably why this style of gearbox has been introduced. However, I think I would be happier to pay the additional £60 or so a year and get a smoother, safer drive.

Come p/x/time I do intend to take a test drive in the latest i-shift at the time to see if any mechanical tweaks have complimented the software changes. If I detect little difference then I will be looking elsewhere.

With Honda and Toytown both releasing new hybrid models before 2010 I will definately be giving them the once over as well. CVT is a far better alternative to i-shift at the moment.

[Mikkel Skovby]

Been driving the i-Shift for about a week now - have to say that I dont feel its unsafe at all.

Comparing it with a regular (classic? / vintage? ) auto-box is just wrong - apples and oranges. I think that you should compare the i-shift against a manual gearbox, since it is just that. In a normal gearbox you get these shift pauses aswell - and I dont think its possible to do it much faster than the i-shift does it. It just feels longer, because you are not doing anything, while it does its thing.

The "problem" arises when the i-shift feels it should shift, when you normally wouldnt - and that makes you feel a little out of control. Its no big issue at all, since you quickly learn what the box will do in response to your speed and throttle input. So you'll know when it will shift, and adjust your throttle input accordingly. And if you want control - just use the paddles..

[3rd Honda]

Originally Posted by Kremmen

CVT is a far better alternative to i-shift at the moment.

I found the CVT Jazz a pleasant drive. OK, the performance is limited, but it was a smooth and very competent car in town - which would be one of its main uses for many people.

[carl0s]

I have to say, the autobox (proper slushbox) on the mk4 Toyota Supra (and also fitted to Lexus GS300 turbo (Toyota Aristo)) is absolutely sublime. I love torque converters

I drove an '07 Volvo S60 2.4i petrol auto, which apparently had a ZF box. That box was awful. It would slip on kickdown causing a torquey lurch which gradually faded as the gear was locked on to. The Toyota (actually an Aisin Warner box) is fabulous. Only four speed but it locks onto the next gear upon kickdown perfectly and just about handles 500hp. It's like: press pedal through floor (kickdown), then you're catapulted forwards, and it goes BAM! onto the next gear, and the next.

[Clive242]

Originally Posted by Mikkel Skovby

Been driving the i-Shift for about a week now - have to say that I dont feel its unsafe at all.

Comparing it with a regular (classic? / vintage? ) auto-box is just wrong - apples and oranges. I think that you should compare the i-shift against a manual gearbox, since it is just that. In a normal gearbox you get these shift pauses aswell - and I dont think its possible to do it much faster than the i-shift does it. It just feels longer, because you are not doing anything, while it does its thing.

The "problem" arises when the i-shift feels it should shift, when you normally wouldnt - and that makes you feel a little out of control. Its no big issue at all, since you quickly learn what the box will do in response to your speed and throttle input. So you'll know when it will shift, and adjust your throttle input accordingly. And if you want control - just use the paddles..

Mikkel, you've just summed it up perfectly.
The i-SHIFT is probably no slower than a manual change, but you're just sat there waiting as opposed to thrashing around with your left arm and leg.

[Clive242]

Originally Posted by Doubtingthomas

I think there is a trend towards automated manual gear boxes that are replacing conventional automatic gearboxes for the reasons that Brodick states above.

Just looked at the figures for the 2.0 litre Diesel Mondeo:

The Manual: (140PS)
0-60: 9.2s
Economy: 47.9mpg
Emissions: 156g/km (21%)

The Auto: (130PS)
0-60: 10.6s
Economy: 39.8mpg
Emissions: 189g/km (27%)

8.1 mpg less for the auto is criminal in this day, 6 tax brackets higher, and £1,100 higher RRP.

According to What Car, the auto will do 124 miles LESS on a tankfull.

An extreme example, but part of the reason why I chose the i-SHIFT over a traditional auto.

[lloeki]

The 'Sensodrive' one on the C2 VTR I had for a year (until I crashed it...) is awesome. Definitely the best I had tried. Auto mode makes smart decisions and just gets it right based on your behavior: whether you're driving eco or push it hard it'll get it right, even on mountain passes, really no need for some 'sports mode' as everything is autodetected! In manual mode it just shifts when you decide, you just have to slightly lift your right foot upon gear change to relieve the clutch from too much work and the gearchange will be all snappy and you can just floor it right after.

I also had an Opel Corsa (before the C2) with 'Easytronic' and it's just so bad in comparison...

I had a short test drive in an Auris MMT (that we bought replacing the C2) and can't comment on it really but it seems good, yet not as good as the Citroen one.

As for comparing with others, although they may appear the same (paddles, +/- on lever, etc...) they may involve very different technologies. You can have:
- robotized manual gearboxes (like the ones above)
- hydraulic 'real' automatic where you can control the gear
- CVT with optional selectable virtual fixed ratios simulating a gearbox
- dual clutch/dual robotized gearbox like DSG
- sequential gearboxes like motorbikes, where you have a clutch but only for starting up the car
and they will all appear the same from within the driver's place, except they naturally have radically different behaviors, and reviewers don't stress enough what kind they're testing, with their respective assets and drawbacks.

[Doubtingthomas]

Originally Posted by Clive242

Just looked at the figures for the 2.0 litre Diesel Mondeo:

The Manual: (140PS)
0-60: 9.2s
Economy: 47.9mpg
Emissions: 156g/km (21%)

The Auto: (130PS)
0-60: 10.6s
Economy: 39.8mpg
Emissions: 189g/km (27%)

8.1 mpg less for the auto is criminal in this day, 6 tax brackets higher, and £1,100 higher RRP.

According to What Car, the auto will do 124 miles LESS on a tankfull.

An extreme example, but part of the reason why I chose the i-SHIFT over a traditional auto.

Say no more

[Doubtingthomas]

Originally Posted by lloeki

As for comparing with others, although they may appear the same (paddles, +/- on lever, etc...) they may involve very different technologies. You can have:
- robotized manual gearboxes (like the ones above)
- hydraulic 'real' automatic where you can control the gear
- CVT with optional selectable virtual fixed ratios simulating a gearbox
- dual clutch/dual robotized gearbox like DSG
- sequential gearboxes like motorbikes, where you have a clutch but only for starting up the car
and they will all appear the same from within the driver's place, except they naturally have radically different behaviors, and reviewers don't stress enough what kind they're testing, with their respective assets and drawbacks.

Thank you lloeki. Very informative.