....cut.... Shifting down also cost no fuel. Some engineer decided to put into the program a downshift and get the advantage of less braking and less freewheeling down hills. To those of us used to coasting it feels weird! Wrong! ....cut....
I grew up driving stick shifts -- from sports cars to trucks -- and still don't understand why it's an issue. It sounds like what most are calling coasting or freewheeling (a bike term) is the equivalent of putting your manual transmission in neutral and letting the car "coast" down a hill. But how often is that useful?
Using that definition as a point of reference, what does a PM automatic transmission do that is so bad?
As an example, if I were driving my stickshift Mustang on the Interstate, and was headed down a grade where I could put it in neutral, what would happen? If the grade is too steep it may try to go 80~90 MPH when I may want to limit it to 70 MPH. That would require some level of engine braking (maybe top gear or maybe lower gear).
If the grade is not steep enough, and the car would only coast downhill at 50 MPH, then I'd have to put the transmission in gear and give it a little gas to hold the desired 70 MPH.
The third condition is that of the grade being just the right slope to provide coasting at the desired 70 MPH. In that case I can roll down the hill at 70 MPH with transmission in neutral and engine at +/- 600 RPM. But how often does this actually happen? Rarely for me. I either want to go faster in gear with a little gas, or want to go slower and hence use whatever gear is right to slow me down using engine braking.
Even when speed is just right (rarely the case), fuel savings versus leaving the car in top gear with a tiny amount of pressure on gas pedal is insignificant. Plus having the car in gear is preferable anyway from a safety standpoint.
I still don't get what the PM does that is so objectionable.