Manual/Auto MPG difference?
#2
If not, I wonder why it wouldn't be better off, especially being 5-speed.
I have an auto, and average 29.XX something over my last 13 fillups or so. I do pretty well but drive quite a bit of freeway too. But I do wonder why the manual/auto get the exact same (reported).
I have an auto, and average 29.XX something over my last 13 fillups or so. I do pretty well but drive quite a bit of freeway too. But I do wonder why the manual/auto get the exact same (reported).
#3
manual transmission cars can easily get more mpg than an automatic because 1. they get more power to the wheels, 2. the driver has more control over the engine speed and therefore fuel consumption, and 3. automatic transmissions can only respond, they can't anticipate manuevers that the driver can.
anyway, edmunds can only publish EPA fuel estimates and maybe their own personal findings. the epa estimates leave many factors out of the equation for factoring fuel consumption. so your mileage will vary.
anyway, edmunds can only publish EPA fuel estimates and maybe their own personal findings. the epa estimates leave many factors out of the equation for factoring fuel consumption. so your mileage will vary.
#4
This is what Consumer Guide got..
In Consumer Guide testing, a manual-transmission xB averaged a disappointing 18.6 mpg with slightly more city driving than highway use. With an even city/highway mix, an automatic-transmission xB also disappointed with its average of 20.0 mpg. All models use regular-grade gas.
#5
Originally Posted by xFistsClenchedx
This is what Consumer Guide got..
In Consumer Guide testing, a manual-transmission xB averaged a disappointing 18.6 mpg with slightly more city driving than highway use. With an even city/highway mix, an automatic-transmission xB also disappointed with its average of 20.0 mpg. All models use regular-grade gas.
i know in the tC the manual gets worse mileage on paper then the auto ( doesnt really if you drive right) but thats due to the aggressive gearing. im would imagine that the aggressive gearing wouldn't have followed threw to the xb though
#8
Originally Posted by draxcaliber
manual transmission cars can easily get more mpg than an automatic because 1. they get more power to the wheels, 2. the driver has more control over the engine speed and therefore fuel consumption, and 3. automatic transmissions can only respond, they can't anticipate manuevers that the driver can.
anyway, edmunds can only publish EPA fuel estimates and maybe their own personal findings. the epa estimates leave many factors out of the equation for factoring fuel consumption. so your mileage will vary.
anyway, edmunds can only publish EPA fuel estimates and maybe their own personal findings. the epa estimates leave many factors out of the equation for factoring fuel consumption. so your mileage will vary.
The auto and manual are about the same in fuel consumption.
This sounds like the dudes that were convinced they can stop better in a car without the ABS vs a car with ABS.
#11
Originally Posted by xFistsClenchedx
Originally Posted by wrczx3
Originally Posted by xFistsClenchedx
That seems kinda low to me.
#12
Originally Posted by spring
Originally Posted by draxcaliber
manual transmission cars can easily get more mpg than an automatic because 1. they get more power to the wheels, 2. the driver has more control over the engine speed and therefore fuel consumption, and 3. automatic transmissions can only respond, they can't anticipate manuevers that the driver can.
anyway, edmunds can only publish EPA fuel estimates and maybe their own personal findings. the epa estimates leave many factors out of the equation for factoring fuel consumption. so your mileage will vary.
anyway, edmunds can only publish EPA fuel estimates and maybe their own personal findings. the epa estimates leave many factors out of the equation for factoring fuel consumption. so your mileage will vary.
The auto and manual are about the same in fuel consumption.
This sounds like the dudes that were convinced they can stop better in a car without the ABS vs a car with ABS.
#13
Originally Posted by draxcaliber
Originally Posted by spring
Originally Posted by draxcaliber
manual transmission cars can easily get more mpg than an automatic because 1. they get more power to the wheels, 2. the driver has more control over the engine speed and therefore fuel consumption, and 3. automatic transmissions can only respond, they can't anticipate manuevers that the driver can.
anyway, edmunds can only publish EPA fuel estimates and maybe their own personal findings. the epa estimates leave many factors out of the equation for factoring fuel consumption. so your mileage will vary.
anyway, edmunds can only publish EPA fuel estimates and maybe their own personal findings. the epa estimates leave many factors out of the equation for factoring fuel consumption. so your mileage will vary.
The auto and manual are about the same in fuel consumption.
This sounds like the dudes that were convinced they can stop better in a car without the ABS vs a car with ABS.
The computer is far better and knowing when to shift than any of us.
#14
Originally Posted by wrczx3
Originally Posted by xFistsClenchedx
Originally Posted by wrczx3
Originally Posted by xFistsClenchedx
That seems kinda low to me.
#15
Originally Posted by spring
You forgot one thing.
The computer is far better and knowing when to shift than any of us.
The computer is far better and knowing when to shift than any of us.
#16
Originally Posted by xFistsClenchedx
This is what Consumer Guide got..
In Consumer Guide testing, a manual-transmission xB averaged a disappointing 18.6 mpg with slightly more city driving than highway use. With an even city/highway mix, an automatic-transmission xB also disappointed with its average of 20.0 mpg. All models use regular-grade gas.
#17
the computer cannot shift better than anyone. That is the primary problem with the automatic, they waste energy. They typically rely on a torque converter the mechanically shifts the gears. Think of it as a rubberband that when stretched enough will finally respond and shift gears. More modern autos do involve computers but that doesnt help matters.
One thing an auto cant do that a manual can is coast. If i coast in an auto the RPMs of the motor are typically 1-1.5k If i am in a manual and i shift to neutral the engine drops to idle at 0.5-0.75k. Thus using less gas.
The only auto trans out there that can get power to the wheels as efficiently as a manual (ie not using the torque converter) and do so smoothly is the DSG (the audi and VW trans). It is brilliant in design but i still think a human driver could best its mpgs.
go to fueleconomy.gov and check out the mpgs users are reporting. Notice how the manuals almost always are above teh EPA ratings. Not so much with teh autos.
One thing an auto cant do that a manual can is coast. If i coast in an auto the RPMs of the motor are typically 1-1.5k If i am in a manual and i shift to neutral the engine drops to idle at 0.5-0.75k. Thus using less gas.
The only auto trans out there that can get power to the wheels as efficiently as a manual (ie not using the torque converter) and do so smoothly is the DSG (the audi and VW trans). It is brilliant in design but i still think a human driver could best its mpgs.
go to fueleconomy.gov and check out the mpgs users are reporting. Notice how the manuals almost always are above teh EPA ratings. Not so much with teh autos.
#18
Ok, in our Sienna, which isnt geared toward performance in any way at all, when you're coasting, it feels like it shifts into the highest gear it is "allowed" (by your gear selection). Now this is annoying when you want to accelerate again, but is an example of how the autos may be getting close/same MPGs. Also, sometimes in a manual you might get lazy, and delay the upshift. The higher RPMs result is increased fuel consumption, where in a auto, the computer is always waiting to upshift at the earliest feasible moment. (Overridden of course by how far you have the pedal down).
#19
yeah we have a sienna too and if you coast it stays at a highish rpm. If you instead shift to neutral you will see the thing drop to 750 rpm. This is that coasting difference i was talking about that is an advantage for a good manual driver. Sure a bad manual driver might shift at the wrong place but if you know how to drive i really think the manual owner will top the auto unless there is a large gearing difference between teh two. Problem with autos - you pointed out there - is that they dont know when you want to downshift or not. Often you want to accelerate mildly but the car decided to down shift right as you are dont accelerating at which point it upshifts again.
But basically go light on the gas with an auto and drive like a normal person in a manual and you prob see similar mpg. But learn your car, and pay attention, and you can do better with a manual.
But basically go light on the gas with an auto and drive like a normal person in a manual and you prob see similar mpg. But learn your car, and pay attention, and you can do better with a manual.
#20
Actually, while coasting, the car (in theory) shouldn't consume any more gas then at idle, otherwise instead of engine braking, it would be trying to go forward. The difference comes in how much speed you pick up while coasting.