Seeking out stick vs settling for an automatic

[Rmay635703]

Right, you prefer anecdotal evidence to fact based evidence like official EPA numbers. The hallmark of science is repeatable, reproducible results. My comment was basically that automatics now get better gas mileage than manuals. And I backed that up with EPA data. You show just a screen shot of a 2010 car. Ok, enough said.

Right, I have tracked my fillups over the life of owning the car and there is nothing antidotal about it, I have every receipt and every odometer read
I know exactly what to expect depending on how I drive and when. It’s rare I get to drive slow enough to average in the 70’s but if I lived in the right area I could see my average being much higher

I recommend educating yourself on driving efficiently and how to track fuel economy as you apparently know absolutely nothing about it.

Here is a good start

Ecomodder.com

My cars and trucks were always partially used for business and I had to keep track of everything from 15 years old onward, saving fuel was important for the bottom line, receipts, fuel and maintenance had to be logged for tax purposes.

The EPA is only a test, there is nothing stopping you from driving better or worse than the test but the EPA testing methodology for a manual transmission car is extremely flawed meaning most all manual cars can easily beat EPA while few autos can even meet it, all because the automatics are tested in a completely different way that bloats the testing numbers.

Don’t take my word for it, I’m just an engineer in the automotive industry, the site I link has a thread on the differences in epa testing methodology between a manual and automatic.

 

[mightymousetech]

Right, you prefer anecdotal evidence to fact based evidence like official EPA numbers. The hallmark of science is repeatable, reproducible results. My comment was basically that automatics now get better gas mileage than manuals. And I backed that up with EPA data. You show just a screen shot of a 2010 car. Ok, enough said.

Exactly. On any modern car, the auto will pretty much always beat the manual in FE. Although, the best full tank FE I got on my smart was 2.9L/100, which is 81 mpg. But, it has an automated manual, not sure how that fits into the picture. LOL

 

[Warlord]

I think it’s much easier to beat epa numbers in a manual trans vehicle than with an auto. Autos these days are already programmed to score as high as possible on the EPA test cycle.

 

[Skippy722]

Right, I have tracked my fillups over the life of owning the car and there is nothing antidotal about it, I have every receipt and every odometer read
I know exactly what to expect depending on how I drive and when. It’s rare I get to drive slow enough to average in the 70’s but if I lived in the right area I could see my average being much higher

I recommend educating yourself on driving efficiently and how to track fuel economy as you apparently know absolutely nothing about it.

Here is a good start

Ecomodder.com

My cars and trucks were always partially used for business and I had to keep track of everything from 15 years old onward, saving fuel was important for the bottom line, receipts, fuel and maintenance had to be logged for tax purposes.

The EPA is only a test, there is nothing stopping you from driving better or worse than the test but the EPA testing methodology for a manual transmission car is extremely flawed meaning most all manual cars can easily beat EPA while few autos can even meet it, all because the automatics are tested in a completely different way that bloats the testing numbers.

Don’t take my word for it, I’m just an engineer in the automotive industry, the site I link has a thread on the differences in epa testing methodology between a manual and automatic.

From what I can find, the only difference for manuals is the shift points, otherwise they follow the same tests as everything else.

Detailed Test Information

EPA tests vehicles by running them through a series of driving routines, or schedules, that specify vehicle speed for each point in time during the laboratory tests.

fueleconomy.gov

 

[Cdn17Sport6MT]

The EPA test's shift points for manuals are abnormally high (at least for how I drive); accordingly folks most often better the EPA numbers with manuals. Automatics... not as much.

In my '17 Mazda6 - if I really want fuel economy - I'll start in 2nd, go to 4th, go to 6th... Now except for the moderate first to second gear ratio gap, the rest of the 'box is fairly close-ratio.

 

[Cujet]

I keep driving my 2003 2.5L V6 Jaguar X-Type because it's a manual. It's not fast, but it is fun. Clutch is still working at well over 200K miles.

 

[PeterGreen]

Reading thread makes me glad that I still have my stick shift car

 

[930.engineering]

Guys, manual's more efficient, period. EPA numbers as well as WLTP etc. are cheating.
In these tests the gear is given for a certain speed, and that's so that it's detrimental
for the manual, just to push autos.
From a technical standpoint an auto cannot be as efficient as a manual transmission
(unless it has a WAY shorter gearing). Every automatic transmission has much more
moving parts and much more oil causing drag. It's also much heavier.
Again, be honest. If you want auto because you don't like to shift and press clutches,
admit it's that way. Don't lie to yourself and argue with "efficiency". It's just wrong. If
you like it, that's ok. But please stay real.

 

[Skippy722]

Guys, manual's more efficient, period. EPA numbers as well as WLTP etc. are cheating.
In these tests the gear is given for a certain speed, and that's so that it's detrimental
for the manual, just to push autos.
From a technical standpoint an auto cannot be as efficient as a manual transmission
(unless it has a WAY shorter gearing). Every automatic transmission has much more
moving parts and much more oil causing drag. It's also much heavier.
Again, be honest. If you want auto because you don't like to shift and press clutches,
admit it's that way. Don't lie to yourself and argue with "efficiency". It's just wrong. If
you like it, that's ok. But please stay real.

ZF’s 8 speed weighs ~200lbs, vs say a Tremec TR6060 which weighs in at ~150lbs, hardly “much heavier”, that’s one bag of water softener salt. ZF also claims the 8HP almost matches the efficiency of a DCT. The EPA isn’t trying “to push autos.” Automatics simply have gotten so good (outside the whole row your own thing) and with manufacturers chasing 0-60 and lap times, a 7, 8, or 10 speed keeps you closer to the meat of your vehicles powerband and makes for better lap times. Or, you don’t have to rev up as high to avoid lugging the engine when you change gears.

 

[930.engineering]

Better lap times? Dream on, boy. Let me guess, you have no serious track experience, right? This discussion is absurd.

 

[Skippy722]

Better lap times? Dream on, boy. Let me guess, you have no serious track experience, right? This discussion is absurd.

I’m terribly sorry to have offended you on this clearly very delicate topic.

There’s a step stool out in the garage for when you want to come down off your high horse and have a rational discussion.

 

[mightymousetech]

Better lap times? Dream on, boy. Let me guess, you have no serious track experience, right? This discussion is absurd.

Not really. Show me a modern pro racing series car that still uses a true manual unless required by the rules. All the highest performance street cars have also abandoned manuals, and even DCT in favour of an automatic. The modern ZF8 can shift faster than a DCT now, and is one of the reasons BMW no longer uses DCT in their M cars.

I love a manual for the engagement and fun of driving, but from a purely performance standpoint, it would be slower.

 

[Kurtatron]

Not really. Show me a modern pro racing series car that still uses a true manual unless required by the rules. All the highest performance street cars have also abandoned manuals, and even DCT in favour of an automatic. The modern ZF8 can shift faster than a DCT now, and is one of the reasons BMW no longer uses DCT in their M cars.

I love a manual for the engagement and fun of driving, but from a purely performance standpoint, it would be slower.

I think I would agree with the premise that a manual transmission is more efficient gears being equal. 6 speed auto vs 6 speed automatic with identical gearing. The manual just has less moving parts, no flow orifices adding fluid restrictions, and no additional parts to eliminate slip. I think there is a reason automatics sometimes require auxiliary cooling, whereas manuals never have liquid cooling measures.

Automatics I think win in the performance category with more gears, faster shifting, and a taller top gear, but I disagree that the automatic has less energy loss gear for gear than manual.

 

[mightymousetech]

That’s the thing “everything being equal” is not the case. Most auto are 8 speed now, many are 10. The increase in efficiency of the extra gears outweighs the loss of efficiency due to the fluid system.

 

[tcp71]

I think the auto vs. manual fuel consumption is entirely dependent on the driver and conditions. Lockup torque converters and pushing higher gears asap in programming have levelled the field, pretty much. I have a tendency to rev the manual more than my autos and it's all about enjoying the drive experience rather than hypermiling or something. There is a point of silliness in autos though. Ford/GM's full size 10 speed skips 4 of the 10 gears in regular driving (uses all 10 towing or in sport mode). Once you hit 8 gears or so, it seems overkill on any transmission unless it is serving a specific purpose (OHV trucks or something). Maybe having them skews EPA testing or something.

 

[mightymousetech]

Better lap times? Dream on, boy. Let me guess, you have no serious track experience, right? This discussion is absurd.

Just wanted to point out, if purchasing a new BMW purpose built race car, like the M2 CS Racing, manuals are not even an available option.

 

[Wolf359]

Guys, manual's more efficient, period. EPA numbers as well as WLTP etc. are cheating.
In these tests the gear is given for a certain speed, and that's so that it's detrimental
for the manual, just to push autos.
From a technical standpoint an auto cannot be as efficient as a manual transmission
(unless it has a WAY shorter gearing). Every automatic transmission has much more
moving parts and much more oil causing drag. It's also much heavier.
Again, be honest. If you want auto because you don't like to shift and press clutches,
admit it's that way. Don't lie to yourself and argue with "efficiency". It's just wrong. If
you like it, that's ok. But please stay real.

Real engineering is all about compromise. In theory manuals are more efficient, all other things being equal. But as many have already pointed out, it's not, the gearing that the automatics have make up for the losses in additional weight. Maybe if they started making 10 speed manuals, you'd do better than the automatics, but then maybe you wouldn't have the same weight savings or the additional complexity is an additional drain on performance. Anyway, it's clear from the numbers that modern automatics are doing better than the manuals, at least from the current manufacturers.

 

[BAJA_05]

If its a 4 cylinder --- I prefer stick with a 5 or 6 speed.
Bigger displacement --- 6 and 8 cylinder --- I prefer automatic & that is what I have.

 

[930.engineering]

Anyway, it's clear from the numbers that modern automatics are doing better than the manuals, at least from the current manufacturers.

It isn't, but I respect you're not willing to understand that. Again, sadly this discussion
is pointless due to lack of understanding. Repeating marketing BS doesn't substitute
common sense or technical expertise.
.

 

[Warlord]

What would be really helpful is if you could sort by transmission on fuelly.