YACT AT vs MT efficiency

[NeoPTLD]

Some time ago, MT and AT bared a noticeably different fuel efficiency specifications, but today's cars that are offered with both types of transmissions(automatic=standard, manual=special....) the mileage specs are identical or sometimes better on the AT model.

I know that EPA figure should only be used with a grain of salt. In reality, do AT and MT get considerably different mpg when driven gently?

 

[Sheepathon]

Low revs = good mileage = no fun

 

[Gibson486]

if youa re so concerned about gas mileage, get a hybrid

 

[Viperoni]

Originally posted by: Sheepathon
Low revs = good mileage = no fun

You're trying to say something, but it doesn't make sense.

In general, manual transmission have less power loss, so you end up getting a bit more power down to the wheels.

As for mileage, a while ago, MT's had more gears than AT's, so the higher gears would cause the engine to spin at less RPM, and hence better fuel economy. Now, there's a lot of 5 speed auto's springing up, almost negating the gear difference.

 

[StageLeft]

They're basically about the same now. I'd still buy a MT, if I had the choice, because it's cheaper up front (unless it's one of those stupid cars where it's not, which just means they escalated the MT price artificially), requires almost no maintenance, and repairs are less, plus it's still faster in most cases.

 

[NeoPTLD]

Originally posted by: Viperoni

Originally posted by: Sheepathon
Low revs = good mileage = no fun

You're trying to say something, but it doesn't make sense.

In general, manual transmission have less power loss, so you end up getting a bit more power down to the wheels.

As for mileage, a while ago, MT's had more gears than AT's, so the higher gears would cause the engine to spin at less RPM, and hence better fuel economy. Now, there's a lot of 5 speed auto's springing up, almost negating the gear difference.

Although the manual is capable of direct link in all five gears while the AT is subject to torque converter loss in all but the top gear.

 

[Heisenberg]

The mileage difference between AT and MT is pretty small with modern automatics.

 

[NeoPTLD]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
They're basically about the same now. I'd still buy a MT, if I had the choice, because it's cheaper up front (unless it's one of those stupid cars where it's not, which just means they escalated the MT price artificially), requires almost no maintenance, and repairs are less, plus it's still faster in most cases.

I wouldn't say artifically escalated price. The type of manual transmission used on a sporty car doesn't have much cross-model compatibility and with most drivers desiring automatic, quantity is very low. Low production quantity=higher unit price.

 

[mitaiwan82]

I :heart: my 5-spd, but I miss my automatic in rush hour...

I think AT have gotten more efficient now, and when their gear ratios are similar to their MT counterparts, then MPGs will not differ greatly.

 

[StageLeft]

I wouldn't say artifically escalated price. The type of manual transmission used on a sporty car doesn't have much cross-model compatibility and with most drivers desiring automatic, quantity is very low. Low production quantity=higher unit price.

I think it was on a ford focus that was giving "no extra cost automatics"

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: Sheepathon
Low revs = good mileage = no fun

not necesarily, you need to stay in the powerband