Houckster
Champion Author
Atlanta
Posts:9,340
Points:693,335
Joined:Sep 2003
|
Message Posted: Jun 20, 2012 7:55:55 AM
The advantages of a manual transmission with regard to gas mileage vary from noticeable to non-existant.
On my Ranger, for example, the transfer case is not disconnected from the drivetrain with a manual so the truck gets about 1 MPG less according to the EPA.
Other cars with manual transmissions don't have proper gearing. The Honda Element has a manual transmission but because Honda does not believe drivers will want to downshift on highway grade the engines run several hundred rev's higher than the automatic does at highway speeds and therefore the automatic gets better mileage.
Finally more efficient automatic transmissions are saving fuel as well with electronically controlled shifting and providing shifting control similar to manuals. Add to this that the OEMs don't want to sell manual transmissions and we're going to see fewer and fewer true manuals in the future.
[Edited by: Houckster at 6/20/2012 9:00:12 AM EST]
|
minet
Sophomore Author
British Columbia
Posts:150
Points:74,425
Joined:Jun 2012
|
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2012 6:45:50 PM
im thinking about it.
|
sluggopyle
Champion Author
North Carolina
Posts:23,608
Points:1,075,890
Joined:Dec 2005
|
Message Posted: Jun 17, 2012 7:25:56 AM
=> I think that the CVT transmission saves more gas than either the automatic or manual transmission. <=
I'd bet it doesn't, given the same driver testing both. I can beat the mileage my cars are rated at by 40%, easily and regularly, because I have the latitude to shift it myself. As with any human-made machinery taking the place of human decisionmaking, it can't think creatively, and that will always be its inherent limitation.
We humans go to a lot of trouble to come up with technology that takes our own control away. We're a weird bunch.
|
Bell30012
Champion Author
Atlanta
Posts:3,918
Points:616,645
Joined:Aug 2004
|
Message Posted: Jun 17, 2012 6:35:48 AM
I think that the CVT transmission saves more gas than either the automatic or manual transmission.
|
Seamus4513
Champion Author
Orange County
Posts:2,573
Points:384,630
Joined:Mar 2012
|
Message Posted: Jun 16, 2012 4:20:46 PM
Have it down cold in about 1 hr
|
vikings80
All-Star Author
South Dakota
Posts:781
Points:110,065
Joined:Aug 2008
|
Message Posted: Jun 8, 2012 3:06:23 PM
It's easy.
|
butcherc
Champion Author
Florida
Posts:1,593
Points:348,275
Joined:Apr 2012
|
Message Posted: May 9, 2012 4:13:47 PM
I'm hoping to learn one day
|
MImusicman
Champion Author
Michigan
Posts:1,863
Points:405,725
Joined:Mar 2012
|
Message Posted: May 9, 2012 2:43:07 PM
In looking and comparing cars last year for a new-to-me purchase, it really doesn't seem to matter that much any more with technology today vs. how you drive (speed, acceleration, stop/starts, etc.). I can increase my gas mileage by going 65 vs. 75 on the freeway or taking a country highway and doing more coasting up to lights vs. driving up and braking and then needing to accelerate again.
What I wish for is some lighter cars with a little less horsepower and regular gas w/out ethanol. I used to get 47-51 mpg on the highway from my '88 Civic with a man. transmission but the best I could get in my '01 Civic was 38-42 mpg on the highway...a drop in mpg of about 25%.
|
rick_evans
Champion Author
Boston
Posts:3,714
Points:1,031,780
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 9, 2012 2:01:06 PM
It does if you drive it well. A lousy stick driver will waste gas and wear out the clutch faster.
|
Z12
Champion Author
Toledo
Posts:3,652
Points:757,735
Joined:Mar 2011
|
Message Posted: May 4, 2012 9:38:30 PM
Yes, it's true
|
gembe12
Rookie Author
Kentucky
Posts:1
Points:200
Joined:May 2012
|
Message Posted: May 4, 2012 1:56:55 PM
This is true, Stick shift really saves gas; it is much more economical!
|
Banjoe
Champion Author
Winnipeg
Posts:4,231
Points:612,235
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: May 4, 2012 9:01:03 AM
Have a 6 speed automatic as well as a couple of 4 speed standards. It seems logical that a standard should improve mileage but unfortunately not they way I drive them. They seem to bring out a driving demon in me.
|
Bluebird333
All-Star Author
Wisconsin
Posts:634
Points:52,300
Joined:Feb 2012
|
Message Posted: May 4, 2012 4:04:47 AM
Broadway Joe did you read my post correctly. Re read it slowly and you will understand what I said. Companies like Chrysler have 8 speed autos because the gearing is closer together making smoother shifting but they are also heavier. No where in my post did I say adding more gears increases mpg.
|
prius22
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:2,201
Points:386,360
Joined:Apr 2012
|
Message Posted: May 3, 2012 2:11:06 PM
Never learned how to drive a stick until I was deployed to Macedonia in support of KFOR with the MN Nat'l Gaurd. I was taught by Hans from Denmark, pretty good instructor. Never really paid attention to mpgs, too buisy dodging horses and rickshaws and most everything else I've never seen on the road. And I haven't driven a stick shift since. Not very appealing in stop and go traffic from my experience.
|
FuelPump
Champion Author
Los Angeles
Posts:21,456
Points:3,413,050
Joined:Apr 2003
|
Message Posted: May 3, 2012 9:33:35 AM
You have to know how to drive a stick, most get the rpm's too high before shifting. If you drive it right, you can get better mileage than any auto, but again most do not.
|
diegotoad
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:3,402
Points:814,450
Joined:Jul 2009
|
Message Posted: May 3, 2012 6:50:32 AM
Not true anymore. With the CVT and VVT transmissions, the automatics get as good or even better mileage on some vehicles. I still love my manual transmission though.
|
JCLNC
All-Star Author
Greensboro
Posts:902
Points:218,460
Joined:Jun 2011
|
Message Posted: May 3, 2012 4:53:53 AM
I have never learned how to drive stick shift.
|
BroadwayJoeFYVM
Rookie Author
Nevada
Posts:16
Points:985
Joined:Nov 2008
|
Message Posted: May 3, 2012 4:08:23 AM
Okay then, how about this? Are cars with 6 or more forward gears any more efficient than say, five? Six-speed manuals are becoming more and more commonplace, and European luxury models are coming out with seven- and even eight-speed automatics. Would they necessarily more efficient than the standard five-speed? And what about CVTs in hybrids?
|
Bluebird333
All-Star Author
Wisconsin
Posts:634
Points:52,300
Joined:Feb 2012
|
Message Posted: May 3, 2012 4:04:20 AM
Manual trans do save gas especially if you own a 90s vehicle because manufactures like ford GM and Chrysler used 4 speed automatics and 5 speed manuals. What rear end you have also plays a factor in gearing to save fuel. Plus manual trans are lighter weight than autos.
Ps VW/Audi uses tiptronic and even though you can shift it they are not worth owning. Too many problems( my buddies and myself are big into euro cars so don't ask us how we know)
|
thekarmann
Rookie Author
Twin Cities
Posts:73
Points:161,760
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: May 1, 2012 4:36:18 PM
depends on age of your vehicle. recent models offer auto trans that equal or exceed manual trans. older vehicles are likely to get better milage with manual, newer cars not so much.
|
Houckster
Champion Author
Atlanta
Posts:9,340
Points:693,335
Joined:Sep 2003
|
Message Posted: May 1, 2012 12:41:28 PM
I have had a manual transmission in almost all my cars. I like them because of the control they offer but newer automatics like VW's Autostick or BMW's Tiptronic are so efficient they often get better mileage than manuals and acceleration is better too.
As an example, take the 2012 Ford Focus. It comes with a manual or an automatic. For the manual, the EPA rating is 26/30/36 while the automatic is rated at 28/31/38.
And there are other considerations. For example, I have a 4WD Ford Ranger with a manual transmission. The EPA gives a higher rating to the automatic version because it disengages the transfer case completely while the manual version of the truck does not.
|
sluggopyle
Champion Author
North Carolina
Posts:23,608
Points:1,075,890
Joined:Dec 2005
|
Message Posted: May 1, 2012 9:28:14 AM
=> Just like anything else it all comes down to how well you do the routine maintenence on it. If you don't get the transmission oil and filter changed on an automatic in the intervals it's supposed to be done at then problems are likely to occur. I've known people with automatics that have never had any problems with them and have well over 300,000 miles on them. But again they do the regular maintenence like they should on them. <=
The case I mentioned had absolutely NOTHING to do with maintenance. This Xmsn was maintained religiously. It was a bad design; Saturn got class-action sued over it and eventually went out of business. You're making assumptions here.
It was a bad design on a technology that adds complexity, weight, maintenance and cost, none of which need to be there. But again my biggest reason for choosing sticks is so that I can drive the car rather than have the car drive me.
|
WEDDY
Champion Author
Phoenix
Posts:3,234
Points:1,035,570
Joined:Oct 2009
|
Message Posted: May 1, 2012 9:22:32 AM
I don't have a stick anymore, but I grew up on a stick. They used to be better on gas mileage, but some of the new cars claim better gas mileage with an automatic.
|
ultimate
Champion Author
New Jersey
Posts:4,763
Points:1,330,795
Joined:May 2004
|
Message Posted: May 1, 2012 5:21:08 AM
always has
|
cjhsa
Rookie Author
Michigan
Posts:7
Points:5,990
Joined:Aug 2007
|
Message Posted: Apr 12, 2012 10:22:24 AM
My 28+ year old BMW 3-series gets 32MPG on the freeway. And of course it's a stick. People who put automatic trannys on 3's are idiots.
|
pinbuster2005
Champion Author
New Hampshire
Posts:5,210
Points:1,521,475
Joined:Oct 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 12, 2012 2:44:03 AM
sluggopyle - "Just to clarify, I meant the EPA says my car gets 32 on the highway, and that's the number I compare directly. That combined city/highway number, I consider completely meaningless-- as you say, you'd have to split your city/highway usage exactly the same way the EPA does, even if the individual estimates WERE accurate. I don't know why they even bother listing such a meaningless number."
I think the reason they list it is because that is what most people look at when comparing automobiles. Personally I compare the highway and city mileage because as I've said I drive 95% highway (roads 55 mph or more) and avoid city driving as much as possible.
"But to the OP question itself, it's all about driver control of what's going on. The more control you have, the more you can squeeze out of a finite amount of fuel. And control (or lack thereof) is the whole reason I won't even consider driving an autonomic."
I'll agree with you on that. Granted I have an automatic but it's because the price was right on the automobile. If I was looking at both at the same price and was going to chose one over the other. The only time I might consider the automatic over the standard would be if I lived in the city and was going to be doing mostly city driving.
"(Of course, maintenance is a secondary reason -- a friend just spent 2600 bucks replacing her autonomic transmission at 150,000 miles, while my car (same make) is at nearly 400,000 with no transmission issues at all.)"
Just like anything else it all comes down to how well you do the routine maintenence on it. If you don't get the transmission oil and filter changed on an automatic in the intervals it's supposed to be done at then problems are likely to occur. I've known people with automatics that have never had any problems with them and have well over 300,000 miles on them. But again they do the regular maintenence like they should on them. It's just like doing regular oil & filter changes in your engine. If your not doing them you could end up with some major costs later on.
DCD_guy - "It depends on the number of gears. Older AT has less gears than 5-gear MT,
so MT has higher mpg than that of AT. But the latest AT will have 6 or even
more gears, then the benefit of 5-gear MT will be reduced, unless MT is built
with even more gears, like those in a big truck."
There are standards in some automobiles now that are 6-speeds so those standards driven properly would produce better mileage than the automatic in the same automobile.
|
Natalie1Nissan
Rookie Author
Ontario
Posts:71
Points:13,055
Joined:Apr 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2012 10:22:40 AM
Automatic continuously variable transmissions (CVT) are beating the manuals by 6-7 MPG.
|
kxy4fw
Champion Author
Denver
Posts:1,226
Points:275,255
Joined:Nov 2011
|
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2012 7:43:55 AM
I don't disagree.
|
ultimate
Champion Author
New Jersey
Posts:4,763
Points:1,330,795
Joined:May 2004
|
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2012 5:05:04 AM
Depending on how you drive.
|
DCD_Guy
Rookie Author
San Francisco
Posts:68
Points:43,075
Joined:Jan 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2012 10:41:54 PM
It depends on the number of gears. Older AT has less gears than 5-gear MT,
so MT has higher mpg than that of AT. But the latest AT will have 6 or even
more gears, then the benefit of 5-gear MT will be reduced, unless MT is built
with even more gears, like those in a big truck.
|
13Octane
Champion Author
Tucson
Posts:2,147
Points:332,165
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2012 7:23:53 PM
dont know. that is an excellent question however.
|
alphanyr
Champion Author
Connecticut
Posts:4,810
Points:673,800
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2012 6:32:10 PM
yes
|
sluggopyle
Champion Author
North Carolina
Posts:23,608
Points:1,075,890
Joined:Dec 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2012 10:00:39 AM
=> This question is moot as both the standard and the conventional automatic are going to phase out for the dual clutch transmission. <=
Fat chance of that.
Just what we need-- as if the conventional A/T wasn't bulky, heavy, complex, expensive, maintenance-hungry and fragile enough... now we make it MORE complex. Rotsa ruck with that.
Again, a friend of mine just paid $2600 for a new autonomic transmission, while my car (same make) is still flaw-free with its stickshift at 400,000 miles. You tell me who got the better deal.
|
Hemond
Champion Author
Providence
Posts:8,174
Points:133,405
Joined:Oct 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2012 12:13:23 AM
This question is moot as both the standard and the conventional automatic are going to phase out for the dual clutch transmission. This is a marriage of both and is by far the best transmission currently available.
|
gus8441
Champion Author
Baltimore
Posts:2,109
Points:441,100
Joined:Feb 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2012 11:11:02 PM
i can't, wish i could learn
|
silklace
Rookie Author
Ontario
Posts:71
Points:154,435
Joined:Jan 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2012 7:58:55 PM
well said drove one for years
|
eyefishpa
Rookie Author
San Antonio
Posts:28
Points:3,800
Joined:Apr 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2012 5:59:10 PM
yes mileage is better with a stick. It's also safer to drive because you have to focus more on your driving.
|
alphanyr
Champion Author
Connecticut
Posts:4,810
Points:673,800
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2012 5:44:56 PM
yes unless you have a cvt
|
aeromike49
Rookie Author
Arizona
Posts:23
Points:1,040
Joined:Feb 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2012 11:06:40 AM
Manual trans is better in every respect - cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, cheaper to rEPAir, and saves a TON of $ on gas. Go to Europe and you will see 95% manual shift cars and trucks because fuel is so expensive. The EPA estimates on fuel economy are just that and don't represent actual economy so why even bother with estimates? Just wait until your auto trans needs rEPAir - it will cost a lot - sometimes more than the car is worth.
|
sluggopyle
Champion Author
North Carolina
Posts:23,608
Points:1,075,890
Joined:Dec 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2012 10:02:59 AM
=> "By the way those fuel comparisons, if one is looking at the EPA numbers, are a lot of bunkum. That agency says my car should get 32, and I consistently beat that by *at least* 25%. Sometimes 50%. Or more."
I agree the EPA uses 45% highway/55% city for their combined mileage on their lists where as someone like me does 95% highway/5% city so the combined is way off most of the time. <=
Just to clarify, I meant the EPA says my car gets 32 on the highway, and that's the number I compare directly. That combined city/highway number, I consider completely meaningless-- as you say, you'd have to split your city/highway usage exactly the same way the EPA does, even if the individual estimates WERE accurate. I don't know why they even bother listing such a meaningless number.
But to the OP question itself, it's all about driver control of what's going on. The more control you have, the more you can squeeze out of a finite amount of fuel. And control (or lack thereof) is the whole reason I won't even consider driving an autonomic.
(Of course, maintenance is a secondary reason -- a friend just spent 2600 bucks replacing her autonomic transmission at 150,000 miles, while my car (same make) is at nearly 400,000 with no transmission issues at all.)
[Edited by: sluggopyle at 4/9/2012 11:05:41 AM EST]
|
sc331mustang
Champion Author
South Carolina
Posts:2,134
Points:491,315
Joined:Nov 2011
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2012 3:14:51 PM
Well for starters a manual transmission weigh less than an automatic transmission. With a weight advantage it can give you better gas mileage. In a manual transmission you can shift early or take you car of gear and let it cruise up to a red light or better yet shut it off and hold the clutch in. Pop the clutch and it will crank back up. Lastly I noticed that when it cold outside (less than 40 degrees) that my truck will not shift into overdrive until it warms up.
|
DesertRat2011
Champion Author
Riverside
Posts:3,607
Points:483,855
Joined:Jun 2011
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2012 1:46:56 PM
That was the reason I bought a stick shift VW Jetta TDI better mpg over a automatic & cheaper to repair !
|
jamieg2012
Veteran Author
Sioux Falls
Posts:286
Points:11,385
Joined:Jan 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2012 12:09:33 PM
making people drive stick based on fuel economy laws will not happen
cars is made based on what people will buy and if they do not want a stick then they will go to other brands that give them what they want
only way to make more cars as a stick is to make more and more people want to buy them then these auto makers will just change to what demand is
until then no change like that will happen
|
pinbuster2005
Champion Author
New Hampshire
Posts:5,210
Points:1,521,475
Joined:Oct 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2012 3:14:30 AM
gvan - That maybe possible also it depends on how you drive the standard as well. If you don't know how to drive a standard the right way your not going to gain in fuel economy.
|
Mermaan
Champion Author
Boston
Posts:1,572
Points:421,235
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Apr 7, 2012 11:16:07 PM
I know how to stick and I don't know if it makes a difference. But I do like having more control over my car. If I'm really hyper miling, I shift early. For example driving 30 mph on a flat road or going downhill I shift into 5th gear and my RPM's hover around 1000.
|
gvan
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:21,518
Points:2,834,340
Joined:Dec 2004
|
Message Posted: Apr 7, 2012 7:33:30 AM
Actually I can show you at www.fueleconomy.gov where some automatics are rated higher mpg than the manual transmissions. It probably depends on the differential ratio.
|
WES03
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:4,833
Points:1,263,420
Joined:Feb 2009
|
Message Posted: Apr 7, 2012 7:10:11 AM
The differences in gas mileage between manuals and autos has been reduced with newer models, however the extra weight and cost has not.
|
pinbuster2005
Champion Author
New Hampshire
Posts:5,210
Points:1,521,475
Joined:Oct 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 7, 2012 3:22:18 AM
sluggopyle - "Surely there are, for various reasons. What I'm saying is that a manual xmission *requires* that the driver actually be involved in the driving, whereas the autonomic insulates him/her from what's going on with the road and the drive train. I just can't fathom why I would ever want to decline that physical feedback. It's a driver's best friend. Especially up the hills. Or on curves. Or snow. Or down the hills. Or when I need acceleration."
I agree with you on that. I've had both automatics and standards in my driving time and I prefer the standard anyday over the automatic especially in the winter. My 2000 F-150 was an automatic and the Buick terazza mini-van I have right now (was my father's but he recently passed away) are/were automatics but the price was right on both so I had to look at that factor as well.
"As I've said before, improved fuel efficiency is nice, but it's really last on the list of reasons to drive a stick, behind the lower initial cost, lower maintenance costs, lower replacement cost, less weight, less complexity, better durability and far and away most of all, an infinitely better (and direct) connection to what the vehicle is doing at any moment. I can't for the life of me imagine giving that up to a torque converter on purpose when it's not necessary to give it up."
Very true of all those reasons.
"By the way those fuel comparisons, if one is looking at the EPA numbers, are a lot of bunkum. That agency says my car should get 32, and I consistently beat that by *at least* 25%. Sometimes 50%. Or more."
I agree the EPA uses 45% highway/55% city for their combined mileage on their lists where as someone like me does 95% highway/5% city so the combined is way off most of the time.
the 2001 F-150 I had with the 5-speed standard should have gotten 15 city/19 highway with a combined of 18.8 mpg (using 95% highway/5% city). I consistantly averaged 19.5 mpg doing my normal driving and on a long trip on the interstate (over 300 miles) I could pull 24 mpg out of it. sure the average for my everyday driving is only about 4% better than their estimates using my highway/city ratio but the highway mileage for a trip was 26% better than what they said I should get.
The 2000 F-150 I had with the automatic transmission was pretty close to their estimates. I used to average 18.5 mpg with it doing my regular driving and 21 mpg on a trip. The trip mileage was better than their highway estimates but the combined mileage was a little lower with the automatic.
The 2006 Buick Terazza Mini-van I have now according to the EPA should get 15mpg city/21mpg highway with their combined of 17 mpg (using 45%highway/55% city) but using their estmates and my city/highway ratio it would be a combined 20.7 mpg. So far I'm averaging doing my normal driving 22.6 mpg with it. I haven't taken it on a long trip yet so I don't know that mileage. But just the combined mileage that I get is almost 10% better than they estimate. I can't wait to see how much I beat the plain highway driving mileage by.
|
ranger2k
All-Star Author
St. Louis
Posts:791
Points:92,275
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2012 10:29:40 PM
manual since 1985, better mileage, performance and choice
|
gasmask78
Champion Author
Virginia
Posts:2,268
Points:443,640
Joined:Sep 2011
|
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2012 10:15:12 PM
If you know what you are doing, standard transmission is better..but if you're uncoordinated, you may experience issues.
|