What do you drive - MT or AT?

[mezdup]

It's another one of these necessary?

Sent from HTC Rezound using Tapatalk 2

[Shizuma]

Originally Posted by Dragon86

Fuel economy is a bonus in a sports car. If you cared so much about that get a prius there sporty

Some of us want both, and it's really annoying hearing people say get something stupid like a Prius because fuel economy is a concern, especially since for most people now a days fuel economy is a concern.

Really that's more the category the FR-S/BRZ falls into IMO anyways, a fun nimble small sports car with good fuel economy, most people wanting a straight up sports car want something that's fast, which the FR-S/BRZ honestly isn't (my old 4100lb station wagon was faster), it's not slow, but in a straight line it can be beaten by many sedans even. If I was looking for primarily at performance and not considering fuel economy the BRZ wouldn't have been what I ended up with, I would have spent the extra $2200 and got myself a Challenger R/T with the 375hp hemi which can easily out accelerate the FR-S/BRS and can handle just as welll as the FR-S BRZ when it comes to lateral acceleration and the figure 8, and I could carry much more stuff around when need be because it's a larger car, so actually more practical in that regards.

Originally Posted by Sigh-on-Rice

In addition to that, according to fuelly.com, MT gets better real life MPG than AT. Same for CR-Z. According to EPA, both FR-S and CR-Z get better MPG with AT, but not in real life driving. EPA MPG is misleading sometimes.

That's entirely based on the way people drive their cars though, simply put the MT is not capable of matching/beating the AT when driven the same due to gearing, when i'm cruising at 60mpg in my AT my RPM's are at about 1950, from what I've seen people post the MT is revving at somewhere around 2750. Really I wouldn't be surprised if the AT drivers drive more aggressive than the MT drivers as things like that don't always match up to what you would think, for example the cars I see driving the most aggressively on the roads aren't sports cars, they mostly Corollas, civics, or SUVs, not what one would consider the "performance option".

[mickey177]

Originally Posted by excited86

Another advantage of AT is I can hold my girl's hand when I drive.

Lol so true!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sigh-on-Rice]

Originally Posted by Shizuma

That's entirely based on the way people drive their cars though, simply put the MT is not capable of matching/beating the AT when driven the same due to gearing, when i'm cruising at 60mpg in my AT my RPM's are at about 1950, from what I've seen people post the MT is revving at somewhere around 2750.

Yes, it's entirely based on the way people drive if you compare one against another. But if it's comparing 10 against 10, or even 100 against 100, it's not about how a single person drives.

I agree that if you were to compare MPG at 60 mph cruising, AT will be better. I'm just mentioning the real life MPG in fuelly.com. I'm not saying that's 100% true. Just mentioning the results in fuelly.com.

[Echo]

Last trip to Shenandoah:

14.3 mpg

Last 24 hours chilling in Maryland:

32.1 mpg

And I got auto.

[phenom86]

I drive a MT, all the cars that i modded have been manual.. EVO8, R32 GTR, Silvia specR, Civic mugen RR and now the 86. Gives me control of the car plus you will never get bored driving it..

[KRAZYK]

Originally Posted by Shizuma

That's entirely based on the way people drive their cars though, simply put the MT is not capable of matching/beating the AT when driven the same due to gearing, when i'm cruising at 60mpg in my AT my RPM's are at about 1950, from what I've seen people post the MT is revving at somewhere around 2750. Really I wouldn't be surprised if the AT drivers drive more aggressive than the MT drivers as things like that don't always match up to what you would think, for example the cars I see driving the most aggressively on the roads aren't sports cars, they mostly Corollas, civics, or SUVs, not what one would consider the "performance option".

You are right about the different gearing.. where I disagree is where you think that haveing lower gearing (aka same highway speed but the AT is at lower revs) is an advantage. These cars lack low end torque.. having higher gearing like you get with the MT gives you a little bit of that back.

aka a truck with 3.55 gears might have a higher top speed and MPG but a truck with 4.30 gears like my Tundra, have more pull off the line.

[Jidonsu]

MT. Btw, I got 36-38 mpg on an all highway trip to DC from CT and back. It only dropped to 36 once I mixed in some city driving.

[El Diablito]

AT because I'm to stupid to learn how to drive a MT lbvs

I got the AT, it was actually 1 of 2 cars i considered the automatic for, everything else was going to be manual(looked at everything from a impreza to a mustang v6. I chose this car because its sporty and gets good fuel economy with a pretty good amount of power. If i was choosing just for power in general i probably would have ended up with a WRX or STI. I am very happy with my choice and don't think i could have made a better choice on car and transmission for myself.

[Echo]

Why the hell are the EPA numbers so off then??

Anyways, still don't regret the AT. Last time I drove a stick from DC to College Park...took 3 hours to drive 7 miles, and I must have shifted at least 200 times (can't really cruise on 1 cuz DC drivers are retarded).

[Shizuma]

Originally Posted by Sigh-on-Rice

Yes, it's entirely based on the way people drive if you compare one against another. But if it's comparing 10 against 10, or even 100 against 100, it's not about how a single person drives.

I agree that if you were to compare MPG at 60 mph cruising, AT will be better. I'm just mentioning the real life MPG in fuelly.com. I'm not saying that's 100% true. Just mentioning the results in fuelly.com.

You don't however have a good sampling of the two there, right now the number of cars is to low to get any sort of real average sample, plus given that 75% of the cars made have been manual the AT is going to be skewed in comparison for quite a while.

While I don't bother using fuelly to track my car I do still track it and I'm averaging 33.3MPG thus far with about 2400 miles, and I've gotten over 40 on long highway trips, and I will point out that most of the time I drive fairly normally and with cruise control on on the highway, i'm not one of those idiots who weaves in and out of traffic.

Also just another thought for those results being skewed, often people choose an AT over an MT because they sit in stop and go traffic a lot, which means a lot of the AT's are going to come in with lower MPG because of that as well.

Really I would put little faith in getting an accurate comparison on that site or any site like that for those reasons alone, the only way you'll get a accurate comparison is under with real empirical data of two cars AT and MT driven under identical circumstances till a sizable enough data set is collected...... which is actually where the EPA fuel economy numbers come from, while they they may not match exactly to real world numbers it's the closest thing you'll get to comparing the difference between two different cars under identical circumstances and thus which car is capable of the highest fuel economy all other things being equal.

[Sigh-on-Rice]

Originally Posted by Echo

Why the hell are the EPA numbers so off then??

Ya, the numbers from EPA are so off many times (look at Hyundai...), I don't even trust them.
I trust fuelly.com more.
Or if the car is too new to check in fuelly.com, I look at the numbers from the tests in Japan.
Both MT and AT are rated 27 MPG (or 12.4 km/l) in Japan.
That's really close to what fuelly.com has, which is 28.x.

[Sigh-on-Rice]

Originally Posted by Shizuma

You don't however have a good sampling of the two there, right now the number of cars is to low to get any sort of real average sample, plus given that 75% of the cars made have been manual the AT is going to be skewed in comparison for quite a while.

Yes, you're correct. There aren't enough results for FR-S/BRZ yet. Only about 60 results so far. But there are almost 300 CR-Z's and that to me is a good sampling. According to EPA, CR-Z's AT gets better MPG, but according to fuelly.com, CR-Z's MT gets better MPG. FR-S/BRZ is getting similar result as CR-Z. These makes me think that EPA test has some disadvantages to these cars and I wanted to mention that so that people stop trusting EPA and automatically think that AT gets better real life MPG than MT.

Originally Posted by Shizuma

Also just another thought for those results being skewed, often people choose an AT over an MT because they sit in stop and go traffic a lot, which means a lot of the AT's are going to come in with lower MPG because of that as well.

This is a really good point that I haven't thought about!!! That might very well be the reason of my mystery