Manual vs Auto MPGs
 

Is there a reason why the hwy/city mpg of the auto fr-s is higher than the manual? I thought historically it was the other way around. And it's not just by a bit, its by 3+ mpg!

Gearing.

If there is no performance or fuel efficient reason to get manual, whats the point anymore?

I bet I could get the same MPG figures with MT as with the AT if I wanted.
It's all about how you drive.

The point is the same as it always has been.
If you don't see what MT offers over AT, you never will.

Fun

Not to sound negative but I'd like to see that happen when you're under 3k RPM at 65+mph with the Auto but just at or above 3k RPM at 65+mph with the Manual ;).

I'm a manual man here but the gear ratios put the engine at lower RPMs at the same speeds compared to manual. Which causes the engine to use less gas at the same cruising speeds.

To have fun. I'd still get 6-speed manual even when I have a choice of getting 8-speed auto with better 0-60 time and mpg.:happyanim:

The superiority of the FR-S/BRZ auto over the manual in testing is most likely an artifact of the testing protocol. In real-world driving there is unlikely to be any difference. A preliminary look at mileage already posted on Fuelly seems to show that there is minimal, if any difference. At some point automatic transmissions may trump manuals, but it requires the kind of sophisticated engine/transmission calibration that has only been achieved with CVT and dual clutch transmissions, not a six-speed, as in the FR-Z.

Maybe, but I'm sure the stats on their website has some merit.

MPG[4] (EPA CITY) (MT/AT) 22 / 25
MPG[4] (EPA HIGHWAY) (MT/AT) 30 / 34
MPG[4] (EPA COMBINED) (MT/AT) 25 / 28

It really struck me as odd since manual trannies have always been known to be more efficient. I'm pretty sure the current generation remembers that.

Wouldn't have Toyota sensed that and then attempt to reconcile that with real world simulation? I would believe that if it was an mpg difference or two...but those site stats are really concerning...

Gearing in ATs has over the past 3 years or so made them MORE efficient on mileage than MT. You'll almost never see a more effcient MT in anything beyond 2011 than AT.

I've been playing with the whole rev range and still averaging 32mpg with my manual... Wouldn't go back to paddle shifters for the world!

Toyota doesn't setup the testing protocol, the EPA does. They (Toyota) setup the auto to get the best MPG by adjusting the gearing, but they setup the M/T to work the best for driving/racing (otherwise they would get chewed up by the magazines/users/etc.).

Oh, and the auto can downshift anytime it wants without annoying the driver, so it can cruise as a much lower RPM with fewer negative effects from that perspective too.

-Charlie

I'd agree with the 32 MPG and MT. I can do about 31 - 32 MPG with MT on cruise on the interstate.

Handling throttle duties myself and being 'careful' 35 - 36 MPG @ about 70 mph.

Historically yes, of course historically MT's often were 5 speeds while the AT's were 3-4 speeds so they had gearing advantages, now a days in the vast majority of cases the AT's beat the MT's in fuel economy, the ones that the MT does beat the AT are usually because the car is still using an old design transmission, also MT's seem to have incompatibilities with cylinder deactivation which further pushes the AT ahead.

The only way you could get the same MPG as an AT with your MT is if you drive very passively and the AT driver drove very aggressively, the MT is simply not capable of beating the AT if both cars are driven the same due to gearing, in 6th gear the MT's RPM's are about 800 RPM higher than the AT at the same speed.

This plus a thousand.

/thread

nvm

As others have said.. gearing.

75mph in the AT the RPMs sit around the 2500 mark (someone can come up with better numbers im sure)
and 75mph in the MT the RPMs will sit around the 3300 mark.

The gears in the AT are "longer" and the MT are "shorter".. both have their own advantages.

As to why someone would still pick a MT over an AT? (which according to my poll I posted yesterday about 70% of FRS/BRZ/86 buyers did...) MT is more FUN

No performance reasons?
I know the cars are the same but aren't you able to get faster times and better control because it's a manual?

I obviously get the fun factor associated with driving manual. The question is how many mpg's someone would sacrifice for the privilege? It just seems depressing that the world of manual trannies will be obsolete soon; sooner than we think at this rate...

Yes, it has better accleration but I feel like that is irrelevant to the rant that is being attempted.

Quoting your word -- performance

The manual transmission does provide slightly better performance, at the expense of slightly worse fuel economy. Here's a good reason to stick with the manual: the automatic costs $1,100 more.

Depending on how much you drive, and where gas prices go, the AT will pay for itself within a couple years. I plan on keeping mine much longer than that.

How much is a new clutch? How often do those need to be replaced in these cars? I see a lot of folks for whom this will be their first MT and I'm sure that's going to result in a lot of additional wear/tear on the transmission. Automatic transmissions do fail, and it can be expensive, but in my experience they last a lot longer and have fewer problems than most of the manuals owned by friends. This setup in particular seems pretty beefy and capable of handling more power than the car can put out in stock form.

My last MT was bought used but having to spend 20% of the price of the car to swap the clutch after a couple months due to wear from the previous owner did not make me happy.

I will agree with you on that. I wish my Tundra came in a manual.. I would have been all over that! shifting through a 500hp V8.. mmm would be nice.

the auto is geared taller.....which will help on the freeway for sure....I think another reason for the manuals lower # is in typical freeway cruising you are right in the torque hole in the powerband.....which is tuned for WAY more fuel.... I forgot his screen name, but the guy developing the "chip" for FT86 found a bunch more fuel (must be for emissions) and less timing in that torque hole.....if the auto cruises at the same speed BELOW that hole, its much more efficient....

First of all for city driving I think you can easily get better mileage with the MT than an AT with a torque converter. The EPA standard forces the test to use stupid shift points resulting in poor MT city numbers.

For the highway the AT will be more efficient because of gearing: but, I can easily get better than 34 MPG on the highway with my MT BRZ.

I don't agree with you at all about repairs for MT cars. None of my friends and family that drive MT cars have told me about clutch or transmission problems that they have had in the last couple decades. My wife and I both drive MT cars and we also haven't had any problems for a long time.

Here is a list of MT cars I have owned over the last 25 years that my wife and I drove with *zero* clutch or transmission repairs:

Car : Mile's in : Miles out
Chevy Chevette : 75,000 : 150,000 (sold- hated car)
Olds Omega : 85,000 : 160,000 (junked- hated car)
Honda Civic : 85,000 : 165,000 (junked- wife ran without oil)
Ford Escort : 80,000 : 160,000 (junked- rust)
Mazda Protege #1 : 0 : 196,000 (junked- tired of car)
Mazda Protege #2 : 0 : 198,000 (junked- tired of car)
Subaru Legacy : 0 : 136,000 (still going strong)
Honda Accord : 0 : 164,000 (still going strong)
Subaru BRZ : 0 : 1,800 (still going strong)

I taught my wife to drive a standard and she never damaged a clutch or transmission.
So, unless you really can't learn to start/shift, or you purposely abuse the clutch for fast starts, you should have no reliability problems with an unmodified modern Japanese MT car's clutch or transmission.

Mazda CX5 - one of the most sophisticated powerplants around.

Manual vs Auto MPGs
 

My post has really nothing to do with MPG, but I just prefer the manual transmission, even though my 2010 TC RS 6.0 is auto and is my DD.

Insurance companies are learning that the majority of automobile thieves will steal a car that has an A/T before they ever consider stealing a car with a M/T and insurance rates for the same model of car with a M/T will be a little lower than one with an A/T.

My 2006 Civic auto was rated higher MPG than the Civic manual.

This is just my personal experience, but I can generally get better mileage out of a MT even when the AT is rated higher fuel efficiency if I really pay attention to what I'm doing (e.g. hypermiling) and keep my foot out of it.

Even with that said, if I was all that concerned with fuel mileage, I wouldn't be buying this car. There's a number of cars that get much better MPG, but completely lack the grins per mile.

I'm sure there's a less cheesy way of saying it, but eh...it's been a long day.

No performance? I somehow think this is wrong.

The AT could pay for itself in a few years, but from what members appear to be getting with the MT vs the AT the difference is very, very small. I'm sorry you got a bad egg; I've replaced one clutch in all the manual transmission cars I've owned and it had 214k miles and was my first manual car so I could have worn it out or it could've been on its way out. I have no idea when/if the clutch was ever done on it prior to my ownership.

In my year working for a Toyota dealership, we replaced over a dozen automatic transmissions, and replaced a clutch in a manual transmission once (that showed signs of serious abuse). We never replaced a manual transmission. Now statistically 95% of cars sold in the U.S. are automatic, so I suppose that is something to consider, but in my experience I've had a lot more trouble with autos than manuals.

I feel that some time ago the performance of an MT over an AT was undisputed; however, nowadays that gap is diminishing. Just look any various 0-60 stats of MT vs AT of any 2012 car=/

I'm averaging 34mpg, probably do about 90% highway driving. I have a MT so I'm getting better than the rated MPG. I wonder if this applies to the AT rating too?

Can some of you AT's post the MPG's you've been getting?

I think there will always be pros and cons between AT vs MT.. For me, MTs pros will almost always outway the cons - even if those cons are things like lower MPGs, or slower straight line launches vs a AT.

Sure you can launch the car 0 to 60 faster in a AT against MOST people in a MT.. but where is the fun in that? Anyone can just mash their foot down.

The "performance" you get from a MT over a AT (and always will) is the ability to have greater control over the engine, better feel of the car, better drift capabilities.. and as cliche as it sounds.. you feel closer to the car (more involved in the driving process).

As someone else said.. If you don't see the advantages of a MT over a AT, you never will.

Automatic. Around town about 23 MPG, on a 200 mile trip I got 31 MPG, but that was with only 400 miles on the car and driving 75 mph most of the way. It would be easy to get 34 MPG now with 1440 miles and maybe driving 65.

I now have about 2000 miles on my FR-S with MT. Just got back from Omaha this weekend. It's about 400 miles from Omaha to my home near St. Paul and I averaged almost exactly 33 mpg. All interstate highways, with about 5 stops (I think I drank too much water). Ambient temperature was between 90 and 103 F. Speed averaged 76-77 mph using cruise control most of the time. It would be interesting to see if the AT could do the same or better on the same trip.

By the way, I added one gallon just before the end of the trip because I was afraid of running out of gas with the light on and the fuel gage on empty. When I filled again at home (only about 18 more miles) the tank would only take 10.9 gallons. Which meant I did the entire trip on about 11.8 gallons. So light on and empty means there is more than a gallon left in the tank on my car.

Here's my information since someone asked about AT.

3,557,10 Miles Driven at 31.58MPG calculated manually.

More details available in the OP on my Owner's Journal here.

I think that by the time that the EPA figures came out, Toyota was not about to go back and tweak the engine again. They were very happy with what they got. The FR-Z is the most fuel efficient sports car around.

The fact is that EPA mileage estimation is imperfect. Just look at the real-world mpg of so-called "40 mpg" Hyundais. That's why I would rather look at statistics gathered by Fuelly.com and Truedelta.com.

Again, if you check the available data anearly pattern seems to be emerging that AT and MT transmission FRZ's get about the same mpg.