Manual vs Auto MPGs

[Shizuma]

Originally Posted by 4thehorde4

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!

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.

Originally Posted by whtchocla7e

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 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.

[matt30]

Originally Posted by serith

Gearing.

This plus a thousand.

/thread

[matt30]

nvm

[KRAZYK]

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

[encity5]

Originally Posted by 4thehorde4

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

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?

[4thehorde4]

Originally Posted by KRAZYK

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

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...

[matt30]

Originally Posted by encity5

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?

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

[motofan]

Originally Posted by 4thehorde4

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

Quoting your word -- performance

[Turbowned]

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.

[hav0c]

Originally Posted by Turbowned

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.

[KRAZYK]

Originally Posted by 4thehorde4

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...

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.

[icemang17]

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....

[DSPographer]

Originally Posted by hav0c

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.

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.

[FRiSson]

Originally Posted by DantKR

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.

Mazda CX5 - one of the most sophisticated powerplants around.