Manual vs Auto MPGs

[DAVE FR-S]

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.

[poudre]

Originally Posted by 4thehorde4

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.

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

[zombie]

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.

[GenkiElite]

Originally Posted by 4thehorde4

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

No performance? I somehow think this is wrong.

[Turbowned]

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.

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.

[4thehorde4]

Originally Posted by GenkiElite

No performance? I somehow think this is wrong.

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=/

[jarviz]

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?

[KRAZYK]

Originally Posted by 4thehorde4

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 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.

[russv]

Originally Posted by jarviz

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?

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.

[Black Tire]

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.

[Dadhawk]

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.

[FRiSson]

Originally Posted by 4thehorde4

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...

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.

[kramerica_industries]

Last night I did a ~160 mile round trip from Rolling Meadows, IL to Valparaiso, IN and back to Chicago. First nearly-all-highway outing with my FR-S MT, reset the MPG display before I left and checked it when I got back. 33.1 MPG. I was pleasantly surprised considering I was doing 65-80 with no cruise control (only have ~500 miles).

[GenkiElite]

Originally Posted by 4thehorde4

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=/

With these duel clutch high end transmisions you may be right but a lot of those are technically manuals. I think in the case if the twins the manual is still much faster.