Battle of the Transmissions: M/T vs. A/T

[clinique]

Hello! I am a new member and really thinking about buying a car of my own and i want to ask honest opinions about M/T and AT. Does having a different transmission affect fuel consumption? Which is more fuel effecient? thanks! because I am thinking about buying either of these budget cars-- Getz 1.2 GL A/T or Picanto /T. thanks again!

[Bogeyman]

An A/T-equipped car is relatively heavier than an identical model equipped with M/T, which affects fuel consumption. A properly operated M/T vehicle can deliver anywhere from 5% to 15% fuel economy over an equivalent A/T variant, depending on driving conditions and driving style.

The use of a rigid clutch also makes an M/T more mechanically efficient than A/T, which uses a torque converter.

[clinique]

^ thank you so much! now its comfort againt fuel efficiency for me.. and maintainance/durability..

[Bogeyman]

^ thank you so much! now its comfort againt fuel efficiency for me.. and maintainance/durability..

The only real advantage A/T has over M/T is comfort and the convenience of multi-tasking behind the wheel.

For maintenance, I will have to quote what motor guru niky said in another thread. This is with regards to choosing either an M/T or A/T on a pre-owned car:

It's much easier to break an AT outright, with poor maintenance, than an MT. The clutch of the MT provides an outlet for any transmission destroying foolishness, and costs little to replace.

With the AT, the torque converter fills the role of the clutch, but is dependent on good ATF to work. If the previous owner did not care for the car well, and did not regularly change the ATF, things can break. Expensive things.

I've had good luck with secondhand ATs, but I've seen people with very bad luck. And while fixing a secondhand manual is often the simple work of replacing a clutch or a gear or two (gears can sometimes break if the previous owner drag-raced the car...), fixing an automatic is more expensive, which is why some people just go for full box swaps.

Besides, if we're talking secondhands, the fuel economy bonus of old 5-speed manuals over old 4-speed ATs in traffic is a good reason to just go for the manual.

[clinique]

again, thank you so much! I guess i will just have to work double learning about M/T (first-time driver here)...

do you happen to know where the thread about yaris, jazz, alto, picanto, getz, rio comparision? i'd really appreciate it if i will be enlightened .. thank you!

[meledson]

Comparing the 1.3 M/T Avanza (2007) and a 1.6 A/T Altis (2002), we get basically the same FC of 12 to 13 Km per liter.

Sadyang matipid lang ang makina ng Altis?

[niky]

It's partly because the Altis is lighter than the Avanza, and partly because the Avanza has very short gear ratios, which give it good acceleration, while the Altis, with more torque and less drivetrain losses (the Avanza's rear wheel drive means that more power is lost through the propeller shaft than in the Altis, where the power goes straight to the wheels, right beside the engine), can put the power down more easily, so the Altis's gearbox is longer geared, allowing it to turn at a lower engine speed at the same road speed as the Avanza.