what should we buy automatic or manual transmission for fuel efficiency and comfort?

[_Cathy_]

Just how much is the difference between a manual and automatic in terms of FC? Given the exact car model.

[JohnM]

Just how much is the difference between a manual and automatic in terms of FC? Given the exact car model.

Nice read: Transmission Efficiencies. MT, Auto, CVT. - Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum - EcoModder.com

According to that post MTs are still the most efficient HOWEVER most of them are geared for acceleration and not efficiency. MTs also rev higher at highway speeds compared to ATs/CVTs. The CVT can pick the most efficient engine speed for a given load every time. Modern ATs with early torque converter lockups also negate the sliding clutch feeling of old ATs.

[basti08]

The even thriftier MY'14 Hyundai Accent HB 6AT (updated from old 4AT) is 968K. The old Hyundai Accent HB 4AT is available (although til supplies lasts) at 868K.

[dr. d]

We are planning on buying a new vehicle and we are choosing between the Hyundai Accent hatchback and the Chevrolet Spin because these two vehicles are the most fuel efficient from what we have known so far and these two are just right on our budget (less than 900k)

My friend suggested me not to buy an automatic transmission as buying either one of the two vehicles I mentioned for fuel efficiency purposes will be defeated but I am still wondering if there is really an automatic transmission vehicle that comes near to the fuel efficiency of a manual transmission vehicle?

if you're a skinflint, go MT. you'll never be happy with the AT, because you know that everytime you step on the gas, you're spending at least 10 % more than you should..
i know, because i do.
heh heh.
the secret of not being unhappy with the MT, is to get one with a soft clutch and smooth short stick that moves fluidly..

because diesel is cheaper than gasoline, the innova diesel AT should give you 190 km/1000 pesos of fuel in the city, according to reviews. i guess this compares near enough to what the not-so-small gas MT sedans can do..

[monkeybone1k]

MT. Mas challenging. Pero kung pareho kaliwa paa mo, Matic ka na.


Sent from whatever device I got my hands on via Tapatalk

[Walter]

Try checking Toyota Innova J.

[Wabapetz31]

Napaisip tuloy ako kung manual o matic [emoji28]

Sent from my SM-N960N using Tapatalk

[dr. d]

Napaisip tuloy ako kung manual o matic [emoji28]

Sent from my SM-N960N using Tapatalk

AT is more convenient to drive, especially in traffick-y situations, but it comes at a price.
MT is cheaper and easier to acquire and to maintain.
AT uses more fuel.
if one peruses the AT versus MT thread here, the bottomline is...
it's always a personal choice.

[EQAddict]

AT is more convenient to drive, especially in traffick-y situations, but it comes at a price.
MT is cheaper and easier to acquire and to maintain.
AT uses more fuel.
if one peruses the AT versus MT thread here, the bottomline is...
it's always a personal choice.

AT uses less fuel. All modern automatics will beat their manual counterparts in fuel consumption.



Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk Pro

[dr. d]

AT uses less fuel. All modern automatics will beat their manual counterparts in fuel consumption.



Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk Pro

my personal experience says otherwise.
i have AT and MT of the same car to compare against.
the AT consistently does 15-20% less km/li.
much of my driving is in the city.

perhaps your statement's basis is on largely highway driving, where my MT does 2200-2300 rpm at 80 kph, while my AT does the 80 at 1900 rpm.
it would appear, whatever AT savings i get in the highway, are easily gobbled up when i hit the city.

[XTO]

my personal experience says otherwise.
i have AT and MT of the same car to compare against.
the AT consistently does 15-20% less km/li.
much of my driving is in the city.

perhaps your statement's basis is on largely highway driving, where my MT does 2200-2300 rpm at 80 kph, while my AT does the 80 at 1900 rpm.
it would appear, whatever AT savings i get in the highway, are easily gobbled up when i hit the city.

agree with you doc. on lesser traffic and conservative way of tapak, the a/t is really much fuel efficient because the shifting is precise and it can reach the highest gear with ease. kaya nga it pays to have comfort. also if walang reklamo with maint costs then full a/t is the way to go. kung meron nga lang auto pilot e

[_Cathy_]

my personal experience says otherwise.
i have AT and MT of the same car to compare against.
the AT consistently does 15-20% less km/li.
much of my driving is in the city.

perhaps your statement's basis is on largely highway driving, where my MT does 2200-2300 rpm at 80 kph, while my AT does the 80 at 1900 rpm.
it would appear, whatever AT savings i get in the highway, are easily gobbled up when i hit the city.

Same here. My AT Altis consumes more fuel than my MT Altis. When I was using the Fuelio App, IIRC, I was getting 8 km/l on my AT and 10 km/l on my MT. So we have almost the same numbers (AT is 20% less efficient) I rarely drive in traffic and most of my trips are less than 30 mins and short distance only. But I think it has something to do with my driving style, I had a lot of comments na mabigat daw paa ko sa gas

Between AT and MT, I prefer to drive my MT, but that's because I don't encounter traffic so much. Susumpa ko manual if my normal route is traffic, so I guess the safe choice is to get an AT car.

[box_type]

AT uses less fuel. All modern automatics will beat their manual counterparts in fuel consumption.



Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk Pro

what about modern manual cars? they don't get upgraded like their automatic counterparts?

[Egan101]

what about modern manual cars? they don't get upgraded like their automatic counterparts?

Most modern manuals only has 6 gears and rarely would you be able to reach the 6th gear when traversing urban areas. Porsche does have a 7-speed MT tranny but the top gear is used primarily on cruising at high speeds (autobahn speeds).

Modern automatics offer better ratios in tranny operation like the new 10-speed/9-speed traditional ATs, 8-speed electronic gear CVTs, and 7-speed DCTs.

[SoleusBB]

Cars with manual transmissions are cheaper than their AT counterpart models.
Note: I'm talking about sales price at the dealer.

===
I don't agree with the AT transmissions being more convenient to use on our congested roads.
Nangangalay din ako kakatapak sa brake pag traffic...

[Egan101]

Cars with manual transmissions are cheaper than their AT counterpart models.
Note: I'm talking about sales price at the dealer.

===
I don't agree with the AT transmissions being more convenient to use on our congested roads.
Nangangalay din ako kakatapak sa brake pag traffic...

Just shift to Neutral and engage the hand brake so you won't be stepping on the brakes when stuck in traffic.

Nowadays, the manual option is the base model and lacks most of the features of the AT model. Rarely can you find an MT car with the same features as the AT model with the exception of the WRX, BRZ/86, and MX5.

[Wh1stl3r]

my personal experience says otherwise.
i have AT and MT of the same car to compare against.
the AT consistently does 15-20% less km/li.
much of my driving is in the city.

perhaps your statement's basis is on largely highway driving, where my MT does 2200-2300 rpm at 80 kph, while my AT does the 80 at 1900 rpm.
it would appear, whatever AT savings i get in the highway, are easily gobbled up when i hit the city.

Doc, for the older AT's with 4-6 ratios maybe yes. But the newer AT's with 7-10 ratios are definitely more efficient than MT's which have 5-6 ratios.

My CR-V is a 9AT, weighs 1.6xx tons and does 10 Km/L in heavy traffic (13 Km/h average). A manual with the same number of ratios will probably beat its FC but MT's these days are still stuck at 5-6 ratios. Maybe coz nobody really wants to go through so many ratios manually in traffic hehe

Cars with manual transmissions are cheaper than their AT counterpart models.
Note: I'm talking about sales price at the dealer.

===
I don't agree with the AT transmissions being more convenient to use on our congested roads.
Nangangalay din ako kakatapak sa brake pag traffic...

Bro, some AT models like the CR-V have a brake hold function that holds the brake for you in standstill traffic. You can literally put your feet down. The top tier model even has a low speed follow function that will allow the car to creep behind the car in front, keeping a safe distance in between.

[SoleusBB]

Bro, some AT models like the CR-V have a brake hold function that holds the brake for you in standstill traffic. You can literally put your feet down. The top tier model even has a low speed follow function that will allow the car to creep behind the car in front, keeping a safe distance in between.

These are nice things of course, but I don't want to "spoil" myself with too many conveniences.
--That's just me.

We stopped buying upper tier models and brands years ago. Not because we couldn't afford it, but after hands on comparison (through actual ownership), we got where we needed to go just the same. Sa viewpoint kasi namin, vehicles are assets, but not investments. If a vehicle's maintenance expense outweighs the mobility/security derived from owning it, we don't consider it a convenience anymore.

BTW, I drove a "junker" even up to the end of my residency. I never felt ashamed to be seen in it

[EQAddict]

Simply put:

All automakers are required by law and by their respective country regulations to improve mileage and reduce consumption. They are severely penalized if they dont meed their CAFE standard.

And simply put all these automakers are deriving their mileage gains from electrification, turbo charging and AUTOMATIC transmissions. The AT on modern cars is simply stronger, can handle more power, shifts faster and is more fuel efficient than a manual.

If this were not so, logic would dictate that they would be pouring their development into manual transmissions. But since they get better mileage from automatics.... The writing is on the wall for the manual transmission.


There may be some exceptions especially in older architectures but in general, the AT will beat the hell out of the manual.

Example:

Vios CVT AT vs Vios manual.

Mustang AT vs Mustang Manual

Porsche 911 AT vs Porsche 911 Manual


These examples cover a wide range of cars from econobox to mainstream performance to elite performance. Lets not even talk about crossovers here. Crossovers will rarely get a manual option. The automatic is just so much better and fuel efficient.








Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk Pro

[Lin Dan]

With today's worsening traffic congestion, I would choose the AT or the MT. Most modern day AT vehicles have better FC than the old model AT's.