fuel consumption: 1.6L A/T vs 2.0L M/T

[ghosthunter]

Just curious.

Assuming two cars... similar body, wheels, etc. and they just differ with the engine and tranny type.

Car A = 1.6L A/T
Car B = 2.0L M/T

It is a given a typical automatic tranny will consume more fuel than a manual tranny. At the same time, 2.0L would consume more fuel than a 1.6L in typical city driving. (CVT transmissions not included here for the sake of discussion.)

So would "CAR A" almost equal the fuel consumption of "CAR B" in typical city driving?

[JohnM]

My usual consumption is around 7km/l.

An officemate with the same car but with an 1800cc JDM turbo engine and a manual tranny routinely gets 8-9 km/l. He has an AFC though.

Don't have hard data on those who swapped in a 2.0 motor but some claim they're getting around 9km/l on good boy Manila traffic driving with occasional hataw.

[niky]

You don't want to ask about the Lynx. The 1.6 AT is so much less fuel efficient than the 2.0 MT it's not funny. Common city economy for the RS is about 7-8 km/l. The AT 1.6 can dip below 7.

I didn't track my fuel usage very well before, but I remember that when we first got the Lynx, it was just about as economical as our STA 1.6 AT (and a hell of a lot more economical than the 2.0 AT we swapped into that.)