A/T vs A/T with manual override ...

[111prez]

... alin ang mas fuel efficient?

of course, between an M/T vs an A/T, i appears that the M/T is better at fuel efficiency

but an A/T with manual override (like a tiptronic, or shiftronic or whatever name they call it) appears to be a good compromise between a pure A/T (which is very helpful in bad traffic) and a M/T system

any feedback?

[OTEP]

Too many factors to consider. Engine, power to weight ratio, gearing etc. The only valid way to do this is to get two identical vehicles whose only differences are the transmission.

Note that A/T's with manual overrides are still A/T's (torque converters) with a manual setting put in for the owner's pleasure and not much for anything else (even standard a/t have '2' and '1' selections). Keeping them in 'D' and letting the vehicle optimize everything is usually the most efficient way of using them.

[batang_raon14]

Somehow our CVT Lancer aka A/T w/ Manual override aka Sportronic (Mitsu term) aka ActiveMatic (Mazda term) or whatever auto dealer would call it exceeds it's MT counterpart (my cousin has one too, kaso M/T nga) in terms of fuel efficiency. Usually about 10 liters of gas lang ang nakoconsume nya on our road trip while ung M/T consumes an average of 14 liters.

Same goes with the news in the Honda Jazz. The CVT variant already outran the M/T counterpart.

But comparing A/T from an A/T with Manual override? I don't think it's possible to compare using two similar models of vehicles because normally an autodealer would just confuse their client on what to buy, an A/T with or without Manual Override, it's like what? This cheese or that cheese?. Newer cars have the manual override while older cars have the "2" and "1" option.

But I hope this result would help: 2004, a road trip using 2 cars, our Lancer CVT and our Isuzu Sportivo. Result? The lancer as posted consumed about 10 liters of gas while the Sportivo consumed 12 liters. We did this a lot of times and computations are almost similar.

[niky]

It's hard to say, as there really are too many factors. The current Lancer and Jazz/City are CVT, which is naturally fuel efficient, as it is lighter and has less transmission loss than a traditional AT. A good driver can still match or exceed CVT efficiency with a manual because, if driven properly, a manual has almost no transmission losses.

[niky]

As for ATM vs AT, I've observed that you can get to top gear faster by manual shifting an AT. This helps you go into 'cruise mode' quicker. But this is entirely dependent on the box. Some ATs can adjust to your desired driving style and needs quite easily... some just suck.

[theveed]

Too many factors, including the "brain" of the transmission, ATs have their own ECUs (well at least the modern ones) that dictates shifting patterns.