Stop the automatic transmission fuel economy myth

"Manwich - now Keto-Friendly" (manwich) 05/20/2019 at 21:52 • Filed to: None

2

25

Can we please put a stop to the myth that modern automatics get better fuel economy than properly driven manuals?

Sure, modern automatics are nicely tuned to do well in government fuel economy tests.

But in the real world, while modern automatics are better, they still usually don’t beat manuals.

The reason for this is manuals in the EPA test have a fixed rpm shift point. That in turn gives automatics an advantage.

Case in point... the Honda Fit:

As you can see, the modern Fit with the CVT is quite a bit better than the older one with the conventional 5 speed auto.

But look at those real world numbers... better than older automatics, but still not better than the manual.

And this jibes with my direct first hand experience.

With manual cars, I can almost always beat the EPA numbers easily.

With modern automatics, I find it’s difficult to match the EPA numbers, let alone beat them.

So we need to put an end to the myth that modern automatics get better fuel economy than manuals.

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 05/20/2019 at 22:10

1

My   E39 was rated for 26 highway. I regularly get 32. I bet I’d be getting 24-26 with an auto.

jimz > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 05/20/2019 at 22:12

3

wow, talk about cherry-picking. 

bhtooefr > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 05/20/2019 at 22:23

3

They don’t always have a fixed shift point.

Upshift/downshift lights are an approved method for changing the EPA shift points , and some modern cars even use them.

And, IIRC, you can also change the fixed speeds by using speedometer markings, although I’ve not seen any modern car with speedometer markings for shift points:

(What that’s saying is to shift from 1st at 24 MPH, from 2nd at 40 MPH, and from 3rd at 65 MPH, with 96 MPH as the top speed (4-speed manual), I believe.)

dogisbadob > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 05/20/2019 at 22:33

0

Another thing to consider is that in most cases, the automatics have more gears than manuals now, and of course, CVT is infinite number of gears.

5/6-speed manuals and 6-10-speed autos

In regards to your example of the Fit, in 2008 that was a different generation. Two generations ago, in fact. Back then, it was a 5-speed auto against a 5-speed manual. The new one is a 6-speed manual against a CVT

That said, I don’t doubt the EPA games at all. For example, the modern turbo craze, high-number-of-speed autos, CVT, etc.

The EPA also has special rules for automatics with a sport mode

Nibby > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 05/20/2019 at 22:35

6

pfft who needs EPA numbers? i can get 40mpg in my 2002 ford excursion

ranwhenparked > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 05/20/2019 at 22:51

11

Look, all’s I know is my Camaro gets almost 708,000  rods to the hogshead, and that’s the way I likes it.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > Nibby 05/21/2019 at 01:05

4

Obviously you’re getting that mileage because of that Fuel Shark you have...

https://jalopnik.com/fuelshark-wants-us-to-apologize-because-they-sell-bulls-1527588505

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > bhtooefr 05/21/2019 at 01:08

0

I’m guessing those marked shift points are for max acceleration, not regular driving or getting good fuel economy.  

19JRC99 > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 05/21/2019 at 01:09

3

My grandfather used to get 30 on the highway all day long, in his ‘89 Mustang GT. I’m getting like 14 city though if my math is right (which it probably isn’t to be honest) but that’s because of how I drive it.

Manual of course. Like to see an AOD Foxbody come close. 

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > 19JRC99 05/21/2019 at 01:27

2

I’ve driven Panther-cars with the AOD... I’m VERY confident an AOD-equipped Mustang won’t hit that mileage number. 

19JRC99 > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 05/21/2019 at 01:48

0

My point exactly.

someoneatacura > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 05/21/2019 at 01:58

0

I mean, automatics are usually heavier, so they have against them. They would need to test this under identical conditions, with equalized cars to determine which is more efficient.

Gerry197 > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 05/21/2019 at 04:24

1

“But in the real world, while modern automatics are better, they still usually don’t beat manuals.”

Can you link the studies that verifies this claim?

What real world numbers are you referring to?

Your personal experience and some anecdotal experiences of some people replying on a forum about themselves or what they heard other people tell them?

I’m not trying to be an ass, but seems a bit like a blanket statement without any significant evidence.

JimDanger > Gerry197 05/21/2019 at 06:06

1

The point here is you have to believe.  Believe in driving with all four limbs, believe in no one else borrowing your car, believe in looking like a race car driver to your millennial friends, believe in the one true transmission.

bhtooefr > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 05/21/2019 at 06:47

3

Actually looks like that particular cluster is from an automatic , but it’s a W123 300D, so “max acceleration” and “regular driving” are probably synonymous. (Only thing worse would be a 240D...)

Long_Voyager, Now With More Caravanny Goodness > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 05/21/2019 at 07:17

3

Likewise, the myth that modern cars get better economy than old cars.

My 92 Caravan (3.0, 3-spd) for example averages 24 mpg. My 94 Voyager (3.8, 4-spd) averaged 22 mpg (with lift/ATs/giant roof basket/etc). The 2016 we had for a week, averaged 18 mpg in the same drive.

My 66 Electra (425BB, 3-spd) averaged 22-23 mpg in mixed driving. The 2016 Hemi Charger we borrowed, averaged 16 mpg in the same drive.

That’s just a couple. 

BigBlock440 > Gerry197 05/21/2019 at 07:26

3

He did, right there in the screen shot gives the real world numbers.  That’s from fueleconomy.gov  

Mercedes Streeter > BigBlock440 05/21/2019 at 08:48

1

True, but if you look closely at  the averages on the newer Fit, they are based on an extremely small sample size of 5 and 7, respectively.

For a short time, the 2012 smart fortwo average mpg was something like 45 mpg because most of the very few cars being tracked (including mine at the time) belonged to hypermilers.

Mercedes Streeter > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 05/21/2019 at 09:09

0

I’m unconvinced. Many modern automatics are really just manual transmissions with a computer controlled clutch. So it makes sense that modern autos get as good or better than their three pedal siblings. Other standard autos can have about a million gears as well .

The sample sizes presented in this post are far too small to draw a meaningful conclusion. It’s also based on a single model.

Case in point about small samples : He re is the 2014 Ford Focus. Similar tiny sample size, but look at that, the automated manual actually beats the non-ST manual and absolutely makes a mockery of the ST. The regular auto literally has a sample of just 1.

Duck Duck Grey Duck FTMFW! > bhtooefr 05/21/2019 at 09:12

0

I have never seen that! That's cool!

MUSASHI66 > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 05/21/2019 at 10:24

1

Modern real world results are based on 5 and 7 cars. I’d say that is hardly enough to convince me that your theory has a leg to stand on. 

I like cars: Jim Spanfeller is one ugly motherfucker > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 05/21/2019 at 11:14

2

Facts: when I drive stick, I stomp the throttle and shift at redline until I’m at the speed limit, then slam it in 5th/6th and cruise because I like the noise. That might be why I get ~15 mpg in my Golf. When I drive a CVT, I’m too sad to do that, so I get in the 30s. Therefore autos are more efficient.

Gerry197 > JimDanger 05/21/2019 at 11:23

0

Except for my F150, all my cars have been manuals, I won’t buy another car without one.  B ut I’ve seen the data on modern autos, it’s pretty convincing. This is assuming the manual driver is maintaining a set of parameters just as well as an auto, which is unlikely.

Gerry197 > BigBlock440 05/21/2019 at 11:23

0

As mentioned, that is a very small sample size.  The official data shows otherwise.  

pizzaman09 > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 05/21/2019 at 14:03

0

I averaged 26 mpg quite frequently in my e39 M5 if it involved lots of highway driving. I also once managed over 30 mpg hypermiling it from Chesapeake Bay area back to Erie Pa. It was super easy to hypermile with all the hills on the PA turn pike.  BTW that M5 was rated 19, highway 12 city.   My lifetime average over 45,000 miles was 18.