[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by User1

I thought for sure I'd find a pretty good post on manual vs automatic tranies somewhere here! If there's something I missed, please let me know.

Here's a thread I started about how the EPA testing procedure handicaps manual transmissions:

>> Shift points: EPA testing of manual transmissions (why beating MT ratings is easier)

I am persuaded if someone can convince me that my next car should be an automatic. I tend to go for smaller and less powerful vehicles...

I've done a head-to-head comparison (city & hwy) of a 4-speed AT against a 5-speed AT with Nissan's 1.6L motor (in the Canadian Micra platform, which was the same as the previous generation U.S. Versa platform).


Despite the cars having essentially the same MPG rating, the manual gets significantly better real-world fuel economy. The only "special" technique used in the manual car was shifting to the highest usable gear after accelerating. No drafting, no coasting in neutral, no engine-off.

>> Manual vs. automatic transmission MPG showdown: Nissan Micra 1.6L

The above results are mirrored in the "real world" by multiple owners:

After nearly 387,000 km tracked in our fuel log by 43 Micra owners over 995 fill-ups, the manual transmission cars are using 12% less fuel than the automatics.

>> https://micra-forum.com/mgarage-stats.php


As has been said above, the older automatics will suffer more by comparison than the modern ones. A CVT or dual clutch automated manual will close the gap, but I still say the manual is still the better choice in the hands of a non-brain-dead driver, regardless of the EPA ratings.

The exception may be for drivers who do 100% highway driving. Some of the newer CVT's may win out there. But who does that??

I'll dig up the Mitsu Mirage stats for comparison (uses a CVT automatic).