BRZ FRS Auto Better MPG Than Manual?

[kYLEMtnCRUZr]

I have been wondering this for a while now. Why does the auto get better MPG? I am assuming us hypermilers could squeeze more MPG out of the manual right?

"Fuel economy**, manual tranmission (hwy/city): 30/22 MPG
Also Standard on: Limited

Fuel economy**, automatic transmission (hwy/city): 34/25 MPG
Available on: Limited"

[Cobb]

Its based on Joe Smoe driving the vehicle. Many automatics do get better. My sidekick for example was one of the exceptions in 95. The 4 speed has a higher final drive than the 5 speed stick.

[UltArc]

^This, and often they do different things with them. Like the automatic Mustangs come with a LRR (for the vehicle) tire, vs the standard with non LRR tires.

Keep in mind it's not just the final drive, but the testing procedures of driving it. Running by the EPA cycle, the auto may be better (subjective shifting for the standard), while two side by side on the road could show better (for the standard) or the same when two people drive under the same conditions.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

I remember the Chrysler Crossfire also had better mileage with the automatic. Anyway, nowadays that manuals are getting more targetted to the performance crowd than to the penny-pinchers, it's kinda predictable. But nobody can deny the automatics are evolving too...

[backpacker3]

I've always though it was funny too but you have to look at it as the manual has more potential most people I know with manual cars get better mpg than the auto regardless of the EPA ratings with out even trying or using any hypermiling techniques. It all comes down to the driver in the end.

[jakobnev]

We had a thread on this: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ing-27416.html

[some_other_dave]

Are the gears for the AT version "taller" than those in the MT? If so, that's another reason for better MPG figures from the auto box.

-soD

[PaleMelanesian]

Originally Posted by some_other_dave

Are the gears for the AT version "taller" than those in the MT? If so, that's another reason for better MPG figures from the auto box.

-soD

Yes. Significantly. I looked when it first came out, and it's a classic case of high-revving-manual-itis.

That said, I'd still give the manual my vote for mileage potential.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...age-27384.html

CVT automatic, city: 37 mpg US (6.4 L/100 km = 44.4 mpg Imp.)
CVT automatic, highway: 44 mpg US (5.4 L/100 km = 52.8 mpg (Imp)

5-speed manual, city: 34 mpg US (6.9 L/100 km = 40.8 mpg Imp.)
5-speed manual, highway: 42 mpg US (5.6 L/100 km = 50.4 mpg Imp)

Despite the manual's apparent handicap, it's been my experience that a motivated, efficiency-minded cog swapper can beat the city rating by a bigger percentage than in the automatic.

I intentionally kept it very simple: plain Jane vanilla eco-driving here, with anticipation and minimization of braking being the main tactics.

No pulse & glide, and no engine-off coasting. I even left the engine running at all stops, regardless of length. I wanted non-hypermilers to look at this and think... "hey, even I could do that."

CVT automatic, city: 42 mpg US (5.6 L/100 km = 50 mpg Imp)
= 13.5% over EPA 37 mpg city rating

5MT city: 48 mpg US (4.9 L/100 km = 58 mpg Imp)
= 41.2% over EPA 34 mpg city rating

[Ecky]

Gearing.

I know this isn't apples to apples, this is my experience with it: In my Del Sol, the 1.8L DOHC Integra engine is spins at ~4300RPM at 70MPH, and consistently delivers 34MPG on the highway. My mother-in-law had a Civic until recently, a 1.5+auto, that gave around 36MPG @ 70 spinning at something like 2800RPM if I remember correctly.

One would expect the 1.5 + auto to deliver much better than that.

[Cobb]

kYLEMtnCRUZr, if you are considering the vehicle, may want to look at the scion tc too. Then the final drive ratio vs tranny ratios. Ive been on the fence about getting a tc with a stick, but looks like the auto does better too.

Lastly take it for a test drive. I frequent 70 mph and in my sidekick thats 4 grand on the engine. My insight its 2300 rpms.