some honda autos get better mileage than manuals?

[wagmore]

Originally Posted by jkp1187

JKP, guys. JKP.

@wagmore: Remember that your 15-year-old Passat (this one?) was rated using the old EPA cycle. The revised "official" numbers are 18 city/27 highway, which is actually worse than the 2010 Passat.

(For my money, the EPA numbers no doubt have flaws in them, but even though they're far from perfect, at least they allow us to compare wax apples to wax apples.)

That's the one. The ratings are ridonkulous either way. I get 27mpg somewhere between 80 or 85 mph, and I haven't seen 18 mpg; even driving a 4-mile winter commute when the engine doesn't reach operating temperature, it stays at 22-24. (Cutting down on that; got thick gloves, and studded tires on my bicycle)

So can I pretty safely assume I'll be able to squeeze seven MPG more than the EPA rating out of most manuals?

This is all without EOC or significant modifications, mind you--just judicious use of pedal.

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

The 2006 Scion xB automatic is rated 26/31 v. the manual's 26/30. Does anyone, including tjts1, seriously think an automatic Scion is going to approach the 45.9 mpg I've gotten from my manual over the past 12,770 miles? I'd be happy to top low 40 mpg average, long term, with an automatic in the same vehicle.

Give the same type of driving and modifications you have, it will beat your mileage.

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...once they're in "lockup" it's simple axle-ratio(A) vs. axle-ratio(M).

Exactly. The newer more efficient automatics can use taller ratios than the manual counter part. They can get away with this because the automatic is willing to shift gears for acceleration more easily than the manual driver would, hence the higher fuel economy. Its about how you drive. Given the same efficient driver, the auto is more efficient in this case.

Originally Posted by 99LeCouch

My fiancee's Honda Fit auto gets okay mileage. About 30 combined. It shines on the highway since the 5th cog brings the highway RPM's down to ~2100 at 60 mph. The manual version is buzzing around 3000 RPM at the same speed.

Around town you have to drive it carefully since it wants to downshift at every little touch on the DBW accelerator. I've managed 42 mpg over 5 miles of dense city traffic before, without using many hypermiling techniques beyond driving sanely and timing lights. She gets about 27 mpg for the same trip.

Bingo!

[SentraSE-R]

Originally Posted by tjts1

Give the same type of driving and modifications you have, it will beat your mileage.

I take it you've never driven a manual transmission automobile, because you're surely not speaking from experience.

Exactly. The newer more efficient automatics can use taller ratios than the manual counter part. They can get away with this because the automatic is willing to shift gears for acceleration more easily than the manual driver would, hence the higher fuel economy. Its about how you drive. Given the same efficient driver, the auto is more efficient in this case.

No, that's not it at all. The auto manufacturers put lower gear ratios in MTs because they think most MT owners want a sportier drive. When they want to, they can gear them like HXes and VXes. My xB is geared 16% lower than its AT counterpart, but my SE-R is geared only 4% lower than the AT SE-R. The AT xB gets higher EPA ratings. The MT SE-R gets higher city and highway EPA ratings than its AT sibling.

[user removed]

Modern computer performance makes it a simple process to automate any manual driving technique.

Manual transmissions are old technology, newer developments in CVT's, dual clutch automated manuals, and the next generation of Infinitely Variable Transmissions will send the old manual to the scrap heap.

The first hydromatic was 1939 in an Oldsmobile. The vast majority of new cars sold are automatics, but if you use the single term "automatic" to describe any type of self shifting transmission, you should do some research to bring yourself up to date.

When the vehicle can pulse and glide itself, without driver input, that will be the transmission that surpasses all of the present options. 80% increase in mileage will be the standard to measure the self hypermiling IVT equipped vehicles of the future.

Better aero will mean better mileage. Better engines will mean better mileage. Currently if you simply improve the aero, some of the potential mileage benefit is lost, because the lower load on the engine reduces its efficiency under steady state conditions.

The inefficiency of the old slush boxes will soon be a thing of the past, while the manual, can only be re geared for better mileage. The real advancements will be in the operational strategy of automated transmissions, based on the practical application of techniques demonstrated by many here on a daily basis.

regards
Mech

[PaleMelanesian]

Originally Posted by tjts1

Give the same type of driving and modifications you have, it will beat your mileage.

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

I take it you've never driven a manual transmission automobile, because you're surely not speaking from experience.

I'm with Sentra on this one. My car is stock except for a grille block. That leaves only driving style as the factor in my mileage. An Auto will not allow me to run in the rpm/load range I need, and will not allow me to EOC and bump-start. I'd be looking at 50's mpg instead of 80+.

A computer-controlled auto can be at best be equal to a well-driven manual. On the highway, once the gears are engaged and locked, the only difference is gear ratios. Around town, there's the whole rpm/load issue, torque converter slippage, poorly chosen shift points, etc working against an automatic.

[dcb]

and a computer cannot look ahead and predict like a human, at least not yet, and I don't think it is a great idea to try, cuz we will just get that much stupider.

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by dcb

and a computer cannot look ahead and predict like a human, at least not yet, and I don't think it is a great idea to try, cuz we will just get that much stupider.

...as I wrote earlier:

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...however, this "advantage" is quickly & easily defeated by driver stupidity!

[dcb]

I saw it the first time, thx. What I'm trying to say is automation is a vicious cycle.

Case in point, we cannot seem to convince people who have never used a manual transmission that it is more efficient. They cannot seem to escape the "I'm just supposed to mash the pedal" mindset now and believe whatever is most convenient.

[Piwoslaw]

Geez, the last 2 or 3 pages seemed like a heated discussion on whether a frog is greener than a Ferrari is faster. EPA numbers are one thing, real life driving is another. EPA may be quite close to the average step-on-it-and-go driver, but it says nothing about how good the car can really do. Yes, some new autos get better EPA numbers than their manual counterparts. Yes, some autos get better instant fc than a manual. And, actually, that's where the thread started. But the auto may get better EPA numbers because it's already optimized for fe in typical driving, yet it has less room for improvement. (I know, I just rephrased what everyone else has been writing. It's like rewriting a friend's book report and saying I wrote it myself )

Originally Posted by dcb

Manual allows for technique, and for you to use that awesome processor between your ears to make better energy management decisions, and it all becomes second nature in no time.

Not everyone's processor is multi-cored (or not everyone uses more than one core at a time), so it can't handle more than one task. If the processor is driving, it can't spare any load for shifting. And if the phone rings while driving, then it gets priority, not the wheel

[dcb]

Originally Posted by Piwoslaw

... And if the phone rings while driving, then it gets priority, not the wheel

Lol, that's not called driving at that point. Studies indicate cellphone while driving is as bad as drinking, just a matter of time before you kill someone.