some honda autos get better mileage than manuals?

[SentraSE-R]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

The vast majority of new cars sold are automatics,

That's only true in the lazy fuel-wasting USA. Worldwide, MTs vastly outnumber ATs. The reason is fuel efficiency.

[tjts1]

LOL what hilarious crowd of luddites. The empirical data disgrees with you, people with real word experience disagree with you but gosh darn deep down you know you're right because thats what your daddy told way back in the 60s.

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've owned 5 manuals so far and and 2 at the moment. I swapped taller differentials in 2 manual cars and plotting my third. So whats your point there Einstein?

Have you ever driven auto and manual 2009 civics back to back? I have and i can tell you the auto will easily beat the manual for FE with its taller gearing.

[dcb]

Apparently we (you) don't know what empirical data is.

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

...
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.

Just hop on the train or bus if you want things to be automatic. Don't kill real driving with half baked engineering in search of a problem.

[tjts1]

Civic ratios
Manual
Gear Ratios: 1st: 3.143, 2nd: 1.870, 3rd: 1.235, 4th: 0.949, 5th: 0.727, Reverse: 3.308, Final Drive: 4.29
5th x final drive = 3.11

Auto
Gear Ratios: 1st: 2.666, 2nd: 1.534, 3rd: 1.022, 4th: 0.721, 5th: 0.525, Reverse: 1.957, Final Drive: 4.44
5th x final drive = 2.33

So how exactly is the manual more efficient?

[dcb]

how do you not hear people saying the gearing is screwed up? Still the auto would suck around town next to the manual, if both were driven for max efficiency. Give 'em the same top gear/final ratio and there's no contest.

Yes, I am smarter than your automatic transmission

[gone-ot]

...yes, but Clarke and Kubrick's HAL was more kantankerous than your average IBM(ha,ha).

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by dcb

Give 'em the same top gear/final ratio and there's no contest.

Yes, I am smarter than your automatic transmission

And I'm sure honda can't wait to build that one off custom automatic just so you can be right for once.

[SentraSE-R]

The problem with you AT drones is you're driving stupidly and thinking the same. You think putting your Civic on cruise control at (for example) 55 mph will beat the guy driving the MT Civic at 55 mph by 2 mpg because that's what the EPA says they'll do.

Well, Andrew (Pale Melanesian and I don't drive stupidly. We'll average 55 mph by pulsing to 60 or 65 mph and gliding to 50, and we'll gain ~5 mpg over the EPA rating. On a long downhill, we'll pulse and glide and pull 80+ mpg for 40 miles - something you can't begin to do with an AT, because you can't EOC. You can only NICE-on coast. You can't pulse at best BSFC because your torque converter starts slipping and your brilliant computerized AT spins ATF while it hunts for a lower gas-wasting gear. In the real world, you lose every time.

In the city, when your mpg is hovering around the EPA's 27 mpg, we'll be getting ~50 mpg, because P&G really has benefits at low speeds. On a familiar route, we'll do better. On a short trip, we'll do worse. But we'll always do better than you will in your similarly-equipped and driven AT.

On my bread-and-butter country road to the mall, Home Depot, Wal-Mart, and Costco, I can hit 60 mpg with my MT xB and 50 mpg with my MT SE-R. The best I can do with my wife's AT Elantra is 42 mpg, despite it having an engine midway between the other two cars.

[dcb]

I think TJ can best be described as a "troll". He knows better, but likes to get a rise out of people, so he says ignorant things.

[user removed]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

The problem with you AT drones is you're driving stupidly and thinking the same. You think putting your Civic on cruise control at (for example) 55 mph will beat the guy driving the MT Civic at 55 mph by 2 mpg because that's what the EPA says they'll do.

Well, Andrew (Pale Melanesian and I don't drive stupidly. We'll average 55 mph by pulsing to 60 or 65 mph and gliding to 50, and we'll gain ~5 mpg over the EPA rating. On a long downhill, we'll pulse and glide and pull 80+ mpg for 40 miles - something you can't begin to do with an AT, because you can't EOC. You can only NICE-on coast. You can't pulse at best BSFC because your torque converter starts slipping and your brilliant computerized AT spins ATF while it hunts for a lower gas-wasting gear. In the real world, you lose every time.

In the city, when your mpg is hovering around the EPA's 27 mpg, we'll be getting ~50 mpg, because P&G really has benefits at low speeds. On a familiar route, we'll do better. On a short trip, we'll do worse. But we'll always do better than you will in your similarly-equipped and driven AT.

On my bread-and-butter country road to the mall, Home Depot, Wal-Mart, and Costco, I can hit 60 mpg with my MT xB and 50 mpg with my MT SE-R. The best I can do with my wife's AT Elantra is 42 mpg, despite it having an engine midway between the other two cars.

Is that something like you poorly designed car drones, who make a big deal out of your % over EPA, when you choose a piece of junk that gets lousy mileage to begin with.

My AT car is 11th overall for gasoline mileage, and I don't have to drive it using techniques that are illegal in my state of residence. I move along with the average speed of traffic flow (45 MPH) instead of driving at speeds averaging less than 25 MPH.

I have hit 82 MPG on the Interstate at 65 MPH, something your cars couldn't touch.

I also drive a manual, but it will not do 80% over EPA because it was designed to get very good mileage without hypermiling.

Maybe you gents should bash Basjoos since he doesn't care for hypermiling, but he approaches his objectives through aerodynamic improvements.

Or maybe your real problem is you are frustrated because some of us don't have to work so hard to get good mileage, because we bought cars that were designed for superior mileage from the beginning.

Maybe you should try approaching other peoples strategies with a better level or respect for their observations and experiences. My VX uses lean burn to get great mileage. EOC eliminates lean burn for 30 seconds after a restart, besides being illegal here. At the same average speeds I will get the same or better average mileage, without using engine off techniques in the VX, since they destroy lean burn and the advantage of much lower air fuel ratios.

The lame attack about driving skill and transmission choices also falls apart when you have to deal with other family members who do not share your passion for economy.

Also the narrow minded opinions about "finding a solution to a problem that does not exist" demonstrate a lack of creativity or imagination and a short sighted dedication to obsolete technology.

If you honestly believe we will be driving cars that are the same as they are today, then you have my sympathy, with a dab of pity.

regards
Mech