Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
I don't see how a manual transmission can beat an 8 speed automatic with a big brain, same way as a human foot can't outsmart ABS anymore.
So for a real life example-TDI (turbo diesel), on a 6 speed DSG I can easily exceed the EPA ratings. On a 6 speed manual I can not only EXCEED EPA ratings, but have a much wider range of MPG than in a 6 speed DSG.
What/which "real world", show us the source of your knowledge, please.
I will grant you that there is NO question that a manual transmission will provide better FE than almost all modern day automatics...
....assuming you have a computer at the "wheel" that can pay FULL attention to the system overall, 100% 0f the time.
We humans do not have the required attention span...NEVER.
Other than the trucking industry, these days the majority of drivers of manual transmisison equipped vehicles are more into the "thrill", enjoyment aspects of the expereince rather spending hour and hour in FE mode.
That aspect results in the EPA numbers being biased, tilted, in favor of manual transmissions vs "real world" use.
But you know, I'm only speculating--but it makes sense that this would occur in the vast majority of cars with the vast majority of drivers. Most people just can't keep it "in the sweet spot" like a super-smart automatic.
Not that *I* would drive one, mind you! :shades:
Blanket statements like that are a very huge reason why you and your comments lack even a shred of credibility around here.
The thing is, once any half way concious person has mastered the manual transmission, they don't need to "pay FULL attention to the system". Why? Because shifting at the correct time is second nature, just like pressing on the gas, the brake, and steering the car.
You know, I tend to agree with that statement.
If I am in a familiar manually-equipped car, I don't give shifting a second thought. Somehow, I feel a little more "connected" to the operations of the car than I do in an automatic.
Mind you, automatics continue to catch up, and the disparity between the two has greatly diminished in recent years.
I was speaking in a general sense, not on a specific "every case" sense.
Even the advanced automatics occasionally get caught up in gear "wandering" if the conditions are right.
"...get caught up..." No, their programming is a BIG causative factor, INTENTIONAL factor, in the "wandering" (Shiftiness).
The first time I drove, YEARS ago, one of these new 6 speed automatics I couldn't help but notice, be irritated by, the constant up-and-down shifting on what I saw as reasonably level terrain. I found that I was able to alleviate some of the "shiftiness" by engaging cruise control, taking my inadvertent foot movement out of the "equation".
Helped, but not enough. At 40-50 MPH the car would shift back-and-forth for no reason highy obvious to me.
Today I have little doubt that the goal of all that shiftiness was, IS, an attempt to more closely match the FE of the new CVT transmission.
No reason highly obvious to me.
Therein is the issue, while the engine/transaxle ECU can be CONSTANTLY "measuring" all the sensors that relate to this issue, Optimalization of gear ratio for the FE issue, "we" are not capable/effective in comparison.
In every single manual transmission car I have owned, I have been able to exceed the EPA's highway number. In every single auto transmission car I have owned, I have come in under. The 135i, even in manual mode, is proving no different thus far.
Hell, just with my 2 current bimmers, I'm getting the SAME mileage. Both are averaging 23mpg... the automatic 135i with a 26mpg highway rating AND the manual 540i with a 21mpg highway rating. I wouldn't have expected that by a long shot.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I experienced a similar lag both semi-automatic mode (request an upshift when the computer was expecting a downshift or vice versa), or in full automatic mode (just mash the throttle while in the midst of a leisurely acceleration event). In both cases the DSG had what I'll call a missed shift event; I'm betting that my missed shifts are far fewer relative to the total number of shifts over any given number of miles than what I could expect from the DSG.
Yes, some automatics have caught up in the performance metric, some automatics are catching up in the fuel economy metric, but they're not even close in the fun to drive metric.
Porsche 911, I believe.
That is the RARE case these days. Manual transmissions are only sold today to drivers that WANT one.
That isn't the point, NOT nearly!
On the Autobahn I found myself often leaving the car in 5th gear for long periods of time. My "butt" sensor simply could not detect the "pull"/response difference between 5th and 6th at those speeds. It was often only as a result of a glance at the tach that caused me to realize that I wasn't in the "best", most optimal, gear ratio.
"...not even close in the fun to drive metric.."
+1
On the other hand how are you going to feel about things once you can buy a car with a shifter mechanization that is completely uncoupled from the transmission and has the "feel" of a manual, clutch pedal and all. Use a PB to say "drive yourself" otherwise you do the shifting.
I foresee that happening in the not to distant future.
That isn't the point, NOT nearly!
That's EXACTLY the point. You keep harping about how mere humans cannot constantly pay attention all of the time; the point is, most folks don't need to constantly pay attention to get it right; second nature does that for us.
"On the Autobahn I found myself often leaving the car in 5th gear for long periods of time. My "butt" sensor simply could not detect the pull/response difference between 5th and 6th at those speeds."
This actually plays into what I was going to say next; you seem to have a habit of judging how everyone else is going to act in a certain situation based on how you would act; good, bad or otherwise, and by doing so you do an injustice to most folks by grossly underestimating them.
But I stand by my statement, MOST drivers of manual transmission equipped passenger cars/vehicles pay no attention 90% of the time to shifting for optimal FE, only shifting for the "thrill" or only as otherwise necessory.
Are you really of the belief that the majority of manual transission drivers shift back and forth, CONSTANTLY, between the top two gear rations to attain the most optimal FE...??
Because that is EXACTLY what these new(***) automatics do.
Can you really see yourself sequentially downshifting your manual 6 speed again and again during a coastdown, so full fuel cut can be used between shifts, from 75MPH to attain the most optimal FE.
Because that us EXACTLY what these new automatics do.
*** New...goes back about 6-8 years, maybe more.
was in 2nd pulling up a hill, so the slant 6 was "wound out", and went to shift into 3rd (so in the pattern, straight down). Managed to make a slight left, and catch 1st instead. Damned near put the front bumper on the pavement before I got the clutch back in!
Not that the engine would care. About as fragile as an anvil.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Well, my 135 may be a whopping 4 years old, but I'm pretty sure the ZF 6-speed autobox in it is still one of the more advanced autos available. There are certainly many 2012 cars with far worse transmissions.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I've seen some lousy drivers in my 58 years (yes, even some that have driven manuals for 40+ years, but still can't shift worth a tinker's damn) and I've seen some that can shift as smooth as silk, with absolutely no added concentration in doing so...
If you haven't seen someone else drive, then you (nor anyone else) is in a position to tell how well their driving ability might actually be, or not be, for that matter.
I do think that we have reached the point, on average, that an 8-speed auto, and perhaps a CVT might equal, on average, he average manual driver. If the average is defined as 50%, then that leaves quite a few drivers that can exceed the FE of an automatic.
Think about it... Does Indy racing or NASCAR use manuals or automatics?
Both want to maximize fuel efficiency and power. Evidently, automatics aren't viewed at this time to have reached the equal, much less exceeded, the level provided by manual transmissions.
However, I do agree that we will see automatics advance to the point that they will, in practically every case, to exceed the capabilities of manuals, in both FE as well as functional efficiency (think fuel injection over carb-fed engines).
I don't think we are there quite yet...Give it a few more years...
I don't think any NASCAR automatic car has ever WON anything, but they have run them in the past.
And of course Jim Hall's famous Chaparrals were automatics (single speeds hooked to a torque converter).
One of these days.......
I can; that's what I do each and every time. It has nothing to do with fuel economy, though, it has to do with driving. I seriously doubt that it has any appreciable effect on fuel economy (versus throwing it in neutral and braking) over the long term.
Oddly enough, I drive a manual front-wheel-drive car on snow/ice for at least half of the year, downshifting as I decelerate, and never have any issues controlling the vehicle.
I have to say, though, that in 2003 the EPA figures for my car were a joke. Not even CLOSE. On a good day I'll get 28 mpg. I think I broke 30 once or twice.
I'm not so sure 6 speed manuals with small engines are a good idea. You have to shift a lot. I've gotten into the habit of skip-shifting and going deeper into the gas in 1st, 3rd and 5th, just to give it a rest. I'd rather they built the car with more low end torque.
Yes and no; I downshift during virtually every deceleration event, however, there is absolutely no need to go 6-5-4-3-2-1 in an effort to keep the fuel cut engaged. That said, my downshift patterns are usually one of the following:
- 6-4-2-1
- 6-3-2-1
- 5-3-2-1
I virtually always hit second before first because it's just too hard on the first gear syncro when coming from any gear higher than second.
I try to keep the car moving for as long as possible in case there may be a chance circumstances will change and I'll get to start accelerating again before a complete stop, in which case I go to 2nd. I never go to 1st unless at a complete stop.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
With precious few exceptions, I'm the same way.
Like steering, you aren't constantly thinking ..."ok, a little to the left, now a little to the right...straight for a few seconds, now a little to the right...".
As a driver, you see what's coming up ahead, such as a steep hill. You can formulate your plan (probably subconsciously) before ever getting there, and start executing it.
The best automatic can only react to the hill, once it realizes the additional resistance and drag, once you are literally climbing the hill.
Granted, it can do it pretty quickly, and that's why FE differentials have narrowed over the recent past.
Occasionally, I'll find myself cruising down the highway in the G37 still in 5th gear. In the Sentra, I sometimes try to put it in 6th (which is reverse), though not with very much force so no harm done, yet
In my opinion, FIRM opinion, that results in a clear bias toward manuals having better FE than is reality.
Take that bias away and the EPA estimates for manuals might drop by what, 20-30%...??
This isn't true for ABS but it does seem to be true for shifting...at least so far.
Long story short, just because you are unable or unwilling to adapt good shifting habits when driving a manual equipped car, that in no way means the rest of cannot or have not.
In practice, prior to say, 2005, most manual drives(sp) COULD easily best EPA numbers.
Yes, most drivers COULD, but then most of the time drivers simply do not bother, absent minded, lazy, lack of concentration, etc, etc, etc.
Heads up!
This thread series is NOT about "missed" shifts with respect to selecting the wrong gear and/or then having to correct for same. The discussion is about "missed" shifts as in shifting to benefit FE that the driver never made at all.
Maybe it doesn't replicate real world conditions. After all, the idea is to give a potential buyer a comparable number to evaluate different makes/models side by side.
As such, its a test that isn't optimized for any particular make or model. That means some models will do better than other models, unless the test is optimized individually for each make or model.
In my opinion, FIRM opinion, that results in a clear bias toward manuals having better FE than is reality.
As you said, thats YOUR OPINION. I can make the very same case that a manual FE is biased against its true potential.
Take that bias away and the EPA estimates for manuals might drop by what, 20-30%...??
Or, perhaps it actually INCREASES by what, 20-30%....??
An objective opinion requires the evaluation of ALL information, not just the interpretation of limited information that supports your belief.
I know a guy that has a FIRM belief that JFK was killed by a shot from the grassy knoll. Of course, he disregards anything and any evidence that contradicts his belief. He may end up being correct, but I kinda doubt it...
If the EPA test was to determine the highest FE possible, wouldn't it be designed to emulate what hyper-milers drive like?
Yes, very ODD, why would you persist in driving an obviously unsafe FWD vehicle in those conditions, other than a death wish, maybe.
"...downshifting as I decelerate..."
You need to rethink your driving habits, vehicle selection included.
Downshifting a FWD stick shift vehicle serves no positive results whatsoever.
1. Brake pads are much easier to replace vs the clutch.
2. The use of engine compression braking on a FWD vehicle is inherently an unsafe practice, even moreso with marginal traction.
3. While engine compression braking on a RWD vehicle can be, is used, for vehicle stability, directional stability on a marginal surface, the exact opposite is true for FWD.
Have look at how these new VSC systems operate on a FWD vehicle that is for some reason understeering/plowing....
They ALL use rear (moderate) braking, both to stabilize the vehicle directionally (think rear drag anchor in a boat) and to slow the vehicle and thereby help to regain front traction.
And think about why VW is now equipping their stick shift FWD vehicles with the new traction control technique, a form of ABS. VW's technique will automatically up-rev the engine to alleviate front wheelslip/skid should the driver inadvertently downshift to a level wherein the resulting engine compression braking might end up causing loss of directional control.
Do you think VW would undertake such efforts for a non-existent problem?
Just about lost it a couple of days ago cruising out of town here in the UP when a curve snuck up on me on the highway . Did about three wiggles but managed to get back on course without taking out the guardrails (or scaring my 85 year old passengers too much).
Maybe I should have been in the FWD Quest instead of the AWD Outback. :P :P