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
That said, the tests must be uniform and consistent, or else they are worthless.
Now, who thinks that a test created to maximize the FE on a Chevy Sonic would also generate the ideal FE on a Chevy Camaro with a 450 HP engine?
Mind blowing, isn't it? :sick:
'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
Testify!
Can I get an Amen?
Trying to find a car that comes in auto and manual, both 6 speeds. They have 47 data samples of the new Elantra, only one of them is a manual, though.
Funny thing? Guess which of the 47 is the most fuel efficient?
The manual...naturally.
23 Sonatas, 2011 auto, average 28.7mpg.
2 manuals, same year manual, average 33.4mpg.
Tried some others but hard to get a good sample of manuals.
Real world manual numbers crush, period. EPA tests are done in a lab on a dyno.
In the real world there is no comparison. The manuals get better fuel economy.
Regarding the coasting to a stop scenario. Lets say you are going 65 mph in a stick shift and see a stop sign 1 mile ahead. You pop the car into neutral and coast down to the stop sign. ( do this all the time and the car still has plenty of speed as it gets to the sign - so not unsafe) My Accord uses .2 gallons per hour at idle (per scan gauge) so in the 2 minutes it takes to coast down to the stop sign I use .0066 gallons of gas (.2/30).
Lets look at an automatic with a fancy transmission. If I coast at 1 mile out I will stop well before the sign. If I coast at 1/4 mile out it might work, so no gasoline use (more or less) for 1/4 mile. The other 3/4 of a mile however are at regular highway mpg (say 40 mpg for an Accord) so .75/40 = .01875 gallons of fuel used.
So my fancy automatic with fuel shut off used 2.8 times more gasoline that just slipping the manual into neutral (.01875/.0066).
Wow we sure have come a long way.
Moral of the story is that it is better to use a very small amount of fuel for a long time than to use no fuel for a very short time.
My 2007 Accord stick sift has a lifetime mpg average of 34.8. That is every gallon of gas used dived by the total miles driven (128,000 miles). This is driving in all conditions - taking kids to school driving in frigid temps (230 miles this morning all below zero degrees F), using a/c, lots of short trips in town (less than 2 miles) and yes a fair amount of highway as well. I sincerely doubt an automatic could even approach 30 mpg under the same conditions.
And my car is only rated at 31 mpg highway.
However, I believe I have been reading that some newer cars are using (or at least starting to use) features such as the engine decoupling from the transmission in coasting situations. That and auto start/stop will start changing things a bit. Not sure how it will play out, but only time will tell.
'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
For my year of Accord the I4 MT averages 31.0 mpg lifetime for 17 people.
The automatic 4 cyl averages a paltry 24.4 mpg for 35 people. Even the V-6 manual beats the I4 automatic with 26.2 mpg (only 1 person though)
But, 25K mi/year means you have to drive a lot of highway miles.. I commute 21 miles each way, and I'm under 15K/year...
I'm averaging about 26 mpg, for the life of the current vehicle.... which I'm pretty happy with....
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
That is a *HUGE* 27% difference and a large enough sample to be significant.
Personally, I'd pick the V6/manual and still enjoy MPGs better than the I4/auto.
Some of them were obvious, like single CD players, roll up windows, but note this one:
"Manual transmissions in midsize sedans. The stick shift is the most well-publicized member of the automotive endangered species list, but nowhere is its demise more imminent than in the midsize sedan class. A few years ago, nearly every midsizer offered a stick shift on just about any trim level, but the row-it-yourself units are now generally relegated only to low-specification trim levels on a handful of models. We wouldn’t be surprised if the next-generation models of most of these lose their sticks entirely.
I am sure the Accord will loose manual option when the next generation comes out. I think Honda has even said this?
You really can't blame automakers for not offering options that no one buys anymore.
You can't get a Camry stick, but you can get a Corolla or Civic, and those are near mid-sized now.
If manuals were still 3-speed on the column shifters, I would say "yes".
Frankly, I think automatics are following the trend to have more and more stuff done for the driver with less effort expended.
Better stereo, more entertainment options (sat radio, HD radio, DVD player, etc.)... voice operated controls over the car's functions... power "everything" (sliding van doors, power liftgates operated by kicking the back bumper, electric window shades)... etc.
As a whole, we are gradually insulating the driver from the road... slowly but surely, and we are providing automated systems to "interface" between the two (blind spot detection, speed-sensitive cruise control, automatic braking, etc.).
And with a human driver that MUST follow, religiously FOLLOW the instructions displayed on the CRT/LCD.
In other words inattention, mind "wandering" is NEVER a factor.
How many, what %, of stick shift drivers really pay enough attention to shifting that they can match, consistently, the EPA FE driving "profile".
I'd vote for less 2%
Yes, that 2%, apparently well represented "here", can get better FE with a manual than an equivalent vehicle with a 6-speed automatic, so what..?
Only in the republican House majority does the minority, tea-partiers all, rule.
2006 Accord I4 MT 32.0 mpg avg - 16 data points
2006 Accord I4 AT 27.8 mpg avg - 45 data points
The list goes on.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList2&make=Honda&model=Accord-
So yes, it becomes quite easy for one of the EXPERTS "here" to best the EPA numbers and thereby convince themselves that manual transmissions outperform automatics FE wise.
Other than you, everyone else is pretty much in agreement with the EPA.
So...your issue is exactly....what? That the EPA is wrong?
What a hoot!
It is just the case unfortunately that Honda is no longer a driver's company. Toyota hasn't been for years and years.
You can get a stick in the new Sonata can't you?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
But again, I think it was reserved fro the base models.
my 2005 Accord EX-L (top of the line!) manual is the last of a dying breed I guess...
and you are correct, Honda went from being the "sporty engineering co." to trying to become a Toyota-ish bland mobile clone.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Don't they stay between a min and max threshold of speed? If so then of course there is wandering.
Whenever a human is in the equation to control the throttle and speed, there will be variance. Even in a lab on a dyno.
But the MPG results we're mentioning are not experts.
Enthusiasts spending much time on the EPA web site? Doubtful...
I think so, I test drove an Optima stick recently.
Base model no options, though. And you can't get the turbo engine with a stick, bummer.
The Optima's stick was not satisfying, the Sportage's was better.
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/regulations.htm
It has been obvious for a number of years to decades that manual transmissions are not everyones' cup of tea.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Diesel cars might still get manual transmission because, for one thing, diesel engines and hybrid powertrains don't make much sense--and we know that few (any?) hybrids come with a stickshift.
For my purposes 400K miles is as good as forever. If you can get 250,000 out of your auto tranny I commend either your gentle driving or Honda's enginering. Most domestics in my experience don't last that long.
thanks for your info.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Think of the EPA test sequence driver as the "servomotor" for the EPA's computer that is instructing the drive sequence via the directive display.
Give all manual drivers one of those and insist, enforce, they follow the instructions and they will join with the 1%
If your point is to show some manual drivers can't meet the EPA FE estimates, I don't think anyone would argue the issue. The same can be said for automatic drivers,
However, a significant segment of both can also get better FE than the estimates from the EPA as well... Far more than your "1%" number. After all, the estimates are designed now to give much more accurate reflections of real world driving experiences, not absolute best case scenarios as in the past. Read the info at the link I posted a few comments back, and you'll see what I mean.
You appear to be fixated on the idea that one has to be truly exceptional to equal or exceed the EPA FE figures. Unless you have some hard evidence to demonstrate that, all you're doing is stating an opinion that you want others to take as fact.
No doubt, automatics are indeed closing the FE gap, and in some cases, have succeeded. It's hardly universal at this time, though....
With enough gears and electronics and technology, automatics can do better than manuals. But at what price? It's estimated that the average automatic adds close to $2K to the actual cost of the car and that the manufacturers are selling them at below cost in many cases.
When one breaks, though, you're looking at retail pricing, which is 4-5K for most of these 6 or 7 speed wonders. For me, it's a big deal to have to not only pay up front for the automatic over the manual, but to have to deal with something that is half as reliable (if that, given the myriad of modules and hydraulics and computers they have) and costs 4x as much to replace when it does break.
Just from an economic standpoint, manuals will save you thousands over the lifetime of the car. It is exactly like how Hybrid vehicles are. The initial cost premium and complexity leads to a scenario where you are in the hole and never will recover the difference. Even if the automatics got 5 mpg better, you'd still lose money as it costs more initially, has a lower resale value if the thing is anywhere near 100K+ miles (buyers assume that the transmission will likely fail soon and deduct accordingly), and heaven help you if it ever breaks.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Hence the huge gap between what you can trade the average automatic equipped car in for versus retail pricing. IMO, dealers will give you wholesale pricing only and by the time you sell your car yourself, unless it's special, of course, you'll be looking at Blue Book trade-in or close to it. Nobody gets even "private party" values for their vehicles any more.
But let's do the math:
Manual car - 35mpg
Automatic - 40mpg
100K miles. 357 more gallons of fuel for the manual in this extreme case. $1428 extra cost ($4 a gallon). That's still essentially a wash on the cost of the automatic. A bit worse, actually, given that the automatic also increases the amount of tax and registration on the vehicle when new as it raises the final price as well.
If your automatic costs more than about $1200, you simply are in the hole with an automatic from day one and if it breaks, you're toast as you have to either sell the car off at nearly salvage prices or pay to fix it. Either way, you just lost $3-5K out of your pocket if that happens.
And it seems to happen a lot lately with these mega-speed models. I can't tell you how many people I know who have cars with less than 100K that have had their fancy automatic crap out on them.
I don't expect that overhauling my MINI 6-speed manual transmission would be cheap, either, nor would any modern FWD trans/transaxle assembly be either.
Probably still somewhat cheaper than an automatic, but not a huge difference anymore, like in "the old days".
So much of this discussion depends on what car we are talking about. Cost and complexity can vary enormously.
If anything, many brands with manuals might better fit that assumption, due to the fact that only a relatively few are sold with manual transmissions.
From a service standpoint, most automatics are now replaced as a "total unit swap out", it's probably cheaper for the dealer and manufacturer as well, since it greatly reduces parts distribution, and all units can be repaired at a central location specializing in those repairs.
Of course, actual costs are still higher, due to the complexity of newer automatics...
No, not at all. I believe that MOST manual drivers, if they wished to devote the time and concerted mental effort, could meet, or even best, the EPA estimates.
My point is that MOST manual drivers, MOST of the time, simply do not devote the same effort, concerted effort, required of the EPA test driver.
NET result...real world FE for manual transmission driving falls well short of the EPA estimates.
"..the same can be said for automatic drivers..."
No, automatic drivers, ALL automatic drivers, can meet the EPA estimates with virtually no effort, no specific attention paid to shifting to benefit FE.
"...However, a significant segment of both can also get better FE..."
Yes, agreed...but "could meet", not "can meet". My point, again, is that automatic drivers "can meet" without any specific metal effort a-tall, the EPA estimates. Whereas manual drivers "can meet" only if they "could" devote extra mental efforts to that task specifically.
But back to my "core" point. Modern day automatics, with much greater time in lockup mode, coastdown sequential shifting/fuel cut, irritating shiftiness to gain optimal FE advantage, and with the most lack-a-daissical driver imaginable, will best the FE attained by the very best of the 1% expert, concerted effort, manual transmission drivers.
Drive one of these new automatics for a week or so and see if your seat of the pants sensors, all YOUR sensing, can ascertain the when and why, predict, the causative factor(s) of the automatic shifting, irritatingly, back and forth from top gear to next down.
Just as you cannot match the engine torque vs braking vs directional control performance of ABS, Trac, nor VSC, you now cannot match the FE performance of these new automatics. Not that any normal person, most of the time, would even wish to bother.
And many people can drive an AT poorly as it relates to MPG. Remember, the trans (and the test) are designed to almost immediately jump to a high gear and refuse to drop down. So people doing jack rabbit starts, always nailing the gas, etc. are going to see MPG suffer. if anything, it might be a bigger hit, since the trans are designed IMO to "fake" the test, not represent real world driving needs/habits.
Stick drivers probably (the vast majority) shift at normal points to achieve expected MPG. Some may wind it out in every gear, but most probably just shift at 3K or so.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Plus, paddles are eliminating the need for the clutch, I think that's the future of performance transmissions. The machine can do it better than the body can.
I think it's safe to assume (from what I have read on the EPA's documentation on FE testing) that the tests are based upon reasonable driving techniques, and no foot-shoved-into-the-injection-unit driving.
The recently revised test are far more "real world" now than those before 2005'
In most instances, I beat the EPA results by 1-3 mpg, but not always. I had a Chevy Aveo that never came close to the estimates (it was an auto). I consider myself an average driver, but at 57, I'm sure I drive less aggressively than I did at 17.
Currently, my "fleet" consist of BMWs, a Mini, Toyota Tacoma, and 2 Nissans. All are auto except the Mini, and I usually best the EPA FE expectations in every vehicle.