|
|
Automatic Better Economy Than Manual
Those are probably EPA figures. Take them with a grain of salt. The EPA doesn't actually test for mileage. I read they measure tailpipe emissions and compute the mileage from there. That seems to make sense since automakers can reduce emissions more on automatics with computer controlled shifts. My guess is real world numbers are different. We bought a 05 Highlander automatic and the mileage is consistently 3-4 mpg less than EPA figures. On our last two vehicles with sticks the EPA numbers were pretty much right on.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
|
|
Automatic Better Economy Than Manual
By the way, if towing is an issue check the tow ratings of both. On some vehicles, like the Ford Ranger, the tow ratings of the auto is significantly higher than the stick. That surprised the heck out of me after I had already purchased one.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
|
|
Automatic Better Economy Than Manual
Dave, you're probably right about the clutch slippage. The Ranger has a small clutch. But the transmission is also known to be weak with some major flaws. I've tried looking for one in junkyards and they're hard to come by. Not sure if that's because they are in demand or just because most Rangers come with automatics.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
|
|
Automatic Better Economy Than Manual
The synchros in my 98 were feeling balky, which is why I was looking in junkyards for a new tranny. I figured to have one rebuilt and then do a swap in a day. Haven't found one yet but the syncros are behaving better now. I drive like a grandma and change transmission fluid every 15k miles so there's no excuse for this. I've been driving sticks my whole life and never lost a transmission yet, but this might be the first. Wish I could afford a new truck right now, but it will have to wait until the tractor is paid off in six months.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
|
|
Automatic Better Economy Than Manual
Yep, every 15k miles. I do it because I know this transmission is weak and because there is a flaw in the way the case is sealed. On top of the transmission there are three rubber plugs that can dry up and leak. Here in Oregon it rains all the time and I worry that water will get into it through those plugs so transmission fluid is cheap insurance. Some guys pull the transmission and pound in freeze plug discs to replace the rubber plugs but I just change the fluid frequently.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
|
|
Automatic Better Economy Than Manual
Ever driven an automatic that is constantly hunting for the right gear? Or an automatic that waits a few seconds to downshift when you punch the throttle? Most irritating. The computer cannot always do it best in the real world. It cannot know what the drivers intent is. The programmer can bias the code for performance or economy, but not both at the same time. On the other hand most drivers know when they need to punch it and also when to back off. Until our cars are totally computer operated it will always be a compromise.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
|
|
Automatic Better Economy Than Manual
Yep, it's a compromise no doubt. A programmer can build some adaptability in - if the budget and schedule allows and the cpu resources and necessary inputs are available. Pointy headed managers and bean counters often prevent this. As a programmer I know all about them
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
|
|
Automatic Better Economy Than Manual
I would agree that a computer controlled automatic programmed for best economy *could* beat a stick. My opinion is that in the real world they don't. I'm very skeptical that this Toyota with a five speed automatic would beat the economy of the six speed manual in daily driving. EPA mileage estimates are often wrong. Look at the recent debate about bogus EPA numbers on hybrids due to their methodology of computing mileage rather than measuring it.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
|
|
Automatic Better Economy Than Manual
The base Tundra is a V6 - you can get a stick with that engine but not with the V8.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
|
|