|
|
|
Automatic Better Economy Than Manual
I picked up some 2006 brochures the other day at the Toyota dealer. One thing I found interesting was that a 5 speed automatic transmission gets better gas mileage than the 6 speed manual. I asked the service tech and they said "it's all computer controled to get the best mileage." I find that hard to believe. There is always slippage in an automatic due to nature of the fluid drive, or so I thought, as opposed to the engine being in direct contact with the drive train in the manual. The difference was 1 mpg better in both city and highway stats. If anyone can enlighten me on the new automatics it would be appreciated. I love my stick and this seems like one more thing "The Man" is going to take away.
|
|
 Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
|
|
|
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
Some of the newer automatic lock up on every gear to improve mileage rather than just overdrive. The computer shifts to provide optimum emissions. Some models are available only as autos in CA.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
|
|
|
Automatic Better Economy Than Manual
I can believe it. The new computer controlled automatics work extremely well. While it may be possible to "outshift" the auto with a stick, you would have to be paying close attention at all times to differing driving conditions to do that. The automatic will do it "automatically" without the driver even having to think about it. The slip in an auto trans is factored in to when the computer decides to shift and with "lockup" torque converters there is no slip under light load. Manual shifting can be fun and if you like to do that then go for it. It is just that the auto trans of the last 10 years are nothing like the older ones. I don't know if a vehicle with a factory tow package is even available with a stick shift. The autos really are that good for all around use.
|
|
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."
Ken, I think that's due to the necessary clutch slippage needed with today's high geared transmissions and rear ends. My F150 is rated low for towing in the same way. It's not that it can't tow just as much as the automatic. It's just that many people cannot drive a clutch anymore. It takes some finesse to get a big load started.
Dave
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
|
|
|
Automatic Better Economy Than Manual
If you plan to do more than very occasional towing with any degree of load; DO get the stick. Automatics of ANY make are NOT up to towing PERIOD, unless the transmission and torque converter are significantly modified. Automatics also reduce brake pad life as compared to a propery driven manual shift.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
|
|
|
Automatic Better Economy Than Manual
What all you guys say makes a lot of sense. I was unaware of lockup torque converters but I'm old school. My assumption was that the EPA test may not take into account the operators abilities. Oh well, I have to get my '92 Pickup to 250,000 mls. before I start thinking about something new.
|
|
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
Ken, Yes, some of the rangers had weak manual transmissions (maybe all?). I almost bought one with the tranny out because the rest of it was in such nice shape. The salvage yard guys just laughed. 
Dave
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
|
|
Gas Generator Weather Protecti
12-03-2005, 20:41 
Digg It 
Del.icio.us 
