Stick shift death watch: Automatics costing less, better mpg

[prof15]

Every day, a few more compelling reasons to opt for a stick shift over an automatic transmission are disappearing. Automatic-transmission technology has advanced so fast that sticks can be slower, less fuel efficient and even more costly, says Jonathon Ramsey, writing for AOL Autos. Says he:

Automatics have also become so efficient that most of the time their fuel economy is on par with manuals -- and in some cases even better. There are even several cars with automatics on the market that are faster than the same cars equipped with manuals.

He lays out the perverse example of a $78,450 BMW 650i, like the one pictured above, where the six-speed manual actually costs $250 more than the automatic even as it delivers one mile less in highway gas mileage. Ouch. That's still the exception, thankfully, with the lower-tech manuals still cheaper than automatics on most mainstream cars.
That's a Dodge Challenger's shifter shown at right, a car designed for a manual if there ever was one.

Dodge Challenger, shown here as a 2009 model, has a pistol-grip style manual shifter

By Dodge

Even if a car's sticker price is less with a stick, you'll pay more at the pump:

Today's automatics are now so sophisticated that they routinely best manuals on gas mileage. Buyers of the stick on the Ford Mustang are zapped with a two mpg penalty on the highway. Ramsey points out that it's not just about efficiency, but performance: the Porsche 911 Turbo and Cadillac CTS-V are faster from zero to 60 with an automatic. Want a stick in your Ferrari 458 Italia or Lamborghini LP570-4 Superleggera? Sorry. Sticks are considered so inferior to the dual-clutch transmissions and paddle shifters in those supercars, you can't get them.

No wonder fewer than one out of 10 drivers opt for a stick these days.

 

[jred321]

do the MPG differences have to do with efficiency or with gear ratios?

 

[JamesCH]

MPG is efficiency, which can be increased by more effectively managing gear ratios. I think it's that automatic transmissions can do a better job of shifting gears to get the engine operating at the most efficient speed/load to match what is requested by the driver. Autos could shift into overdrive on the slightest downhill to coast more, or drop an extra gear when acceleration is needed, or short-shift if the driver is at part-throttle. Quite often manual-transmission drivers don't do these things, I know I don't.

Edit: I don't think a manual transmission is greatly more or less efficient than an auto in terms of drivetrain loss.

 

[jred321]

that's real world #s though. there are many techniques to get better real world #s on both sides if the driver chooses to use them. MPG tests aren't really "real world" conditions. they're done in a controlled environment using what i would imagine would be ideal driving techniques.

most cars have different gear ratios in their manual cars than in their autos, if not different final drive ratios as well. the only real fair comparison would be to find a car that has identical auto and manual gear ratios, as then the only variable is the transmission type

manuals i would imagine are geared closer together for a more performance feel. that could likely as a consequence leave the engine at a higher RPM when cruising on the highway, which can account for the slight difference in fuel economy

 

[magnumP5]

This article fails pretty hard:

What it fails to mention about the fuel economy is that many automatics are now 7 and 8 (yes, eight) speed transmissions while the manual has been limited to 6 for quite some time. Of course you're going to get more miles to the gallon when you have a 0.25:1 eighth gear as opposed to a 0.75:1 sixth. The cost is also a moot point because from a manufacturability standpoint a manual will always be cheaper. Mechanical systems are always less expensive than electrical systems. The fact that some automakers (Dodge!) are charging more for the manual transmission is because they know some people just have to have them (like most of us) and therefore can get away with the higher cost. Another point to make is that almost always will a manual transmission weigh less than an automatic. Even those dual-clutch semi-autos are heavier because of their eight gears. I will conceed the speed argument though. This has been known for many years in racing...

 

[Kymerik]

i just like using my left foot for something other than to prevent slouching

 

[JamesCH]

that's real world #s though. there are many techniques to get better real world #s on both sides if the driver chooses to use them. MPG tests aren't really "real world" conditions. they're done in a controlled environment using what i would imagine would be ideal driving techniques.

most cars have different gear ratios in their manual cars than in their autos, if not different final drive ratios as well. the only real fair comparison would be to find a car that has identical auto and manual gear ratios, as then the only variable is the transmission type

manuals i would imagine are geared closer together for a more performance feel. that could likely as a consequence leave the engine at a higher RPM when cruising on the highway, which can account for the slight difference in fuel economy

I agree with your point that it's not necessarily a fair comparison; however, I still think that an automatic transmission computer could be programmed to shift more efficiently than any human, especially given how sophisticated automotive computers and sensors are these days.

 

[Kymerik]

I agree with your point that it's not necessarily a fair comparison; however, I still think that an automatic transmission computer could be programmed to shift more efficiently than any human, especially given how sophisticated automotive computers and sensors are these days.

agreed with the computers > humans in terms of speed and accuracy of shifting, but i'd like to see the difference when i get an 8 speed manual LOL

 

[JamesCH]

agreed with the computers > humans in terms of speed and accuracy of shifting, but i'd like to see the difference when i get an 8 speed manual LOL

I'd like to see you not screw up your shifting with an 8-speed with an "H-H" shift pattern I am sure I would.

 

[JCell]

what this article ignores is the driving experience.

stick > auto/tiptronic/pedals/quad clutches/etc... every single time

 

[JCell]

I'd like to see you not screw up your shifting with an 8-speed with an "H-H" shift pattern I am sure I would.

truckers do this with 16 gears

 

[Kymerik]

I'd like to see you not screw up your shifting with an 8-speed with an "H-H" shift pattern I am sure I would.

practice

 

[JamesCH]

what this article ignores is the driving experience.

stick > auto/tiptronic/pedals/quad clutches/etc... every single time

Having raced a car with electronic paddle shifting I'd have to disagree with you on that one!

truckers do this with 16 gears

I suppose so, but it would take a lot of practice.

 

[prof15]

Save the Manuals!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPAe6w4ypK8

 

[BlackCherry06]

While $80,000 cars with sequential manuals, etc. may be more efficient and marginally faster than their M/T counterparts, the average car (let's use the Kia Forte as an example) is, on average, $800 more expensive with an auto, and the auto is an old-school torque converter 5-speed that remains slower to 60mph than the M/T version.

As much as I love a M/T, I don't think I'd mind a Porsche 911 Turbo or BMW M6 equipped with an auto, because the engine's torque combined with the cutting edge technology of their transmissions sacrifices nothing in performance or MPG. But until I can afford a car like that, M/T is the only thing allowed in my garage.

 

[ucMP3]

The cost is also a moot point because from a manufacturability standpoint a manual will always be cheaper. Mechanical systems are always less expensive than electrical systems. The fact that some automakers (Dodge!) are charging more for the manual transmission is because they know some people just have to have them (like most of us) and therefore can get away with the higher cost.

If you're selling 9/10 cars with a ATX, you are in turn producing 90% of ATX transmissions in your cars. Just due to economies of scale, the ATX will be proportionally cheaper than the manual. Although the initial cost of the ATX system may be greater than the economy of scale can counter-act in this regard.

 

[magnumP5]

If you're selling 9/10 cars with a ATX, you are in turn producing 90% of ATX transmissions in your cars. Just due to economies of scale, the ATX will be proportionally cheaper than the manual. Although the initial cost of the ATX system may be greater than the economy of scale can counter-act in this regard.

True, but like mentioned above the cost of a manual is almost always cheaper for the customer. That being said I'm all too familiar with what you're explaining. I originally wanted a Nissan Frontier in a 6-speed, but none were available and Nissan refused to build one for me (even with a $1000 deposit) and I refused to pay $1000+ for the automatic (even though the wife wanted one). Needless to say I ended up with a Tacoma 6-speed, LOL...

 

[ucMP3]

^I'm a fan of Taco's, tho.

 

[genericuser]

well there goes all the fun of driving.

a manual transmission vs an automatic is like a point and shoot vs an SLR.

yeah, a point and shoot is easy and slightly boring, and you can get the job done more efficiently sometimes.. but if you know your way around an SLR, you can have a hell of a lot more fun and get the job done better.