I don't know if it was true throughout the model run, but the 1999 Ford Contour rated 1 mpg better with the AT. I'm sure it was the gearing, the MT was geared very aggressively, meaning it ran fairly high RPMs in 5th.
Vehicles that give better mileage w/ auto trans
- Thread starter youdontwannaknow
- Start date
- Status
Very fuel efficient.Many vehicles with the same engine give same or better mileage with ATs.
Actually if you do some research manual transmissions generally get better fuel economy than their automatic counterparts, as manual transmissions are much simpler. They have less power loss, due to fewer parts, and is directly driven by the engine, hence why you can push start a manual but not an automatic.
The 99 Neon stick shows 7 EPA mpg more than the Neon automatic, just as it used to be before automatics got all green. Like everyone else I figured the lock up torque converter had made the transmissions all but equal. With the Neon and this throttle body hack job I'm not so sure. Detuning sticks with subtle changes doesn't look so difficult after all.
That isn't the first time I've seen engine designers fiddle around with the intake for no apparent reason. I have two Delta 88's a year apart. One has the chubby throttle plate. The other plate is flat.
That isn't the first time I've seen engine designers fiddle around with the intake for no apparent reason. I have two Delta 88's a year apart. One has the chubby throttle plate. The other plate is flat.
One thing I didn't see mentioned is ignition timing. "Back in the day", manual transmission cars had the timing retarded a few degrees to prevent pinging when starting out from a stop or when lugging the engine in too high of gear.
Originally Posted By: Eddie
Many vehicles with the same engine give same or better mileage with ATs.
But with the same gear ratios and performance, there is no comparison real world mileage over most vehicle makes. I studied conventional and alternative driveline technology and alternative fuels for work with both automakers and fuel companies to see which combinations have the best performance and areas for innovation opportunity.
Automatics are up 8% lossy compared to manuals in mixed driving, if you look at identical ratios. The lockup converter gets the highway mileage pretty close.
CVTs are much better in mixed and city driving, but are lossy at higher speeds.
Hybrids greatly improve city mileage due to the regenerative braking power, but do virtually nothing at anything above third gear.
All of this assumes a driver who competent and paying attention to preserve momentum.
All you have to do to see the mileage plummet is look at a driver in small engined vehicle and automatic coming down the on ramp, who is going slow and then waits towards the end to look to see if they should merge, instead of building speed and blending in. The stomp on the gas to go from 35 to 50 mph and then the second stomp to go to 65 mph, after wait and see, kills the mileage.
Compare an automatic or CVT on hilly, twisty 2-lane roads and the gap gets quite big, unless you are keeping the transmission in the proper gear through throttle position, instead of letting do its thing.
Two factors drive this: the automatic shifting requires the driver to anticipate (like in manual clutch) faster than the transmission can react and the coupling loss (torque converter/CVT vs. direct drive).
Many vehicles with the same engine give same or better mileage with ATs.
But with the same gear ratios and performance, there is no comparison real world mileage over most vehicle makes. I studied conventional and alternative driveline technology and alternative fuels for work with both automakers and fuel companies to see which combinations have the best performance and areas for innovation opportunity.
Automatics are up 8% lossy compared to manuals in mixed driving, if you look at identical ratios. The lockup converter gets the highway mileage pretty close.
CVTs are much better in mixed and city driving, but are lossy at higher speeds.
Hybrids greatly improve city mileage due to the regenerative braking power, but do virtually nothing at anything above third gear.
All of this assumes a driver who competent and paying attention to preserve momentum.
All you have to do to see the mileage plummet is look at a driver in small engined vehicle and automatic coming down the on ramp, who is going slow and then waits towards the end to look to see if they should merge, instead of building speed and blending in. The stomp on the gas to go from 35 to 50 mph and then the second stomp to go to 65 mph, after wait and see, kills the mileage.
Compare an automatic or CVT on hilly, twisty 2-lane roads and the gap gets quite big, unless you are keeping the transmission in the proper gear through throttle position, instead of letting do its thing.
Two factors drive this: the automatic shifting requires the driver to anticipate (like in manual clutch) faster than the transmission can react and the coupling loss (torque converter/CVT vs. direct drive).
Originally Posted By: severach
The 99 Neon stick shows 7 EPA mpg more than the Neon automatic, just as it used to be before automatics got all green. Like everyone else I figured the lock up torque converter had made the transmissions all but equal. With the Neon and this throttle body hack job I'm not so sure. Detuning sticks with subtle changes doesn't look so difficult after all.
That isn't the first time I've seen engine designers fiddle around with the intake for no apparent reason. I have two Delta 88's a year apart. One has the chubby throttle plate. The other plate is flat.
If we add up all his 'supposed' MPG-gains, he's apparently gained at least 12mpg.
Sorry, an aftermarket engine mount will not give you better gas mileage.
The 99 Neon stick shows 7 EPA mpg more than the Neon automatic, just as it used to be before automatics got all green. Like everyone else I figured the lock up torque converter had made the transmissions all but equal. With the Neon and this throttle body hack job I'm not so sure. Detuning sticks with subtle changes doesn't look so difficult after all.
That isn't the first time I've seen engine designers fiddle around with the intake for no apparent reason. I have two Delta 88's a year apart. One has the chubby throttle plate. The other plate is flat.
If we add up all his 'supposed' MPG-gains, he's apparently gained at least 12mpg.
Sorry, an aftermarket engine mount will not give you better gas mileage.
2009 Honda Fit gets better mpg auto....
http://automobiles.honda.com/fit/specifications.aspx?group=epa
http://automobiles.honda.com/fit/specifications.aspx?group=epa
Better mileage in an automatic generally means a taller top gear than the same vehicle+engine with a manual transmission.
Why? Maybe because you won't mind the automatic shifting down as you go up the hills, where with a manual you consider it a nuisance.
The consequences go beyond that, however. That taller gear will make the engine feel weaker. You will either resign to the weakness, or frequently step harder on it to make it shift down, negating the posted gains and possibly shortening the life of the transmission.
Undoubtedly it depends on your terrain, driving style, and vehicle.
I am finding today's 5+ speed automatics far too busy. And their shifts are too slow too - in the name of smoothness? Maybe Nissan had it right to commit to CVT transmissions: You either get the ideal ratio (CVT) or the user experience (MT). I don't agree with 6-speed MTs for daily drivers, however, I prefer a 5-speed MT.
Why? Maybe because you won't mind the automatic shifting down as you go up the hills, where with a manual you consider it a nuisance.
The consequences go beyond that, however. That taller gear will make the engine feel weaker. You will either resign to the weakness, or frequently step harder on it to make it shift down, negating the posted gains and possibly shortening the life of the transmission.
Undoubtedly it depends on your terrain, driving style, and vehicle.
I am finding today's 5+ speed automatics far too busy. And their shifts are too slow too - in the name of smoothness? Maybe Nissan had it right to commit to CVT transmissions: You either get the ideal ratio (CVT) or the user experience (MT). I don't agree with 6-speed MTs for daily drivers, however, I prefer a 5-speed MT.
Last edited:
Seems to be the case with most new cars. Either people's manual-driving skills are getting worse, or the Auto shift programs and ratios are getting more zealous.... either one is a real possibility IMO.
Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
Seems to be the case with most new cars. Either people's manual-driving skills are getting worse, or the Auto shift programs and ratios are getting more zealous.... either one is a real possibility IMO.
Or in the case of the Direct Shift Gearbox (DSG), the technology has completely changed. It is a manual transmission with 2 automatic clutches. You can drive it as a automatic or a manual. Better mpg and faster than a manual. There is no clutch pedal and there is no torque converter. Here are some articles and videos if you are interested in learning more::
7 speed dry clutch dsg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVWP7TYhP0c&feature=related
Good article but some mistakes in it http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/11/08/091620.php
Jason Plato of Fitth Gear test drives the dsg (about 1:15 into the video is where good dsg discussion starts) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EdjEE0edPw
test of manual vs dsg gti http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmMNRQ1GJ3o
Audi TT manual vs dsg test for what it is worth. Real difference is having the choice to drive in automatic mode in traffic or if you just want to forget about shifting for a while. 4/10ths of second saved on the track is no major impact in terms of daily driving. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LROqVLz4z8M&NR=1
and sort of a poor video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yfe56gqqIms
Seems to be the case with most new cars. Either people's manual-driving skills are getting worse, or the Auto shift programs and ratios are getting more zealous.... either one is a real possibility IMO.
Or in the case of the Direct Shift Gearbox (DSG), the technology has completely changed. It is a manual transmission with 2 automatic clutches. You can drive it as a automatic or a manual. Better mpg and faster than a manual. There is no clutch pedal and there is no torque converter. Here are some articles and videos if you are interested in learning more::
7 speed dry clutch dsg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVWP7TYhP0c&feature=related
Good article but some mistakes in it http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/11/08/091620.php
Jason Plato of Fitth Gear test drives the dsg (about 1:15 into the video is where good dsg discussion starts) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EdjEE0edPw
test of manual vs dsg gti http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmMNRQ1GJ3o
Audi TT manual vs dsg test for what it is worth. Real difference is having the choice to drive in automatic mode in traffic or if you just want to forget about shifting for a while. 4/10ths of second saved on the track is no major impact in terms of daily driving. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LROqVLz4z8M&NR=1
and sort of a poor video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yfe56gqqIms
Originally Posted By: ffracer
...
Automatics are up 8% lossy compared to manuals in mixed driving, if you look at identical ratios. The lockup converter gets the highway mileage pretty close.
Hold on. This is a pretty misleading statement. Once an AT goes into lockup, it is, for all intents and purposes, no different than a manual. There is a "hard" link between the engine and the drive wheels. Gear ration may alter the outcome, but again, in lockup, no difference otherwise.
Originally Posted By: ffracer
CVTs are much better in mixed and city driving, but are lossy at higher speeds.
This is incorrect. First, which CVTs exactly are you talking about? There are several types, and those have radically different designs, with radically different characteristics. The CVT used in the Toyota/Lexus hybrids bears zero resemblance to the cone/chain cone/belt designs seen from other makers. None at all. The Toyota HSD design never, ever disengages the gas engine from the drive wheels. Ever. This CVT does not get "lossy" at higher speeds, no, it allows Prius drivers to get nearly 50 mpg highway and TCH drivers (Camry) to get 40 mpgs highway. Considering the Camry, please cite another 3700 pound sedan that gets nearly 40 mpgs (fully 40 if you play it) while cruising on the highway. As to the Prius, which weighs almost 3k lbs, please show me another car of this weight that can duplicate this fuel economy.
Originally Posted By: ffracer
Hybrids greatly improve city mileage due to the regenerative braking power, but do virtually nothing at anything above third gear.
. See my last, directly above. This is simply not true. First off, the hybrids seen today, Honda or Toyota flavor, are all CVT designs, so there is simply no comparison to "3rd gear" (or any other gear for that matter). Second, assuming the gear reference was actually a speed reference, someone please explain to me why I still can get 38 mpg or more (occasionally 40+) in my Camry hybrid when I'm cruising on the highway at almost 80 mph. The TCH actually weighs more than the V-6 version of the car, and yet, it beats its socks off, even at highway cruise. The fact is, even at what appears to be a "steady state" cruise, the hybrid system is constantly going back and forth between gas-dominant and electric-dominant modes, and though not as effective as in stop-and-go traffic, it's still providing a huge benefit over a comparable conventional car, even on the highway.
Originally Posted By: ffracer
All of this assumes a driver who competent and paying attention to preserve momentum.
A very valid point. Awareness and exploitation of momentum is one of the very basic keys to making a hybrid really shine for you.
...
Originally Posted By: ffracer
Compare an automatic or CVT on hilly, twisty 2-lane roads and the gap gets quite big, unless you are keeping the transmission in the proper gear through throttle position, instead of letting do its thing.
Two factors drive this: the automatic shifting requires the driver to anticipate (like in manual clutch) faster than the transmission can react and the coupling loss (torque converter/CVT vs. direct drive).
Again, as noted above, you're mistakenly lumping several different concepts under the heading of "CVT". In the Toyota/Lex hybrids, there is no torque converter at all, and the gas engine is ALWAYS hard geared to the drive wheels. Even when you're sitting a red light, and the computer decides to turn the gas engine on (typically as a result of the traction battery being in a low charge state). In these designs, there's no "lag" as there might be in a shifting auto, and there's no loss in any form of torque converter. Mash it and it goes, just as quickly and willingly anything else out there on the road of comparable weight and power.
...
Automatics are up 8% lossy compared to manuals in mixed driving, if you look at identical ratios. The lockup converter gets the highway mileage pretty close.
Hold on. This is a pretty misleading statement. Once an AT goes into lockup, it is, for all intents and purposes, no different than a manual. There is a "hard" link between the engine and the drive wheels. Gear ration may alter the outcome, but again, in lockup, no difference otherwise.
Originally Posted By: ffracer
CVTs are much better in mixed and city driving, but are lossy at higher speeds.
This is incorrect. First, which CVTs exactly are you talking about? There are several types, and those have radically different designs, with radically different characteristics. The CVT used in the Toyota/Lexus hybrids bears zero resemblance to the cone/chain cone/belt designs seen from other makers. None at all. The Toyota HSD design never, ever disengages the gas engine from the drive wheels. Ever. This CVT does not get "lossy" at higher speeds, no, it allows Prius drivers to get nearly 50 mpg highway and TCH drivers (Camry) to get 40 mpgs highway. Considering the Camry, please cite another 3700 pound sedan that gets nearly 40 mpgs (fully 40 if you play it) while cruising on the highway. As to the Prius, which weighs almost 3k lbs, please show me another car of this weight that can duplicate this fuel economy.
Originally Posted By: ffracer
Hybrids greatly improve city mileage due to the regenerative braking power, but do virtually nothing at anything above third gear.
. See my last, directly above. This is simply not true. First off, the hybrids seen today, Honda or Toyota flavor, are all CVT designs, so there is simply no comparison to "3rd gear" (or any other gear for that matter). Second, assuming the gear reference was actually a speed reference, someone please explain to me why I still can get 38 mpg or more (occasionally 40+) in my Camry hybrid when I'm cruising on the highway at almost 80 mph. The TCH actually weighs more than the V-6 version of the car, and yet, it beats its socks off, even at highway cruise. The fact is, even at what appears to be a "steady state" cruise, the hybrid system is constantly going back and forth between gas-dominant and electric-dominant modes, and though not as effective as in stop-and-go traffic, it's still providing a huge benefit over a comparable conventional car, even on the highway.
Originally Posted By: ffracer
All of this assumes a driver who competent and paying attention to preserve momentum.
A very valid point. Awareness and exploitation of momentum is one of the very basic keys to making a hybrid really shine for you.
...
Originally Posted By: ffracer
Compare an automatic or CVT on hilly, twisty 2-lane roads and the gap gets quite big, unless you are keeping the transmission in the proper gear through throttle position, instead of letting do its thing.
Two factors drive this: the automatic shifting requires the driver to anticipate (like in manual clutch) faster than the transmission can react and the coupling loss (torque converter/CVT vs. direct drive).
Again, as noted above, you're mistakenly lumping several different concepts under the heading of "CVT". In the Toyota/Lex hybrids, there is no torque converter at all, and the gas engine is ALWAYS hard geared to the drive wheels. Even when you're sitting a red light, and the computer decides to turn the gas engine on (typically as a result of the traction battery being in a low charge state). In these designs, there's no "lag" as there might be in a shifting auto, and there's no loss in any form of torque converter. Mash it and it goes, just as quickly and willingly anything else out there on the road of comparable weight and power.
Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
Seems to be the case with most new cars. Either people's manual-driving skills are getting worse, or the Auto shift programs and ratios are getting more zealous.... either one is a real possibility IMO.
It's both the gearing and the programming. I'm driving a rental Focus right now while my car is in the body shop and it runs at about 2000 rpm at 60 mph with a 2.0L engine. My 2.3L version of the same engine is at 2750 rpm at the same speed, despite the extra power. Around town, that Focus is usually running at 1200 rpm and I can feel the low frequency vibes of the lugging engine in the cabin, though not nearly as pronounced as if I was running my Mazda at those rpms. I usually keep my engine around 1500 to 2000 rpm around town.
Seems to be the case with most new cars. Either people's manual-driving skills are getting worse, or the Auto shift programs and ratios are getting more zealous.... either one is a real possibility IMO.
It's both the gearing and the programming. I'm driving a rental Focus right now while my car is in the body shop and it runs at about 2000 rpm at 60 mph with a 2.0L engine. My 2.3L version of the same engine is at 2750 rpm at the same speed, despite the extra power. Around town, that Focus is usually running at 1200 rpm and I can feel the low frequency vibes of the lugging engine in the cabin, though not nearly as pronounced as if I was running my Mazda at those rpms. I usually keep my engine around 1500 to 2000 rpm around town.
rpn453,
That 2.0L Focus running at 2,000rpm on the highway may be great for relatively flat terrain, but if it is hilly I suspect it won't get up the hills without at least unlocking the TCC. It is probably worse with cruise control than if you're working the pedal yourself.
Your 2.3L running at 2,750rpm on the highway must feel like race car performance in comparison. A waste on flat terrain, but a blessing if it is hilly.
I agree with Max_Wander's comments above.
ekpolk, for a conventional automatic you might have omitted one small detail comparing it to a MT cruising down the highway: Although both are directly driving the wheels (TCC locked in the AT) there is still the fluid pumping losses in the AT that don't exist in a MT.
That 2.0L Focus running at 2,000rpm on the highway may be great for relatively flat terrain, but if it is hilly I suspect it won't get up the hills without at least unlocking the TCC. It is probably worse with cruise control than if you're working the pedal yourself.
Your 2.3L running at 2,750rpm on the highway must feel like race car performance in comparison. A waste on flat terrain, but a blessing if it is hilly.
I agree with Max_Wander's comments above.
ekpolk, for a conventional automatic you might have omitted one small detail comparing it to a MT cruising down the highway: Although both are directly driving the wheels (TCC locked in the AT) there is still the fluid pumping losses in the AT that don't exist in a MT.
saaber,
I love DSG. It provides a direct mechanical connection combined with instant shiftablilty and minimal losses to friction. I guess we just have to wait until they become more cost effective, reliable and tuned for comfort to see them implemented in more vehicles. By then they should be competing with toroid type CVTs. Hydrualic AT's and standard transmissions are really stone-age technology, but the same could be said about the internal combustion engine...
rpn, don't you find that in Mazda's persuit of 'zoom-zoom' that the gear ratios have some people complaining about fuel economy? With your car's ratios, your fuel economy is much more sensitive to pedal position; I've seen mid-30's with the 2.3L and the right driver. The Ford version, despite being the same engine as yours with a shorter stroke, combined with the ratio that Ford chose is already two steps toward fuel economy and the 'lug factor' rather than accleration response. Imagine that lugging you feel in the Focus when the engine mounts harden after 15yrs! Your car, with the extra ~11mm of stroke could definately benefit from the newer ratios used in the Focus (and perhaps newer Mazda 3/6 models). For those mechanically inclined, a swap shouldn't be an issue. Your shift-points seem very reasonable and smarter for economy.
I love DSG. It provides a direct mechanical connection combined with instant shiftablilty and minimal losses to friction. I guess we just have to wait until they become more cost effective, reliable and tuned for comfort to see them implemented in more vehicles. By then they should be competing with toroid type CVTs. Hydrualic AT's and standard transmissions are really stone-age technology, but the same could be said about the internal combustion engine...
rpn, don't you find that in Mazda's persuit of 'zoom-zoom' that the gear ratios have some people complaining about fuel economy? With your car's ratios, your fuel economy is much more sensitive to pedal position; I've seen mid-30's with the 2.3L and the right driver. The Ford version, despite being the same engine as yours with a shorter stroke, combined with the ratio that Ford chose is already two steps toward fuel economy and the 'lug factor' rather than accleration response. Imagine that lugging you feel in the Focus when the engine mounts harden after 15yrs! Your car, with the extra ~11mm of stroke could definately benefit from the newer ratios used in the Focus (and perhaps newer Mazda 3/6 models). For those mechanically inclined, a swap shouldn't be an issue. Your shift-points seem very reasonable and smarter for economy.
Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
rpn, don't you find that in Mazda's persuit of 'zoom-zoom' that the gear ratios have some people complaining about fuel economy?
Those who complain about fuel economy in the Mazda3 usually don't factor it into their driving style. They're usually the same people who complain about brake pad life! I've averaged 29.9 mpg (7.9L/100km) with my car. Best tank was 38.0 mpg, worst was 22.3 mpg. I knew I was going to be paying a few hundred bucks a year extra in fuel compared to a true economy car when I bought it, and I have no regrets. My car is rated at 22/29. The 4 speed auto for the same year is at 21/26. The 5 speed auto in 2006+ models does the same as the manual in EPA testing.
I'm content with the fifth gear ratio on my car. It could be taller, but I never have to downshift for hills unless I'm in the mountains, and it accelerates reasonably well in 5th from 40 mph up. I don't think modifying my gearing would pay for itself, and it would reduce driveability. I wouldn't have minded if they made it taller from the factory though. What I'd really like to change about my gearing is in the lower gears; I'd like 2nd to be about 15% shorter and 3rd to be about 5% lower to close the gaps a bit. A six speed with the same first gear, a taller top gear, and closer ratios would be perfect!
rpn, don't you find that in Mazda's persuit of 'zoom-zoom' that the gear ratios have some people complaining about fuel economy?
Those who complain about fuel economy in the Mazda3 usually don't factor it into their driving style. They're usually the same people who complain about brake pad life! I've averaged 29.9 mpg (7.9L/100km) with my car. Best tank was 38.0 mpg, worst was 22.3 mpg. I knew I was going to be paying a few hundred bucks a year extra in fuel compared to a true economy car when I bought it, and I have no regrets. My car is rated at 22/29. The 4 speed auto for the same year is at 21/26. The 5 speed auto in 2006+ models does the same as the manual in EPA testing.
I'm content with the fifth gear ratio on my car. It could be taller, but I never have to downshift for hills unless I'm in the mountains, and it accelerates reasonably well in 5th from 40 mph up. I don't think modifying my gearing would pay for itself, and it would reduce driveability. I wouldn't have minded if they made it taller from the factory though. What I'd really like to change about my gearing is in the lower gears; I'd like 2nd to be about 15% shorter and 3rd to be about 5% lower to close the gaps a bit. A six speed with the same first gear, a taller top gear, and closer ratios would be perfect!
I would like to know how the EPA does the shift schedule on a manual. There's less drivetrain loss, so it seems to me that at low speeds to get the same acceleration out of a manual, you need slightly less energy to do so. My own mpg on my 6 is stellar, the same or better than my Saturn with an automatic.
Besides, I can do things on the mtx that I can't do with the atx, like early upshifts and anticipate hills. Oh, and the high RPM on the highway? Try 3300 at 73mph; and I'm getting 34mpg (calculated).
Besides, I can do things on the mtx that I can't do with the atx, like early upshifts and anticipate hills. Oh, and the high RPM on the highway? Try 3300 at 73mph; and I'm getting 34mpg (calculated).
The extra city mileage could be due to manufacturers locking the convertor in 2nd gear and up (with a strategy of course) rather than only in top gear while cruising. An extreme example is my GN which had a 3,500 stall lockup convertor at one time. 8mpg city, 28mpg hwy.
- Status
