Archives

Most Americans get 1-2% better on manual transmission, but 15% is possible. (http://www.slate.com/id/2176867/)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/stickshift.jpgBrendan I. Koerner - Slate - October 30, 2007

If you are not driving a hybrid, a 5-speed is the next best thing. (Yes, early Honda hybrids offered 5-speeds) - Ed

Q: I've read that cars with manual transmissions get 8 percent better gas mileage than their automatic counterparts. I'm certainly no gearhead, but doesn't that mean that manuals are a lot better for the planet? Can I dramatically reduce my carbon footprint (as well as save some cash at the pump) by switching to a stick shift?

A: Perhaps, though you'll need to be fairly proficient at shifting gears in order to realize noticeable savings. According to the Environmental Protection Agency's fuel economy ratings, cars with manual transmissions typically beat their automatic peers by a mile or two per gallon. This is largely because manuals give you more control over an engine's exertions. Despite recent advances in slushbox design, humans are still better than automated systems at recognizing precisely when to shift gears. And smart shifting enables you to limit an engine's rotations per minute, which translates into less fuel consumption…http://www.slate.com/id/2176867/

Good find. And a nice little blurb about hypermiling.

manual has always been my preference, since the first car i owned with the infamous 3 on the tree. the reason i am in a 2005 rather than 2006 HCH is the transmission.

That's a sad statistic for new cars with what used to be called the "standard" transmission. I knew that a majority percentage of the cars on the road are equipped with automatic transmissions, but only 9% sold new???

I wonder what the percentage is over in EU? I know they favor the stick shift there...

manual has always been my preference, since the first car i owned with the infamous 3 on the tree. the reason i am in a 2005 rather than 2006 HCH is the transmission.

And it is still giving you a leg up over the CVT version. ;)

It's "greener" depending on how you drive it.

The times they are a changing and it's a bit more complex than auto vs stick. CVTs are prevalent on most hybrids now to optimize the torque curve across a range of speeds and automatics can also now be had without fluid couplings (which is where they lose efficiency) with transmissions like VW's DSG.

I get a chuckle out of the automatic transmission drivers in the mountains, especially when it's an over-sized American grunter (because you can hear it from a mile away).


"rrrRRRR, booowww, rrrRRRRR, booowww, rrrRRRRR, booowww" all the way up, and constant brake lights - along with the burnt carpet smell - all the way down.


Silly people!

I wonder what the percentage is over in EU? I know they favor the stick shift there...

Let me put it this way: I've had my license for a bit more than 5 years and I've never driven an automatic, even though I've driven quite a few cars. I don't know anyone that drives an automatic. My guess would be that about 10 % of new cars are sold with automatic or semi-automatic transmission (in 'semi-automatic' I mean all the various robotic clutch cars where you choose the gear but don't have a clutch, etc.). Everybody learns to drive manual, and it's more expensive to get an automatic, plus you can't even get it in some cars (mainly the cheaper ones).

I've got a '99 Civic with auto transmission and a '98 with manual (5-speed). The fuel economy is the same, probably because the Civic auto transmission is not your typical auto tranny.

I drove the 5-speed today, to get it inspected and do some maintenance on it. It's my son's car now, and I haven't driven it for quite a while. The car is fun to drive.

Harry

MT all the way!

And I think Americans should be made to take there drivers test in a MT. It would remove folks from the road that have no eye hand coordination. Thus a over all better / more proficient driver over all. Would insure a much better skill set over all.

Puts on flame suite. :)

MT all the way!

And I think Americans should be made to take there drivers test in a MT. It would remove folks from the road that have no eye hand coordination. Thus a over all better / more proficient driver over all. Would insure a much better skill set over all.



I bought my '98 Civic with the manual 5-speed for my son to commute to college. One reason I selected it was to get my son started early driving a manual transmission. Now he can drive anything, and can drive a manual-transmission truck at work if he ever needs to.

Harry

I don't think that I would have made the same progress with my CRV if it were an automatic. I am so disappointed that the CRV no longer comes is a manual. Oh well...

MT all the way!

And I think Americans should be made to take there drivers test in a MT. It would remove folks from the road that have no eye hand coordination. Thus a over all better / more proficient driver over all. Would insure a much better skill set over all.

Puts on flame suite. :)

no flame suit required. you make a very good point. my daughter, much to my chagrin, never learned to drive one.

i can drive anything with a clutch. when i moved out of minneapolis in 1996, i drove a really CRAPPY U-haul truck, with an MT that was so bad that i had to take both feet off the floor to shift it. plus, i was towing my civic. THAT was a highway adventure to forget.

MT all the way!

And I think Americans should be made to take there drivers test in a MT. It would remove folks from the road that have no eye hand coordination. Thus a over all better / more proficient driver over all. Would insure a much better skill set over all.

Puts on flame suite. :)


Aw contraire! I will endeavor to answer that remark in a very controlled and calm way (though I am having a difficult time of it!!). I resemble this remark. I am someone with very poor eye hand coordination and should not be trusted in wiring your home for electricity or playing a shoot'em up game on your computer.

Since I am aware of my limitations (I did get my license very late in life), I am probably safer than someone with excellent eye hand coordination who is NOT aware of what they can't do. I would guess this is a bit more common than you are aware.
After all learning disabilities are fairly common.

Eye hand coordination is very valuable I'm sure but it is not at all everything. There are also people who drive who are blind in one eye; physically disabled, and deaf and they manage to drive safely. Their insurance is higher no doubt, even if I think statistically they are in no more accidents than average. So I am sure if this required some kind of a licensure difference my rates would not be low. (No moving accidents in 30 years.)

BTW, young people often have excellent eye hand coordination (and esp. with all the video games that do improve eye hand coordination). This results in not any better driving. Older people (over 45 or so) usually have poorer eye hand coordination, but they aren't necessarily worse drivers and are usually better than young kids, in fact, exactly the opposite. To have safer roads, only people over 19 should drive-- at least its a more valid test than your's.

I can assure you that lack of ability in driving a manual transmission does not make me talk on a cell phone; tailgate; go over the speed limit; eat my lunch while driving; and still makes me a fairly good hypermiler.

It's nice to have abilities but you should not demean those who don't have them.
But I do kind of take offense.


--des

I learned to drive on a john deere 1010 :D :Banane47:

good thing because the first fire truck I drove was like driving that tractor... wait... worse ;)

It was an old piece of junk and if you missed a gear while driving down the road you had to stop to get it back in first. Non synchronized MT make you work for it :)



And yes... I try to hypermile the fire trucks when I'm driving... my boss looks at me weird usually. Its actually funny because I can usually tell a difference of a few gallons a day from when I drive and when the other crews drive.


*disclaimer: I do not hypermile while driving to calls ;) *


Blake

Aw contraire! I will endeavor to answer that remark in a very controlled and calm way (though I am having a difficult time of it!!). I resemble this remark. I am someone with very poor eye hand coordination and should not be trusted in wiring your home for electricity or playing a shoot'em up game on your computer.

Since I am aware of my limitations (I did get my license very late in life), I am probably safer than someone with excellent eye hand coordination who is NOT aware of what they can't do. I would guess this is a bit more common than you are aware.
After all learning disabilities are fairly common.

Eye hand coordination is very valuable I'm sure but it is not at all everything. There are also people who drive who are blind in one eye; physically disabled, and deaf and they manage to drive safely. Their insurance is higher no doubt, even if I think statistically they are in no more accidents than average. So I am sure if this required some kind of a licensure difference my rates would not be low. (No moving accidents in 30 years.)

BTW, young people often have excellent eye hand coordination (and esp. with all the video games that do improve eye hand coordination). This results in not any better driving. Older people (over 45 or so) usually have poorer eye hand coordination, but they aren't necessarily worse drivers and are usually better than young kids, in fact, exactly the opposite. To have safer roads, only people over 19 should drive-- at least its a more valid test than your's.

I can assure you that lack of ability in driving a manual transmission does not make me talk on a cell phone; tailgate; go over the speed limit; eat my lunch while driving; and still makes me a fairly good hypermiler.

It's nice to have abilities but you should not demean those who don't have them.
But I do kind of take offense.


--des

Sorry your offended Des.

Im LD and one of the early test subjects for the unethical eduction practices of the so called education system in the USA. Basically ruined me on formal education in one fail swoop. But that doesn't mean I can't learn. Just have to go about it a bit different. :)

I have a friend that has no leggs. He seems to do real good with his hand controls. But admits. He had to relearn driving half way thru his life.

And I bet you can drive a MT. Just would have to learn it your way.

When Im talking eye/hand or distance interpretation. Im referring to folks that really should not be driving and a AT is there saving grace. I see a person every week that has not throttle control nor dept perception. If I see them behind me I pull into a parking lot. They gun the car to move it five feet then slam on the brakes to stop. And yes Ive seen this person rear end somebody. this person is not only NOT green but a danger to folks. Ive seen this person lock up the brakes on the freeway because they have somebody pass them and pull over in front of them three car lengths in front of them. Granted this is a extreme case.

But Im going to stand by my basic statement. I honestly don't think age has a thing to do with it over all. You do a bang up job in your car. Bet there would be another 5 mpg in it for you if you were grinding out those gears Des.

While the current crop of AT equipped cars are doing better mpg wise. Its by and large only on the hwy. The At in the wifes Accord helps her a lot with her mpg. But she drives a lot of hwy miles. In town its a bloody pig at near biblical levels. And she can drive a MT. You should see her take off in the Ranger w/5MT to go yard saling. Or go haul home her most recent junk purchase I will spend the next 3 years trying to throw away. But she isn't a good driver. Her Accord looks like a drunk has been driving it for two years. Every car she has ever driven has had bent up sheet metal or bumper covers on it. and if it was up to me. She wouldn't drive unless it was a MT. The MT does force her to slow down and think.

I can certainly appreciate the love of the manual. I am in a different boat since my first car, a manual Saturn SL1, basically turned me off to the clutch culture. The pedal was stiff, a bit finicky, and got to be frustrating and uncomfortable in near-daily traffic. Blame that partly on a 6'2" frame in a small car. Perhaps I would look at it differently now as a hypermiler, but the bottom line is that I started to incrementally dislike my manual. The auto-CVT HCH2 is bloody wonderful in the same traffic. Both in performance, comfort & stress level.

To add, I watch my girlfriend in her manual VW Cabrio, and tell her occasionally, and rather impolitely: "Your next car is going to be an automatic." (Mostly after hearing gridning noises, or going through a fast, bumpy transition...)

Ya know, some folks just don't drive manuals very well, and thus don't take advantage of the fuel savings. I know that sometimes that is because they use the manual to make up some pep in the small(ish) engines. I certainly did that to a degree in my Saturn.

Auto trans. and CVT are very nice in the stop and go grid lock, however. The M/T does have a advantage as far as FE goes. At one time if you took your drivers exam with Auto, that is all you could drive. I don't think it is that way any longer. H

Sorry your offended Des.

Im LD and one of the early test subjects for the unethical eduction practices of the so called education system in the USA. Basically ruined me on formal education in one fail swoop. But that doesn't mean I can't learn. Just have to go about it a bit different. :)

I have a friend that has no leggs. He seems to do real good with his hand controls. But admits. He had to relearn driving half way thru his life.

And I bet you can drive a MT. Just would have to learn it your way.

When Im talking eye/hand or distance interpretation. Im referring to folks that really should not be driving and a AT is there saving grace. I see a person every week that has not throttle control nor dept perception. If I see them behind me I pull into a parking lot. They gun the car to move it five feet then slam on the brakes to stop. And yes Ive seen this person rear end somebody. this person is not only NOT green but a danger to folks. Ive seen this person lock up the brakes on the freeway because they have somebody pass them and pull over in front of them three car lengths in front of them. Granted this is a extreme case.

But Im going to stand by my basic statement. I honestly don't think age has a thing to do with it over all. You do a bang up job in your car. Bet there would be another 5 mpg in it for you if you were grinding out those gears Des.

While the current crop of AT equipped cars are doing better mpg wise. Its by and large only on the hwy. The At in the wifes Accord helps her a lot with her mpg. But she drives a lot of hwy miles. In town its a bloody pig at near biblical levels. And she can drive a MT. You should see her take off in the Ranger w/5MT to go yard saling. Or go haul home her most recent junk purchase I will spend the next 3 years trying to throw away. But she isn't a good driver. Her Accord looks like a drunk has been driving it for two years. Every car she has ever driven has had bent up sheet metal or bumper covers on it. and if it was up to me. She wouldn't drive unless it was a MT. The MT does force her to slow down and think.


I'm not all that offended. I don't know I was miffed or something. And I do imagine that I *could* learn to drive MT, given the right kind of instruction. When I was learning to drive, I found it so complex that one more factor was pretty hard. Actually my parents decided for me. And they wouldn't have been good teachers of this. There are all kinds of learning disabilities and some do affect how you see spatial relations.

I would guess that very few people have accidents due to this and that the problems you site might actually be due to poor attention and so forth. For instance, I was rearended twice. Once because the driver assumed I was turning left and another time because she was talking on the cell phone.

Age does effect anything like coordination, motor planning, spatial relationships, etc. Young kids are just quicker at it. But they are also more impulsive, more reckless, etc.
OTOH, one thing it doesn't have to do with, except very late in life is learning. And older (I mean over 40) people actually learn many things better. I would agree that I will eventually get another 5 mpg off the Corolla (though I doubt it will be in winter!).

It took me two weeks to get the hang of a standard transmission. Before that happened, I nearly swore them off after my Dad attempted put me on a 30-minute crash course on a Corvair (read: different, esp. to new drivers) he wanted me to buy.

My first 5-speed was a 1.2 liter CVCC Civic, yet it had better acceleration than the 1.8 liter Opel Manta with it's slushbox.

My very first car was a VW bug, stick, But I caught on....had to if I wanted to drive it. ;). Many fond memories of my bug. My husband still recalls white-knuckling the overhead grab handle when I turned corners. Had no idea about it getting better mileage, it was the only thing I could afford in college. I wouldn't mind having another MT, if they put out more of them.

formula one cars are 'automatics'

I think a auto clutch, but not the tranny? H

semi-automatics might just be the normal industry term for the transmissions in F1 cars

My very first car was a VW bug, stick, But I caught on....had to if I wanted to drive it. ;). Many fond memories of my bug. My husband still recalls white-knuckling the overhead grab handle when I turned corners. Had no idea about it getting better mileage, it was the only thing I could afford in college. I wouldn't mind having another MT, if they put out more of them.

This sounds like my sort of similar tale of the, I don't know 15 minute lesson in MT, and then off thru the streets of Kansas City in a borrowed Karmen Ghia. NOT FUN! So I probably never did have a proper lesson. But I did have some hair raising early stories of my adventures in an auto transmission car early on. That's when I decided to wait til I was 20. I was not at all reckless, I couldn't really manage driving. It took me awhile to learn, but I finally did.

--des

Hello,

I drive a 5-speed manual transmission. When I hit a downhill, I shift into neutral, coast and end up going down the hill faster and am able to get further down the road when I hit the flat terrain then I would if I had left the car in gear and coasted. For that reason, I think a manual transmission gets you better gas mileage.
YMMV

Love my manual transmission in my 87 wagon. I wish it wasn't so expensive to convert my 97 Volvo 960 to a manual. It was an option available in Europe but not North America.
It would cost me a minimum $3,500 to convert the car to a manual. It is just not worth it for the small gain in fuel mileage.
First manual transmission I had was in high school in a 1967 GTO.
Do you guys know why you can't get a hummer with a manual transmission?
When the it was designed for the military one spec was it had to be a automatic transmission vehicle. The kids coming into the military do not know how to drive a manual transmission.
Also a manual transmission it is a great theft deterrent since most joy riders do not know how to drive it.

MT all the way!

And I think Americans should be made to take there drivers test in a MT. It would remove folks from the road that have no eye hand coordination. Thus a over all better / more proficient driver over all. Would insure a much better skill set over all.

I concur. If somebody lacks the hand-eye coordination to drive a five speed, especially today when it's easier than ever (actually I take that back, today's accelerator pedals are so damned sensitive to the touch to make the car seem peppier :(). I learned to drive on an automatic Buick, but ever since I got the manual I'm not going back if I can help it.

Manual saves gas (older automatics are as low as 70% efficient!), its cheaper, and keeps me off the phone or doing other distracting things while driving.

Besides, it's easier to Fas in a manual. :)

Also a manual transmission it is a great theft deterrent since most joy riders do not know how to drive it.

I've heard this before too. Sucks for them. :D


I go so used to a manual that when I drove my mother's Protege, I shut the engine off while leaving it in gear after I parked. I forgot to take it it out of Drive, because I always leave it in gear in my Echo. So we both tried to figure out for five minutes why I couldn't get the key out of the car. :D

Ive owned 3 standards and 1 automatic. I hated the automatic, even though it was a much nicer car that the other 3.

3 reasons manual transmissions are better:
1. You cant "forget to pay attention." Anything other than cruising in a straight line on the highway requires you to think about your driving. For this cause alone, I maintain that manual transmissions are safer.
2. If you want to drive fast and hard, you can. I laugh when people talk about needing power for evasive techniques. Automatic transmissions DONT HAVE POWER FOR EVASION. By the time your damn automatic figures out you want power, gives you the next gear and gets the rpms up there to match, Ill be doing 5000rpm in third gear, three car lengths past you.
3. Better fuel economy. 'Nuf said.

Edit: Besides, if you dont have the dexterity to drive a manual transmission, you have no business herding 3000+lbs of steel down the road at 100 feet per second.

a manual transmission it is a great theft deterrent since most joy riders do not know how to drive it.

I've also heard stories where a car wasn't stolen because it had a MT. Makes me even more glad that I have a stick. ;) I was surprised that only 9% of new cars are MT until I thought about my neighbors' cars and 10% or less on my street are MT.

First car I drove was automatic, but dad had a truck with 3 on the tree. I needed to be able to drive all family cars. Dad was a mechanic & worked on a 1950s Beetle, a Corvair, and a few other cars that I was able to "test drive" around the neighborhood because I could work a clutch.

I only enjoy manual transmissions in certain applications. When I was a kid, I had a 78 F-100 with 3 on the tree and a 302. That was a nice, stripped-down truck that was easy to maintain but only got 11 mpg. More recently, I had a 72 Chevelle with a Muncie 4-speed and a 350 with lots of other go-fast goodies. A manual tranny compliments any muscle car.

On my 87 Silverado 4x4 with a TBI 350 and 35s, I have a race-built 700R4. When you're offroad and dealing with technical trails, gas and break is a much simpler combination to deal with than gas, clutch and break. This is the same reason I chose a Polaris Scrambler with a CVT when buying an ATV.

As for my Corolla, when I bought it I never really planned on keeping it this long, only until gas prices went down from $3 a gallon. I bought a model with an auto tranny because I thought it would be easier to sell than one with a manual. Of course, at this point I am glad I've kept my little car. There's definitely something to be said for fuel-efficient, reliable transportation.

I agree that manual transmissions are more efficient, but we don't always have a choice. Some auto makers actually don't offer MT on certain models anymore. My excuse: I drive an automatic because my wife fears MT. Nevertheless, I found out that I can still far exceed the EPA of the MT version of my Tercel, especially with frequent highway NICE-on and FAS on slower (<55 mph) shorter (<2 miles) situations.

I've been driving a stick since I knee high to a Texas grasshopper. (1950s).
Even learned how to double-clutch 1940s fire trucks while in the Navy (1963).

Our 1st car (Ford Maverick) had an AT and it crapped out in about 2 years.
Second car was a GM and the AT was okay, but everything else crapped out.
After those bad experiences, I started driving Japanese cars and they were all MTs.
A MT gives you a lot more control over acceleration.

But now that I'm an old gray haired geezer, with bad feet (harder to hold in the clutch),
I'm thinking about getting a CVT on my next car (which will be a Hybrid).

-----------

Now that gas prices are headed for the moon, my guess is there will be more MTs sold and
the CVT is going to be VERY popular in the USA.

I have always driven a stick in my 18 years of driving, and totally find the gas mileage to be better than the versions friends have that are automatics...

I prefer an automatic in stop and go traffic and a MT for everything else. Even if the auto and MT get about the same mileage, the MT tends to cost about 1000-2000 dollars less and can last forever if you know how to drive it. Its not uncommon for some automatic transmissions to fail after only a few years of driving and require a $1500 or more repair. I have known several people to have their automatic trans go out at under 100,000 miles. My grandpa had one fail in his grand prix at just over 36,000 miles if i remember correctly and it was not covered by the warranty. Another friend of mine had his rebuilt auto last 16,000 miles before it broke again.

While it is true that stop and go is more punishing in a MT vehicle, you can also trounce the AT equipped vehicle when it comes to FE if you know what you are doing in those circumstances as well.

I'll take the MT in spite of any shin splints I may incur. ;)

Has anyone mentioned that especially in a smaller car, a manual makes more efficient use of the power on hand? A manual is much quicker off the line, and in the one out of a hundred cases you need to floor it to survive, having a small four cylinder automatic could indeed be outright dangerous.

Consider the following situation: You're on a four-lane interstate (two lanes in each direction). A semi truck comes up on the left even though his lane's ending. It's a construction zone and no shoulder on the right, and you have a hemi ram right on your butt. If you get on the brakes he WILL rear-end you. Your only choice is to gun it.

By the time the automatic realized it needed to get more power by downshifting and revving up, I in my manual would already be clear of the semi in third gear.

I have had two automatics (first one trans. had to be rebuilt..93 Jeep GC..2nd one was a 03 f150 that 1st to 2nd was starting to slip) and I have had four cars with manual gearboxes (02 F150, 08 Mazda 3, 93 Ford Ranger, and 03 Kawi Ninja 500). Only problems I have had with any of those was one clutch and slave cylinder on the 02 f150 which now has close to 70k miles.

Can you tell which gearbox I prefer? :)