When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
During acceleration. Obviously it takes fuel to move the vehicle. In this day and age of technology - I would think an automatic would do a better job of managing fuel usage. Don't you agree?
However during decceleration. According to the trip computer on an automatic v8 gas engine. It get better milage engine braking to a stop compare to idling (by shifting to neutral) to a stop.
Here is my thought.
If engine braking to a stop. The injector might be smart enough to reduce/stop injecting fuel.
If idling to a stop. The injector would continue to inject enough fuel to keep the engine running at idle.
Does a vehicle burn more gas idling to a stop or engine braking (down shifting) to a stop?
With my limited data (educated guess). Since an automatic does a better job of both acceleration and decceleration. Does an automatic offer better milage in the real world?
During acceleration. Obviously it takes fuel to move the vehicle. In this day and age of technology - I would think an automatic would do a better job of managing fuel usage. Don't you agree?
However during decceleration. According to the trip computer on an automatic v8 gas engine. It get better milage engine braking to a stop compare to idling (by shifting to neutral) to a stop.
Here is my thought.
If engine braking to a stop. The injector might be smart enough to reduce/stop injecting fuel.
If idling to a stop. The injector would continue to inject enough fuel to keep the engine running at idle.
Does a vehicle burn more gas idling to a stop or engine braking (down shifting) to a stop?
With my limited data (educated guess). Since an automatic does a better job of both acceleration and decceleration. Does an automatic offer better milage in the real world?
I never did any scientific analysis, but i have real world data..
My 99 7.3L diesel with the automatic got around 13-14 MPG mostly city..
My 06 6.0L with a manual tranny gets 16-17 mpg under the same conditions..
They both have potential to be good depending on how you drive them. If you drive a manual correctly, I think it has a slight edge, but I wouldn't give up the TorqShift for anything. Also, the trip computer is NOT accurate to do this kind of comparison. There's a reason they call it the lie-o-meter.
If engine braking to a stop. The injector might be smart enough to reduce/stop injecting fuel.
If idling to a stop. The injector would continue to inject enough fuel to keep the engine running at idle.
Does a vehicle burn more gas idling to a stop or engine braking (down shifting) to a stop?
The engine burns more fuel idling than when engine braking. The PCM, not the injector, is smart enough to turn the injectors off when coasting, so the engine uses zero fuel at times when coasting.
Historically, a manual will always get better overall mileage, IF you shift properly. An auto has a sloppy torque converter and more internal parts so there is some energy lost.
However, these days, it's a toss-up, especially with the newer TorqShift tranny.
I never did any scientific analysis, but i have real world data..
My 99 7.3L diesel with the automatic got around 13-14 MPG mostly city..
My 06 6.0L with a manual tranny gets 16-17 mpg under the same conditions..
Both vehicles are 4x4 Crew Cab F350's ...
You're real world data are flawed in that you have two completely different engines, and about 7 years of advance in technology. A better real world test would be two identical trucks (year, options, engine, etc.), except for the tranny.
You're real world data are flawed in that you have two completely different engines, and about 7 years of advance in technology. A better real world test would be two identical trucks (year, options, engine, etc.), except for the tranny.
How about my 02 350 crew cab long bed 6 speed compared to an 02 350 ext cab long bed auto at work? My stick wins by about 1 - 1.5 if I drive both vehicles. My stick wins by about 4 - 5 when another driver is put in the auto at work.
I think it used to be true that a manual transmission would get you the best mileage, but with modern technology that isn't always the case anymore. A smart automatic can be programmed to shift at the best instant for the best fuel mileage, conveters can lock and unlock as needed for good fuel mileage, plus the computer controlling everything knows when to shift for any given instant. A manual transmission, well the driver can't account for all of the variables.
I know this is way different than SuperDuty's .... but back in 2006 when I was buying a little commuter car for my wife ....... according to the window stickers' fuel estimates that we saw anyway, the auto's got better mileage than the sticks. I don't remember the numbers.
And those high quality little cars have such easy, smooth shifting gear boxes, too.
my subaru is rated higher for the auto. I don't know if the gearing is different. I do know the auto uses an electric center diff while the manual uses a viscious coupling.
I get better mileage in the city using a manual transmission. I think mostly because it curbs my hot rod tendencies. When you drive a 6-speed 7.3L the concept of accelerating quickly is not in your vocabulary. There's no point in hammering the throttle so instead I end up driving very easy.
A modern automatic closes the gap in fuel economy at cruising speeds.
Manual transmission does better for many reasons. I myself am getting better MPG in the city than a lot of guys on here are getting highway and I attribute that to the manual.
My vote is for the manual. ...because the "controller" for the manual has eyes.
A driver can see what is ahead and react accordingly. If there is a hill up ahead, drop down a gear BEFORE the vehicle bogs down and put it in neutral and coast when you see congestion or an upcoming situation where you will have to stop.
As for window stickers, I think there is some politics are involved in the numbers. My wife's automatic hits the numbers on the sticker. My manual trans beats the numbers every tank (even when we swap cars).
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalytic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Slideshow: Called the Fortress, the 850-horsepower pickup combines Raptor underpinnings with military-inspired features, survival equipment, and a starting price of $285,000.