The manual gearbox was once the more efficient choice for your car’s transmission. Automatic transmissions wasted power in sloshing fluid around, and typically had fewer gears. Meanwhile, the manual transmission promised a direct mechanical connection between the engine and the drive wheels. For decades, if you shifted a stick well, you could easily drive more miles per tank than a similar vehicle with an auto. That’s not the case anymore, though. Technology moved on, and it’s actually possible to pinpoint when autos became the efficiency kings of the car world.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made fuel economy its business over the years. Today, it tracks all kinds of data and statistics about cars to better understand how to cut emissions and improve fuel economy. It publishes these findings annually as the EPA Automotive Trends Report, and the 2023 edition is a doozy. It’s got all kinds of fun facts about automotive technology and how it’s changed over the years, and that includes excellent insights on gearboxes and efficiency. The organization begins with some context, mentioning the importance of friction reduction and number of gears (also called “speeds”):
There are two important aspects of transmissions that impact overall vehicle efficiency and fuel economy. First, as torque (rotational force) is transferred through the transmission, a small amount is lost to friction, which reduces vehicle efficiency. Second, the design of the transmission impacts how the engine is operated, and generally transmissions with more speeds offer more opportunity to operate the engine in the most efficient way possible. For example, a vehicle with an eight-speed transmission will have more flexibility in determining engine operation than a vehicle with a five-speed transmission. This can lead to reduced fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.
As is obvious in the EPA’s report, the biggest change to transmissions over the last few decades has really been in the number of gear ratios. Back in 1980, where the EPA’s relevant data starts, the three-speed automatic was the most popular gearbox in new cars. Across models with and without lockup torque converters (a lockup torque converter helps to reduce energy that would be wasted in sloshing fluid by using a clutch to turn the fluid coupling into a direct mechanical connection), three-speed autos made up the greatest proportion of all sales, across cars and trucks. In that same year, manual gearboxes with four and five speeds were the most common. Fast forward to 1999, and the four-speed automatic with a lockup converter was the most popular transmission by far, seen in over 80% of new cars and trucks sold. The five-speed manual was the most common in this year, with four-speeds all but disappearing.
The plot above shows the types of transmissions found in typical cars between 1980 and now, with M standing for manual (M4 is a four-speed, M5 is a five-speed, ect.), A standing for automatic, and L standing for automatic with a Lockup torque converter).
Looking at the right side of that plot, it becomes obvious that, in recent years, manufacturers have been adding more gears to their automatic transmissions. Like, way more gears. Over a decade ago, Top Gear joked about a Lexus with eight gears, but it’s only gone crazier since then. Automatics with nine and ten speeds are now common, with continuously variable transmissions also becoming highly popular as well.
On the manual front, six speeds are now more common than five, and there are a handful of seven-speed manuals out there, too. The EPA’s plot below shows how average gear-count has changed for autos and sticks.
It’s probably not surprising that, despite there existing other factors like internal friction, the number of available ratios has a close relationship with overall efficiency. As the EPA mentioned, the more gear ratios you have, the more you can keep the engine in its most efficient operating range in all driving conditions, and that’s huge.
Manuals used to have the edge in this regard. They used to have more gear ratios, and especially compared to some early autos, human drivers could be better at picking the right ratio for the given conditions. However, there’s a crossing point in the data around 2011 to 2012. At about the same same time that the average number of gears in an automatic eclipsed the average number of gears in a manual, overall fuel economy numbers for automatic cars started to become higher than for manual cars (the data “[compares] the fuel economy of automatic and manual transmission options where both transmissions were available in one model with the same engine”). The autos had been catching up for a long time, and finally came out on top. Where in 1990, automatic cars were on average 5% less fuel efficient compared to their manual counterparts, by 2022, they were over 5% more efficient.
Here’s the EPA’s look at the fuel economy difference between autos and sticks over time. You can see that automatics became more efficient right around 2010:
So to everyone wondering, including me and this Reddit user named FiveCatPenagerie, we finally have a date when the auto became the MPG superior.
It bears noting that the EPA’s data on this matter will need further finessing in future years. The rise of EVs, many of which have been classified as “single-speed autos,” has seen the average number of gears in automatic vehicles dip in the 2022 data. Realistically, this needs to be split off into its own category in future.
In any case, it’s funny to see it all laid bare. The manual hasn’t been the superior option in any real technical sense for a long time. Instead, it’s like vinyl, or cassettes. It’s the fun old-school way of doing things that we love for its own sake. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
[Ed Note: The report also mentions that certain engines tend to be mated with certain transmissions, which is something that I knew but never really thought about. From the EPA:
For model year 2022, diesel engines were most often paired with a ten-speed lockup transmission, with some eight speed transmissions and a few 6 speed transmissions. Gasoline engines were paired with a wide variety of transmissions, including CVTs, lockup transmissions from ten to five speeds, a small number of manual transmissions, and a small number of non-lockup transmissions (likely dual clutch transmissions). Hybrids and PHEVs also used a wide array of transmission technologies, as there are many hybrid and PHEV engine and transmission designs on the market. EVs are generally designed without a traditional transmission and utilize a single speed design. However, a limited number of high-performance EVs do have a 2-speed transmission.16
Interesting. -DT]
Image credits: EPA
Top graphic image credits: ZF (transmission); Juicy Fish (Freepik); Ford
Seems to me that auto transmissions ever increasing numbers of gears mainly are adding more overdrive gears. For example my 9 speed Nissan has three overdrive gear ratios. And general trans programming focuses on getting to the highest gear possible as soon as possibly. Assuming in EPA world, it runs its mileage tests at part throttle. So a good combo. Real world, your mileage will vary.
back in the day for us boomers, both your 3 speed auto trans and 4 speed manual transmissions use direct drive for top gear. No overdrive gearing. Which is why when the world changed to 4 speed autos, and 5 speed manuals, suddenly hiway mileage significantly increased.
I still feel that for most applications, any more than 6 gears in an auto is a waste. Exception being when pulling a trailer. Then, 9 speeds seems about right.
It also depends on the final gear ratio (and tire size). I was amazed at the difference between the 8th gen Civic Type R (angry revvy 2.0 engine) and my ’04 Z4 (torquey 3.0 mill).
The CTR sits at 4000rpm on the highway will the bimmer was going 2500rpm. Both were 6 speed manuals with similar wheels, but the final gear ratio is drastically different. The Z4 was marginally more fuel efficient, until I messed with the final ratio because I wanted a fun car in the twisties instead of a highway cruiser.
To me, direct drive and over drive are moot points. The total gear reduction matters more.
When I was first getting into cars in the 90s when I was a teen, we scoffed at performance cars with autos (slushbox). They were slower, less efficient, and more expensive. This article didn’t (barely) mention the fact that while automatics were catching up to and surpassing the efficiency of manuals, they were doing the same in the sense of performance. I’m a guy who still owns a manual, RWD coupe, but I do have to admit, from a strictly numbers standpoint, autos have come a long way.
Yeah, it’s weird how times have changed. A decade or so back Randy Pobst demonstrated that even at his level as a professional driver, an auto Cadillac sports sedan was faster than the manual version.
Unless you drive fast for a living (professional race-car driver) the 0.5sec/lap faster DCT is absolutely dwarfed by the manual’s engagement levels.
Back in my younger days when I was doing a few track days/year at Hockenheimring with my friends I did laps in a buddy’s 911 Turbo with PDK, and it was lighning-fast around the track, but after a couple laps the novelty was gone and all I wanted was to be back in my old & slow* BMW M5 Touring with a manual; it felt like I was wasting my track time driving an automatic, no matter how fast it was.
My opinion was widely shared by my track buddies, even by a couple of DCT drivers.
*definitely not a snail, but slower in comparison
Under no circumstances is an automatic transmission more efficient than a manual transmission. Spinning the torque converter and running the pump alone make the difference. You’re confusing EPA metrics with real efficiency. Nearly every one of your charts when they even show a manual transmission at all, indicate a non apple’s to apples comparison. Comparing a 5 or 6 speed to an 8 or 10 is much like the 4cyl.turbo vs the V8. Of course they are different. It is sad that the advancements.of manuals has largely been abandoned as autos have moved forward.
Maybe given a 10 speed manual transmission and a perverse sense of self-loathing you could compete apples-to-apples. What “the design of the transmission impacts how the engine is operated” means, though, is that the compy will upshift faster and more than any human driver ever would. My boxster wants me in 6th gear at 48 mph. If it had the PDK, it would be. And it would be faster and more boring, and I wouldn’t buy it. Half the manual drivers I’ve been with in the last few years only use gear 3 and 6. It’s not like this is some contest of giving trophies to transmissions, it’s about operating vehicles efficiently.
I get your point, but 6-speed manuals are competing against 8-10 speed autos and CVTs as that’s the market that they compete against each other in. It’s not about which has less power loss, it’s about which transmission allows for better mileage, which is largely down to the wider ratio range and/or number of speeds available from automatics. I agree, though, that the EPA numbers for manuals are largely BS and it seems like the autos are better at gaming the test (or—as if often the case—formula based on a similar-ish vehicle that was tested previously). It’s so easy to beat the numbers in any manual I’ve driven that I wonder what actually goes on in these tests. Are they driven by the one kid at the tire shop they use to pull the manuals into the bays because he’s the one who can “drive stick”, which means he revs the car to 5k before slowwwwwly letting off the clutch and driving around near redline in 1st as he moves it around the lot? The ones you see holding their beat up Civics at a stop on hills with the clutch? Those who rev the engine higher to perform an up shift? The guy who stuffed my ST in the garage and got me a free bumper cover replacement because he couldn’t drive? (I love that most shops seem to have me drive the car in and out now. IDK if that one guy the shops used left or if nobody feels the need to pretend they can drive a manual anymore, but I like it.)
I’ll have to admit, I’ve never come across a shop that couldn’t drive a manual. I had a shop ask me to tighten the knock off wheels on my Austin Healey as they didn’t want to be responsible for torquing them, but they were more than happy to drive it in and out of the shop.
It’s most of them around here for about 15 years, but only the last 5 that they. stopped pretending they can drive them.
“… I wonder what actually goes on in these tests. ”
The test cycles are available all over the internet. They are repeatable results regardless of the driver because you have to stick to the procedure.
I think gearing in manuals follows the gear indicator on the dash, if fitted.
Right, but it’s still possible for a bad driver to get worse results by slipping the clutch or whatever. It was a facetious comment, anyway, which I attempted to indicate with the follow up mentions of the instances of really bad drivers with manuals that I frequently observe.
I love manuals. Just came back from Europe, had a VW 6 speed daily driver, and back home a 4 speed manual 80’s truck, and a 2015 Kia with a 6 speed manual (which on flat ground Im in 6th at 40MPH and higher, and no, the shift computer doesn’t complain).
A few things. The EPA numbers for manuals are hot garbage. I easily beat the EPA numbers by 10+%, but while not a hypermiler, I also don’t drive like the majority of those on the road. My 115000 mile brake pads will attest to that. But my commute isnt like most either, to be fair. The automatics I’ve driven however, I’m unable to do much if any better than their ratings unfortunately.
Second, with an 8+ speed automatic, the manual doesn’t stand a chance. Throw out economy (although two more OD gears would probably buy me even more MPG) and in sheer performance alone you can’t compete. Whatever losses there are with the automatic, are more than made up by keeping the engine in the RPM range it makes the most power in, longer.
Driving a manual is simply more fun, but the days of that being an option for a mundane sedan are nearly over. For the majority of my driving, better economy and better acceleration are probably worth the tradeoff. I’ll just have to use my brakes a lot more.
Well, those of us who read Hot Rod from the 70s to the 90s learned that automatics were at least faster way sooner than the efficiency chart crossed over.
(when I was a kid, 0-60 meant way more to me than it does now)
[checks 2010 128i 6MT]
Yup, still more efficient than the auto version.
As someone who sells 5 & 6 speed manual transmissions to retrofit in old hot rods, I greatly appreciate the love for the manual transmission in this comment thread!
#savethestick
Americanpowertrain.com
You are doing Good Work
Long may you shift!
Oh, I don’t think this is an article meant to change that. I just think it’s trying to explain the situation.
I love manuals, but let’s be clear, a device with more gears precisely computer controlled is eventually going to win in some areas, but driver engagement will never be one of them.
I do want to point out that one interesting item in the NYTimes recently argues that an upswing in pedestrian deaths that is unique to the US in the last 15 years seems to be tied to the lack of manuals that’s distinct in the US vs other countries. In the US, there’s always a hand free to futz with your cell phone.
“I love manuals, but let’s be clear, a device with more gears precisely computer controlled is eventually going to win in some areas, but driver engagement will never be one of them.” I do not disagree with this statement one bit!
I definitely don’t think this article was making any other point than showing data on consumer trends on new car transmission choices and the gearboxes efficiency.
That is an interesting statistic about pedestrian safety and transmission choice in the US. As someone who often uses the roadway on two wheels with no motor or by foot, I have a new selling point for our product!!!
Obviously there is the universal truth of YMMV, but my experience with cars and how I drive is at least interesting in one sense. With one exception*, the manual cars I’ve owned, I have generally out performed the EPA estimate on fuel economy. The automatic cars I’ve owned pretty much match the EPA estimates. Small sample size and all, so I will in no way dispute automatics are don’t do better now, they obviously do.
I am no hyper-miler, but do strive to be smooth. Regardless, but I do find times my automatics don’t shift when I would if I was in control. In some circumstances, I will use manumatic mode because I come into a strong disagreement. There’s one specific section on the drive up Coal Creek Canyon on Colorado State Highway 72 (this is how you get to my parents’ house from where I used to live) where a couple of cars I drove on that route (they’ve lived there 20+ years) just wanted to stay in a lower gear than I felt was needed and I would overrule.
*the exception was my 2003 Mini Cooper S where I merely matched EPA numbers.
Same here. Even in my GR86, I match the automatic’s much better published highway numbers with a combined cycle in my manual in spite of mine’s shorter gearing. In that case, it’s the same number of speeds, which makes me wonder if manuals wouldn’t have lost their on-paper efficiency advantage if the number of speeds had gone up to match. Of course, 8+speeds would start to get a bit unwieldily. The biggest thing to me, though (besides the experience), is the longevity. Very few automatics can match even the clutch life of the average manual (I get 200k+mi). Sort through TSBs and recalls and automatic transmissions are up there for major failures and its common throughout the industry. I think the main thing about the two, though, is that the automatics are more consistent regardless of driver while results with manuals are highly driver dependent in terms of mileage and a bit in longevity, plus there’s always the possibility of an overrev.
Umm…… Most people don’t get 200k from a clutch, and most autos will last 200k if you take care of them. Autos absolutely generally do match and highly exceed even the clutch life of a manual.
The manual transmission itself generally lasts much longer than autos, but that’s not always the case, as evidenced by my f150 having a dying transmission at 157k miles and my Jeep Comanche having had a highly shot transmission at 170k miles.
Almost every one of my manual-transmission vehicles suffered catastrophic rust in the frame, trailing arms, unibody or some other serious structural failure well before they ever needed the clutch replaced. Most of them I bought with 40 or 50K on them and kept them over 200,000 miles. The only clutch I ever replaced was in a ’67 Chevy 1/2 ton with a 250 and a 3-on-the-tree. That truck had over 300,000 miles on it when I bought it, but I have no idea how many times the clutch was replaced before I got it.
And I’ve never had a manual transmission fail. I did have a 700R4 fail twice in the same vehicle behind a 2.8L V6.
Well of course if the car itself disintegrates quickly, the clutch will outlast it. But outside of the Anonymous Person/David Tracy set, cars don’t usually rust away anymore.
I covered the variability in results vs consistency with automatics. Manuals are less forgiving of bad driving, so there’s your poor clutch life. I also said that few automatics—not all—are shorter lived because there are some shit manuals and great autos. Even if you’re somehow unaware of the long list of infamously bad automatics on popular, high volume vehicles, you could spend some time looking through major TSBs and recalls if you want to see how problematic autos tend to be, especially these “more efficient” ones, but you probably would already have if you had wanted to. In about a million miles of driving manuals in the Boston area (so, I’m familiar with traffic) well into the six figures, I’ve replaced exactly one clutch—a car from 1990 at 175k miles—and it didn’t really need to be replaced, but the throw out bearing went, so I was in there, anyway.
Umm….. Yes I’m aware that many automatic transmissions have bad reputations. My statement stands that most autos will last 200k if you take good care of them. Maybe I just don’t have enough experience and knowledge with newer cars, but at least on 80s-2000s cars this is typical. There are also plenty of 10r80s and the like with high miles, so obviously they’re not all short lived junk.
I don’t exactly know what is a typical clutch lifespan, I’ve seen 100k presented, and some people don’t manage to do even 100k and blame it on hilly stop and go driving. Then some folks get 400k miles out of their factory clutch. I have a jeep with like 170k miles on the current clutch and the throw out bearing is starting to go bad so it’s gonna get replaced soonish.
I had to double take that I didn’t write this comment, it’s exactly what I would have said but my Jeep Comanche has 265k miles on it.
In the one auto car I owned, an Oldsmobile Eighty Eight, the only transmission work it needed was fluid changes every 30k miles, more and it started to shift poorly. Most manual transmission vehicles I’ve owned have needed something requiring transmission removal, slave cylinders are common failures, throw out bearing sleeves, a worn clutch and even a worn out dual mass flywheel spring set. I’ll say my 2013 mini had a flawless manual, it it had just over 60k when I sold it.
Peugot BA10s are just awesome, aren’t they?
Good lord, this comment section
My favorite transmission among those found in my cars consists of a belt, a couple of pulleys, and a pair of grindstone rollers, so it’s probably best not to expect me to have a reasonable opinion on the subject of efficiency:
https://clunkbucket.com/wp-content/gallery/1980-kv-mini-1/img_6618.jpg
(Eyeroll) There’s always one, ain’t there?
I jest! I respect your vehicular choices, you madman 😉
bit of friendly biffo today
My Australian is weak. What’s biffo?
Bifternoon? Bifdonald’s? Biffervice station?
“The manual hasn’t been the superior option in any real technical sense for a long time.”
How long is a long time? I guess 13 years is starting to be a long time, but a humongous proportion of Autopians drive cars older than that. Remember your audience.
Autos became more efficient than manuals when autos started to have more gear ratios, because even in 2024 a six speed auto is consistently less efficient than a six speed manual. A ten speed manual would be more efficient than a ten speed auto.
I have a six speed and 392 in a portly old dodge, I have a friend that purchased a similar vehicle, a couple years newer with the 8 speed auto. I blame him or the dashboard MPG guesser is way off, but he has never seen more than 21 MPG. I get a little bit less around town, but on the same freeway to the same destination I surprisingly show a number higher by 2-3 mpg.
So you have slightly worse city economy but better highway economy? That’s interesting, I’d guess that that’s just a gearing difference and doesn’t really have anything to do with transmission efficiency. Kinda weird that the auto would have subpar gearing when they have eight whole ratios though.
I agree, I figured they would get the same on the freeway. but I don’t know exactly the final OD ratio of the two transmissions and like you said, maybe our Rear diffs are also a little different. His is the Scat pack, mine is the SRT.
13 years is a long time, and I drive 90s cars too!
13 years is also about the average age of cars on American streets. Which means that just now are most automatics currently in service more efficient than most manuals, and that was not true two years ago.
When you consider how many people buy used cars, the automatic has not been the superior option for an average car buyer for a very long time.
It is and isn’t a long time.
Until a month ago my newest cars were from 99. Just picked up an 09 Civic Si, it’s a decent car, not sure I’ll keep it for a long time. I’m already tempted to pick up something older. On topic though the long 6th overdrive gear in the Civic is a nice upgrade over the 1:1 final gear in my e36 M3.
An e36 has a 5spd, right? But 5th is 1:1? How fast is your maximum nice cruising speed?
My pickup has a 0.80 overdrive but short(ish) axle gearing and small(ish) tires and an engine highly allergic to sustained speeds above 2000rpm, and i can only cruise about 65mph before it gets loud and inefficient. A nice 80mph cruise is something many people take for granted.
“However, there’s a crossing point in the data around 2011 to 2012.”
Ah, no worries, then. All of my transmissions are considerably older than that.
Same! It’s becoming a problem for some of them XD
I blame the death of the body of frame v8 land barges 😛 jkjk
You’ll have to pry the clutch pedal out from under my cold dead left leg. Being able to instinctively moderate engine engagement is a big benefit in winter driving and skid control. I don’t want to have to go two menus deep in my touchscreen to find neutral if I’m suddenly in an overcooked situation.
Also, aren’t automatics generally heavier? That sure sounds like a recipe for efficiency. /s
This one hundred percent. As I was driving around my manual I was thinking how nice it was to be able to control my own sportiness of shifting. Down shifting in the winter is one of the best advantages of a manual. You can downshift an auto but it just isn’t the same as the control with a manual.
I think the more problematic for the myriad different ways to put the car in neutral to avoid engine breaking or run on when the front brakes start the On-Off ABS maneuver is what most of us prefer in the winter. RWD is no big deal if you know to put her in neutral and slowly start the braking long before you hit that stop sign. I have no idea how you handle that in a 5-9 thousand lb battery carrier on wheels. hell the thing would seemingly do the 1 pedal controls at your own peril. But I have not tried that in the Lightings I have out in the back forty for this very reason.
In my experience AWD EVs are great in the winter. The one-pedal thing (I don’t do the one pedal thing. Gimmick.) can get you into trouble in a 2wd EV, for the reasons you allude to. Overall, though, same technique as ever: Less speed, a hell of a lot of anticipation, smooth control inputs, and SNOW TIRES.
Me too. I’d kill for a manual to slot into my 320D. Would transform the car, whatever the efficiency.
Completely agree. I’m confident that I would not have made it home in a recent snowstorm if the 09 Civic Si I was driving if it had been an auto. I am patiently awaiting some backordered wheels to arrive to get winter tires on the car, so I’ve been driving on inappropriate eco tires. With the LSD and a manual, I was able to slowly claw my way up a slushy hill at 1 mph with various applications of on and off power to prevent breaking the miniscule amount of traction available. In many automatic cars I’ve driven, I’ve had the car randomly kick down a gear on a snowy hill, break traction and loose all momentum.
Well there is ‘more efficient’ in the real world and ‘more efficient’ in the EPA tests.
In my experience, a properly driven manual usually still results in better real-world fuel economy.
Also note that in EPA tests, manuals are at a disadvantage as the shift points are set at a fixed RPM.
That’s not the case with automatics and one way automakers game the EPA tests is with having the automatics short-shift in test conditions.
Do the same thing in the real world with a manual and viola… the manual is again getting better fuel economy than the automatic.
My brother and one of his work colleagues bought the same vehicle, my brother’s is a manual, the other an auto, and the manual generally turns out about 10-15% better fuel economy on much the same daily route… go figure
It is insane that an automotive journalist, who’s job it is to know these things…knows less that us, regular Joes….unless they purposely left that data out (which I doubt).
ON the EPA.Gov.MPG website the differences are there on the screen, they just seem to be less true in the real world, but lots of factors decide this. Gearing, weight, engine state of tune and so on.
Yep, by short shifting in my TDI (and the two cars that came before it) I can consistently beat the EPA numbers. The in town fuel economy for the Sportwagen is 29mpg, and as long as the engine gets fully warmed up, I get low to mid 30s. And that’s driving conservatively, but not hypermiling.
On my old T5 if I wanted to save on gas I’d go from 1 to 3 to 5. The problem is that it’s too much fun shifting up, shifting down and stomping on the gas! Now, with the new automatics having paddles, it almost matches that level of fun… If you’re in traffic damned if you do damned if you don’t, with the constant upshift and downshift, you definitely get murdered, but if you need to change lanes, you can use the instant torque to move quickly rather than waiting for a downshift.
As long as you know that using more gear ratios is always good for efficiency, and alternately over revving then lugging your engine is always bad for efficiency.
You were not saving fuel by skipping gears.
This is a really, really good article. I feel totally informationalized. Totally.
A big caveat here is that this is the tipping point where autos became more efficient on the EPA cycle. Last I knew, manuals are still coveted in the hypermiler community because when driven correctly they can consistently beat autos. However, it’s easier to tune an auto for the EPA test because you control the shift points.
Yup!! on the EPA cycle.
Meaning, the autos are better at the test, but are they more efficient in the real world? It depends! There’s a reason that “your mileage may vary”. The EPA cycle is such that the car has to do a certain routine. “Accelerate from a stop to 40MPH over X time. Coast for Y time, come to a stop, etc”. The car has to do these things, not the transmission. In an automatic you can “teach to the test” and develop shift points to do better. For example, the ecoboost F150 doesn’t go above 1800RPM on the EPA test!
For a manual – the EPA test says you have to upshift at 3,000RPM! Every upshift! I rarely rev that high before shifting, so I regularly beat my window sticker mileage.
“The car has to do these things, not the transmission. In an automatic you can “teach to the test” and develop shift points to do better. For example, the ecoboost F150 doesn’t go above 1800RPM on the EPA test!
For a manual – the EPA test says you have to upshift at 3,000RPM! Every upshift! I rarely rev that high before shifting, so I regularly beat my window sticker mileage.”
Yup. And if you short-shift the manual the way the automatic does in the EPA test, you’re right back to the manual having a fuel economy advantage.
To be fair, I often upshift way above that because my car does not even make 100hp.
I got better MPG in my Mustang because I didn’t have to ring out out so much.
I’d also note that it does not look like this is a comparison of like to like. If manuals are almost all on performance cars, then the average MPG of manuals will look worse.
Came here to say this. Back in the day, manuals were standard, sometimes even called a “standard”. A automatic was an upcharge. The cheapest econobox had a manual. Which is what you bought to save money on the car, as well as gas.
Sporty cars were usually manual, which aren’t gonna be great on gas if driven to their fun potential.
But these days, the manual sporty cars are almost all that’s left. The manual econobox segment has mostly been removed because automatics are the standard. So that definitely skews the numbers between then and now.
Not so with respect to manuals. Manufacturers can determine their own shift schedule for the cycles; my OEM sends drivers out and records their shifts and essentially averages them, called a ‘shift survey’. As long as the engine doesn’t bog down and stall, we can manually shift anytime.
When did that update? and is that for the “new” EPA test? Most OEMs still run the “old” test and apply the factor as far as I know.
Don’t know what you’re trying to distinguish between old and new. I find it hard to believe that there was ever a ‘thou shall shift at 3000 rpm for every gear change’ rule. Just as every OEM calibrates their automatic transmissions to shift however they choose, they do the same for manuals. If the vehicle can’t maintain the defined speed trace, then that’s a violation. But the govt doesn’t care what gear you’re in otherwise. Run the whole thing in first if you want, they don’t care. You just have to have a shift schedule that’s documented and repeatable.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P100QWHU.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1976%20Thru%201980&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX%20DATA%5C76THRU80%5CTXT%5C00000038%5CP100QWHU.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=7
I’d admit that I’m probably out of date. Looks to here like it was shift 1-2 at 66% of red line, 2-3 at 65% of red line, etc.
The old, pre 1974 standard required upshifting at 15mph, 25mph, then 40mph. So you were in 2nd gear until 39mph regardless. Looks like in 1976 if OEMs specified recommended shift points in the manual they could use those.
Yes, but most of us here run manuals to the redline everytime we get in one, because rowing through the gears makes us feel like Mario Andretti, so our mileage will be notably worse.
True. When driving my manual there is an inverse relationship between MPG and fun. 🙂
Though I enjoy the unintended correlation that on the highway in my Focus, I’m smooth and easy, so I turn in great MPG; in the city though, it’s like I’m in a rally or something (including way more unnecessary but fun revving).
Yeah!
Lets see the graph of smiles per mile now.
Isn’t that true of any vehicle? 🙂
I’ll always stand by my statement that you can’t drive an auto angrily and get satisfaction out of it. Had a bad day at work with a manual car? On the drive home you can get all this physicality of changing gears however aggressively you want without just driving faster.
As proof, ANY movie featuring cars with manuals…they are satisfyingly loud (and to your point, cathartic) when the hero shifts.
It’s the car equivalent of how every modern western features the most ratchet-y possible gun actions.
this fits with my head canon, because I bought a 2010 Civic and the EPA number for the auto was about 1 MPG (combined) better than the stick and 3 MPG highway
the top gear on the auto was a taller ratio and early lockup on the TC was what made the difference.
I was just pondering this very question a few weeks ago. Nothing specific prompted it other than a generic wondering when it happened. Thanks for reading my mind and providing me with a great lunch read!
I don’t care.
Look, if the engine is the car’s heart, then the transmission is it’s soul. The transmission has more impact on how the car drives than anything else.
To put it bluntly, an automatic transmission has no soul.
I feel a car’s soul comes from something greater than the sum of its parts, and I’ve driven plenty of automatic-equipped cars with soul (the Alfa Romeo Giulia comes to mind), but for me it’s the engagement that matters, especially if it’s an interesting car. A manual allows you to have a two-way conversation, whereas an automatic, not so much.
no such thing as an automatic car with soul, the manual transmission is the soul, the engine is the heart….you are the brain
Meh. My auto SL has plenty of that.
I’ve driven manual since I got my license 15 years ago and have owned 12 different cars in that time, most new and most manual. The last car I purchased, my current MK8 GTI, I went DSG, and I don’t regret it. I had a gen2 BRZ but I’ve moved to the center of my city, work from home most days, and just didn’t use the BRZ for what it was meant for. If I had space for a fun car, or the time/energy to go on a long cruise, I’d own a manual but honestly, I don’t regret it.
The engineer in me values the tech and sustainability of moving towards an EV over the pleasures of rowing my own on the backroads, and moving towards the dsg felt like a good medium between now and *if* the GTI EV comes here. I’ve got other ways to release stress/get my fun kicks these days. From an efficiency standpoint, the golf, while being one of the most powerful cars I’ve owned, is also one of the best in mileage. The transmission is pretty darn great, albeit the mk8 DQ381 is a bit more clunky at low speeds than previous transmissions.
I think the other thing to consider is the development being put into auto/dual clutch transmissions these days vs manuals, as in, its not really happening for manuals. Heck, the transmission in my brz was a unit from the original Toyota IS300. Out of all the late model manuals I’ve owned, and the manual mk8 owners I’ve heard from, the driving experience is kinda meh anymore, and the shifting isn’t particularly great. This seems to be a common theme, save for the ND2 Miata I had, which was probably the best manual box I owned.
I had a MkV GTI with a manual. Replaced it with a Mk7.5GTI with DSG. All with stop-and-go city commutes. I sold the 7.5 a couple years ago and would never go back to the DSG if the manual was available!
Shifting my own car is less about engagement and shifting feel, as it is for staying engaged. By that I mean, if it takes 4 limbs to control the vehicle, I pay more attention to my driving, in all aspects. I have found I am a better driver when driving stick, not because of any supposed performance benefit, but because it helps ensure my focus stays more on the driving. I’m much less easily distracted when driving manual. I’m too cheap to hoon, so I rarely drive aggressively at all, so in that way, the manual means nothing.
I am too ADHD to NOT hoon….hoon is all I do unless I want to look for something.
I suppose I’ll address the concern posed by your username.
Completely open comments would result in this site getting flooded with unbelievable spam and worse. Every major automotive website requires a login of some kind to comment, regardless if it’s an in-house platform (Kinja) or a third party (Disqus, Memberful). Perhaps we could offer something of a “burner” system in the future, but I doubt we’ll ever get rid of requiring a login to comment.
If you want an example of what happens when you let just anyone comment, look at Jezebel’s last article after it was shut down by G/O Media. The comment section was full of literal poop porn. Yikes.
And it’s not like you guys haven’t had comment spam issue even with the registration system. I can only imagine how bad it would get.
For European cars, I think the tipping point was when the ZF 6-speed (and later 8-speed) became common, because those transmissions can lock the torque converter in any gear, meaning that the typical drivetrain losses were largely eliminated. On the enthusiast side of things, having a transmission that can lock the torque converter in every gear makes it a lot more engaging to drive, particularly with the ZF 8-speed that can shift super quickly. It made paddle shifters genuinely useful for the first time with a conventional automatic.
Ummm….. My 1992 Honda four speed auto can and constantly does lock the converter in every gear. In fact, it usually slips the converter to take off, locks the converter as soon as possible, and does most driving and shifting with the converter locked.
Did they count manual overdrives as an additional gear, or was a 4 speed with overdrive listed as a 4 speed? Not a big impact to this discussion, but would be further back in history.
The point where the epa number crossed over would not be the number where cost of ownership crossed over, if it ever did. To know that one would need to factor in increased purchase price, difference in maintenance, failure rate, etc.
So riddle me this. The chart shows a rise in A7 and A8 in recent years, implying there are new automatic transmissions without a lockup torque converter. This seems odd to me. Are they categorizing DCT/DSG along with non-lock automatics, if the sidebar reads right?
That must be the case, as they technically do not have a lockup torque converter due to not having a torque converter. Couple that with the ever increasing CAFE requirements for average fleet economy, and no company in their right mind would put out a torque converter auto without lockup for any mainstream car. Add in the fact that I don’t know of any DCTs that are over 8 speeds (and few that are even 8 at this point) would line up with what their charts show
That just seems like a weird way to categorize the data. The dinosaur 3-speed C6 transmission in the 1984 Ford truck I have which I swear takes 50 HP just to turn over is considered in the same breath as modern robot shifters with millisecond-scale shift times!
The NSX has a 9 speed dct.
“On the manual front, six speeds are now more common than five”
Yes. In the United States of America, there is only ONE 2024 car sold with a 5-speed manual.
The lovely Nissan Versa.
I just learned this last week, when doing my yearly “what everyday car would I buy this year if I had to?” thing!
It’s too bad it’s only available on the base model, though I’ve decided I’d be willing to live with steelies to get a manual.
and for next model year, it drops the manual
Graph should say, “some auto transmissions are more efficient.” When you compare today in France, on company websites, it is often the manuals which are slightly more fuel efficient (by the order of 0.1 litre per 100 km) because they are lighter than an eight speed auto with all the electronics. Autos too cover dual clutch robot changers, as well as torque converters — the dual clutch ones are usually better fuel wise.
I wonder how much fuel injection methods have improved the efficiency. Many engines with automatic transmissions will actually completely cut the fuel when decelerating in gear.
Fuel injection systems have been cutting off fuel supply in those conditions for nearly 30 years, at least in Europe.
I’m fairly certain that’s been standard operating procedure for both manual and automatic cars with fuel injection for at least a couple of decades, essentially for the entirety of computer controlled Fuel injection due to it being a relatively easy and large increase in efficiency, but I’m sure there were historical outliers
When I got my Polo a few years ago, it would randomly show a check engine light*, which I eventually tracked down to a faulty brake light switch.
It took me a while to realise that the reason the ECU needed to ‘see’ that the brake was activated was so that it could cut fuel when braking.
*a specifically VW one that normal OBD scanners can’t read, so I had to spend £20 at a specialist shop to get it read. Thanks VW 🙁
They will also cut the vehicle fuel during Highway speeds (Cylinder Deactivation)
Many engines with manual transmissions also completely cut fuel when coasting in gear.
Diesels have since the beginning of time just because of how the governor works.
The fuel injection in my 1990 Jeep 4.0L does that, does so until the engine gets down to about 1200rpm. If it injected fuel at higher rpm while decelerating I hear, it would pop and bang out of the exhaust like an old carbureted setup.
Nothing new. My 1989 Celebrity does that.