Question: Is it true that manual transmissions save gas better than automatics?
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Re: Question: Is it true that manual transmissions save gas better than automatics?
the biggest inefficiency with an traditional auto is the torque convertor--that's why modern automatics have a lockup convertor. You're still running a pump even with a lockup convertor thoguh, so even that it still a little less efficient than a manual.
If you're going for gas mileage, get a T56.
the biggest inefficiency with an traditional auto is the torque convertor--that's why modern automatics have a lockup convertor. You're still running a pump even with a lockup convertor thoguh, so even that it still a little less efficient than a manual.
If you're going for gas mileage, get a T56.
Re: Question: Is it true that manual transmissions save gas better than automatics?
ditto
Joined
·
2,411 Posts
Re: Question: Is it true that manual transmissions save gas better than automatics?
I have driven both manuals and automatics and I have owned both. And that's not just Camaro's. It depends what you are looking for. If you like to shift than manuals are better and more fun. If you want a more consistent car when racing an automatic with a full manual valve body wins hands down. An automatic with a full manual valve body must be shifted like a manual trans. However because it's an automatic there is no need for a clutch. If you are building a car more for the strip an automatic with a reverse patten (allows you to shift away from reverse and neutral) full manual valve body win hands down. There is no clutch to worry about.
As far as value to a car, depending if it's a Camaro from 1967-1981 you may get $800 to $1,500 more in resale value for a manual trans. But if you have to spend $2,000+ converting an automatic to a manual trans it is not worth it.
Most of today's brand new high end luxury cars come with auto-sticks or trip-tronics these are automatics which allow you to shift the trans manually depending on shifter position.
I still vote for a turbo 400 w/ a full manual reverse pattern valve body or a 4L80E with the same features over any 4, 5 or 6 speed manual trans any day of the week.
Oops before I forget the answer to your question is what everyone else has said. Back in the day manuals got better gas mileage due to you controlling the shift points and there was no lock up converter. Today with lock up torque converters it does not make much difference. Europeans are taught to believe manuals get better gas mileage and that is why many cars still have manuals tranny's there. In addition to that their engine sizes are much smaller due to higher gasoline prices over there. In Europe a 2.8L V6 is like a 6.6L 400 cu. inch engine is here. Over there many engines are based on CC's and some Harley's have bigger engine's than their cars. They were shocked at the size of my 396 when I showed them photos. To them a 454 is like having an engine the size of a castle. They need a manual trans to launch the car harder. However the leading Japanese manufacturers have caught on and have built bigger more fuel effecient engines with automatics in recent years for the European market.
I have driven both manuals and automatics and I have owned both. And that's not just Camaro's. It depends what you are looking for. If you like to shift than manuals are better and more fun. If you want a more consistent car when racing an automatic with a full manual valve body wins hands down. An automatic with a full manual valve body must be shifted like a manual trans. However because it's an automatic there is no need for a clutch. If you are building a car more for the strip an automatic with a reverse patten (allows you to shift away from reverse and neutral) full manual valve body win hands down. There is no clutch to worry about.
As far as value to a car, depending if it's a Camaro from 1967-1981 you may get $800 to $1,500 more in resale value for a manual trans. But if you have to spend $2,000+ converting an automatic to a manual trans it is not worth it.
Most of today's brand new high end luxury cars come with auto-sticks or trip-tronics these are automatics which allow you to shift the trans manually depending on shifter position.
I still vote for a turbo 400 w/ a full manual reverse pattern valve body or a 4L80E with the same features over any 4, 5 or 6 speed manual trans any day of the week.
Oops before I forget the answer to your question is what everyone else has said. Back in the day manuals got better gas mileage due to you controlling the shift points and there was no lock up converter. Today with lock up torque converters it does not make much difference. Europeans are taught to believe manuals get better gas mileage and that is why many cars still have manuals tranny's there. In addition to that their engine sizes are much smaller due to higher gasoline prices over there. In Europe a 2.8L V6 is like a 6.6L 400 cu. inch engine is here. Over there many engines are based on CC's and some Harley's have bigger engine's than their cars. They were shocked at the size of my 396 when I showed them photos. To them a 454 is like having an engine the size of a castle. They need a manual trans to launch the car harder. However the leading Japanese manufacturers have caught on and have built bigger more fuel effecient engines with automatics in recent years for the European market.
Re: Question: Is it true that manual transmissions save gas better than automatics?
Right now manuals still (although very nominally) get better fuel mileage than an auto .. in the future i am betting this will change (and not too far in the future) .. but who on this website really cares about gas mileage anyway.. when i drive my camaro its all about sound, cool looks and the wonderful feel of 350 + horse under hood ... Thats what I'm driving my 69 for.. for sure!!!
Right now manuals still (although very nominally) get better fuel mileage than an auto .. in the future i am betting this will change (and not too far in the future) .. but who on this website really cares about gas mileage anyway.. when i drive my camaro its all about sound, cool looks and the wonderful feel of 350 + horse under hood ... Thats what I'm driving my 69 for.. for sure!!!
Re: Question: Is it true that manual transmissions save gas better than automatics?
I disagree...in practice
A guy with a manual tends to 'play' a little rather than drive economically, so uses more gas than normal
The guy with the auto, even if has the foot in a little more, the changes are more economic.
But putting both side by side, and both driven economically the manual will win...and who does that with a manual, all the time?
I disagree...in practice
A guy with a manual tends to 'play' a little rather than drive economically, so uses more gas than normal
The guy with the auto, even if has the foot in a little more, the changes are more economic.
But putting both side by side, and both driven economically the manual will win...and who does that with a manual, all the time?
Re: Question: Is it true that manual transmissions save gas better than automatics?
The simple answer is, there is less friction in a manual transmission. All things being equal, this translates to better gas mileage AND more rear wheel horse power with a manual.
The simple answer is, there is less friction in a manual transmission. All things being equal, this translates to better gas mileage AND more rear wheel horse power with a manual.
Re: Question: Is it true that manual transmissions save gas better than automatics?
Just take a V-8, 5-speed car and Granny shift it easy going up to 70 mph using 1st, 3rd and then 5th and drive like an old man and then come back and tell us how your gas mileage is..
Been doing it for years to increase my commuter car gas mileage...
And to this day, I figure the best of both world's was the old H-D, 3-speed stick OD's that up until like '65/'67, we could still buy...
Sure a 3-speed stick OD wasn't the best at the quarter, BUT a 4-speed wasn't the best on the road gas mileage-wise either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
pdq67
Just take a V-8, 5-speed car and Granny shift it easy going up to 70 mph using 1st, 3rd and then 5th and drive like an old man and then come back and tell us how your gas mileage is..
Been doing it for years to increase my commuter car gas mileage...
And to this day, I figure the best of both world's was the old H-D, 3-speed stick OD's that up until like '65/'67, we could still buy...
Sure a 3-speed stick OD wasn't the best at the quarter, BUT a 4-speed wasn't the best on the road gas mileage-wise either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
pdq67
Re: Question: Is it true that manual transmissions save gas better than automatics?
I disagree:noway: . JMHO
Just look at any NHRA Prostock field, thats 16 different cars, all with 5speeds running within a few hundreths of each other.
Fact is, a stick car, can be more consistant than an auto, it just costs a lot more.:yes: ---Bill.
I disagree:noway: . JMHO
Just look at any NHRA Prostock field, thats 16 different cars, all with 5speeds running within a few hundreths of each other.
Fact is, a stick car, can be more consistant than an auto, it just costs a lot more.:yes: ---Bill.
Re: Question: Is it true that manual transmissions save gas better than automatics?
That'd be 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th for 4th Gen guys (and C5's and C6's too I think). The stock T56 has a "Computer Aided Gear Selection" (CAGS) solenoid that forces you to shift from 1st to 4th when the engine is warmed and you're in a certain speed range and below a certain throttle position.
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Join the discussion
