Big Difference with Auto/Manual fuel wise?

mad m

After getting an Accord (Manual) for a day/night from a dealer to test driver I liked the car,only hitch was the centre arm rest kept hitting off my elbow when changing gears. I was wondering does an Auto use more petrol than manual drive? They have Accords which have auto but you can switch to triptronic on the gear stick....

Esel

Old rule of thumb was that autos do about 10% less MPG.

Modern autoboxes are probably a bit better.

Can you not just fold up the arm-rest on the manual Accord? Maybe only use it for motorway-type driving?

what_car

mad m wrote:

After getting an Accord (Manual) for a day/night from a dealer to test driver I liked the car,only hitch was the centre arm rest kept hitting off my elbow when changing gears. I was wondering does an Auto use more petrol than manual drive? They have Accords which have auto but you can switch to triptronic on the gear stick....

i have an accord auto, and went from manual diesel to auto petrol.

the accord auto has a sequential auto box and is five speed, it has tiptronic too. it is a great car to drive in auto.. put it this way, with my accord auto, 2.0 i am getting somewhere the same MPG as someone driving a new corolla 1.4 petrol!! manual

my car does on average over the full tank of fuel between 31-35 mpg..

on an average motorway spin of 24 miles i get 7.0L / 100 KM (40mpg).

my car is the s type with sports suspension, larger wheels, etc and the book figures give my car lower mpg than the standard accord.

the auto box is more relaxing drive.. in terms of fuel, it is not bad at all..
i dont notice it.

maidhc

I doubt if an Autobox will ever be more economical than a person who drives a manual sedately. They are more complicated, and despite advances, still have a greater power absorption than a simple direct drive manual gearbox.

.Longshanks.

The VAG DSG autobox is supposed* to achieve a marginal increase in MPG over a the manual - when driven normally at least. Its also quicker too.

* according to their own website

Mailman

With a torque convertor locked at motorway speeds it should be the same as a manual.
latest CVTs and Merc's new 7 speed should be more economical than a manual.
7 speeds in a Auto box is about optimum.

E92

Some of the new BMWs with their efficient Dynamics Technology are more economical with the Slushbox(according to the EU mpg tests).

To answer the OPs question, it depends on the car, the driver, the type of driving being done to it, the way its driven.

But usually Autos are a small bit less efficient than a Manual. Most new cars have a marginal mpg penalty for using an Auto, before Automatics had a heavier mpg penalty than they do today.

crosstownk

With city driving a manual will be a little better. On the open road, an auto will be more or less the same as a manual. Autos 'slip' due to the torque convertor, which usually results in higher l/100km. Tiptronic or not, an auto will usually be heavier than a manual.

Also bear in mind that autos are harder on brake pads due to less engine braking.

McSandwich

Longshanks100 wrote:

The VAG DSG autobox is supposed* to achieve a marginal increase in MPG over a the manual - when driven normally at least. Its also quicker too.

* according to their own website

The DSG is semi-automatic and nothing like a torque convertor auto gearbox. It's a manual gearbox with a computer controlled clutch, or clutches (it has two - allowing very quick shifts up or down). This result is a lighter (weighing not much more than a manual) and more efficient gearbox. Toyota's MMT and others are similiar though few other than DSG have the advantage of dual clutches.

crosstownk

I've driven a few VAG DSG and never paid much attention to l/100km, but from a performance point of view they are excellent - so responsive in 'manual' mode.

unkel

What most people said. I'd expect a new auto Honda Accord to use about 5% more petrol than the equivalent manual for an average drive / driver