I know there are lots of discussion on here about this and it's probably been brought up in other threads, but what is the general consensus for which is better in terms of fuel economy? I had a 2012 Manual. It was generally averaging around 38-40, but dropped way off when going much above 60 mph.
I'm looking to purchase another Fit and wondering if the automatics may actually get same or even better fuel economy.

thanks

 

Autos get worse MPG, by quite a lot.

 

My squad leader's wife drives a 2013 automatic, she claims she has never seen her average mileage drop under 35mpg, whether its totally city, mixed, or fully highway.

Proper driving, and longer gearing, plus following my recommendation of the S2K plugs gets her closer to 45mpg average on the highway.

I, with all my mods, get approx 40mpg average on the highway. I have a 150 pounds or so of tools in the back, some car parts, and a heavy right foot.

 

I'm sure I'll have the same issue with her as I do with you.

Do either of you have any evidence to back your claims?

 

Evidence as in what? She drives til the fuel light comes on, and simply goes by how many miles she gets per tank. Sometimes its 400, sometimes its 380, sometimes its 440.

It took her until she drove to Dallas and back from Killeen before she noticed the improvement.


I doubt she has any fuel logs, cuz EVERYONE must have one to notice fuel efficiency right?


My evidence is simply normal driving routes, reading OBD2 info, and watching my short and long fuel trims. As Ive posted in the past, the extra octane and colder plugs let me see 55 degrees advanced more often then when the car was factory. I didnt even know the ecu was limited to 55 degrees until I ran the higher octane.

I do know from my extensive experience with tuning D15s and D16s that small motors always got a big mileage boost if they got more timing and were able to make use of it. As in, fueling was able to be adjusted since the longer burn could now use a touch more fuel to make for more energy to be put to the wheels.

If I build a house, and it shields the occupants from the weather, do I need a blueprint of it to make you believe it does that properly? Thats kinda what it feels like to me whenever Im questioned on what my vehicle does.

Considering his wife isnt a car person of any level other then gassing and driving, im pretty sure she isnt bullshitting me. And Im sure the mexican side of her enjoys saving a bit of driving costs. More money for her education expenses for college

 

Noticing going further than you had prior may act as 'proof' of improvement but you have no idea where you base is. If you don't track these things, there's no way to have any real knowledge of whether improvement is there.

Why spread information that doesn't mean anything?

 

I can claim im the one driving my vehicle, do you need a video as evidence?

Once again, you always ask for paperwork or a graph or something for proof.

Anybody can plug numbers into a graph or table. Who is to say you are infact putting in accurate numbers? I DEMAND A VIDEO

dont

 

When you say longer gearing, are you making modifications to the car? Could you explain more. I'm curious. I always felt my Fit needed a 6th gear for highway travel.

 

^He means the Fit AT has longer gears than the MT, which gives it a lower cruising RPM.

I think the MT gets better mileage in city/traffic if you drive it right. I have no doubt that steady state cruising on the interstate the AT will get better mileage at higher speeds (over 65mph).

I believe the MT has an advantage around town since you can utilize engine brake fuel shutoff a lot, same with traffic situations as long as you're staying in gear and not revving to engage clutch and stuff like that. FWIW I get about 40mpg in traffic 30 miles one way (rush hour sucks here).

 

Thanks
That is good information. I drive primarily for longer trips and do very little in town driving since my town is about a 5 min bike ride end to end. So maybe the AT is the way to go.

 

I have a 2013 Base with 5 M/T. MPG so far has been 40 MPG (65 MPH on fwy using cruise control as much as possible); 30, 30, 39, and 35.99. The 2 tanks at 30 MPG were city driving with some fwy. The 39 was a lot of highway. The 35.99 was more city than fwy, but I was driving in a less populated area and was able to leave it in 5th at around 45 MPH for quite some time. Was surprised that I got 35 with mixed driving like that. I usually shift from 1st to 2nd around 3,000 RPM +-, and 2nd to 3rd same RPM, then try to get in 5th as soon as I can. Also trying not to drive the car real hard, so that helps. The stick is fun to drive and the car is faster with a stick than the auto trans.

 

A manual transmission in neutral with the engine off gets ∞ MPG. That really helps your tank average. With the engine on you don't get quite so high, but it's still pretty good.

 

I don't think MPG based on either auto or 5/6-sp would deter me from getting one or the other. The difference is pretty miniscule. I have a 5-speed, but if I had to drive in rush hour traffic everyday, I would have gone with an auto. Thank goodness I don't have to, though.

 

On any modern fuel-injected car, auto or manual, coasting/engine braking in gear with your foot off the gas (and the RPM above idle) also uses no fuel, and is safer and legal everywhere. If you're coasting in neutral and braking, you'd be better off not being in neutral.

I agree with p nut that the difference in milage (for the Fit) between auto and manual transmissions in the real world is pretty close to a wash for most situations. Driving in stop-and-go traffic (whether due to congestion or to traffic lights every couple of hundred feet) with a manual transmission can start to feel like being a galley slave in my experience, putting what seems like as much milage on the shift lever as on the wheels.

 

The fits AT is not a slush box, the torque converter locks down so you're not wasting energy when you're keeping your speed steady.

The mt if driven right can have better mpg in city traffic, but only if the driver really knows how to milk it. For the average joe driver, they might not see much of a difference.

Like stated, AT has better highway mpg due to lower rpm.

Sorry mike, I don't have an official tracking graph, but I promise I'm not lying when I say I get 4.5l/100km to 5.5l/100km at 110 km/h (depending on grade and wind)

In the MTs defence, the AT costs about 1000 bucks more. So ask yourself if the gas you save with the automatic is enough to offset the extra cost over time.

 

In the MT's defense, the average for my last 3 tanks is 5.5l/100 km. Snow, warming up in subzero temps, in town, highway and sitting in traffic. Your AT can outperform my tank average for a few minutes while going downhill with a tailwind? And it only costs a grand extra? Thanks, but I'll pass.

 

Yeah I never said tailwind.

Also, I gather you're using hypermiling techniques based on your signature. I'm talking about "average joe" drivers that don't have any idea what hypermiling is.

A/T WILL avg better mpg at highway speeds because of the lower rpm. And MT will generally do better in mixed driving, assuming the driver knows how to get the best out of it.

It really depends on how much highway vs city driving one would be doing to determine which would be more likely to have "better" mpg. In this case, I believe the OP said they'd do more highway than city driving. Therefore for him AT would be a more efficient choice. Although since the AT costs more, he would have to have it long enough to offset that with fuel savings to make it worth it. Of course There are other reasons to want AT as well, but I'm talking purely in terms of MPG here.

 

I guess it comes down to which tranny do you like the most, and go with that. I love the stick, HATE driving it in stop & go fwy traffic. Someone posted that you wear out the shift lever in that situation - yeah.....

 

Actually, I didn't do any hypermiling on my first tank, just to get a good baseline and see what the car would do on its own with me along for the ride. 37 mpg over 377 miles, pretty good. But with a manual I can beat that without even trying hard. And sorry- I read depending on grade and wind as meaning the wind helped your car hit those numbers.

 

The wind might help it get as low as 4 or 3.5 if it's strong enough and a tailwind but that doesn't last very long. The numbers I put were averages for long trips on the highway. Obviously there are occasional hills going up and down, and various directions of wind. But there are head and cross winds just as much as tailwinds.

Hope that's clear for you.