View Full Version : manual conversion & fuel economy
cooperplace
15-10-2009, 08:59 PM
a Q for people who've done manual conversions: how, if at all, has it helped your fuel economy? I'm talking about 3.5l
thanks
FYI On the highway consumption will be slightly higher due to the gear ratio of 5th on the manual boxes
lowrider
15-10-2009, 09:05 PM
my consumption droped, manuals are better on fuel.
hense why every car is a manual in Europe
Sharkie
15-10-2009, 10:14 PM
I'll let you know when i get mine done which is very soon.
going from 5 spd trip to 5 spd manual.
wookiee
16-10-2009, 07:39 AM
depends if you're going from 4sp or 5sp auto...
I went from 4sp auto to manual and around town I'm getting a bit better economy. like Life said, on the highway it's worse than the auto. cruising at 110km/h used to be 2200rpm, now it's 2700rpm.
that said, I do most of my driving around town and have another car that I take on long trips.
cheers,
.wook
Andrei1984
16-10-2009, 11:40 AM
Not always to do with fuel economy, the fact is due to torque converter in autos & higher gear ratios small engines struggle to pull thats all, in Europe (where i lived most of my life) people belive that anything with 4 cyl needs a manual.... when i go over there & say i own a 3,5 litre car, everyone is :eek2:
Auto means not necessarily higher consuption all depends how you drive & where you drive, have a look at stats with mitsu colt with CVT auto vs manual...
While yes i do have to agree most manual cars do give better consumption vs auto in city driving.
[TUFFTR]
16-10-2009, 02:41 PM
Also gotta realise that in an auto, being so low in 5th is great cause with cruise it downgears for you, in a manual cruise cant downgear.....so its gotta have enough poke to move you along aswell....
kylegc
16-10-2009, 02:45 PM
when i did mine i went from bout 450-500 a tank but after it was more like 550+ depending on my driving
typhoon
16-10-2009, 07:24 PM
Don't forget that the autos lock up the torque converter around 80 km/h, so you will not see any advantages on the highway from a manual, the auto essentially behaves as if it was a manual trans when locked up, the only losses are from the hydraulic pump in the gearbox.
The manuals are more economical argument died in the late 80's when 4 speed lock up autos appeared.
Regards, Andrew.
Madmagna
17-10-2009, 08:50 PM
Rubbish
AA converter locks at 80 until there is load and then unlocks and even then the trans may shift under heavy load
I have gained better economy both around town and on a trip. I have done 2 recent long trips (Adelaide and Sydney), Adelaide was towing a trailer and got similar to what I used to get with the Auto, Sydney with no Trailer and highway economy was slightly better, would have before got about 600 at a stretch, was getting about 660 or there abouts
Round town is also a lot better, used to hit around 450 a tank, now easy 550 a tank
Tobed0g
17-10-2009, 09:16 PM
Auto means not necessarily higher consuption all depends how you drive & where you drive, have a look at stats with mitsu colt with CVT auto vs manual...
Comparing a CVT to a normal automatic isn't very intelligent dude. Completely different systems.
CVT's (Constant Variable Transmission) is changing the gear ratios all the time to keep the engine at peak efficiency, whereas a normal auto just clunks its way though the gears.
kylegc
18-10-2009, 05:51 AM
the cvt autos have no gears. they engenieer flat spots into them so it feels like they change but they dont. works kinda like a mountian bike chain but no seperate gears
HRD2GT
18-10-2009, 06:33 AM
Manual a lot better in economy, I got arround 6 L/100 km diffrence from 5 spd tippy to 5 spd Manual plus heaps of fun :P
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.3 Copyright © 2016 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.