Results 1,451 to 1,460 of 1576
-
Tsikoteer
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Posts
- 53,883
October 12th, 2019 11:37 PM #1451are we talking about local stop and go traffic, or are we talking about long, traffic-free highway drives?
i have both AT and MT versions of the same car, and i can easily say that in everyday city driving, the MT gives me at least 10% more km/li than the AT.
i also noticed, that, on the highway, my MT was doing about 2200 rpm to do 80 kph, while my AT did about 1800 rpm to do 80 kph.
a few years back, i vaguely remember a fuel-efficiency challenge involving various locally-sourced cars, sponsored by a fuel company (?). the cars traveled on actual local roads, but with some amount of traffic control. i do not remember the results. does anyone remember this? did any of the AT equivalents out-km their MT versions?Last edited by dr. d; October 12th, 2019 at 11:59 PM.
-
October 13th, 2019 01:09 AM #1452
^Automatic transmissions are heavier than the manual counterpart that accounts for the fuel savings
Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
-
Tsikot Member Rank 2
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Posts
- 2,452
October 13th, 2019 02:56 AM #1453Yeah AT is still heavier, and still has slightly more parasitic loss. The main advantage is now in having more ratios for better gear spread, allowing the car to be in a more efficient RPM range more of the time.
6MT vs 6AT version of the same car the MT will definitely win in fuel economy. What's interesting is when we now compare 6MT vs 8AT, or even 9AT or 10AT of the same car.
-
October 13th, 2019 06:55 AM #1454
More than a decade or so ago, iba pa definition ng A/T and M/T.
A/T would have a torque converter and typically have 1 or 2 less gears than their M/T counterparts.
M/T would have a manual dry clutch and stick shift.
Nowadays, that line has blurred to a point that we have A/Ts that behaves more and more like an M/T.... Dual dry clutch, manual gear selection, etc. which oftentimes makes it at par with conventional stick-shift M/T in fuel economy.
Then there’s also CVT.... technically also an A/T, but not quite in the same ballpark as traditional A/Ts.
But one thing is still certain, A/T and all its variants will always have a higher TCO.... the price of convenience.
-
Tsikot Member Rank 2
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Posts
- 4,726
-
October 13th, 2019 09:30 AM #1456
-
Tsikoteer
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Posts
- 2,618
-
October 13th, 2019 11:31 AM #1458
Total Cost of Ownership (cost for the whole lifetime of anything)
1. Purchase cost - Mas mahal vs M/T
2. Preventive maintenance - Mas mahal at marami din (liters) ang ATF vs MTF, plus kung may filter pa na papalitan or kung ipapa-dialysis
3. Repair maintenance - Mas mahal ang baba, baklas, palit ng mga parts like clutch packs, solenoids, etc. Mas mahal din diagnostics dahil sa dami ng electronics
4. Resale value - Mas mababa resale value usually pag A/T
All in all, talagang binabayaran mo sa A/T ay convenience. Talo ka kung outright monetary value lang magiging basehan.
-
October 13th, 2019 10:32 PM #1459
-
October 14th, 2019 11:16 AM #1460
A/T tama si oj, purely for convenience at mas willing magkasa sa gastusan pagdating sa maintenance at repair. Masama naka A/T pero ayaw gumastos puro convenience lang gusto pagdating sa huli.
M/T pangmatagalan at para sa matyaga (challenge yan) at praktikal pagdating sa maintenance at repair. Meron din naka M/T pero hindi kuripot