As to the OP’s first question regarding MPG and transmission type, I don’t think there is any one rule that would apply to all vehicles, or even all cars. If we are talking about a small econobox, you might be able to eek out a little extra fuel economy with a manual if you know what you are doing, but if you really care about a 0.9 second difference in 0-60 times, that person probably isn’t you. On a larger vehicle, it might be a little easier to get a little extra fuel economy with a manual. My point is that the two transmission types (auto and manual) will probably have different gear ratios, and the difference in gear ratios will probably vary between different models.
I don’t think the choice between automatic and manual should be based on performance or fuel economy. It should be based on which one you prefer to drive. This can quickly deteriorate into a debate about whose preference is better. It’s a silly argument though, so I’ll stay out of it.
As to whether a 0.9 second difference in 0-60 times will make it harder to merge, in my view, it shouldn’t. Too many drivers don’t fully utilize their ability to accelerate on an entrance ramp and in the acceleration lane before merging. Instead, they wait until they are almost ready to merge to accelerate to cruising speed, and then they pull in front of traffic at about 45 MPH and blame the car. As a former truck driver, my 0-60 times were abysmal compared to the average car, yet I found a way to merge into traffic without endangering myself or anyone else. It shouldn’t be that hard to do the same with a car that goes from 0-60 MPH in 12 or 15 seconds, if you know how to drive.
I have always been a manual trans fan, as the older 4 cylinder cars with 4-speed autos usually “inhale vigorously” if you get my drift. My ADHD addled brain also works better with a stick shift. That said, automatics have come a LOOONG way in recent years.
Don’t pay attention to acceleration times published in magazines. They are usually obtained using methods that would destroy your drivetrain in a hurry. You really have to take a good test drive to see how a car accelerates and handles hills using normal driving habits. Any car will go fast if you rev it to 5,000 RPM, drop the clutch, and redline it in every gear.
An automatic can easily get the same or better mileage as a manual. They’re totally different designs, often with a different number of gear ratios. Often the automatic version will even come with more gears than the manual version, especially in this era of ever-tightening CAFE requirements.
About the comments whether the 0.9 seconds acceleration times, manual vs automatic, makes a difference. I haven’t done a side by side drive comparision, but I think an observant driver would clearly notice the drivability difference between a 9.0 and 9.9 second 0-60 time. I know for a fact that 9.3 vs. 12.0 seconds are world’s apart in drivability and safety. 12.0 is unacceptable to me for 0-60 time based on the actual drive test when I compared the two versions (manual vs automatic) of the Toyota Corolla at the time (early 90’s).
So does 0.9 seconds make a difference then? I thnk so. Remember, in 0.9 seconds, a 60 mph car travels fully 80 feet. That’s nearly a third the length of a football field. I think 80 feet would make a noticeable difference when merging.
The real question, though, is whether you can compensate for that 0.9 seconds by being an attentive and careful driver. Honestly, if you need that 0.9 seconds in order to make a vehicle safe, you are ignoring the most important piece of safety equipment in your car – your brain. I know skill and attention can help you operate even the most sluggish vehicle safely. I used to work as a truck driver, so I have no qualms about saying there are a great number of folks who drive trucks because they don’t know how to do anything else, and if they have the brain power to operate an 80,000 pound truck safely merging into highway traffic with only 450hp, you can do it with a modestly-powered car.
Sorry, but I’ve never bought the idea that extra power makes a car safer. Less power just means you can’t be as aggressive when you merge, and you might actually have to yield, like you are supposed to when merging into traffic anyway.
Well…I wouldn’t say that extra power makes a car safer, but there is a point that too little power can make things hairy, or frustrating. None of us would put up with a car that accelerates like a tractor-trailer. I’ve driven tractor-trailers, and there are times when you have to really be patient and plan for things. That is what truck drivers are trained for. It is just one of the things you have to deal with when driving a 30-40 ton vehicle. Here in Pittsburgh, you can’t go very far without having to pull a hill, and there are some uphill merge points where having some extra oats really helps. Anyone who lives in Pittsburgh knows what it is like merging onto 376 west from Rt. 51. There is an S curve near the end of the ramp which prevents one from taking it at a good merging speed, then you have to pull out onto the interstate, which is uphill, while there are Peterbilts coming up behind you that had a good run out of the Fort Pitt tunnel.
I don’t know how fast my Versa can get to 60 (probably not real quick), but when I am merging onto the parkway, it can pull into the traffic without being a hazard. It is a 6-speed manual, and I can do this without having to buzz out of the ramp at 4,500 RPM. I don’t need a Corvette, but it is nice, and often safer, when you can get out of your own way. I’ll also say that, in about 25 years of driving, I’ve never had to run a car flat-out to merge safely. When you live in a hilly city, it helps to have a car that is reasonably brisk.
Yeah, I love the feeling of getting out of a truck I’ve been driving for two weeks and getting into my Honda Civic. In comparison, the Civic feels like a Mustang, for a while anyway, especially after hauling those big rolls of paper.
Ever haul any from MeadWestVaCo Covington,VA-Whitey? pretty much a gravity battle from there.Makes you a believer in the C-16 Cat and big Cam Cummins.Automatic makes very little difference if you have the power-Kevin
@doubleclutch … speaking of Pittsburgh, I happen to be watching the Billy Gardell DVD of his stand up comedy routine. He’s from Pittsburgh apparently. I’ve watched about half of it, and I must say his stand up comedy is simply hilarious! And on his DVD as an “extra” he provides his version of a guided driving tour of Pittsburgh too – which is a beautiful city-scape from what I see – so I’ll look to see if he included the section of road you mention when I watch that segment.
Thanks for the comment. I do think having too little acceleration can be dangerous. Nobody needs the 3.7 seconds Tesla like numbers, in fact that can be equally dangeruous. But 12 seconds is definitely too slow from my experience to be considered safe in California freeway driving. The new automatics and engines used in Econoboxes these days improve the automatic times to closer to 10 seconds, which is probably safe enough. I’ll yield on that. But I prefer something closer to 9.0 to give a little cushion.
W ell, why don’t you guys get a new Challenger with the 6+ liter Hemi. That should get you onto a freeway in decent time, with or without an automatic.
@kmccune, if you mean I-77 near Fancy Gap, VA, the steepest incline east of the Mississippi, yes, I’ve been trough there at least 15 times. Unfortunately, most of those times, I was driving a Volvo with a Cummins engine and the worst transmission I’ve ever seen. I hated that truck.
Elly, I’d actually like a 2013 Boss 302 Mustang (blue with black markings, please), but the budget just won’t permit such frivolity. For running around tuning pianos and such, the Versa is ideal. Every time I turn around I have to put $60+ worth of gas in our Odyssey. I don’t need another one of them!
Now that I think about it, the merge I mentioned from 51 to 376 west, you can take the ramp at a good clip, but there are usually trucks on the ramp that can not. When (not if) you get stuck behind one, you have to leave yourself an out (rule 4 of the Smith System), and accelerate around it into the traffic, lest you get stuck in the exit only lane. Just ask anybody from Pittsburgh about “Greentree Hill”.
Drivers merged onto freeways safely 30 years ago, when even sporty cars didn’t do 0-60 in much under 8 seconds and plenty of ordinary cars took over 15 seconds. Remember when the Maxima was advertised as a four-door sports car? All of 160 horsepower, and that was considered noteworthy in the eighties. In the seventies my family had a B210 automatic that really was too slow for California freeways and getting over the Grapevine was a long, slow climb with the big rigs. And I learned to drive in a Volare automatic, another slug. Now I live in San Francisco and have yet to see a modern car unable to accelerate safely up any local hill. Of struggle to get on the freeway.
No actually about midways up the state out of the Jackson river valley,there is a love hate relationship with the Volvos,we got a 465HP Volvo Mack Granite triaxle thats a beast and a 550 Cat in a KW tractor,thats a torque monster(good for the hills)-Kevin