Why didn't you tell me automatics are so good!

[ThorV70]

IMHO after 37 years of driving (mainly manuals) but last 12 years automatics.
In rank of best automatics, BMW ZF gearbox, absolutely sublime in my 2019 320d touring.
Next up Mercedes.....in an old 1998 C Class petrol estate, ran too high miles and the box was excellent.
Third place VOLVO. Again very very good, V70 D5 P3 model mated to a 185bhp D5 unit........it may move into second place in my all time greats!
Seriously though, they are just so easy to use.......

[js90]

It's also much easier to get bad economy on an auto when you just plant the 'go' pedal to the floor

I definitely find myself throwing all forward planning out the window sometimes in the auto, because I don't need to bother with the gears, and I also find myself leaving traffic for dust if I'm at the front of the queue at the traffic lights - mostly this is unintentional... mostly.

[Baxlin]

Originally Posted by Rocinante

I'm not sure where you're getting this information that automatics are more fuel efficient.

As an example, the first car I checked.
2020 V60 D4 Auto - 49.9 mpg
2019 V60 D4 Manual- 52.2mpg.

Can you demonstrate evidence of this claim that autos are more fuel efficient ?

Could you have missed the word ‘usually’ in the post you quoted?

[Rocinante]

Originally Posted by XC90Mk1

Most, but not all autos are more efficient.

In your example it is the manual that is slightly more efficient.

Originally Posted by Baxlin

Could you have missed the word ‘usually’ in the post you quoted?

I doubted the original claim and checked a recent Volvo model to see if I was mistaken, which matched my doubts, I admit though it is a very small sample, but thought a recent Volvo was a reasonable indication, of a modern automatic.

I didn't miss "usually", but I did doubt the claim, of "usually" or "most" and asked for any substantiating evidence for these claims.

"Can you demonstrate evidence of this claim that autos are more fuel efficient ?"

Having a quick search on line revealed on car.co.uk:
"Now, automatics produce almost identical fuel economy figures to their manual counterparts – and in some case, they’ve even better."

"In some cases" in my view is quite different to "usually" or "most".

As per my original post, I'd be quite happy to see any justification of the claim. I don't proclaim to be knowledgeable on the subject, and quite happy to learn, if there is evidence to back the claim.

[XC90Mk1]

Originally Posted by Rocinante

I doubted the original claim and checked a recent Volvo model to see if I was mistaken, which matched my doubts, I admit though it is a very small sample, but thought a recent Volvo was a reasonable indication, of a modern automatic.

I didn't miss "usually", but I did doubt the claim, of "usually" or "most" and asked for any substantiating evidence for these claims.

"Can you demonstrate evidence of this claim that autos are more fuel efficient ?"

Having a quick search on line revealed on car.co.uk:
"Now, automatics produce almost identical fuel economy figures to their manual counterparts – and in some case, they’ve even better."

"In some cases" in my view is quite different to "usually" or "most".

As per my original post, I'd be quite happy to see any justification of the claim. I don't proclaim to be knowledgeable on the subject, and quite happy to learn, if there is evidence to back the claim.

Pretty much anything from the VAG group with the twin clutch DSG box will be faster and more efficient. Many of the BMWs, the list goes on. Ironically enough I don’t actually know much about the Volvo line up.

Also Mercedes pretty much across the range.

If you look at a company like Mercedes I think all their models now have the 9G box with 9 grads verses the 6speed manuals.

[Rocinante]

Originally Posted by XC90Mk1

Pretty much anything from the VAG group with the twin clutch DSG box will be faster and more efficient. Many of the BMWs, the list goes on. Ironically enough I don’t actually know much about the Volvo line up.

Also Mercedes pretty much across the range.

If you look at a company like Mercedes I think all their models now have the 9G box with 9 grads verses the 6speed manuals.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but again you have provided no evidence to back up your opinion. I provided a quote from an article to suggest the assertions were incorrect, and asked for any information you have to support your opinion, whereby your provided further opinion.

"Pretty much anything from the VAG group with the twin clutch DSG box will be faster and more efficient"

First car I picked from the VW lineup -
VW Passat 2.0TDI DSG - 57.6mpg, 0 -62: 9.1s
VW Passat 2.0TDI Manual - 57.6mpg, 0-62: 9.1s

Again a sample of 1, but you did say "pretty much anything", and it is just an example, but I can't find anything to suggest your opinion is correct.

Do you have any source to validate the claim that "most" automatics are 'usually' more efficient ?

I don't have anything against automatics, but if we're having a discussion on the pro and cons of them, it would be good to rely on facts rather than opinion.

[green van man]

Originally Posted by XC90Mk1

Pretty much anything from the VAG group with the twin clutch DSG box will be faster and more efficient. Many of the BMWs, the list goes on. Ironically enough I don’t actually know much about the Volvo line up.

Also Mercedes pretty much across the range.

If you look at a company like Mercedes I think all their models now have the 9G box with 9 grads verses the 6speed manuals.

Does the number of gears really matter? More gears, more weight to carry around.

All my volvosges have been manual from my first 360 tof my xc70 via a v70, all had sufficient torque spread to not needed more gears than they had be it 5 or 6.
In fact my P1 v70 was apreaciably more frugal than my current P3 xc70, but that is due to emissions and safety legislation not its number of gears.

One has to ask why would a road car need 9 gears? In truth even with 6 I find I rarely need the lower 3 once on the move, 5 the and 6th are mostly all I need, 4th if uphill in a 30 zone,
420 Nm of torque largely makes a gearbox redundant..


Paul.

[Baxlin]

Not sure, Paul, so just guessing, but by staying in one gear, you are using a wider rev range. However, I would have thought that on the basis that constant engine speed running is more frugal, having more gears means a smaller variation in revs, keeping revs ‘in the sweet spot’, particularly with the almost imperceptible gear changes made by DSG-boxed cars.

Malcolm

[heckflosse]

I dont remember my rather gruesome 340 CVT being better on fuel than an equally sub prime manual one i owned. A 280C Datsun(coke bottle shape, drool) I ran for a while was a particularly foul automatic- no real go in any gear and 15mpg. A Granada C3 box jumping in and out of drive on the motorway in a 3 litre MK1 put me off them for years.
All of which were in cars that were just bangers at the time.
Compared to the masterpiece that was my first 63 Westminster with 3 speed/Borg Warner overdrive,with freewheel for clutchless shifts when rolling,
old autos were disappointing, dull and unreliable.
I managed a whopping 21MPG from that old jalopy!

New ones, chalk and cheese of course.

[Bonefishblues]

Originally Posted by Baxlin

Not sure, Paul, so just guessing, but by staying in one gear, you are using a wider rev range. However, I would have thought that on the basis that constant engine speed running is more frugal, having more gears means a smaller variation in revs, keeping revs ‘in the sweet spot’, particularly with the almost imperceptible gear changes made by DSG-boxed cars.

Malcolm

This. It's why CVT boxes are so designed.