Quote:
Originally Posted by DKaz
The IS 250 is not the only vehicle where the manual uses more gas than the auto. The automatic transmission probably has a torque converter that keeps it steady in the most fuel efficient range whereas the manual transmission is free to go apes**t from idle to redline. Besides just because I like to drive manual doesn't mean I drive like a ricer throughout town... if it was purely for performance I'd look an STI, Speed 3, or an older Toyota GT-Four.
|
Fuel efficiency tests on manual cars are done by doing the most efficient method of shifting. This is basically racing towards the top gear as soon as possible to keep the RPMs low...just like an auto would.
A torque converter doesn't help to keep the engine in the best RPM range, it transfers power through a thick fluid in 1st or 2nd gear then locks up after that. In fact, it actually decreases efficiency...however newer transmissions usually spend very little time in those gears, so it is essentially wasting the same amount of power a human would with a manual during starting/shifting (before full clutch engagement is achieved).
A CVT, on the other hand, would always keep the engine in the right RPM range with minimum power loss.
I personally couldn't care less for a manual, as it would drive me nuts in city driving. Plus my auto locks up from 3rd to 6th and allows me full control except for downshifting when stalling or shifting up when inside redline RPM. Most manual cars have this protection in place by cutting fuel when reaching redline, so you don't necessarily get any more control. However, the IS 250 auto "manual mode" is more of a "suggestion mode" where it only sets limits on the top gear and doesn't allow direct control.
I didn't say get a ricer, I just said the IS 250 manual transmission is bad, a point made by many reviews. I believe somebody said most manual Toyota cars are better than the one in the IS 250.