Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous Henchman #5
I know some people are probably sick of all these mpg threads, but this particular point I'm emphasizing about the 335 MT vs. AT was a very big deal to me when I was buying my car. I really wanted the manual but the purported 3 mpg advantage of the auto was a major selling point that almost convinced me to change my mind.
Now, after owning a manual, and ALSO reading about other people's experiences, I think the mpg numbers that BMW reports are totally misleading. Maybe the average BMW owner doesn't care that much about 3 mpg, but I think there are a few other people besides myself for whom that is a fairly significant number. Knowing that there really isn't much of a difference between the two might help some future owners feel better about getting the MT (if that's what they like--the auto is great too  ). |
I know your revised official test regime in the US reflects fuel consumption more accurately than ours does over here in Europe, but surely you still have to take them with a 'pinch of salt' anyway, as they are comparison tests in controlled conditions and not truely reflective of each driver's city and highway mix, or driving style. So there will be variations and some will feel they are doing well, while others will be disappopinted.
I've looked at the mpg figures reported over here in the UK, for the BMW models with the option of the 8-speed auto, on one of our motoring sites, Honest John's Real MPG. I've been watching the trend as fuel consumption reports have been added. There is no clear pattern emerging at all, for whether the gearbox is better than manual for mpg or not. Some models show an advantage to the auto, some to the manual. That can apply to engine types and capacity in different models as well. So we come back to all the variables, rather than the official part being unrepresentative of real world mpg, auto or manual, (other than all cars typically have an mpg shortfall against the official 'controlled' regime).
I still believe each driver has quite an impact on what he or she achieves in mpg, whatever the official figures, whatever the gearbox. Hence the mpg mix we see reported. We still get a few unusual examples here in the UK, where official figures don't crossover well to real world driving, usually where engine size in a particular model favours (or not) the official figures. So we get economy cars which fall way below the official figures in real world driving, and some thirsty cars which exceed the figures quite easily.
Typical examples used to be smaller diesel autos would fall way short, big petrol autos would exceed the figures. That has all changed with the latest designs and 8-speed autos as that pattern no longer shows up the same, even with our flawed EU official test regime, compared against real world figures. 8-speed autos appear to have changed the real world consumption mix from my observations.
I do believe the driver who wants to eke out the best mpg is best suited to a manual gearbox, assuming the car is driven to that goal. But even then it isn't as it used to be, as some old style economy techniques are not suited to the way engines are mapped these days. I was driving a manual car the other day with a gearchange indicator. I tried some typical economy driving tricks, but the car was telling me to be in a lower gear which surprised me. This is not uncommon, was reading an article where this very subject was being discussed, other economy drivers have found the same, engine mapping can mean more revs than we would normally apply as a manual driver.
Hence why driving an 8-speed auto these days and letting it do its thing may well be the economy drive, compared to the MT driver who is out of phase with the latest mapping for economy.
Sorry for rambling....
HighlandPete