rkozono

I was looking at the specs between the auto and manual fuel efficiency and noticed that the auto had better fuel efficiency (19/29 vs. 19/28). I thought that manuals always had better fuel efficiencies than autos? Is it that Acura has 'perfected' the design of their auto transmission compared to others? I am interested in the auto anyway, but other than slightly better acceleration times, why would anyone get a manual? Most luxury cars only come with auto. I hope the '09 TL will be a hybrid high performance luxury sedan.

LED Master

Manual's are usually more efficent than Auto's because they have an overdrive gear (ration below 1), however, Acura has two over drive gears (4th and 5th) on the Auto and it's even lower than the overdrive gear on the manual (and has a different final gear ration than the manual).

Acura has made the manual and autos two specifically different cars, with the manual more of the enthousiast car who would rather performance than fuel econnomy.

I have read in threads elsewhere that when the auto hits 4th (in the old TL-S) it dogged, and the BMW's and others would fly by at that point, so I guess the manual is set up to keep that from happening, but at the expense of 1MPG (not to bad).

EmuMessenger

If someone here has a CLS 6MT, please share your mileage experience.

SteVTEC

All other things being equal (gearing!) a manual will always be more efficient. As LED mentioned, the auto just has much taller overdrive gears. The higher efficiency of a manual lets it run shorter and more responsive gears and still maintain the same mileage.

Yup, after 110 mph a TL-S 5AT would max out 3rd and then it was a big giant drop in revs to 4th. It would lag up to 130 mph but then pickup again and pull pretty strongly up to 150.

ccheung

I have a CLS 6-spd. Definitely, the automatic gets better gas mileage. In 6th gear @80 MPH, the guage reads about 2850rpm. With automatic, it only reads 2300 rpm in 5th gear. It makes a big difference.

When I drive in the city, I always like to keep it between 3rd and 4th gear. The rpm is always higher than automatic anyway.

If you concern more about gas mileage, get an automatic one. Or else, you will have more fun driving a 6-spd.

LED Master

More Fun, Thats for me!!!!

Forget the fuel millage, you control that with your right foot, and I never get good fuel millage

SFzip

Besides getting better mileage with the automatic, the lower revs (due to the higher top gears) promote a quieter cabin. Add this to the acoustic windshield, 1.5mm thicker glass and 3M Thinsulate paddings, and you've got quite a serene driving environment. Just think how nice that ELS audio will sound in here.

EmuMessenger

Thanks for the data.

If you take a highway trip with the cruise set in the 70 - 80 range, do you get 30 MPG?

huskerfan

With 2003 TL S Auto, I get about 30 MPG @ 70-80 MPH with full load and A/C running in summertime.

EmuMessenger

Likewise, I was hoping to get a reply from someone with a CLS 6MT.

Thanks, huskerfan. In my 03 TLS-Navi I once got 33.2.

ccheung

I get about 27 MPG on highway. I have a relatively heavy right foot on the gas pedal. It should be able to get at least 28MPG as what the Sticker says!

EmuMessenger

Thanks, assuming you have the CLS-6MT.

ccheung

Yup! I had it for 13 months with 10578 miles.

RJC RSX

i can get over 40mpg on the highway

ccheung

wow! how did you do that RJC RSX? Do you have a CLS 6-spd or RSX Type-S?

RJC RSX

i have an rsx auto, and got 35mpg driving ~80 against wind, with A/C on, full load, etc. but other people (including the Type-S) have reported over 40mpg in ideal conditions

ccheung

okay! We were talking about CLS 6-spd.

biker

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.T5-EzbM3uaU

F23A4

That's the biggest thread resurrection I've seen to date.

Honestly (and this was the rule in my household for my kids), training on driving a manual tranny car should be required for all new drivers.

In any event, I tried in earnest to get a 12 Accord EX with the 5MT but the wifey then refused to drive it if I did.....which is why I'm saddled with the 5AT.

biker

That huge drop off of the take rate between 06 and 07 seems dubious to me. Anyhow, it's good to see the numbers come back a bit.

JS + XES

iTrader: (1)

I bought a manual for fun, certainly not for gas mileage.

Costco

I hope this continues. It's sad that many cars don't even offer a manual. I understand the take rate would be low and thus wouldn't be profitable to cater to such a niche but I'd still be all for it.

JS + XES

iTrader: (1)

while he's at it, he should just hope for a hybrid high performance luxury super handling diesel direct injection turbocharged sedan

Moog-Type-S

Get 'em while you can....they are going the way of the Dodo

vwong

This gets from me.

I'm lucky to have a wife who doesn't mind driving MT.

TSX69

Is It Ethical to Drive a Stick?

Ever since I 1st watched my dad drive his chocolate brown Datsun 280 ZX back in the early 1980s, I’ve been inculcated to believe that driving — true driving — can only be performed with a stick shift. From that childhood experience, I came to see the manual transmission as a birthright passed down from my grandfather, to my father, and eventually to me via a series of tense, stall-filled lessons when I turned 16. In my case, after ripping apart the transmission one too many times, my dad went barking drill sergeant on me, eventually teaching me that a stick requires a special kind of focus, and that I needed to ease up more slowly on the clutch in order to get into first gear on those damn inclines. Through the experience, I learned to consider my stick-shifting skill a special talent with transcendent value.

Yes, of course, in the intervening years I’ve had the chance to drive an automatic transmission. But that has always felt a bit like playing a post-Konami Code game of Contra — a bit too easy, a bit too idiot proof, a bit too, shall we say, inauthentic. On top of that, the automatic always seemed like a wasteful luxury because it always was more expensive and less fuel-efficient. That difference consequently added an ascetic populism to the inherent machismo of the engine-revving manual transmission.

No doubt, for stick shift enthusiasts, these factors have all conspired to create an alluring mystique around the manual transmission — one that, according to new data, is on the rise.

Last week, USA Today reported that while “the percentage of new vehicles with stick-shift gearboxes remains a small slice of the new vehicle market,” the “the 1st quarter this year manuals were in 6.5 percent of new vehicles sold, and that’s getting close to double each of the past 5 years.” The stick shift is back in a big way — but is that really such a good thing?

Upon hearing the news, my initial thought — for aforementioned reasons — was that, yes, of course it’s a good thing. In an ocean of bad drivers and wasteful vehicles, the news seemed like a distant island of hope. I thought that perhaps more motorists are being converted to the automobile religion (cult?) I 1st was exposed to in Dad’s Datsun 280 ZX. And maybe, just maybe, that’s a sign that American drivers are wising up, both stylistically and efficiency-wise.

Then I did a bit more investigation, and realized the news might not be so good, and that my quasi-religious fervor for the gearbox may have blinded me to my catechism’s new downsides.

In the past, the stick shift was an all-but-guaranteed fuel saver. But not anymore. As AOL Autos notes, computer technology has advanced to the point where “automatics have become so efficient that most of the time their fuel economy is on par with manuals — and in some cases even better.” USA Today notes that such a trend may eventually erase the long-term price differential between manual and automatic transmissions, meaning the manual will lose its frugal-chic appeal. Meanwhile, according to AOL, new technology also boosts automatics’ overall performance (read: speed), meaning many driving aficionados have come to prefer the automatic over the manual.

Thanks to all this, on the days I don’t bike to work and instead fire up my 11-year-old Saturn and shift it into first gear, I no longer feel so righteous or populist. I feel like part of the problem — not just because I’m driving a fossil fuel-dependent vehicle, but also because the manual transmission seems like a silly relic. Likewise, word that manual transmissions may be coming back no longer seems like such great news; it seems like more proof that when it comes to transportation, we’re still prone to making shortsighted decisions.

And yet, I can’t let go of my love for the stick — or maybe “can’t” isn’t the right word. Perhaps “don’t want to” is more appropriate. If the automobile is still one of the key chronological markers in a typical American’s life (and, unfortunately, it still is), the stick shift is a special symbol of our general heritage, and my specific family traditions.

That’s why I was happy to see that there remains one significant reason to still love the manual transmission — a reason that’s substantive, rather than just aesthetic or experiential. In the age of distracted driving, many believe the stick shift might encourage kids to stay focused on operating their vehicles, rather than operating their smartphones. The idea is that because a manual transmission requires special attention to operate, it doesn’t allow for as much multitasking as an automatic.

While there’s no science (yet) to prove the manual-transmission-as-deterrent-to-distracted-driving hypothesis, the memory of those 1st harrowing stick-shift lessons — with my dad imploring me to “really focus, goddammit!” — suggests to me that there’s something to the theory.

At least, that’s what I’m going to tell myself to justify my stick-shift fetish — that is, until the automatic fully surpasses the manual in every other way.

David Sirota

David Sirota is a best-selling author of the new book "Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.

Mr. Maker

iTrader: (4)

Rockstar21

iTrader: (1)

if you arent shifting, you arent driving..

but thats just my opinion.

i'd like to know the comparison of drivers who get in major accidents between auto vs. manual. unfortunately there are just way too many more auto's on the road to get a good reading.

i really feel like more emphasis is put on driving the car safely when you have to control it with both hands.

fuzzy02CLS

iTrader: (2)

Don't care. As long as the car works.

I'm not a auto/manual snob like some. I don't think driving a car should be so focused on the equipment. The person driving it is what matters.
I drive both equally well. I never got any great gas mileage jump with a manual either. Maybe 1 or 2 mpg, & that's it.

AZuser

+1

Despite no manual, I wouldn't refuse a Ferrari 458, Enzo, or 430 Scuderia if someone gave one to me.

WdnUlik2no

I prefer manual; just more fun to drive to me. I'm actually looking at g37s and was surprised that the autos got better mileage, I too thought it would still be the other way around.

If I really like the car and automatic is the only choice, then ill deal with it, but given the choice I would choose a manual.

MeehowsBRZ

Unfortunately for me I only got to drive a manual a couple times when I had my permit, been driving AT since then and not sure how difficult it would be to switch back to a MT.

vwong

Well, since most of these ATs have one extra gear than the MTs, I wouldn't be surprised at all that the ATs get better mileage.

Rockstar21

iTrader: (1)

auto's contribute to americas obesity, it lets them drive while eating mcdonalds.

JS + XES

iTrader: (1)

Sooner or later, we'll get 138 speed automatic transmission. It'll really pwn the manual in terms of gas mileage.

civicdrivr

iTrader: (9)

I like dual clutch boxes. They are more then welcome in high powered supercars.

However, if I were stuck driving an Aveo, Id want it to be a manual. It just makes it a bit more fun.

fuzzy02CLS

iTrader: (2)

I have found myself using the auto stick in my car. I have spent $ trying to get the auto to shift the way I want it. Used to get lag, not hold gear & soft shifts. Some hardware & a TCM change made it a lot better. In auto mode though it downshifts pretty hard now. Think I went to far on that one

Legend2TL

I prefer MT, to me the driving experience feels more connected than a AT. Being able to control the gears, clutch, independent of the throttle brings about a whole different level of control. Just my opinion, heck I even thought driving a 24' Ryder truck with a MT was fun when I rented one to move once.

West6MT

Here is a response from Jalopnik to this article

http://jalopnik.com/5910513/yes-its-...-a-stick-shift

Yes, It’s Ethical To Drive A Stick Shift

I really shouldn't have to even be answering this question. This week in Salon David Sirota wrote an article asking "Is it ethical to drive stick?" It's great to see a mainstream, intelligent publication like Salon talking about manual transmissions, except for one thing: the article is inane, and the fundamental question its asking is insipid. And, some of the facts are wrong. And it's whiny and stupid. Okay, five things. Other than that, it's great.

The general premise the article is based on is solid, though. Automatic transmissions are absolutely getting better. Modern automatics are not the three-speed slushboxes of your dad's old Delta 88— they're sophisticated shifting robots with 6 or more gears to play with. They're good. Continuously Variable Transmissions are becoming more popular as well, and are wildly efficient (as well as being one of the biggest Dutch contributions to motoring). So the idea that automatic transmissions are finally getting as fuel-efficient and performance-capable as manuals is absolutely dead-on.

What I have an issue with is how the author uses this information. He asks is it ethical to drive a manual now that automatics are better? How do ethics enter in to this? Does that imply that until now, driving an automatic was unethical?

If the ethical issue is fuel economy (the article seems to be equating ethics and fuel economy, a pretty dodgy supposition) then this guy's ethical standards are pretty strict. In the cars where automatics get better mileage than manuals, we're talking about one or two MPG. So if that's the dividing line between ethical and evil, then you better make sure your tires are inflated properly, Hitler. Driving with some luggage or extra wight in the car? Maybe your engine timing's a bit off? Congratulations, Pol Pot, you're a monster.

Sirota says

Thanks to all this, on the days I don't bike to work and instead fire up my 11-year-old Saturn and shift it into first gear, I no longer feel so righteous or populist. I feel like part of the problem - not just because I'm driving a fossil fuel-dependent vehicle, but also because the manual transmission seems like a silly relic. Likewise, word that manual transmissions may be coming back no longer seems like such great news; it seems like more proof that when it comes to transportation, we're still prone to making shortsighted decisions.

All that's assuming that automatics give better mileage. Sure, sometimes they do, and sometimes it's a draw, and sometimes it's worse.

Plus, driving a manual isn't about feeling "righteous or populist." That's why nobody wants to go on road trips with you, David. Jesus, can you imagine? Every shift punctuated by choked-back sobs, you'd catch him staring in the rearview with a foul mixture of disgust and rage, and would it kill him to let you play your road trip mix? Enough with the Tears for Fears already.

Look, if you're going to play the environmental=ethical gambit, you have to look at more than MPGs, anyway. Think about manufacturing. A modern, efficient automatic means more embedded computers, which means more electronics manufacturing, which means more toxic chemicals and e-waste and all that. There's simply more parts to make, and more complex parts.

Really, both MPG and manufacturing of autos and manuals is really about a wash. Posturing it as an ethical issue is a cheesy blogger's trick to drag people into reading what could have been a tedious article. I get it, and we all do a bit of aggrandizing to some degree. Look at my first paragraph. But because we're all guilty of it on some level doesn't mean it shouldn't be pointed out.

Sirota claims to enjoy driving stick, and I believe him. I love it as well. I'm sure that very soon automatics will or already are far better shifters than I'll ever be but that's not the point. He mentions one pro-stick "reason that's substantive, rather than just aesthetic or experiential", and that's helping to maintain driver focus. That's fine, but there's other reasons to drive stick that aren't "aesthetic" or "sentimentalist." Control, for example. Sometimes you, the driver, will want to make your car do certain things when you want to, not because some algorithm computed it's best. Sometimes you want to downshift to take advantage of quick engine braking, or you want to drop into neutral and coast, or you'll hold your shifts to redline, or whatever you want.

If you're doing something more extreme than just comfortable driving, a manual still has great value. The new world record for distance travelled on one tank of fuel did it in a manual Passat for this very reason— they needed more control over what the car is doing to achieve their goal. The point is you have total say of what the entire system of your car is doing, and that's not a bad thing. It's not for everyone, and it doesn't need to be.

Also, there's the value of knowing what's going on in your car. Shifting necessitates a bit of knowledge of how the car works, and anything that helps keep us thinking of cars as wonderful, intricate machines and not magic black boxes is a very good thing. So much of the technology we encounter has been refined to the point where it seems like magic. That's great for marketing, but not great for a curious mind. It's healthy to know how and why things do what they do. It's why I teach kids how to break into and hotwire cars. It's important to me, because I love machines, and think they deserve respect enough not to always be hidden under a glossy skirt.

In an ideal world, that original article would have been Automatics No Longer Suck, Drive Whatever The Hell You Want. Silly concerns over ethics aside, Sirota's book, Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now looks pretty interesting, though.

Dr. Colorado

After 5 months of F-car's DCT, I could never go back to 3 pedals as a DD. Too much traffic sux. 4+ years of 6-speed 911 as a daily driver was enough for le moi.

As a weekend warrior, I would prefer a 6-speed since it's about the driver's experience rather than the utility of a daily commuter and I wouldn't have to slog through stop and go traffic.

I was already a fan of PDK with Sports Chrono when it dropped in the 997.2. Cali's DCT is even better with manettino on Sport setting.