Pros and Cons of AT vs MT
 

Bros, feel free to correct me when i am wrong.

Pros of AT /Cons of MT
1)Cheaper
2)Higher torque and more of it comes lower (great for urban driving)
3)Fuss-free driving (obvious)
4)Lack of sunrood (pro to me, my ex-car had a sunroof and i felt it was hot despite a very good window tint, and it adds useless weight to the car, weight higher up in the car and reduce body stiffness)
5) Softer suspension, more comfort (But already relatively hard compared to most cars)
6) Slightly more fuel efficient (according to official figures, but i heard the MT can also be fuel efficient through careful driving and proper gear changes. And not to forget, someone said his MT saves more petrol as he can reach his destination faster than the AT)
7) The AT model from PIs has more choices of colours than MM
8) Steering mounted gear-change paddles

Cons of AT / Pros of MT
1) Lower max power
2) Lesser optional trims like DCS,TCS, sunroof (depending on model and options)
3) Lack of clutch to play
4) Transmission can only take a fair more power without extensive and expensive replacements. The MT's trans is easier and cheaper to change and can take more power stock.
5) AT has a softer and less-sporty suspension than MT
6) At has a metal drive-shaft while the MT has a carbon-fibre one
7) Smaller stock wheels than the MT
8) Smaller brake rotors
9) Less fun and involving to drive than MT

I didn't know that, thanks!

Heard that AT has gear jumping issues, as it is a Mazda6 transmission and cannot handle the power of the rotary engine. :o
Anyways, MT gear change is so sweet..and I manage to clock 8.4km/l on my last tank... :D
So fun to take the ECP Rochor exit bend in fourth gear at 80km/h.... :p

Maybe you heard wrongly. About 50% of us drive an AT and none of us reported any problems.

I may not know much about car but at least i only post things and advice that i can confirm and not spread rumours. We here all have a responsiblity to each other that we give prompt and correct advice. Do not post rumours unless you can confirm it yourself.

I personally can confirm i have none of those problems you described and i drive an AT.

4th gear at 80km/h??? try doing dat speed at the 3rd gear...... ADRENALIN PUMPING :D

Apologies if it is not true....Anyways, no offence...

I am fine.

Ok, back to topic.

The Pros and Cons of AT vs MT is very informative for a newbie like me considering rx8 :)

Either way you are a winner!

DSC is one of the best things that can happen in all cars.

It really works. can go fast around a bend without spining.

One more pro for a AT unit. Its better for day to day driving. It has more low-end torque compared to a MT unit.

The AT gets 222NM at 5000 rpm and the MT gets 216NM at 5500rpm

Raw calculated HP at 5500rpm. AT 172hp (by calculation from torque but i believe it to be closer to 168hp) at 5500rpm and MT 162hp. Of course you get more power when you rev the MT till 9k.

I have seen a dyno chart for both a MT and AT online and i saw that more torque comes earlier than the MT. Can't find it anymore but you can tell from official torque figures.

So for a person considering between AT and MT. In short, AT for daily driving and MT for all-out performance.

Another factor to consider is the the AT has higher gear ratios than the MT. AT is slower but more fuel efficient and will be smoother when accelerating. The lower gearing is due to the fact that the AT has only 4 gears and higher torque.

I believe the AT is more torquey because of the lack of 2 aux ports. Performance wise, i believe the AT can be more powerful than the MT engine if it is able to rev at the same rpm; but the MT will be even more powerful if allowed to rev even higher by the same rpms. The 4 port's torque drops more above 7500rpm than the 6 port. I think mazda only limits the AT power because they did not develop a good AT transmission. But for ultimate modding, its the 6-port that rules. Just my own speculation.

You know, I have a "Pros for MT" to add...

After Woo's and Wahh'ing at how beautiful the RX8 looks in the metal, I would say that once they find out it's a manual, fewer people actually ask to take your car out for a test because (1) they have been driving comfy autos for years and not fully confident about their clutch skills; and (2) they don't want to embarass themselves by stalling the engine. :D So there, your 8 spends more drive time in your safe hands. ;)

Of course, that's my experience with the kind of fellas and gals I know. I'm sure if all your friends are stickshift fans or frankly just car fanatics and drivers, then the opposite might well be true! Nothing quite revs like the rotary :p and so that's still a Pro... get all the lead-footed fellas jealous about the silky smooth run to 9000rpm!!

Emperor, while I agree with most of the things that you mentioned about the AT, such as the slightly higher low-end torque compared to a MT unit, I disagree that the AT is more fuel efficient simply because I haven't seen an AT that can match the mileage of an MT if similarly driven.

Its only my speculation as i do not have real world figures to prove it.

But because the AT has a much higher gear ratio with higher torque, we do not need to rev as much to get up to speed compared to MTs. So for slower city driving, i felt it was more fuel efficient as revs are kept lower.

Of course factoring drivetrain loss, ATs may actually use more fuel.

I understand that you've said it was what you think and your personal speculation. Unfortunately, there are newbies here who sometimes read and take in everything as rock solid truth. So I just thought I should highlight that although I agree that the AT has higher gear ratio and torque absolute values compared to the MT, but in real world driving the AT cannot match the MT's mileage per tank (given same amount of fuel and same style of driving). It could be transmission losses like you said, but I think it could also be due to the ability of the MT to shift into neutral gear and coast to a red light (taking road/traffic conditions into account). I'm not sure if it's advisable for modern AT transmissions to engage/disengage gears while the car is in motion. I've always heard that you could potentially damage or at the very least shorten the lifespan of your AT transmission by doing that. Any truth to that? Anyone care to share their knowledge on this?

Bro. True true. Coasting saves fuel but its dangerous to do it.

Anyway FC should not matter that much as its already a drinker; AT or MT.

To me, i am quite satisfied with the AT 8's troque but i am slightly disappointed with the gearing and lack of 2 extra gears. The difference in 1st and 2nd is quite wide and 4th is very long. So in practical usage, we can only use 3 gears! Luckily its made up for in torque and power. IMO, the AT should minimum come with a 5sp.

The recent ones I've seen at the PI's like CarTimes, AT is steptronic with pedal shifts, won't these help you get to the gears (whether up or down) you want?

Yah, I agree. It's dangerous for ATs to coast - potential damage to auto transmission.
MTs can coast and I quote myself "taking road/traffic conditions into account"

Ive read abt coasting somewhere in this forum before.
It might be dangerous to coast in neutral, casue u never know when you'll have to suddenly zoooom to aavoid something.
But from the posts basically coasting in gear (not neutral) is not bad. and can be good in that if u coast in gear, the ecu goes into Deceleration Fuel Cutoff (DFCO) mode and stops injecting fuel(save fuel!), whereas if u were in neutral, fuel woudl need to be injected to keep the engine turning.

I would think that if I have to avoid something, I would be by braking and/or steering clear. I don't recall ever having to suddenly floor the accelerator to avoid anything. Although there is the off chance that someone might be coming in from behind and not stopping in time, which might require you to speed up, the combined chances of that happening and you noticing it in the rear mirror and reacting in time is very unlikely. Like I said, be aware and consider the traffic and road conditions.

On the 2nd topic of the Deceleration Fuel Cutoff, that's an interesting point. Has anyone verified that coasting to a stop in gear really cuts off the fuel and saves gas as opposed to coasting to a stop in neutral? It'd be a fun experiment to see if the mileage actually improves. Wouldn't that be almost similar to "jump starting" your car before it comes to a stop each time? Anyone with some knowledge on this, please share.