Saw a young landy in a brand new Kia or something, obviously just getting familiar with her manual transmission this afternoon. Made my day. She was getting it figured out.
Saw a young landy in a brand new Kia or something, obviously just getting familiar with her manual transmission this afternoon. Made my day. She was getting it figured out.
Datsun310Guy wrote: I bought an Accord base model LX version last spring with a 5-speed manual. Most people are surprised or sometimes angry I have a manual transmission. Why did you buy this with a stick shift? (like when I start growing a beard; people seem aggravated about that)
Now that is curious. Why would somebody be angry that you have a manual? Seems that if they're not going to be driving it, there's no reason to be angry.
Wife aggravated ( although she can drive stick). Mother-in-law......
mguar wrote: Nor are they likely to outsmart automatics..
I have never driven an auto that I haven't cursed at because it can't or won't do what I want it to.
integraguy wrote: .autos are as fuel efficient, if not more efficient than manuals.
According to the EPA.
stuart in mn wrote: Kind of like the 'more is better' attitude they have about automatic transmissions these days - does anyone really need seven or eight speed transmissions?
Driven a new 6 speed auto? I can totally see the benefit of one. I can imagine a 7spd or 8spd would be an improvement as well, although there is that law of diminishing returns.
friedgreencorrado wrote:Datsun310Guy wrote: I bought an Accord base model LX version last spring with a 5-speed manual. Most people are surprised or sometimes angry I have a manual transmission. Why did you buy this with a stick shift? (like when I start growing a beard; people seem aggravated about that)Now that is curious. Why would somebody be angry that you have a manual? Seems that if they're not going to be driving it, there's no reason to be angry.
Other motorists get mad at me.......well, they normally do after they have to panic stop because they're too stupid to consider it. Although, I doubt anyone has ever been used to seeing an old ford taurus with a manual. One guy had enough nerve to yell at me saying my brake lights didn't work. Personally, feel common Americans are inept at comprehending manuals these days, perhaps too lazy to even consider them, idk.
ProDarwin wrote:stuart in mn wrote: Kind of like the 'more is better' attitude they have about automatic transmissions these days - does anyone really need seven or eight speed transmissions?Driven a new 6 speed auto? I can totally see the benefit of one. I can imagine a 7spd or 8spd would be an improvement as well, although there is that law of diminishing returns.
They do get better milage, but they generally are slower than their 3-4sp predecessors(if they happen to have the same engine) Torque seems to play a factor there in most cases.
According to the EPA.
Bingo..
yamaha wrote:ProDarwin wrote:They do get better milage, but they generally are slower than their 3-4sp predecessors(if they happen to have the same engine) Torque seems to play a factor there in most cases.stuart in mn wrote: Kind of like the 'more is better' attitude they have about automatic transmissions these days - does anyone really need seven or eight speed transmissions?Driven a new 6 speed auto? I can totally see the benefit of one. I can imagine a 7spd or 8spd would be an improvement as well, although there is that law of diminishing returns.
I have a hard time understanding how they could be slower, but don't have any proof to disagree either. But I do know that the Chrysler minivan I recently rented that had something like a 7 or 8 speed auto was actually a lot more satisfying to drive than almost any other auto trans equipped vehicle I've ever driven. The additional gears help it to stay in the power band, which common sense would tell you would improve performance (all else being equal), not hurt it. But in any case, it changed my mind about these types of transmissions. It also down shifted more often, which might seem like an annoyance until you realize that the jump between gears was so little that I actually preferred it to the 4 speed auto in my CR-V.
yamaha wrote:friedgreencorrado wrote:Other motorists get mad at me.......well, they normally do after they have to panic stop because they're too stupid to consider it. Although, I doubt anyone has ever been used to seeing an old ford taurus with a manual. One guy had enough nerve to yell at me saying my brake lights didn't work. Personally, feel common Americans are inept at comprehending manuals these days, perhaps too lazy to even consider them, idk.Datsun310Guy wrote: I bought an Accord base model LX version last spring with a 5-speed manual. Most people are surprised or sometimes angry I have a manual transmission. Why did you buy this with a stick shift? (like when I start growing a beard; people seem aggravated about that)Now that is curious. Why would somebody be angry that you have a manual? Seems that if they're not going to be driving it, there's no reason to be angry.
I have been tapped from behind by somebody who did not realise that my taking the foot off of the brake does not equal me moving ahead....
Javelin wrote:SilverFleet wrote: Ford Focus: to get the 5-speed (the 3 has a 6-speed), you couldn't get cruise control and had to get steelies. I guess you can get dealer-installed alloys, but at that point, it was more money than the 3 and came with less features. I think Ford has since changed this so you can get even the Titanium package with the stick. Good for them!Sorry man, but you missed out big time there. Not only can you get the Focus as a base with e 5-speed, they make an "SE Sport Package" that has better seats, alloys, and other goodies. For the 2013's it's a "Black Pack" and looks really cool. You can also get the absolute top-spec trim (Titanium) with the 5-speed manual. They even have a Titanium Handling Package with 18's and a sport suspension. That's why the Focus' take-rate in sticks is so high, Ford is actually *offering* them.
I'm cool with my choice. The 3 has an extra gear (6 vs 5), bigger wheels, and was still somehow cheaper. I did see that they had some sport package, but the dealers said it was all dealer installed, and i don't trust any of the Ford dealers around here. 
I hope Mazda doesn't go anywhere anytime soon, because they seem to be one of the only car companies that understands that manuals are not dead. Hell, they modeled the new Skyactiv 3 6-speed after the Miata's transmission! The one in my car is one of the best stock transmissions I've had the pleasure of shifting.
I don't care if autos get the same mileage now. They're still (and always will be) heavier, less reliable, more work to maintain (fluid and filter change every 30K, plus god knows what else will go wrong with them, as opposed to a clutch every 100K+), and less fun.
It might be the Toyobarus causing this, everyone who'd been waiting for years for that kind of car is buying them all at once.
GameboyRMH wrote: It might be the Toyobarus causing this, everyone who'd been waiting for years for that kind of car is buying them all at once.
This could be true.
And I hope everyone comes out with a competitor to this car, and all available with RWD and a stick. 
Twin_Cam wrote: I don't care if autos get the same mileage now. They're still (and always will be) heavier, less reliable, more work to maintain (fluid and filter change every 30K, plus god knows what else will go wrong with them, as opposed to a clutch every 100K+), and less fun.
There it is right there.
One issue with auto vs. manual. If the manufacturers designed them with the same ratios, the manual would get better mileage. But they don't. Gear ratio coverage of a 6 speed manual FOR MOST CARS (I.E. not GM LSx stuff) hasn't really increased all that much over the 5 speed, whereas 6spd and higher automatics have a huge ratio spread.
Twin_Cam wrote: I don't care if autos get the same mileage now. They're still (and always will be) heavier, less reliable, more work to maintain (fluid and filter change every 30K, plus god knows what else will go wrong with them, as opposed to a clutch every 100K+), and less fun.
Funny, I've had autos with well over 200k on them, with a TOTAL maintenance time of maybe 1.5 hours (a few fluid + filter changes), but I've never had a clutch last that long, and I've never been able to change one that fast.
They will always be heavier. But less reliable and more work to maintain? Not necessarily true.
Cliff notes: Dear Japan, please make 6 speed manuals with a real overdrive instead of 6 super-berkeleying-tight ratio gears.
mad_machine wrote: I have been tapped from behind by somebody who did not realise that my taking the foot off of the brake does not equal me moving ahead....
I have been too, and rolled back into someone as they left me 1-2in on an incline to get going. The cop agreed with me that they were stupid.
bravenrace wrote: I have a hard time understanding how they could be slower, but don't have any proof to disagree either. But I do know that the Chrysler minivan I recently rented that had something like a 7 or 8 speed auto was actually a lot more satisfying to drive than almost any other auto trans equipped vehicle I've ever driven. The additional gears help it to stay in the power band, which common sense would tell you would improve performance (all else being equal), not hurt it. But in any case, it changed my mind about these types of transmissions. It also down shifted more often, which might seem like an annoyance until you realize that the jump between gears was so little that I actually preferred it to the 4 speed auto in my CR-V.
Torque multiplication......that is the only reasoning I can come up with. Its great for low speed milage, but wringing it out, I don't think so. Plus there is lost time between every shift when you're talking about a 1/4 mile pass.
In reply to yamaha:
More gears give you more torque multiplication. If more gears allows the engine to stay in it's optimum operating range, then you more effectively make use of the torque the engine makes.
In reply to ProDarwin:
You are comparing an auto trans to a clutch, not a manual trans. And autos are less reliable, according to any reliability figures I've ever seen. They are also more work to maintain and repair, obviously.
But I think the point is that a lot of guys can rebuild a manual trans themselves for not a lot of money. I just did the trans in my Civic with a kit that cost me $125. In contrast I had to have the auto in my truck rebuilt at only 114k miles at a cost to me of $1600. I've rebuilt automatics before, but the newer ones are more complicated and require more special tools that I don't own. These are reasons to go manual instead of auto. A clutch is cheap and easy in comparison to rebuilding an auto trans.
e_pie wrote: I'd love a manual ecoboost F-150.
build one. You can get the Ecoboost in a crate now.
Vigo wrote:According to the EPA.Bingo..
+1
bravenrace wrote: In reply to ProDarwin: You are comparing an auto trans to a clutch, not a manual trans.
No, I'm comparing the auto trans + TQ converter to a manual trans + clutch. The whole system. Which is what a new car buyer compares when evaluating which to choose. Unless they are making clutchless manuals now, the clutch is the big maintenance item on a manual transmission.
I also didn't say they are more reliable, it was more a response to TwinCam's assertion that they will always be more reliable and require more maintenance. Auto manufacturers are putting a lot of effort into building extremely low maintenance high reliability transmissions. There are already a few in existence. Its not unlikely that the maintenance/repair comparison will weigh in favor of the auto in the future.
mguar wrote: Fords get better fuel mileage with automatics than sticks. People can't shift as fast as automatics can. Nor are they likely to outsmart automatics..
the automatic doesn't know its raining and the car in front of me on the highway is spinning out. I'd much rather downshift than lock the wheels up.
mguar wrote: Fords get better fuel mileage with automatics than sticks.
I can't say for sure about Fords, but many times this is a result of different gearing or engine management. Some makers, under the assumption that a car with a manual is owned by someone with sporting intentions, will equip manual trans cars slightly different than the same cars with automatics. The same is the case with a coupe versus a sedan. My old Accord coupe didn't have the same engine management of the VTEC as the sedan, and as a result the mileage wasn't as good.
You'll need to log in to post.
