One of the benefits of boards such as these is that it opens conversation up to all types of extrapolations based on data. Your extrapolations of the IIHS side impact test is flawed, in my opinion, for a few reasons (it also doesnt help that your facts regarding the test conditions are inaccurate):
The outcome is determined by many other factors besides Head Injury, and is precisely the reason why designs like the Hyundai Elantra- which received a "Good" for head injury, still fail the test. You are right in that the structure, per se, does nothing for the brain- only the curtains do, which is why cars without side inflatable protection cant pass this test. SUVs may [pass], as the non-airbagged CRV got a "Marginal", for example.
As noted, the test is done at 31 MPH. NOT 40+. And previous tests have shown that MANY vehicles can pass this test, easily... with side curtain airbags. Among the lower cost ones- Chevy Malibu, Toyota Camry, and ALL new (2005) Accords. The Chevy Cobalt and Toyota Corolla, rated acceptable, also qualify.
Not for anything, but the dummies used by the IIHS are sophisticated. I understand your argument about internal head trauma, but seriously, for there to be internal head trauma, there must be a force acting on the skull externally. The lower that external force, the lower the likelihood of internal trauma. I dont know about you, but I've never witnessed or heard about anyone getting a concussion from sitting and talking on the phone, for example. Well designed SACs largely mitigate the brutality of the impact.
And to your point, why bother crash testing at all? Its not as if frontal tests can measure what you are talking about if side impacts cant. GET REAL!!
Aside-I definitely believe that the average speed of 2 vehicle crashes is 20MPH, as most crashes are fender benders in which airbags dont even inflate. However, it is the more severe crashes that are obviously more deadly.
i understand your point aboutt he crash tests, but you dont have to have an external head impact to get a concussion...all you have to do is move your head fast enough (whiplash) to hit your brain against the inside of your skull.
ever play football? most concussions come regardless of the helmets or soft grassy ground, and without a direct hit to the head.
Well, ANT, let's try this again. Which happens first, the AWD in the Fusion or the 3.5 in the Five Hundred? And how much time in between? You see, I MIGHT buy a Fusion, but only if AWD is available and only if the Five Hundred won't have the 3.5 for quite some time after the AWD Fusion is available. And I must say I LOVE the CVT in my Five Hundred, and would probably miss it badly...
As of this moment, the 500 receives the 3.5L first. Fusion will get it after. How long after? Hmmm weeks, few months. This could change at the last minute though, we could have an oil embargo and you might see I-4 powered 500's (joke).
Toward the end of the year, I'll be able to confirm the above. Usually 6 months prior to something being released, the orders start being made. And now since the supplier parks are onsite, such switches can be made in much less time.
The crash test information is certainly valuable. While the weight of the simulated vehicle may be too low, it still allows for a comparison of the performance of different vehicles. Vehicles that do better in the test are likely to do better in an actual crash. Of course the heavier the vehicle hitting you and the faster it is going the worse the results are going to be. pretty foolish to describe them as "a complete waste of time".
Hyundai Sonata, Kia Optima, Saturn Ion, Suzuki Forenza, and Kia Spectra WITH side airbags got a poor rating. I certainly would consider this when making a vehicle choice. If a car offers side air bags they should test it with them. Should test with and without them, if they are optional.
IIHS description of side impact test states:
"The test configuration resulting from this research is a 31 mph (50 km/h) perpendicular impact into the driver side of a passenger vehicle. The moving deformable barrier that strikes the test vehicle weighs 3,300 pounds..."
Regarding the other side impact tests, the NHTSA says:
"The side crash test represents an intersection-type collision with a 3,015 pound barrier moving at 38.5 mph into a standing vehicle. The moving barrier is covered with material that has "give" to replicate the front of a vehicle."
According to IIHS: "These federal tests don't assess the risks of head injury from impacts with vehicles like SUVs and pickups." (Which is what the IIHS test is designed to simulate).
I'm sorry, ANT, I must not be very clear in my question. I am not asking when the Fusion gets the 3.5, but rather which comes first--the AWD for the Fusion or the 3.5 for the Five Hundred?
Sorry, long day here, was awakened at Noon, and since then it's been downhill. The AWD in the Zephyr comes in first. Although, the 3.5L will be coupled with AWD for the majority of the vehicles that might make it available... As it stands right now (this can always change at the last minute).
The fact is the Fusion and the Five Hundred will fail the test without side airbags, the mistu Galant got a good structure rating and still got a poor score without side airbags, add side airbags and you get a good rating. Ford I'm sure will pay for the test with side airbags for the Five Hundred and Fusion if they know they will get a good rating, they know the outcome; they knew the Focus with them would still be poor so it was pointless to test with them. Now when we get the C1 Focus here in a few years, if they are not std, they will pay for the test with the airbags. Mazda should have paid for the test with the airbags which they didn't do for the 3, they had a acceptable structure rating and with airbags they could have easily gotten a good or acceptable rating.
But back to the Fusion, ant would be able to answer this. Did they beef up the structure from the 6, as it got a poor structure rating?
Actually the C1 Focus just has one added side member, on the B-pillar, bringing lateral forces under the seats to the opposite B-pillar to spread the impact force.
In other words, is C1 Focus structurally that different from the current C170 Focus to make a difference in this test? No.
Structurally, does the C1 Focus improve in other areas. Yes. Specially frontal collisions, at the firewall area. Between the rear seat and trunk area for rear impacts.
Yes, the Fusion is substantially improved for side impacts, over the Mazda6. There's quite some rework of the B-pillar, and underbody structural elements, to help with impact forces and divert them elsewhere in the structure.
"Id be willing to bet that even the very high scoring Five Hundred would get a POOR without the optional side airbags/curtains in this test."
"The fact is the Fusion and the Five Hundred will fail the test without side airbags..."
Alpha and jasonj734, I don't know how much of a difference there is between the NHTSA crash tests and the IIHS we've been discussing here, but I thought it was worth mentioning that the Five Hundred has already received 5 star ratings for both front and side impacts WITHOUT the optional side airbags in the NHTSA tests.
There is a HUGE difference between the IIHS and the NHTSA tests. It is much easier to design a vehicle for the express purpose of passing the NHTSA test than the IIHS ones. And the IIHS more closely reflect the reality of SOME crashes, though neither is very predictive of actual vehicle behavior in the many thousands of ways that vehicles can and do crash in the real world.
One test has very little to do with the other. The IIHS crashes are far more severe....yet still do not really reflect reality in a car/SUV crash. As has been pointed out, very few SUVs are actually as light weight as the supposed-SUV used in the tests....
Ford was already aware of the new IIHS testing prior to designing the Fusion, and the vehicle was tailored to score well in this test. Also, Ford designed the structure to also do well in the governments roll-over testing which will begin in 2009.
In case anyone was wondering, and I don't recall this being posted yet, JOB1 for the Fusion is August 1st. I guess we're looking at a late August to mid-September arrival in showrooms.
Hey Ant14, Any ideas why the fusion is not going to be at the Greater St. Paul & Minneapolis International Auto Show that starts this weekend? (March 12-20)
It won't be there? Hmm, that's odd. Most probably because it's on it's way to other shows coming up around the same time. There's a certain number that tour the shows, but if you have too many shows around the same time, someone misses out.
Any speculation on what the difference in price will be between the Fusion and Milan? I'm interested in the Milan and like that it looks slightly more sophisticated, but don't expect that it really should be worth much of an upcharge.
That would be odd. The Montego can be either less or more expensive than the Five Hundred, depending on how it is equipped. And it's hard to compare, as the Montego has LED taillights and HID headlights not even available on the Five Hundred at any price...
Just went to the show today. There's a Milan, Zephyr AND Fusion there - all in black.
IMO, the Fusion looks a heck of a lot better in person than it does in pictures. The Zephyr looked better close-up too, but I don't care much for the smooth, slab-sided body panels. Without side moldings, the thing's gonna pick up door dents like nobody's business.
There won't be much of a price difference between the Milan and Fusion. Sometimes, you could find the Mercury dealership's willing to bargain a bit more, and you might purchase the a bit lower than the Ford counterpart. Plus, the Montego has a few extras (all relatives comes out in the end)in comparison to the 500. Same will occur with the Milan and Fusion.
Hey I just have a quick question. Obviously, this forum is mostly about the Ford Fusion. I was just curious as to how does everybody think the Mercury Milan is going to do for mercury ?
Yes I know it's a Ford Fusion with slightly different sheetmetal but still ? I like how the Milan looks over the Fusion. I just hope they put a 5 speed manual in the 4 as well as the V6. Personally I think they could be a pair of big time homeruns for Ford if Ford nails the Quality and doesn't have 20-30 recalls on them
It's the first time in over 36 years where Mercury will be displaying more products at the dealership. I believe that between the Zephyr, Milan and Fusion, someone usually likes one, over another.
5 speed manual will be available only on the 4 cylinder.
So as long as Mercury does not load the base model of the Milan up with things that are optional on the Fusion, the price should be the same. But, as you mention, they do add things to the Montego that raise its price. This is okay as long as the added things are stuff I would want anyway...or at least don't mind having and don't make for too much of a price differential.
The worst would be if they add stuff that costs more, but I personally would actually pay more to not have. Leather for example.
From that article..."And many states now have foreign auto plants--Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee and six more. That's a lot of senators with some interest in defending foreign manufacturers."
Hmm...a company manufactures cars in the US but is a foreign manufacturer. Kinda like how being born in the US does not make one a native american. :-)
So where is the Fusion/Milan to be assembled...Mexico???
Does anyone know if the Fusion will make an appearance at the NY auto at the end of the month? Also, did Ford allow people inside the Fusion at the other show where it made appearances?
I hate cars that have short seat cushions. I generally have found Ford seats to be deep enough to be comfortable. GM and the Korean makes all seem to have stubby seat bottoms that don't provide enough thigh support to be comfortable for me.
Is this just different companies designing seats to appeal to different people? Do some people find the smaller seats more comfortable? Or is it that some companies choose to put more money into their seats?
The Fords I own and sit in (comfortably) currently are a 1997 Windstar and a 1996 Contour. I did recently sit in a 500 and a Mustang at the auto show and at a dealer, both also had pretty comfortable seats for me. So I am guessing I will find the MIlan/Fusion seats to be comfortable.
Hi, high am a high school senior looking for a nice college car, since i got a full scholarship somewhere. I typically like japanese cars but Ford is making me like American cars again. I thinking about the Mustang V6 Premium, a Ford Fusion SEL 4cylinder, a Milan 4cylinder, and a Mazda 6 hatchback. I love the Mustang but i don't think it is really practical and it doesn't come with a sunroof. The other three don't seem flashy enough. Help me make a choice!!!
That's very interesting because I'm sorta in the same kind of situation. I'm about to get out of college. I'm happily single. I'm also stuck between the V6 Mustang, 4 cylinder Ford Fusion and 4 cylinder Milan. I'm still young so I'm thinking hey have fun while you still can. So my gut instinct is to get the V6 Mustang. But it's a very strong reality that $2.00/gallon of gas is here to stay and that would really put a hurting on my budget. So my smart side is telling me the 4 cylinder Milan. If I was you just ask yourself some very serious questions. If your in college your going to be broke as hell and your really really going to get tired of running back and forth to the gas station. Also, your probably going to need a lot of room for your stuff and your friends. So the Mustang wouldn't be the best choice if I was in your position. If I was you, I'd go with the 4 cylinder Ford Fusion, or Milan. They offer more room to fit your life better, fuel economy and they seem like something you could keep long after you graduate from college. Hey the Mustang will be there. If I was going into college knowing what I know now, I don't think the Mustang wouldn't do you very much good. I would go with one of the 2 new sedans Fusion or Milan. If I had to chose one I'd go with the Milan. I just like the styling of the Milan over the Fusion. That's just me
For best acceleration and fuel mileage get a manual transmission (also lower purchase price). College is perfect, since you probably don't have a long commute in gridlocked traffic.
You could also consider the Focus Wagon. More room and more efficient than the cars mentioned, and it handles very well. Right now there is a $2000 rebate and you get a Dell computer (3 gig with a flat panel monitor) if you buy one by the end of the month.
As far as being flashy, that just gets you tickets as mentioned above, plus there is always going to be some joker with Vette or a BMW that their parents bought - so it is hard to be top of the heap. For the most part, any new vehicle is pretty impressive in college.
Overall fuel mileage is better with an mt than an at. About 10% better on average.
Acceleration is better with an mt than an at. Also about 10% better.
There are very few exceptions to this (the percentages certainly vary though) and the Focus is certainly not one of then, and I doubt the Fusion will be either.
To say mileage is worse while accelerating is stating the obvious.
I can't believe people buy the myth that automatics have reached parity with manuals.
They are getting closer - the larger the engine and vehicle are the less difference there tends to be.
I don't think the 10% figure on mileage is accurate. more like 0-5%. We are planning to get a Jetta for my wife. Mileage is the same for ATX (6 speed) and manual (5 speed). I think most cars show about 1-2 mpg difference.
I drive 4 cyl 96 MTX contour myself. Even that has only a 1.5 mpg mileage difference despite 5 speeds for the MTX vs. only 4 for the ATX. This is a 5% difference.
EPA favors automatics. Remember when Honda increased the mileage on the manaul CRX by like 5 mpg just by putting in an upshift light.
In the real world manuals get far better than EPA numbers and autos just a little better. My manual Integra is EPA 24/28 and I get 32 driving 80 and over 40 if I am going 60.
Consumer Reports has the best mileage tests in the industry, and they recently tested some identical cars with auto tranny and manual. The results were eye opening - it is a good read. I don't have it in front of me, but the mazda 3 they tested in that issue dropped nearly a second in 0-60 (8.6 from 9.5?) and gained about 4 mpg in overal mileage. They measured fuel consumption at 42 mpg going 65 mpg with the manual (it is rated EPA 28/35). The automatic was 4 or 5 mpg worse even though it is only 1 mpg worse on EPA.
The other vehicles they tested had similar results - just don't remember them offhand.
CVT's are getting closer, but in the real world the Civic hnybrid CVT drivers get worse mpg than the manual.
Of course other benefits of a manual are more control, better in the snow (see more control), more fun, fewer people borrowing (or stealing) your car, and you can push start it if your battery dies.
you need to go work for howard dean...you can sure spin numbers quite well.
"Remember when Honda increased the mileage on the manaul CRX by like 5 mpg just by putting in an upshift light."
it was 2 MPG. but it only works if you shift when it tells you to, which is always way too early.
"In the real world manuals get far better than EPA numbers and autos just a little better."
which world is that? the matrix? in this world, there are very few vehicles that get EPA numbers for every-day mileage.
"the mazda 3 they tested in that issue dropped nearly a second in 0-60 (8.6 from 9.5?) and gained about 4 mpg in overal mileage."
you think they got 4 MPG better WHILE doing 0-60 in 8.6 secs? not even close.
"benefits of a manual are more control, better in the snow (see more control), more fun, fewer people borrowing (or stealing) your car, and you can push start it if your battery dies."
more fun is subjective. 99% of my driving is from light-to-light. not too fun after i finish a 12 hour work day.
"fewer people borrowing (or stealing) your car"
yeah...they dont want it either...see: resale value.
"you can push start it if your battery dies."
so feel free to leave the dome light on all night, right?
I’ve always found that snow driving is easier in an automatic, at least for the lay driver. With an auto, you can use the car’s natural creep to your advantage, so that it begins moving without wheel-spin. With a manual, you have to start in second gear, and be very talented with a clutch, or you’ll keep spinning and spinning (or stall).
I think the weather argument is becoming irrelevant anyway, as more and more cars have traction control, stability control, all wheel drive, etc.
As for the future, ‘gearless’ CVTs and computer-controlled Sequential Manuals (like BMW and Audi have) are the way of the future. Most people (myself included) have too tedious of a daily drive to make shifting-it-yourself fun.
It's really not basic arithmetic. If it were as easy as "gear counting", the one with the higher number of gears would always win the mileage contest. But it's really gear ratios that count. E.g., if you have a really tall overdrive on a 5spd auto, you're likely to see higher highway figures than you would with a performance geared 6spd stick.
A side note: some of us drive sticks for reasons other than fuel economy or reduced purchase price. Personally, I would pay extra for a manual transmission over an automatic, with or without a mileage gain.
IMO, life with an automatic is just plain boring. It's like the difference of being outside and batting a volleyball around on a sunny day or staying indoors and playing canasta. Whatever floats your boat...
Comments
The outcome is determined by many other factors besides Head Injury, and is precisely the reason why designs like the Hyundai Elantra- which received a "Good" for head injury, still fail the test. You are right in that the structure, per se, does nothing for the brain- only the curtains do, which is why cars without side inflatable protection cant pass this test. SUVs may [pass], as the non-airbagged CRV got a "Marginal", for example.
As noted, the test is done at 31 MPH. NOT 40+. And previous tests have shown that MANY vehicles can pass this test, easily... with side curtain airbags. Among the lower cost ones- Chevy Malibu, Toyota Camry, and ALL new (2005) Accords. The Chevy Cobalt and Toyota Corolla, rated acceptable, also qualify.
Not for anything, but the dummies used by the IIHS are sophisticated. I understand your argument about internal head trauma, but seriously, for there to be internal head trauma, there must be a force acting on the skull externally. The lower that external force, the lower the likelihood of internal trauma. I dont know about you, but I've never witnessed or heard about anyone getting a concussion from sitting and talking on the phone, for example. Well designed SACs largely mitigate the brutality of the impact.
And to your point, why bother crash testing at all? Its not as if frontal tests can measure what you are talking about if side impacts cant. GET REAL!!
Aside-I definitely believe that the average speed of 2 vehicle crashes is 20MPH, as most crashes are fender benders in which airbags dont even inflate. However, it is the more severe crashes that are obviously more deadly.
~alpha
ever play football? most concussions come regardless of the helmets or soft grassy ground, and without a direct hit to the head.
Toward the end of the year, I'll be able to confirm the above. Usually 6 months prior to something being released, the orders start being made. And now since the supplier parks are onsite, such switches can be made in much less time.
Hyundai Sonata, Kia Optima, Saturn Ion, Suzuki Forenza, and Kia Spectra WITH side airbags got a poor rating. I certainly would consider this when making a vehicle choice. If a car offers side air bags they should test it with them. Should test with and without them, if they are optional.
IIHS description of side impact test states:
"The test configuration resulting from this research is a 31 mph (50 km/h) perpendicular impact into the driver side of a passenger vehicle. The moving deformable barrier that strikes the test vehicle weighs 3,300 pounds..."
Regarding the other side impact tests, the NHTSA says:
"The side crash test represents an intersection-type collision with a 3,015 pound barrier moving at 38.5 mph into a standing vehicle. The moving barrier is covered with material that has "give" to replicate the front of a vehicle."
According to IIHS: "These federal tests don't assess the risks of head injury from impacts with vehicles like SUVs and pickups." (Which is what the IIHS test is designed to simulate).
Sort of getting a CVT along with AWD, combo.
But back to the Fusion, ant would be able to answer this. Did they beef up the structure from the 6, as it got a poor structure rating?
In other words, is C1 Focus structurally that different from the current C170 Focus to make a difference in this test? No.
Structurally, does the C1 Focus improve in other areas. Yes. Specially frontal collisions, at the firewall area. Between the rear seat and trunk area for rear impacts.
Yes, the Fusion is substantially improved for side impacts, over the Mazda6. There's quite some rework of the B-pillar, and underbody structural elements, to help with impact forces and divert them elsewhere in the structure.
"The fact is the Fusion and the Five Hundred will fail the test without side airbags..."
Alpha and jasonj734, I don't know how much of a difference there is between the NHTSA crash tests and the IIHS we've been discussing here, but I thought it was worth mentioning that the Five Hundred has already received 5 star ratings for both front and side impacts WITHOUT the optional side airbags in the NHTSA tests.
One test has very little to do with the other. The IIHS crashes are far more severe....yet still do not really reflect reality in a car/SUV crash. As has been pointed out, very few SUVs are actually as light weight as the supposed-SUV used in the tests....
(S)ide
(P)rotection
(A)nd
(C)abin
(E)nhancement
Any speculation on what the difference in price will be between the Fusion and Milan? I'm interested in the Milan and like that it looks slightly more sophisticated, but don't expect that it really should be worth much of an upcharge.
OTOH, you can always look at the mazda 6 wagon.
I too like the looks of the Milan more than the Fusion.
IMO, the Fusion looks a heck of a lot better in person than it does in pictures. The Zephyr looked better close-up too, but I don't care much for the smooth, slab-sided body panels. Without side moldings, the thing's gonna pick up door dents like nobody's business.
http://www.forbes.com/business/global/2005/0314/029.html
The problems are almost identical between Ford and GM.
Yes I know it's a Ford Fusion with slightly different sheetmetal but still ? I like how the Milan looks over the Fusion. I just hope they put a 5 speed manual in the 4 as well as the V6. Personally I think they could be a pair of big time homeruns for Ford if Ford nails the Quality and doesn't have 20-30 recalls on them
5 speed manual will be available only on the 4 cylinder.
The worst would be if they add stuff that costs more, but I personally would actually pay more to not have. Leather for example.
Hmm...a company manufactures cars in the US but is a foreign manufacturer. Kinda like how being born in the US does not make one a native american. :-)
So where is the Fusion/Milan to be assembled...Mexico???
Is this just different companies designing seats to appeal to different people? Do some people find the smaller seats more comfortable? Or is it that some companies choose to put more money into their seats?
The Fords I own and sit in (comfortably) currently are a 1997 Windstar and a 1996 Contour. I did recently sit in a 500 and a Mustang at the auto show and at a dealer, both also had pretty comfortable seats for me. So I am guessing I will find the MIlan/Fusion seats to be comfortable.
Sleeper is a far better way to go. And what's that boring about the Mazda6 or these Ford versions thereof?
If I was you just ask yourself some very serious questions. If your in college your going to be broke as hell and your really really going to get tired of running back and forth to the gas station. Also, your probably going to need a lot of room for your stuff and your friends. So the Mustang wouldn't be the best choice if I was in your position. If I was you, I'd go with the 4 cylinder Ford Fusion, or Milan. They offer more room to fit your life better, fuel economy and they seem like something you could keep long after you graduate from college. Hey the Mustang will be there. If I was going into college knowing what I know now, I don't think the Mustang wouldn't do you very much good. I would go with one of the 2 new sedans Fusion or Milan. If I had to chose one I'd go with the Milan. I just like the styling of the Milan over the Fusion. That's just me
You could also consider the Focus Wagon. More room and more efficient than the cars mentioned, and it handles very well. Right now there is a $2000 rebate and you get a Dell computer (3 gig with a flat panel monitor) if you buy one by the end of the month.
As far as being flashy, that just gets you tickets as mentioned above, plus there is always going to be some joker with Vette or a BMW that their parents bought - so it is hard to be top of the heap. For the most part, any new vehicle is pretty impressive in college.
thats such a myth these days, i cant beleive people still buy it. with a manual transmission, fuel mileage and acceleration are mutually exclusive.
if you drive conservatively enough to get better mileage, you wont be accelerating very fast. if you accelerate faster, your mileage will be horrible.
those are the worst reasons to get a manual transmission. purchase price is less, but resale loss will double what you save upfront.
Acceleration is better with an mt than an at. Also about 10% better.
There are very few exceptions to this (the percentages certainly vary though) and the Focus is certainly not one of then, and I doubt the Fusion will be either.
To say mileage is worse while accelerating is stating the obvious.
I can't believe people buy the myth that automatics have reached parity with manuals.
They are getting closer - the larger the engine and vehicle are the less difference there tends to be.
I drive 4 cyl 96 MTX contour myself. Even that has only a 1.5 mpg mileage difference despite 5 speeds for the MTX vs. only 4 for the ATX. This is a 5% difference.
OTOH...how can a 5-speed manual transmission get better mileage than a 5 or 6-speed automatic? im talking about basic arithmetic here.
case in point:
2005 nissan altima v6
5-speed auto 20C/30H
5-speed manual 20C/29H
6-speed manual 19C/26H
In the real world manuals get far better than EPA numbers and autos just a little better. My manual Integra is EPA 24/28 and I get 32 driving 80 and over 40 if I am going 60.
Consumer Reports has the best mileage tests in the industry, and they recently tested some identical cars with auto tranny and manual. The results were eye opening - it is a good read. I don't have it in front of me, but the mazda 3 they tested in that issue dropped nearly a second in 0-60 (8.6 from 9.5?) and gained about 4 mpg in overal mileage. They measured fuel consumption at 42 mpg going 65 mpg with the manual (it is rated EPA 28/35). The automatic was 4 or 5 mpg worse even though it is only 1 mpg worse on EPA.
The other vehicles they tested had similar results - just don't remember them offhand.
CVT's are getting closer, but in the real world the Civic hnybrid CVT drivers get worse mpg than the manual.
Of course other benefits of a manual are more control, better in the snow (see more control), more fun, fewer people borrowing (or stealing) your car, and you can push start it if your battery dies.
"Remember when Honda increased the mileage on the manaul CRX by like 5 mpg just by putting in an upshift light."
it was 2 MPG. but it only works if you shift when it tells you to, which is always way too early.
"In the real world manuals get far better than EPA numbers and autos just a little better."
which world is that? the matrix? in this world, there are very few vehicles that get EPA numbers for every-day mileage.
"the mazda 3 they tested in that issue dropped nearly a second in 0-60 (8.6 from 9.5?) and gained about 4 mpg in overal mileage."
you think they got 4 MPG better WHILE doing 0-60 in 8.6 secs? not even close.
"benefits of a manual are more control, better in the snow (see more control), more fun, fewer people borrowing (or stealing) your car, and you can push start it if your battery dies."
more fun is subjective. 99% of my driving is from light-to-light. not too fun after i finish a 12 hour work day.
"fewer people borrowing (or stealing) your car"
yeah...they dont want it either...see: resale value.
"you can push start it if your battery dies."
so feel free to leave the dome light on all night, right?
I think the weather argument is becoming irrelevant anyway, as more and more cars have traction control, stability control, all wheel drive, etc.
As for the future, ‘gearless’ CVTs and computer-controlled Sequential Manuals (like BMW and Audi have) are the way of the future. Most people (myself included) have too tedious of a daily drive to make shifting-it-yourself fun.
A side note: some of us drive sticks for reasons other than fuel economy or reduced purchase price. Personally, I would pay extra for a manual transmission over an automatic, with or without a mileage gain.
IMO, life with an automatic is just plain boring. It's like the difference of being outside and batting a volleyball around on a sunny day or staying indoors and playing canasta. Whatever floats your boat...