Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Now if they shifted at the shift points with a minimum of rpm gain between shifts then the manuals would get a better rating. Not going to happen ever in this world but that is how I meant it. And you know how they measure it, on a dyno with someone else shifting the car and a tail pipe sniffer. I believe that is why some of the manufacturers are pushing computer assisted manuals, CVTs and automatics.
http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/Index.do;jsessionid=352d5e631ae630657e0f9f9aa01- ab73224e0939dd1eb541e5584646f809ad75f.e34MbhqOa3uSby0Oa3iKc34PaNf0n6jAmljGr5XDqQ- LvpAe
Here are the top rated green cars on the EPA site. Notice only one manual and it is CNG. Also notice it isn't the greenest? Notice what is and what transmission is?
Don't forget, 35.5 is supposed to be the automaker's average. So the sad part is that in the year your sterling TDI was sold to you, VW's average was somewhere around 24, more than 10 full points lower than the requirement.
That same year, Toyota sold the Echo I currently drive. I average 42 mpg over its liefetime, and Toyota's fleet average was only in the upper 20s at the time it was sold.
It is not the fringe cars like yours and mine that are going to win this battle for the automakers. U.S. consumers are no more likely to jump into diesels like yours in huge numbers than they are to jump into subcompacts like mine in huge numbers.
The trick will be to get midsize sedans and crossovers to meet the 35.5 standard burning gas. And quite a trick it will be. Manuals could help though.....but I don't just appreciate that they save gas, I much more appreciate them for the driver involvement they add to the drive.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
http://www.mass.gov/dep/air/community/dieselqa.htm
I don't know if they will waver higher clean air standards if hybrids and gas engines are already being tested at P-zero. New filters or not diesels produce particulants in greater quanity that hybrids. Now if we were to see a diesel hybrid maybe they could overcome the P-zero equation but unless they are as clean as the cleanest car CARB will make diesels jump through hoops to get certified in the golden bankrupt state. Still to be logical it seems as if it is easier for a manufacturer to get a hybrid certified under the California regulations. And that doesn't bode well for manuals because hybrids are typically not manuals.
Now I well know there is a call for california to relax their standards so more diesels can be sold here. The logic is that diesel produces less CO-2 and that cause global warming. But they produce more Nitrogen and particulants and they cause cancer.
A few years ago, before the last price hike, diesel made a lot more since because it was less expensive than gas, but that is no longer the case and it doesn't look like we will see diesel in California for less the Regular in the near future.
So the consumer in california if faced with two choices to get the kind of fuel mileage the government is suggesting. Diesel or Hybrid. Both cost about the same and Hybrids get a bit better fuel mileage on fuel that cost less. And hybrids are on the green car list. So you get a clean, green high fuel mileage vehicle for about the same price as you pay for a vehicle that gets high fuel mileage but is not considered green.
I still say it will be a uphill battle for diesels in California and any state that adopts California air quality standards.
"The governor reminded the automotive press that 20 percent of the new vehicles sold in the United States are sold in California, which is home to 25 million cars and trucks. (Those vehicles, not incidentally, consume 50 million gallons of gasoline and diesel a day and produce 40 percent of the state's greenhouse gases.)
As a result of California's vehicle market share, and that fact that Washington often follows the state's lead regarding tailpipe-emissions regulations, automakers can count on there being a large market for hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles and companies considering investments in an H2-refueling infrastructure can rest assured there will be vehicles requiring the fuel, he said."
Schwarzenegger: Calif. Committed to H2 Future Regardless of Washington Politics (Green Car Advisor)
It is the duel challenge of high fuel mileage and emmisions that make diesel less likely as an alternative in our state. I didn't say the standards couldn't be lowered to allow diesels a better chance but that it isn't likely. If the future turns out to be EV, Fuel Cell and or hybrids then manuals will be relegated to entry level cars and sport cars and at an even lower percentage than they are now. Just my opinion of course.
Nothing we hear from our government planners indicate that they are looking at diesel as a solution for American passenger cars. Almost everything we read indicates the government is pushing for and funding Hybrids, EVs and Fuel cells. With 90 percent of the American consumers already out of manuals it just doesn't seem like manuals or diesles that may or may not be manual equipped will flourish in our future.
Air and emissions are merely the means to the ends.
If hybrids, fuel cell and EVs are the future where does that leave manuals? If the majority of the funding is being spent on EVs hybrids and fuel cells where does that leave manuals?
When we predict the future of a transmission shouldn't we take into consideration the most likely vehicles we will see in the future?
So for another example, Civic Hybrid for a year or two offered the hybrid in either automatic or manual. Which say you was able to get the better mpg given certain equalities? (and let me be one of the first to say NOTHING is equal)
When we look at what "is" being produced to address the fuel and green problem happens to be hybrids, EVs and fuel cells then the options for manuals is even smaller than it is today.
Some seem to be making the assumption, and we know what assuming does, that people that have rejected manuals at at least 9 to 1 will suddenly revert to wanting one because of fuel mileage. The government is financing development of fuel cells and EVs and California is mandating ZEVs and none of those seem compatible with manuals.
Looking at the reasons manuals aren't included in the green equation has been stated before. They can't control a third pedal with a computer for maximum emission control. They could make a computer controlled manual but for most in this particular forum that would simply be another form of automatic transmission. That being the forum definition then the future for manuals looks much darker than it now does with less than 10 percent of the market. With the said exception of cheep entry level vehicles and expensive sports vehicles. This isn't at what they could do prediction but rather what they "are" doing based prediction.
..."Some seem to be making the assumption, and we know what assuming does, that people that have rejected manuals at at least 9 to 1 will suddenly revert to wanting one because of fuel mileage."...
No I think it is an assumption that you are assuming some folks believe that. Certainly not I or most on this thread for that matter.
To repeat what I am saying, the fuel mileage issue is disingenuous, when it is well documented manual transmissions offer easily 1-5 mpg better, cheaper to run and to repair to name a few benefits. I hope that you are not arquing that is is NOT apparent (to most folks ) where things are going when upwards of 75% of transmissions are NOT manual???
The control issue is a straw man. ANYONE can easily do/get worse mpg with a Prius.(automatic or the non option manual. Saying a major reason for lack of manual transmission options is for "control" far from credible.
So as a practical move, if one likes manual transmissions, it makes sense to get one now to the year before one anticipates the model they like will not offer manual transmissions.
To be way ahead of the 2016 35.5 mph standard (not that it would really matter) get one that will get close to the then defacto AVERAGE mpg (28 mpg) The ratio will probably be the same for the current standards of 27 mpg with defacto average of 22 mpg.
This is not really that hard as even V-8 C5 6 speed manual Corvettes can get 28-32 mpg.
The direction things are going in the US is the Predictor not what is popular in europe or was popular in the US. When some of the major transmission manufacturers have already written off the US as a lost cause, a quote by the president and CEO of ZF was given earlier. The prediction by the same company that Asia is quickly heading in the same direction indicates that the consumer isn't interested in shifting their toasters themselves. ( the snide reference to vehicle type is mine alone)
Add to that the love affair the greenies have with Hybrids and EVs and the future of manuals dims even in the eyes of the most hopeful advocate of the traditional manual.
The real point is that the argument for more invasive computer control is being made by the very people tha can control such issues. The Government, the environmentalists and the manufacturers. There is only one group pulling for the continuance of the traditional manual, the enthusiast, and they are maybe as rare as the manual itself. As long as there is a human behind the third pedal they represent an unknown factor in emissions from a particular vehicle.
The future of the manual is tied up in the future direction of passenger cars in a world attempting to decrease the useage of oil produced fuel. All the technologies being researched, and more importantly funded, will be aimed directly at the heart of the last very small percentage of manual transmissions still being bought in the US. How that challenge is met will determine more about the future of manuals than any challenge they have faced in the last 60 years.
I would wonder if anyone believe we will see an increase in manuals in the next 10 to 20 years? If not that is also a predictor of the future.
That is true today for Toyota, Honda, Nissan (with the Versa but not Sentra), and even Chevy with the Aveo and that Cobalt XFE trim (which was manual only, BTW).
So that's the flip side of what you are saying. Yes, hybrids present a bleak picture for manuals, but some size classes of cars will probably not be hybridized for at least another 20 years. By then I will be 60, maybe I won't care as much about manuals by then! :P
(Of course, there is the risk that by 2030 all small commute-type cars will be all-electric, with no transmission at all, Gawd what a thought. I sure hope not)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Don't count on it, if my situation is any indicator.
If you keep cars (as I do) for 5 - 10 years, that could be only two cars away, and you can buy the first one tomorrow. The one in 10 years may or may not be a problem.
Yes some can hang onto their manuals as some will hang onto their SUVs and for the same reason, they enjoy them. But the chances of more manuals or even the same number of manuals gracing our shore in the future is a long shot at best.
This is something we are already seeing when we remember the press release from Toyota indicating they want to have a hybrid in every model they produce. I know you read it to say they would have both hybrid and gas in every model but I am not so sure.
The cold hard truth is less than 10 percent of the cars sold in the US leave the dealership as manuals. The people are voting with their wallets even now. The new cars being produced will give people even more options and most likely reduce manuals even more. In fact simply watching what Nissan was doing makes the argument obvious.
We will not have long to wait to see what direction the industry goes in but I just happen to feel the green people are in the strongest position they have been in for years. The EPA green guide is simply a poster child for that strength.
But you are right about one thing. Given the option many of us would take a EV over any oil fired ice vehicle as our next city car. It is good for our air and good for our future. And California laws make such vehicles possible. I know I had hopes for EVs 30 years ago only to have them dashed by Toyota and Honda with their hybrids in 99 and 2000. But I am ever hopeful. But then I live in Southern california where such vehicles are more practical than the frozen northeastern part of our country.
Yes, but that's not spread evenly over market segments. I have already provided the example that more than 50% of WRXs and Miatas sold are manuals, which is why I am convinced we will see 3 pedals in sporty models for many years to come.
But the same is true for entry-level small cars - Civics, Yarises, Fits, etc are sold in manual more than 25% of the time (varies by model). The same is not true for domestic-brand models, I don't believe, but that's because they discount the heck out of their automatics. In the typical Toyota or Honda, that automatic in that econocar costs a VERY IMPORTANT extra $1000.
The only threat to manuals in cars under $20K comes not from possible hybridization or TC automatics, but from CVTs, which can be made very cheaply (with corresponding durability, I wouldn't wonder). If they can make the price the same between the 3-pedal manual and the CVT, we may then and only then see the manuals begin to disappear from the smaller cars.
And who likes CVTs? Certainly do the car designers and beancounters who see more profit and easier EPA compliance with them, but nobody who drives cars does. They even alarm the A-to-B appliance car owners with their motorboating style of propulsion. Professional reviewers, for as little or as much influence as they have on the average Joe Customer, despise them universally from what I can tell.
Oh, and before you get too carried away reciting Toyota's press releases regarding "a hybrid in every pot", you may want to stop and consider that they have been sounding that trumpet for ten years, and STILL all we have is the little trio of hybrids they produce today, two of which have been around as long as 7-8 years. They can't seem to walk the walk, although they put up a good talk. How long have we waited for the long-promised hybrid Sienna? Seems like we will be waiting a lot longer, and except for the shortened Prius they plan to sell as a separate model, there aren't even any new hybrids in the pipeline at this point.
2030 is going to come up awfully quickly for Toyota at this rate....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I read this in my local rag but some "family" type American car dealers facing extremely hard times said "back in the good ole days" dealers made 1,000 dollars on a 4,000 dollar car. FF to the bleak new days, and the good news? is they still 1,000 dollars !? The problem is that is on a 30,000 dollar car and most of us really know what that means. So a 1,000 dollar (extra cost option) option such as an automatic can be the difference between profit and .... loss.
I would even go so far as to say that Boaz47's take of 10% manuals (total passenger vehicle population of 254.1 M ) might be a reflection of the most important metric, those who are actually still buying them. So whatever it happens to really be, those manufacturers that currently offer manuals will continue to make them an option for as long as people actually buy them. They will of course produce their best guess of what will ultimately actually.... SELL.
Hybrids, I would agree have been a very hard sell (total passenger vehicle fleet) 10 or so years on the market has barely made a measurable dent in the population.
Indeed Toyota Camry (America's ubiquitious 4 door sedan) as American as apple pie, sells manuals in 3/4 trim lines. Honda Accord sells manual in 4/4 trim lines. So indeed reports of the manual transmissions death is.... premature.
While some implementations leave a lot to be desired, they do offer advantages.
They can be smooth, offer a very wide spread of gears, and keep the engine at its peak peak power or even its peak torque the entire time. So it's efficient in a different way - making the most out of a small engine, for instance.
I'm not a fan of how they drive, most of the time, but from an efficiency standpoint they do have their merit.
It is pretty clear "enthusiasts" (aka folks who actually spring for a manual transmission) are/ have been in the EXTREME minority.
The good news is there are hosts of oems who still make manuals an available option. Indeed as stated in a previous post, manuals are still available in America's mainstream cars (ie., Toyota's Corolla/Camry, Honda's Civic/Accord).
So (even in the case of ) the CVT being foisted on the majority of the population, as long as they are being bought (aka able to charge more and it tends to break down more and costs more to fix) , it matters precious little,.... unless those buyers stop buying them or complain to the point they make....changes.
Last official number I heard was 93% auto, 7% manual, but I wonder how many of those autos are CVTs. Nissan alone sells tons of them.
What if, in fact, we broke it down further, into:
Traditional (Torque Converter) Automatics
CVTs
Dual Clutch Gearboxes
Automated manuals (e.g. Toyota MR2)
That last one is pretty rare, I think.
CVT Enters the Mainstream
I'd like to see some warranty or repair data comparing the TCO of automatics vs manuals vs CVTs.
My Tremec T-56 only has 73,000 miles.
The VW 5 speed manual on a TDI despite it being "marginal" has a life expectancy of 400,000 miles. $650. is the current price to a V6 clutch upgrade.
So yes it would be interesting to compare a CVT transmission on say 155 to 400 # ft of torque !?
*sigh*
Audi's CVT and Nissan's CVT have both been reliable AFAIK, so they're up to the task for mainstream cars nowadays.
Speaking of Audi (and VW), look at all the variations of transmission they offer. They seem to have one of everything.
The CVT concept has been around since the late '50s, but has only recently made it into anything resembling rate production. Since so many people claim that it's the answer to the maiden's prayer, I've got to wonder why it took so long to get to market.
Lots of sliding stuff going on, as those variable pitch coned do-hickeys move the chain/belt/whatever up and down to continuously vary the ratio. I'm very much in the wait & see mode, particularly with powerplants significantly larger than Briggs & Stratton.
The jury is still out, IMNHO.
Wiki says that Leonardo da Vinci, in 1490, conceptualized a stepless continuously variable transmission. The first patent for a toroidal CVT was filed in Europe in 1886, and a US Patent for one was granted in 1935.
Why so long to market? Good question - and maybe the 7 and 8 speed automatics will shunt it back to the level of background noise. But it seems well suited to hybrids.
The new technologies that we are seeing aren’t even interested in manual shifting they are interested in convincing the public they are green and fuel efficient and they don’t have to learn anything to make them so.
We are dealing with a culture of doing everything the easy way. The other day I saw a commercial for a exercise program on WII. Stop and think about that for a minute. A pretend exercise tool that lets you pretend to play a game and they call that exercise?
Perhaps we ought to couch this most critical issue in green "ese". Manual transmissions are an acute endangered species. "Save the 6 speed manual transmissions"............
As "passe" as the automatic is becoming... here is a link link title Automatic Transmissions: What Makes Them Work
By Scott Memmer
Proof of concept, if not final stamp of approval.
The sign in our local Nissan dealer advises against trailer towing with the Murano because of the strain on the transmission.
The Subaru Justy was the earliest one I have experienced. I don't think its fair to hold that vehicle against the CVT (Nor do I think its fair to use the Freestyle), but the Murano is fair game.
The fact remains they all have more drag. So for example automatics up to minus -20 %, manuals as low as -11%. There is also a corresponding loss of hp, torque, ( some of the effects are manifested in) increase heat, in addition to decreases in mpg. I have not seen the dyno comparisons for CVT, DSG, and hybrids. hybrids provide an up to 15% advantage as it allows the normally mated gasser to not run to reduced run, for up to 20%. The hidden costs of this procedural operation actually exceeds the benefits, but they do succeed in making the car more expensive. Needless to say, the technology, costs to own and operate exceeds the manual transmissions factorially.
This is a tad off topic but outside of allowing 60 mpg diesel with manual transmissions into the US markets, it is not becoming cost effective to look to lower hanging but technologically more expensive areas of downstream energy transfer. So for example, there is considerable energy lost in strut and shock absorber operations than can be better to radically better utilized.
So CVT is still only light-to-medium duty, not heavy duty.
It may be as Nippon has said they gear manuals to high in the Us I don't know but they are not the greenists vehicles in the list.
Even a stanch manual defender like Nippon has admitted that companies like Toyota seem to be willing to drop the manual and he even predicted it would happen before MB drops all manuals from its line. I still say MB will be the first and Honda and Porsche will be the last.
The big reason manuals are not popular in the US is people have to learn to shift them. Take away the third pedal and replace it with a computer that works the clutch and you have solved the problem. Think about TVs. Is the remote control necessary? How far away is the TV and how hard was it to change channels? When was the last time you saw a manual typewriter in action? Half of the Quads people buy for sport are a form of automatic. Most motorcycles now come with electric start.
People have had a choice between transmissions for years. Honda Accords have been offered in manual and automatic for years as well. You know what sells best? Toyota Camry sells more automatics than manuals. Both have been making automatics for fewer years than manuals. Nissan stopped putting a manual in the Maxima. Never put one in the Murano. one or two other new Nissans don't come with a manual either. I agree it is bean counters but who do we believe runs these companies anyway?
I am simply saying I don't expect to see manuals make a comeback because people don't in general want to learn to shift. And if the trend to hybrids continues there will be no place in mainstream vehicles for the manual anyway.
Green vehicles can be even greener with manual transmissions. I am glad you recognize and agree with my post on Toyota and Honda offering manual in 3/4 and 4/4 of their trim levels and offering manuals since the start of their sales in the US market.
As for a come back? I really do not know how you would define it, or once defined why that would be a worthy goal. Market indicators say less than 10% manuals MY sales. I really do not know what the total passenger vehicle fleet tallies. Why should I advocate you buying a manual when you want an automatic, CVT, DSG, and vice versa?
If anything almost by definition all the others in effect are chipping away at the monolitic "automatic slushboxes". Given the advent of the DSG, I would almost go so far to say that the next car if it were to be a choice between a slush box or DSG, the DSG wins hands down in the "lower torque category". (under 250 # ft of torque)
For as long as hybrids have been on the market, I am also surprised at how little traction they have gained in the marketplace, despite their hype.link title
So at 2.0% predicted with 2.4% actual sales (of 10.8 M, 2008 MY sales) = 259,200 units. To have hybrids take over that rate,the passenger vehicle fleet of 255.7 M @ vehicles (NHTSA 2007 registered US passenger vehicle fleet) will take 987.26 years :P
What I question is your contention or intimation that people will willingly switch to manuals because it will be easier for manufacturers to meet CAFE and not care about environmental issues. I don't think the greenies are going away and there are no manuals in the greenie poster collection. And society has not shown that they are likely to want to learn to use a third pedal. So I have to wonder where your positive outlook comes from. Even Nippon isn't debating if manuals will be dropped by some manufacturers only that they will not be dropped by all. What makes you believe everyone is going to go back to manuals? Or do you believe more people are going to go back to manuals?
..."What I question is your contention or intimation that people will willingly switch to manuals because it will be easier for manufacturers to meet CAFE and not care about environmental issues."...
Indeed I did NOT say that at all !! Since I have have already said what I meant, you can chose to carry whatever you wish from that. But it is clear to me that my post was not anything close to what you are saying I said.
Yeah but to that end, its basically a glorified Altima wagon for moms. I think the Xterra is the SUV in that category from Nissan. Last I checked, it had a 6 speed manual as the base transmission.
“ One reason why manuals will be a mainstay, manuals deliver CAFE numbers. The main one is market driven. “
Market driven to make them mainstay would indicate a move towards making them a transmission strong hold, by the definition mainstay. So it would be easy to see you are not predicting growth in the hybrid market for about 900 years and you solution is for the manual to be the mainstay transmission to meet CAFÉ? The quote also indicates manuals will be mainstay because of market forces and that equates to increased demand from the consumer. Something we can easily test in the next few years.
If not what did you mean?
As for the hybrid growth what according to your math should it be? Again you misrepresent/misunderstand what was really said.
..."and that equates to increased demand from the consumer. Something we can easily test in the next few years"...
Your quote makes assumptions totally unsupported by facts/history. As for the increase demand I have already address the historical "increased demand" The figures come from easy past tests from past hybrid sales. Indeed this has been in testing for over 10 years.
Consumers have wanted Manuals in Honda's CRV and they bought them. Does Honda offer a manual CR-V? Are they a OEM? Toyota makes the RAV-4 and at one time it came in a manual. Does it anymore? Are they a OEM? If we are talking about brush strokes and assumptions. I know cold water. :P
My swag is that the various options, conventional "slush box", CVT, DSG, the downstream hybrids, etc., actually solidify the 5/6 speed manuals as a viable option, even further into the future. As I have said from the beginning, choice is good. It also would seem that there are clearly even MORE choices: 1. 5/6 speed manuals 2. CVT 3. DSG 4. conventional slush boxes 5. down stream hybrids
You really in effect deny/marginalize the real reasons why those other options are gaining market share over the conventional "automatic" (slush box)
I am sure there will be future articles detailing the percentage of MY sales of each and volume and percentage there of, in the passenger vehicle fleet.
Many have said that the solution was to switch to a BMW. That is true but that meant even fewer people would be buying a MB manual so at some point they, MB, may simply stop offering them in the North American market. The Auto magazines used to promote the Maxima as a sport Sedan, and they still do at times but Nissan dropped the manual option. Some then suggested that you could simply get a different sports sedan, maybe even an Altima and once again that was true. But the truth is there were less choices offered to people who preferred a manual and the OEM did not care one whit. Nissan went on to Offer the Murano when it was new not even considering the manual customer. Not that long after that came out with the "Rouge?" With what transmission? That is correct the CVT and no manual.
My contention is the manufacturer simply doesn't care what some people want they care about what sells the most.
Most people don't deny that someday the manual will be a thing of the past what they fight over is when that will take place. Some feel it will be at least 50 years and I am saying the current economic crisis will cut that time considerably.
Nippon was correct that the manual may only be 10 percent of the market share and that isn't uniform and I even conceded entry level cars and sports cars. But mainstream cars like the Accord and Camry may not be offered in a manual in ten to 20 years. Hybrids will allow manufacturers the ability to build cars that produce a higher profit in the long run and meet both the green agenda and fuel mileage agenda in one felt swoop without trying to retrain any great number of people having to change their driving habits.
I was listening to the new "car Czar and President on TV as they talked about spending 58 billion additional dollars to develop new technology that would help GM become profitable and GM is not manual friendly in the best of times. New technology doesn't sound like manuals and diesels at this point and from this administration. And Arnold and CARB have both indicated they are not willing to cut their desire for ZEV cars to be mainstream in California by 2014 to 2020. (not sure of the dates)
All of these are not positive signs for manuals to be the mainstay for any manufacturer in the near future.
So you now know my reasoning and definition of mainstay. If they come out with a new ZEV made by Toyota or Honda and my choices were to get one or get a traditional ICE car from Kia because it came with a manual I would not consider that new technology or a valid choice for the consumer. But I fully realize there are people in these forums that would change their vehicle of choice simply because they aren't willingly going to give up driving a manual. Nippon once said he would give up a 45 to 50 MPG car to drive a 35 to 40 MPG car just to keep a manual. I don't know if that was true or in the heat of the moment but I think it might be how some feel. But still the kinds of vehicles manual drivers will be able to choose from seem to be getting smaller, with the exception of the two aforementioned classes of cars.
10 percent is a liberal number by the way and at one time it was much higher in the US. The Numbers of manuals have reportedly been shrinking in Asia as well so something is happening.
So there you have what and why I believe what I do about manuals.
As for your cheer leading for hybrids, your opinion again is almost ludicrous given the actual sales. Toyota has yet to make money on the hybrid, ( Prius) despite its US market debut in 2001. (WW sales began in 1997? )
It has been amply proven, the US market has not, does not, and will not buy GM/Ford/Chrysler products in any volume and percentage to keep any to all of those companies economically viable, regardless of 90% automatic, hybrid, manual, etc. They have stubbornly refused to 1.offer cars folks would buy in the needed volume, % and profit 2. cut productive capacity in line with real world numbers for volume % and profit. It goes without saying without truly radical bail out scenarios, and continued taxpayer "ownership" , it would be a catastrophic mess instead of just a HUGE BAD mess.
So while you indicate you see light at the end of the tunnel, the domestic oems have already experienced one train wreck. If they continue to build cars the public won't buy or doesn't want, expect another.
5-speed Manual- City-26mpg Highway-34mpg
5-speed Automatic- City-25mpg Highway-36mpg
Honda has actually done a good job in optimizing a few of its performance parameters for one: commute uses. (which happens to be why I chose a 04 Honda Civic, automatic only because the main driver didn't want to shift anymore)
There are actually a host of Honda users/owners less than satisfied with either epa and/or real world mpg numbers.
Civic is really designed and built and optimized for the LA LA LAND ("commute") lifestye. (Los Angeles, CA) Off topic is is also built in America with mostly American vendored parts and subsystems.
On a 54 miles R/T daily commute, taking anywhere from 30 mins to 90 mins, we get 38-42 mpg ( 4 spd auto epa 29/38- 5 speed manual + 1 mpg). We pay absolutely NO attention to either optimizing fuel mileage nor getting to point b the fastest, as the commute is just a slightly faster moving...rolling parking lot. Going with the flow seems to be order of the commute, or the zen of it all. Incidently the posted mpg is anywhere from 93-96 % meaning only 4-7% of reporting drivers get better mpg !!??
So as you can see there is a "3 cup monte" going on here. For sure the manual gets 1 MORE to -2 mpg LES than the 5 speed automatic. (epa)
But at the same time the 04 4 speed automatic gets epa 29/38 mpg, 5 speed manuall gets epa 30/39. the range being +3 mpg C/H? So the old manual gets from 4 to 5 mpg better and the oold automatic gets 4 to 2 mpg better. So just in terms of mpg and performance parameters, do you see what is going on?
So as a point of comparison a VW TDI Jetta 5 spd manual gets 48-52 mpg in the EXACT same commute. When you compare it against the 04 Civics 38-42, it is app 10 mpg better. The other unseen truth is the Jetta is NOT optimized for this commute.
Real-world mileage for the Fit is better, however.