The Future Of The Manual Transmission

ruking1

Most folks who buy vettes really are not in the death wish crowd. I remember asking my insurance company about the Z06 and BMW M3 (the other I was considering at the time) and the insurance cost differences were literally staggering (% wise). For a lot of years I wound up paying a tad more than $300 per year for the Z06 or 157 dollars per 6 mo.

Mr_Shiftright

Well that's because the ones in the death wish crowd are probably already up there in Corvette heaven. It is a bit sobering to think that you can legally give the keys to a 180 mph car to an 18 year old.

ruking1

If it kept my premiums low for years, may they RIP. The point I was getting at was the M3 (same MY 2001) was app 3 times costlier. (300%) This would infer the insurance companies saw the M3 as RISKIER (from an actuarial point of view). There is no doubt in my mind there are great M3 drivers. It is just they pay much more for the day to day operations.

Mr_Shiftright

Well those premiums are due to the greater expense to repair an M3 probably, and perhaps also its higher resale value. Corvettes depreciate like rocks off a bridge.

kyfdx

It might just be your insurance company, as well... Different companies will hit certain cars with a completely different class of rates...

State Farm is pretty cheap for M3s... no idea on Vettes..

ruking1

Evidently according to Edmunds.com the BMW M3 depreciates like a heavier rock over a Corvette Z06.

ruking1

That could very well be. About every 5 or so years, I get quotes from other companies (State Farm and Allstate to name just two. They have been more expensive. (That is for each and every car, plus the aggregate amounts.) Perhaps asking for quotes was bad timing on my part.

Mr_Shiftright

Hmmm...I know the older M3s are very bad on resale but I wasn't aware that the newer ones followed the same pattern---perhaps that's because the newer M3s seem so much more plentiful? Probably that's what causes the 'Vette to depreciate so fast. It has no chance to be "rare" for the next 35 years.

ruking1

Yes I think the good news there is one can get a very capable European car for not a lot of cash, albeit 10 years old.

qbrozen

hey, what do you know? I had an '87 4runner with 2.4 and 5-speed. Really good vehicle. And I was even thinking of that when listing "best manuals." Felt downright racy compared to my '79 CJ7 3-speed. haha.

Drove that 4runner for 4 years through college and a little while afterwards. Let's see.... bought it for about $7k with I think around 75k on it. 4 years later with about 120k on it, sold it for, I believe $4500. Pretty good. Bought my first new vehicle at that time, a '97 Dakota V8 extended cab.

My brother actually saw my 4runner years later (I had done some appearance mods to it that were unmistakable). He talked to the owner, the guy who bought it from me right before using it to move to Colorado, who had since returned .... had well over 200k on it and was on a rebuilt engine. He still loved it, though.

plekto

Heh.

If there were any good TDI small pickups (ie - 30mpg or so) with manual and 4WD, I'd be all over it. As would probably half a million off-roaders and construction worker types, farmers, and so on.

The reason those are still loved is because they are almost the last generation of simple and frugal to run SUVs and pickups. RWD, has a frame, manual available, and a 4 cylinder engine. But they are literally falling apart as they were never designed to last 20+ years. But there is no viable replacement, yet. We had hopes for the Mahindra, but it's hopelessly overpriced and the MPG after EPA tests is maybe 25mpg highway. (oops).

There also was a huge hope for Jeep to come out with the Gladiator/JT concept. I saw it a few years ago at the L.A. auto show and the crowd around it was immense. People were just sitting there looking gobsmacked while the GM area next to it was just completely empty.

Jeep. Pickup. TDI. I'd buy one. I'd have bought one three years ago if it was available then.

http://www.autoblog.com/2005/01/09/detroit-auto-show-jeep-gladiator-concept/
Just pushes every happy button there is. WHY Jeep didn't make it, I'll never know.

http://wot.motortrend.com/jeeps-future-does-it-include-a-small-pickup-truck-9022- .html
But it might be out this fall. And if so, there's finally hope for us. Well, if Jeep doesn't price it at 30K, that is.

ruking1

WOW ! That Jeep product sure has a lot of styling cues from the "ole days"

plekto

I just hope that they go for the original gladiator look and not the wimpy looking JT idea. It needs to look like its own vehicle and not like they took a bog-standard Jeep Wrangler and lopped off the back area.

Of course, the Nukizer concept is just plain evil. I. Just. Want. One.

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/jeep/2011-jeep-nukizer-715-ar87434.html
Now you want one, too.

oregonboy

While I would LOVE to have a small, efficient, diesel, manual 4wd pickup, I would prefer it without the retro-styling cues. A sleek, modern body would doubtless improve highway mileage significantly.

qbrozen

damn, that gladiator certainly was a cool looking concept. Big problem I see is that, if based on the Wrangler platform, which it appears to be, it will drive like a real POS. I had a Wrangler loaner once and found it horrifying to drive. My '79 CJ was a luxo car in comparison.

andys120

why Jeep has the small off-roader market to themselves, considering that they're so poorly made and laid out. Why doesn't Nissan, 'Yoda, Kia, Mitsu, VW or anyone make a better Wrangler, it can't be that hard?

Toyota got it right on the first try (LC FJ40) but then blew it up (sizewise).

xwesx

I agree with you, Benjamin. I don't have to push my car to its limits in order to enjoy the manual transmission; I like the manual just for the level of engagement it adds to the driving experience. And while, at times, it might not seem like much, it still makes all the difference.

Sure, it's fun to really wind out a car once in a while (and the manual tranny definitely makes *that* more fun!), but day in and day out, I'm not doing that with my cars... yet I'm still enjoying them (regardless of size).

ruking1

Now that kind of guy will pay the BIG premiums !!!

xwesx

I agree with you about the Gladiator concept - it was well done and, I think, would make a respectable showing if brought to market. Of course it would be $30K+, though - this is Jeep we're talking about! Non-diesel base models might break into the $20s, but if they put a diesel in it, I just don't see it being under that mark.

plekto

Well, actually, if you talk about the hard-core off road crowd, most of them are running Toyotas or Jeeps, with Chevy and Ford somewhere in the mix. Jeeps are popular, but most of it is marketing, (why so many soft-roader types buy them) as it takes just as much work to actually make one ready for the trail as any of the other choices.

BTW, I read somewhere that it actually only costs Jeep about 5K in materials to make a Wrangler as it's such an old and inexpensive design.

benjaminh

As the manual slowly dies (and even I admit it's happening), we are now down to a handful of models. How about we start a manuals at each msrp game? Give your pros and cons as we go up the price ladder at a thousand dollars a day, starting at $12,000.

Did you even know there was an actual car available at that price, manual or not? I didn't either. But check out the 2012 Nissan Versa, which for $11,800 (with destination!) comes with not only a 5 speed manual, but even ac and a radio. And it's surprisingly large:

http://www.nissanusa.com/microsite/versasedan/

It also has a full set of safety gear--abs, air bags, etc. I still can't believe that price. My family owned the 1979 version of this car from Nissan/Datsun--the 210. It was the successor to the B-210. By 1979 it was a decent car, although nothing fancy at all. My family was on a budget but wanted a new car, and I convinced my family to get the stripper model, which had the unbelievable low list price of I think about $4300. Adjusted for inflation that's more than a 2012 Versa!

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

"What cost $4300 in 1979 would cost $12743.45 in 2010."

We got our 210 at the loss leader "one only" price of $3740 at a dealer in LA. It was in a nice color called "emerald green." We called the car "Emmy." The dealer even threw in a full tank of gas, which was a big deal that year of gas shortages. Boy was that car bare bones--no radio, no ac, no carpet even (plastic floor all around--no need for mats!), 4 speed manual, and--I kid you not--a 1.2 liter engine producing about 55 horsepower. But it weighed only about 1900 pounds, I think (calling Andre!! Darn it, he's not reading this cause he drives autos. What were the stats on this thing??). It was actually a solidly built little bugger, a kind of fun to drive rear drive car with that smooth shifting Nissan manual with nice clutch action. It actually was a good car for the money, and got 40 mpg hwy at 60 mph. We put in a $125 aftermarket stereo and we were good to go.

Nissan made good manuals back then, imho.

So it's amazing that you can get a 4 door manual Versa for less than the price of that 2 door 210 we had all those years ago. And it's a 5 speed lol. The 1.6 liter engine is probably pretty decent.

But I've heard that Nissan manuals have gone downhill. They've put all of their r & D into CVT, and manuals are the leftover runts for barebones price leaders, made at the lowest possible manufacturing cost.

And so I bet our 79 210 was actually more fun to drive as a 4 speed than this one is as a 5 speed.

But one funny thing about this base Versa for 2012--I think it's the last car in America available with roll your own windows. I almost want to get it for that for some perverse reason....

Are there any other new manuals out there for 12k??

qbrozen

You can probably still find a 2011 Versa sedan, which starts at $9990.

2011 Chevy Aveo LS stick starts $11,965

stever

Must be a big destination charge to get to $11,800, because the base with 5 speed starts at $10,990. Cheap either way.

Priced: 2012 Nissan Versa is the Cheapest New Car in the U.S. (Straightline)

Reports are that the former price leader, the Accent, is starting a bit over $13k, up from $9985.

The Versa gets 27/36 with a 5MT. And it has AUX too.

benjaminh

"The highest mileage car in America!! Put your money in the bank--not in tank!--buy a Datsun! Datsun! We are DRIVEN!" man does that bring back memories....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWuD2vkk-0Y&feature=related

Here's an ad. Guess I was wrong about the msrp. It was $3899 according to this:

http://www.adclassix.com/images/79datsun210.jpg

Probably the Hatchback had a chance of getting close to that 47 hwy if you did a steady state 55. But only then. The hatch had a 5 speed manual and a big 1.4 liter! But it cost about a thousand dollars more.

This is what our looked like, but it was in green. But this is the fancy version, not the stripper. Take off those wheel covers and white walls, and you'll get the idea:

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/jalopnik/2009/06/NPOCP210Main.jpg

benjaminh

steve: Thanks for that link. It is a lot of car for the money if you just get the base model...

But test drivers seem to say that the fun to drive factor was pretty much left out....

No one seems to have tested the manual, however, and so maybe there's hope?

stever

Until you posted, I had assumed that the base Versa would only come in a CVT.

There's always hope with a manual.

Mr_Shiftright

Well on an entry-level FWD car you're probably going to get cable-shifting and other cost-cutting measures, so you'll have to tolerate a certain amount of rubbery, notchy feel. Some small cars have very nice manual action, like the Miata, but that's 2X the price of a Versa, or more.

benjaminh

That's interesting. I just don't know enough about the engineering of a good manual. Is that one of the reasons why Honda's manuals almost always feel great?

Mr_Shiftright

which Honda? My friend has a manual 2006 Accord and I hate driving that thing.

Maybe the issue here is how well the linkages on entry level cars hold up over time, and if you can adjust them. I haven't driven, say, a brand new Civic, so I can't say. I can only hope the shifters have gotten better on entry-level cars since, say 2000-2007, which is where most of my experience is with them.

I gotta say to that one's attitude toward a particular manual transmission is very subjective, depending on your driving style. I pay attention to length of the throws, how easy it is to find gears while your all arms and legs in a turn, and even the gearing-spacing itself.

Some people tell me--"oh, your MINI is such fun with the 6-speed" and me, I'm thinking, this gearshift really sucks. I need to DO something about it.

iluvmysephia1

that I wish Nissan was still making is the Datsun 510. That was a game-changer. Love to drive one of those now with the standard tranny, if I check my Nickels Worth here in NID do you think I would find one?

Mr_Shiftright

Great car, the 510. Most of them have gone on the track into SCCA racing, or turned into ferrous oxide. A clean unmolested 510 coupe would be very hard to find and wouldn't be cheap, either.

benjaminh

My Honda is a 2008 Accord EXL 5 speed manual. I don't know what they did to it, but it's smoother and nicer than my 02 Accord manual--and it was pretty good too!

I found this explanation of cable vs. hydraulic manuals:

http://www.edmunds.com/car-technology/when-fact-meets-friction-the-basics-of-clu- tch-operation.html

Could my 08 Accord have hydraulic type??? Wonder where I'd look that up...

It's a bummer your mini isn't fun to shift. You'd think with BMW engineering it might be.

If you ever get the chance to test drive the new Civic Si 6 speed (with the manual from the tsx), let me know what you think....I just convinced my brother in law to buy this car...

Mr_Shiftright

That's a good article, thanks. Yep, there are plusses and minuses to the various linkage set-ups. I think my main concern with cable-type systems on FWD cars is that the cables do stretch. They are a cheap and effective way to shift a FWD car, though.

iluvmysephia1

yep, I think you're right. I can not remember the last ad I saw for a Datsun 510 and if I did find one anywhere in the western U.S. I'll bet it would be pushing $15,000 for one that is driveable. People don't realize how good a car this Datsun is...or should I say was. Us oldtimers know more about the car and it's history. Could be a restoration idea for...later.

benjaminh

I could only find one, the 2011 Kia Rio base model, which is down to its last few months before an all new 2012 model that's more expensive comes out. The fact that the base 2011 Rio costs more than the 2012 Versa emphasizes what a bargain the Versa is. And it's not like you're getting quality by going to the Rio. Listen to this....According to Edmunds:

"You get what you pay for with a Kia Rio. As an entry-level sedan or four-door hatchback, the Rio is understandably short on features, but even in this cost-conscious category it will likely leave buyers wanting. The base model Rio lacks power steering, antilock brakes, air-conditioning and power accessories -- items that are increasingly standard in this segment. The Rio is also a disappointment when it comes to crash-test scores, which could be of particular interest to parents when considering a first car for teenagers."

After that who cares what the clutch and transmission might be like. No one here will want this car.

benjaminh

What are the options? I don't know. Does anyone else? We're talking about msrp here...

stever

There's 17 models out there under $15,000 that have a manual transmission option.

Per the Edmunds Car Finder, you have 218 MT choices, including 26 that come in at over $85,000 dollars.

ruking1

I do not know what that means in the over all scheme of things, but it seems that M/T choices are alive and well.

stever

Lots of choices, six or seven in stock within 500 miles of you.

Mr_Shiftright

I can't tell whether the author of this article is serious or just being artfully ironic:

DEATH to the Stick Shift

colin_l

I saw it's from 2004, and politely declined to read the rest. In 2004 slushboxes were the only viable automatic, besides a few ultra-compact cars using CVTs.

Today we have CVTs behind things as big as 270 HP v6s, affordable and livable dual-clutch manumatics, and the old slushbox is doing well to now have up to 8 gears.

Mr_Shiftright

Oh the Porsche Tiptronic was pretty darn good by 2004 as well.

ruking1

With the advent of the DSG/PTK, etc. I think the 04 article might be a case of right church wrong pew. If anything the DSG/PTK, etc really marks the beginning of the end for the automatic slushbox. It is just that a majority of slushbox owners are not aware of it yet, nor are there any appreciable population of DSG/PTK's. Indeed going forward I will seriously not consider a vehicle if it is mated to an automatic slush box. The manual of course being the first consideration.

tallman1

That was one of the silliest articles I've seen in a long time. The comments afterwards were all in disagreement with the author.

Mr_Shiftright

That's why I was wondering if he was pulling our legs.

I'd like to drive a car that had a gearshift just like a "real one", with the exact same motion, but no clutch pedal and which gave me the shifting speed of a top race car driver. In other words, not progressive up and down, but a 'gate' with full motion.

What's the sense of that? Gee, I dunno.... :P

And don't say "Renault Ferlac" or Porsche Sportomatic....we all know those were as slow as....as....slime....

benjaminh

This is the first mt car that I'd actually want to own. And for $13,995 you get AC, a stereo, etc. Cars in general have grown and (where are you Andre?!) I think that the Fiesta is now only a little smaller than a 1st gen Escort of 1981. And check out this review from Edmunds (they like the manual!),

"Driving Impressions

We can say without hesitation that the 2011 Ford Fiesta provides the most rewarding drive in its class. Though its acceleration is just average, in the real world of stop-and-go traffic and freeway merging, the Fiesta's mill is a pleasure. The eager-to-rev 1.6 delivers ample punch down low and remains butter-smooth even when taken to redline. The manual transmission is precise and easy to shift, boasting a linear clutch and light throws. The available six-speed automated dual-clutch automatic is another unusual perk in this class.

The Ford's steering is the new segment benchmark, from the weighting of its effort to the immediate and precise response. And the sophisticated suspension tuning makes the Fiesta feel at once substantial and lithe. Handling is excellent, yet the ride quality remains supple, with bumps and ruts swallowed sans drama.

benjaminh

Getting ahead of ourselves, but: Quick quiz--what microvan that holds 6 can get you from 0 to 60 in 8.3 seconds--a full 1.2 seconds faster than a Fiesta.....?

answer: a 2012 Mazda5 2.5 with 6 speed manual:

from Car and Driver:

2012 Mazda 5 Sport Manual - Short Take Road Test
Lord Vader, your mini-minivan has arrived.

BY JUSTIN BERKOWITZ, PHOTOGRAPHY BY PATRICK M. HOEY
May 2011

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 6-passenger, 5-door van

PRICE AS TESTED: $20,040 (base price: $19,990)

ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injection

Displacement: 152 cu in, 2488 cc
Power (SAE net): 157 hp @ 6000 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 163 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 6-speed manual

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 108.3 in Length: 180.5 in
Width: 68.9 in Height: 63.6 in
Curb weight: 3393 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 8.3 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 23.7 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 8.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.5 sec @ 85 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 124 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 186 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 21/28 mpg
C/D observed: 22 mpg

Shell

The stick-shifted Mazda 5 tested here isn’t dripping in evil black paint, it’s not especially powerful, and it doesn’t turn asphalt into pudding with its tremendous power. We still feel justified in calling it Lord Vader’s van, though, as long as we’re speaking Dutch, in which vader simply means “father.” What we mean is that the Mazda 5 with a six-speed manual transmission is the ultimate dad van.

More Power, More Ratios, More Refinement

A manual transmission goes a long way to ease the sting of what is, simply put, a dorky family vehicle. But dorks and nondorks alike will find much to appreciate about the 5. Although the 2.5-liter four’s 157 hp and 163 lb-ft are something to brag about only to friends who are still piddling around in Lancia Appias, when paired with the six-speed manual transmission, they proved enough for an 8.3-second run to 60 mph. That’s a significant improvement of 0.7 second over the time we got with an autobox-equipped 5.

Mr_Shiftright

Meh...my 2006 Scion could do that and it held a LOT of stuff, and had 4 doors and got 34 mpg--all with 108 HP. Reason? Light weight of course.

benjaminh

I'd like to see some published stats showing that a scion could go 0-60 in 8.3. I'll probably have to be prepared to eat my Canadian cap I just got in Vancouver if I'm wrong, but I doubt it right at this moment.

And I doubt you had the cargo capacity of the 5. Which Scion was it? xB?

And Mazdas are known for having pretty nice manuals. I don't know about the Scion. You could tell me on that one..

You've got us Mazda5 owners beat on the mpg. We are awaiting our SkyActiv-G 2.0, which should boost the next get to 35 mpg in the hwy....

Mr_Shiftright

The published 0-60 for a stickshift Scion xA is 8.8 but with a clutch dump and somewhat furious shifting we did some multiple timings and got around 8.5--8.6 out of it. (Timing person not in the car).

If we had a race 0-50, I think I could have beaten or tied that Mazda outright. Scion gearing really gave it up at 50 mph.

Also I broke the car in just the way I wanted to (bought it new) which was the "motorcycle method" and I think that gave it some extra juice.

I don't think I could get 8.3, but with good shifting and eyes on the tach, I might still do okay in a race with an 8.3 car.