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 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
Another issue is actually using the right fluid when its refilled and that is true for manuals and autos. 90s Honda sticks use motor oil and gear oil can kill them. Chrysler autos use a very specific additive package and the wrong one can kill them.
Our Jetta says never need to change the synthetic automatic transmission fluid. When we get to 80,000 or 100,000 miles, I'll see what the consensus is on that theory.
To me, shifting a manual is much like breathing (with or without the clutch). Even on my bicycle, I'll go through 2-4 gears from a stop until I'm across the intersection. You probably relate.
I had some really (really) miserable experiences with automatic transmissions in the late 90's. I will never (ever) have another one in my vehicle, and will be careful to change the transmission fluid in my wife's vehicle at 30K intervals.
The "new" alphabet soup transmissions may work well, but how well will they last? When I was a kid (1960), I got a pile of Popular Science magazines from a friend of my father. There was an article describing a variable-ratio chain/belt driven transmission (45 years ago). If it was such a swell idea, why has it taken until now to go into production? I'm guessing there were significant durability "issues" that have now been "solved," or not.
Let's hide and watch.
BMW says their automatics will go 100,000 without a fluid change. I don't believe it and neither does the resident tech expert at Roundel who cites excessive failures on 5 Series automatics. I take his advice and change every 60K. I have 95K on my car and it runs like a train .
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Yes, shifting a manual can be second nature. I don't think about it much and like you sometimes I use the clutch and sometimes I don't. I smile now and then when I realize I forgot to push in the clutch pedal and frown if it is when I was downshifting. Not as easy in a gas vehicle when you aren't trying to do it.
I don't look at it being a choice issue. If we are given the choice there would most likely be a few that will always choose to drive a dog leg. I am just not sure that choice will always be an option. The automotive industry has been moving towards finding ways to eliminate the common mistakes and abuses we as humans make every day driving our vehicles. we couldn't learn to modulate our brakes so we got ABS. It looks like we can't learn to corner so we are going to get anti skid control, mandated. The government is pushing for every manufacturer to get green, and frugal on fuel. The manufacturers are doing all they can to address that and they even put lights in our dials to tell us the proper places to shift our manuals. The fact we ignore those lights and shift when we feel like it cause many manuals to fall behind their automatic siblings in the green vehicle guide the government posts even today. So the manufacturer has to find a way to correct these issues and a car with some form of automatic is a lot easier to program for maximum green than one with an unpredictable component attached to the shifter, that being us.
I see the problem like this.
1. Few people enjoy driving anyway.
2. More than 90 percent of the cars sold in the US
are automatics.
3. Kids are not learning to drive manuals.
4. every new automatic introduced is one less manual sold.
5. we are told that we have a fuel crisis.
6. We are told that we have to change what we drive because
of the fuel crisis.
7. we are told we need to learn to drive green machines.
8. the new green fuel efficient cars tend to be hybrids.
9. Hybrids are almost all automatics.
because of that I don't see a bright future for the manual. It doesn't mean they will be gone in 20 years. But it does mean they "could" be gone as a choice to the average driver in as little as 20 years. That is a possibility that some simply can't see.
You have been around a while, would you ever have predicted that all city busses and over the road busses would be automatics when you were a kid? I never would have.
Do you really feel pressure to by a hybrid? My MIL about chastised us for not getting one last time replaced a vehicle. In fact, she got so mad she went out and got one.
What cracks me up the most is when she calls and says "I'm not getting the mileage they said, I must be doing something wrong." and asks for advice.
I think its a regional thing too, Priuses are pretty common where the MIL lives (typically parked right next to the Suburban, H2, or Range Rover).
I am much more interested in Bio-diesel than hybrid technology, personally, but it sounds like you spent enough time around diesels.
It is the possibility of the loss of choices that pressures me more. Truthfully I couldn't care less about what transmission other people prefer. I just see the number of choices getting smaller and smaller and don't care much for being crowded into a niche to get the transmission I prefer. But I am realistic enough to see it could happen and I will just have to live with it. Many don't see it and that is fine as well. Maybe not seeing it makes it easier to ignore or gives some more hope? But I have found that simply not talking about it won't make things any better.
The very reason so many have said they don't feel the manual is in danger could be the most damaging to the cause. The, "it is more fun' defense flies in the face of what the green police attacks the most. Driving for fun is a waste of resources to the very people that are trying to legislate what we should drive, be it hybrid or bio diesel. The manufacturers seem to be listening to that squeaky wheel far more than they are willing to listen to manual enthusiasts. The Maxima was simply another nail as far as I can see. As far as being a traitor to the dog leg? well yes I would be guilty if they made a WRC transmission available in a Focus, Mazda3, RSX or some other potential pocket racer. I would sell out on the dog leg faster than Benedict Arnold. And yes, until then I may keep my dog leg but not without hope for something better.
I don't think the manual is a good decision for everyone all the time. I think that I was fortunate to grow up on the central coast where traffic wasn't an issue. I think if my daily life involved 101 south of the conejo grade or the 405 or something, my decisions may have been different.
I really don't see the manumatics at the consumer level as much more than a toy, but perhaps as they evolve...nah they will still have some electronic nanny that will keep it from being fun.
I believe the CVT will be the transmission of choice for economy cars in the future. I could be wrong however. I still can't believe anyone would buy a xB and Prius is one of the least desirable cars on my list of cars I want to drive. Both are doing pretty well.
I would like to purchase a vehicle which can seat 5 in reasonable comfort, has a manual transmission, get 22-28 mpg and costs less than $20K.
The closest vehicle I have found is the Mazda 5. However, I am 6'4" tall and cannot comfortably drive the Mazda 5 as it is. I would have to move the driver's seat back 2-3" which would make the passenger seat behind the driver much less useful. I also believe that the rear seats in the Mazda 5 are not suited to adults.
I have ruled out "sedans" since I currently own a Dodge Intrepid which is on the large size for sedans and it is not good for three in the back seat unless one is a small child, but not in a booster seat or child seat. I have three kids and they are growing. The Intrepid is getting too small and old. I really want a vehicle with a stick but do not want to lose the great gas mileage that I get in the Intrepid and do not want to pay a bunch of money for it.
Suggestions
I would go look at different models before assuming they aren't going to fit. I know of a very tall person with a Pontiac Vibe because it fit him well, and I know someone who got rid of a Mazda3 because it didn't fit him.
You might want to have one of the hosts make a discussion for good cars for tall folks if one doesn't exist already.
I had that in a Plymouth minivan long ago, but they no longer offer that option.
It's interesting that you mention that fact (and I agree) in the same post that you list a number of safety features, such as ABS brakes and skid control. A good friend of mine enrolled his daughter in a professional defensive driving course a couple of years ago when she was 16 1/2. She already had her license and knew how to drive a stick. However, the particular course (Atlanta area) was exclusively with manual transmission cars. Part of the objective was to get the students to understand the physics and complete control of the car in emergency manuevers.
The lead instructor for the course claims that if every 16 year old were required to learn to drive a stick, and be required to drive one until they were 21, accidents and fatalities in that age group would drop in half. Yank out the stereo and you'd save another 25%. Simply focus the attention on DRIVING and everyone would be safer.
For what it's worth, my friend's daughter was involved in a near miss a few months after taking the course when some deer ran out in front of her driving to swimming practice at 5 a.m. in the dark. She swerved but maintained control, but the car behind her didn't and the driver was killed when the car ran off the road and flipped. I doubt that driving a stick had anything to do with her outcome, but the fact that she was able to practice high speed avoidance maneuvers was the difference between her and the unfortunate guy behind her.
Ford and Dodge minivans can be bought for under $20K easily. I have seen advertised sale prices starting under $17K.
So far I have been able to avoid what you have proposed. Both cars are sticks, and even if one went to auto someday the other one would still be a manual. Rarely does my car transport anything other than me.
It is also interesting that you mentioned training. I manage a small fleet of local delivery trucks. Every year the CHP and Sheriffs office has sent me invitations to send four or five of my drivers, I have 22, to the defensive driving course offered to the police in our community. Every year I have sent four for a day on my dime. We do have the best accident ratio of our whole business. But I have had to get rid of all but one of my trucks that had manuals. The people that maintain them for us proved to me that my expenses for repairing the manuals was greater than they would be with automatics. I changed over 15 years ago and my repair costs were cut in half. I don't think the manual is less durable than a automatic but I do believe they are less forgiving when you have many different drivers switching between vehicles. I also believe the are easier to abuse.
This year they have asked me to get rid of my one manual. Not because it is a manual but because it is a diesel. It seems my state is putting some new restrictions on vehicles over 10k Gross that makes diesel a less attractive option due to yearly fees. While I am a strong proponent of diesel, maybe the only one on management staff, accounting and maintenance simply out voted me.
I realize personal experience colors my outlook.
For what it's worth, my friend's daughter was involved in a near miss a few months after taking the course when some deer ran out in front of her driving to swimming practice at 5 a.m. in the dark. She swerved but maintained control, but the car behind her didn't and the driver was killed when the car ran off the road and flipped. I doubt that driving a stick had anything to do with her outcome, but the fact that she was able to practice high speed avoidance maneuvers was the difference between her and the unfortunate guy behind her.
No. It's something called "visibility." Simply put, she blocked the line of sight of the other driver. The second car had less time to react. If they switch positions, she would be less fortunate.
This bizarre claim makes no sense at all. Why would you think anyone would be safer driving a manual transmission?
1) It requires a higher level of attention, especially for novice drivers.
2)It weeds out a certain number of drivers who are too lazy or unco-ordinated to drive a manual.
3) It limits involvement in such activities such as gabbing on the phone, putting on makeup, eating ewtc.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I doubt if any transmission choice without the course makes any difference for young drivers. I believe youthful aggressiveness and the trust that the other person is going to stop, not pull out, not change lanes unexpectly or actually turn the way the blinker on their car is signaling at a traffic light is their downfall. I always assume the driver next to me is going to do something strange. Maybe that is why I only seem to get tagged when I am stopped waiting for a traffic light. Even that is few and far between.
If there were any statistical evidence that a manual made drivers anything like 50% better, I think we'd have heard about it and insurance costs would reflect it.
I always felt that it was a little bit of extra risk having manuals for my kids when they were new drivers, because of the need to pay attention to the shifting task or maybe killing the car at a bad time.
Actually, the car driving behind her was well behind her - several hundred yards. She noticed the following car's headlights swerve and then run off the road. She turned around, called 911 and performed first aid (also trained in) while she waited for the police / ambulance. The incident made the local news.
One thing is for sure: When they turn 16, my daughters are not going to "learn" accident avoidence manuevers on the Capital Beltway. And the average driver's ed course taught in school is a complete joke. Like teaching you how to strap on skis, and then pointing you to a double black diamond slope at Vail and saying "have at it". The professional course my buddy signed his daughter up for was about $1,000. A funeral would have been $10,000. Very good return on investment.
Your statement "Which they likely will still do, if they are so inclined, even if driving a manual" seems to be a pre-admission of lack of parental control. When my buddy found a Big Mac wrapper in one of the girl's cars, he took the keys for a week. It didn't happen again. He was a pretty easy choice for godfather for our oldest.
As for: "I always felt that it was a little bit of extra risk having manuals for my kids when they were new drivers, because of the need to pay attention to the shifting task or maybe killing the car at a bad time."
I agree - if you are letting your kids "learn" how to drive a stick on public roads. But I want to make sure my daughters know how to drive a car and avoid accidents long before they venture out into crazy DC traffic. My youngest mastered the 1-2 and 2-1 shift my S2000 from the passenger seat when she was 4 (at a blazing 10-15 mph), so the likelihood of her ever getting a slushbox is pretty low. My oldest is up for grabs, but she'll still learn how to drive a stick so at least she has the choice.
I guess if you consider a manual transmission a "distraction" to being able to handle other distractions like eating, changing the CD's, applying make-up, etc., it could be considered dangerous. I have always considered a manual transmission more "engaging" and subtley forcing one to pay more attention to driving. Which in my opinion is a good thing.
and is this heel-and-toe technique outdated and nobody used it anymore?
and is this heel-and-toe technique outdated and nobody used it anymore?
Most manual transmissions have multi-cone syncros that makes the double-clutching and rev matching less necessary. Heel-n-toe is to match the revs of the engine to the speed of the vehicle in the next lower gear. I typically only do it when driving aggressively, and it is much easier to do in some cars than others ('93 Accord, kinda difficult, 05 Legacy, very easy).
It really depends on the 3 people sitting in the back. I have no problem getting 5 into my Accord. And, at 6'5", I find it quite comfortable to drive, with room to spare.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I still stand by my Accord suggestion.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
According to edmunds stats, Intrepid has about 3 inches more rear hip room and 2 inches more rear sholder room than Accord.
The dealer initially said, "probably not" until I reminded them it was a 6-speed. He then said they would be very interested and quoted me almost $1,000 more than Edmunds "trade-in" value, subject to confirming the car is in excellent condition. Apparantly, with the 2007 model, only the more expensive TL-S is available with a manual and that has resulted in higher demand for pristine 2004-2006 TL 6-speeds in the used car market.
It seems that Americans are getting bigger and cars are getting smaller. Something which seats three across is what I would like to get. Even in vehicles with three rows of seats, short of minivans and large SUVs, the third seat is really for small kids.
I do not think that I will find exactly what I want so now I have to decide if I really want the stick in a sedan or if I really want the good seating for five with an automatic. I like the Altima and I am also interested in finding out more about the new Kia Rondo.
Thanks for the input.
BTW: I purchased my 99 Intrepid ES new and now it is at 80K miles. It has had synthetic oil every 3K since new, gets 22-24 mpg city, 28-30 mpg hwy on regular and has a 3.2L 225HP, 225 ft/lbs engine with autostick and 4 wheel disc ABS. I have spent $450 on it to replace a bad trans sensor and a bad wheel bearing in 7 1/2 years.
The first half is true, but the second half isn't. A 2007 Civic is considerably bigger than a 1977 Accord, probably even a 1987. The current 3 series is bigger than a 15+ year old 5 series and the current 5 series is bigger than a 15+ year old 7 series. What I think has happened is that as big old American cars have fallen out of favor, people are finding that the Japanese and German cars are not as spacious. But they never were.
Add to that the fact that the biggest models of both foreign and domestic cars have never been a haven for manual transmissions, and you have given us a real dilemma to try to help you with.
"BTW: I purchased my 99 Intrepid ES new and now it is at 80K miles. It has had synthetic oil every 3K since new, gets 22-24 mpg city, 28-30 mpg hwy on regular and has a 3.2L 225HP, 225 ft/lbs engine with autostick and 4 wheel disc ABS. I have spent $450 on it to replace a bad trans sensor and a bad wheel bearing in 7 1/2 years."
Not to one-up you, but over the Thanksgiving holiday, I took our 1995 Nissan Maxima 5-speed with 154,100 miles out of storage at our second home. Other than a slight musty smell, my daughters claim the back seat is more comfortable than our 2004 Acura TL (6-speed). I've changed the oil 40+/- times and at the last service, the dealer ran a compression test for the fun of it and came up with a "near new" 97%+ in all cylinders. I didn't have to replace the front brake pads until 90,000 miles, the rears at 110,000. With "only" 190 hp and 205 ft. lbs, the Maxima is damn near as quick as our (450 lb heavier, but not any bigger) TL. And although the highway mileage is a wash (both 28-31), the city/mixed driving dramatically favors the Maxima (22-23 vs. 16-17). I am now thinking of selling our TL and bringing the Maxima back. I am sure that it will make it to 200,000 miles if I give it the chance.
Reviewers must be some fat people.
Seriously, though, I have no problem in my Accord. But, now that I look at the specs, the one poster is correct to say the Intrepid is even larger than the Accord. So i guess if one doesn't work for you, then neither will the other.
I even have a large rear-facing child seat in the center of the rear seat of my accord right now and have had adults sit next to it and not complain. I'm not saying it would be comfortable on a long trip, but with a normal sized person in place of that car seat, I would think it would be.
I guess we have different views on space.
Its kind of like how my folks could fit a family of 5 and all of their luggage for a week-long road-trip into a Volvo 240 sedan. For some reason, that idea has become unthinkable to most of the driving public these days. Folks seem to think they need a Suburban for the same task. Maybe we've all become a bit spoiled.
By the way, we also have a Pacifica and really like it. My wife finds the 3rd row quite livable, so she often opts to climb back there if we have a couple of more adults to transport.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
When my folks got a minivan, we could fit all the bikes inside when we went on vacation, in addition to a weeks' worth of luggage for 5.
We got our first one when kids were about 2 and 5, third was born later that year. It was the regular-size Voyager and had manual transmission. This really was not a large vehicle, overall length was only 176 inches back then...so maybe pretty comparable to the Mazda5. But once there were three kids, it sure was nice to have the three rows of seating.
We replaced that with a Windstar when kids were bigger (13, 10, 7). When we got that we went for the bucket seats in the middle as we liked the idea of each kid having their own seat, we just thought that would be more comfortable and therefore make for better trips.
In both cases these vehicles were very reasonably priced, not much more than midsize domestic sedan and probably less than an import sedan...certainly cheaper than a Volvo
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Far from an Odyssey, however. Gotta dig the 13" wheels. That actually looks like it might be about mazda5 size, though. Doesn't exactly look roomy.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
If you want RWD, you have to go back to a Vanagon, but if your pockets are deep you can get AWD (early Audi system adapted). If you actually want to go anywhere, there are a plethora of motor swaps available for that van. I miss those.
There have been many good postings about this question. It looks like I put it in the right place. For some more info. The Rav4 now comes with 3 rows of seats, but no longer a manual trans. I know the price is probably too high, but that would have been mitigated by a manual trans. I also believe the Toyota and Nissan SUVs with three rows of seats have only auto transmissions. Does Toyota or Honda make an SUV with a manual transmission any more?
I looked at the Dodge Nitro. Available under $20K, 6 speed manual, mileage 19/24, only seats 4.5. close.
I am going to keep looking and may be flexible. How flexible do I have to be?
Yes. And as soon as you mentioned the RAV4, it popped in my head to mention it as a possibility. The new FJ Cruiser. 6-speed stick is standard. I have no idea, however, if it will fit 3 across in the back seat. My guess is no.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
We own a 2004 Element 5spd (80k miles) and a 2005 TSX 6spd (36k). I have yet to meet anyone with an automatic who gets within 3 mpg to us, and we are not slowpokes. 3 mpg isn't a huge difference, but the kicker is that the auto Element is just a dog with the auto, too.
P.S. While my DH and I only own MTs right now, my two automatics went over 200k with no problems. 67 Camaro 327 with the 2spd powerglide
The old "Slip & Slide PowerGlide" wasn't the most efficient slush box out there (in fact probably one of the least efficient ever built), however, it was pretty bulletproof. ;-)
FWIW, I'm kind of surprised your Camaro didn't have a Turbo-350 tranny. I'm thinking that 1967 was about the time when GM started using that tranny, however, I could easily be wrong as I was pretty much a Mopar kind of guy back then.
Best Regards,
Shipo