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
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Unlike the manual transmission situation, the GPS is actually better than the ancient alternative, even though I can work the ancient one.
Go figure.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
With fuel at $3/gal, the sailor needn't empty his IRA for a weekend excursion.
And re the MT, the technologies that may be "better" in a racing environment are still too expensive for most car owners while arguably NOT better in daily driving.
Playing with clutches is also becoming a purely recreational activity. Currently there is still some money to be saved by buying a manual transmission, when/if that is no longer the case then the transformation to a recreational activity will be complete.
I purchased a Matrix 5-speed in late winter. In Northern Virginia's stop and go traffic, I get 40-41 MPG. Slipping into neutral at every chance and coasting has made me a better driver. (Although truth be told, I have never caused an accident and have never had a ticket.) I am more alert and aware of other traffic now than when I drove my business SUV automatic.
Young kids want to learn how to drive a stick - most parents are unwilling to teach them. My BF's children - ages 18, 21, and 26 - all know how to drive a stick. It's a plus that their friends CAN'T borrow their cars to drive them. And when they travel abroad, they can more easily rent a car.
I'm afraid that car dealers will start charging MORE for manuals, not less.
Nay, nay! You ignore the control advantages that a manual transmission affords the competent driver, apart from either recreational or economic considerations.
i prefer driving a stick but it reduces trade-in/resale value so i'm not convinced that it is a money-saver over the long term. also if you have to replace a clutch, that will eat up any saved money, and maybe sooner than an auto trans would have required a mere fluid/filter change.
as for your fear, it has already been realized. many manufacturers charge more for manuals but have hidden this cost increase by pricing manuals/automatics the same, instead of giving the previous/usual $1k discount for a manual.
41 mpg is your real mpg tank to tank, with lots of stop and go driving, and a gasser car? that is amazing - almost unbelievable!
BTW speeding is also an infraction.
That's an oversimplification - although some vehicles shut down injectors for some closed throttle conditions, when coasting in gear, the engine is also consuming kinetic energy that you have already "paid for". The strategy that is most economical depends on many variables including the type of vehicle, the slope and length of the "coast", the velocity of the wind, etc.
If the rpm goes down when the car is put in neutral while coasting, definitely you will get better mileage. The less the rpm, the less is the gas consumption. The faster the car go with the least rpm achieves the best mpg. Watch the tachometer and speedometer.
I have two maual shift cars and I get better mileage when the car is in neutral while coasting. I watch the tacho and the speedo.
I take it that you haven't had to replace a modern Automatic transmission recently. I had that opportunity last year on one of our cars and the cost was only $2,600. I say only because I've heard that replacement Automatic transmissions for most other late model cars bottom out at nearly $4,000 for the repair, and some are as high as $8,000 to $10,000! Yikes!
FWIW, I'll gladly replace my clutch every 150,000 to 200,000 miles as opposed to popping for another replacement automatic. :P
Best Regards,
Shipo
shipo, re the auto-trans vs manual-trans, i wasn't comparing replacement of trans, but comparing normal service. in about 100k miles, it's normal for an automatic to require a $100 fluid/filter change. in the same distance, it can be normal for a manual trans to need a $1000 clutch job.
I guess I'm not sure how that is not a recreational aspect. :confuse:
I guess I'm not sure how that is not a recreational aspect.
Driving in poor conditions on slippery surfaces (slick roads, icy/snowy roads, or sandy/dirt roads and trails...) requires a control not afforded by an automatic transmission.
I can't see that control of the vehicle, in the sense you are now using it, has anything to do with whether it is equipped with an automatic or manual. I assumed you were referring to control of the gear selection which would be a recreational aspect.
I guess I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with that. I don't see any functional advantage to one transmission over another in any of those circumstances.
A condition does not cease to exist simply because some cannot "see" it.
The ability to control the application of torque to the driveline in a predictable, repeatable manner is essential to control of a vehicle.
True enough but having made it thru a number of New England winters with an A/T car I hardly consider that impossible or even particularly hard. It's more about the "nut behind the wheel" than the type of tranny.
P.S> I have plenty of experience driving a stick in bad weather.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Eggggs-actly
Or if you have driven an entry level FWD car up an icy driveway or intersection while having to feather the clutch to control the torque, or driven on a sand road to avoid the front wheels digging in and getting stuck.
this is all mitigated by "stability control" on modern auto-trans cars - the computer can/will apply the brakes to reduce the torque that gets to the road in slippery conditions.
I think you are confusing stability control with traction control, where the ABS sensors detect slippage and start retarding the motor's output to reduce the torque sent to the wheels.
A better solution is to have a real limited slip differential, that transfers the power to the wheel with the most traction. Very seldom does reducing power help one go faster.
that's my experience driving in the New England area for the past 20yrs with both type of trannys
The fact than something can be done doesn't make it a good idea.
I can drive nails with a rock, but I prefer a hammer.
Same here, except Wisconsin winters for me. Going to FWD is a major improvement, but difference in winter drivability between auto and manual is nonexistant in my experience.
I last drove a RWD vehicle about 18 years ago. I'm quite sure that I'll never have one again, as long as winter continues to exist.
An automatic transmission has no "awareness" of the future, or even the present. It reacts to a change of its limited inputs AFTER they have occurred and in the case of the most common torque converter transmissions this response can be relatively slow. It CANNOT anticipate. No matter how fast its REACTION, it is usually late.
It can? In 20 years of driving manuals, many well over 100K miles, I have never experienced this. I have only ever replaced one clutch, on an old 280Z I inherited from a friend, which had 175K on the clock when I replaced the clutch.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I wouldn't mind having an automatic nail or brad gun around here. :shades:
Have had two manuals with 120K, one with 150K, and another currently at 110K without ever replacing or repairing a clutch.
Recently got rid of a '91 Nissan Sentra that was having some automatic transmission issues at 150K, but the rest of the car was worn out anyway. I think this is typical...that automatics generally last the life of the vehicle.
I don't know what is "normal" any more for ATX fluid changes. Our '97 has been changed every 30 K mi for $50-60 each time. Our 2005 and 2007 require no fluid changes.
Newer ones are generally lifetime fill where lifetime means 100,000 to 150,000 miles.
In my experience, I've only had one automatic last the life of the vehicle, a TH350. Since then, every automatic transmission in my family has required replacement (some in warranty, some out).
I have had exactly 1 clutch replacement in a manual transmission vehicle. It was at 130k on a car that several people "learned" to drive stick. The cost was under $500.
I does depend on how you drive I had a Scirocco (1980 - sigh) that I bought with 50k miles. The original owner had replaced the clutch at 30k. I took it up to 170k and the clutch was still fine.
Also the cost is usually $3-500.
I have matured since then, I swear! ;-)
If the accepted belief is that the life of a clutch or an auto tranny is 150K miles, then for the folks who want to drive their cars beyond that mileage, the choice is a $500-1000 clutch replacement (closer to $500 for FWD, closer to $1000 for AWD) or a $2500-4000 auto trans replacement. That seems like a pretty clear choice, but that's just me. :-)
And besides, my experience has taught me that an experienced manual driver can get more than 150K miles out of a clutch, and my friends' experiences have taught me that many many automatics don't make it to 150K. I still remember vividly the look of shock on my friend's face when the VW dealer told her that her Jetta needed a new auto trans at 76K miles. Her last VW, BTW. It pretty much mirrored the look on another friend's face when the Honda shop told her that the auto trans in her Civic was toast at 85K. That car is long gone, now she drives a Ford.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Reminds me of the time that I paid a $15 parking fine in pennies
You are talking about the old style A/T, the type that did not take kindly to to manual input
but A/Ts have changed a lot. My Steptronic cannot anticipate changing conditions but I can and go up or down a gear by the same method you do with a manual. The difference in reaction time between my A/T and your M/T is very minimal.
I think the reason we have so many doubters here as that you guys haven't driven an A/T car since about 1985. :P
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Nah, in America all the rental cars are autos, so I drive them alot. I also have a lot of seat time behind fleet Prius vehicles with the CVT. Trying to get a Prius out of an outdoor unplowed parking space requires shoveling :P
Any kind of delay with an automatic seems like forever. Remember if you are travelling at 60 mph and the tranny delays for half a second, then you have travelled 44 ft.
225,000 miles
Still has original clutch. My son is driving it now so it may need to be replaced soon.
Good point, perhaps I should rephrase that. I spent the winter driving my late FIL's 2000 LeSabre. The Steptronic tranny in my same year 528iA is light years better than that and probably a lot better than what you've experienced
in rentals.
I've had no trouble getting my RWD A/T Bimmer around in the snow but I will concede the stick is better for rocking out of a snowbank.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I guess it comes from the fairly evenly weight distribution. They aren't like most other FR cars where the vast majority of the weight is on the front axle.
I assume that the reason automatics came about in the first place is that there were people who wanted one less thing to do in the driver's seat. Well shifting is NOT one less thing I want to do.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Yes there may be some automatics with sufficiently small delay that is is less of a bother, but generally they are not available to those of us with less than solid 6 figure incomes (e.g BMW SMG). And if I could afford it, why would I squander it on such unnecessary complexity that is still less suited to my purpose than a manual transmission?
While coasting down a hill with the 5th gear enagage the tachometer reads 2,000 rpm. I put in neutral the rpm drops to 1,000 and the car speeds up.
To my knowledge, a car traveling at 1,000 rpm has beter miles per gallon(mpg) than a car at 2,000 rpm at the same speed.
I am confused about this "modern vehicles use Z E R O fuel on "decel". If the tachometer displays greater than zero rpm does the battery drives the motor?
If not the fuel savings while coasting in neutral is no placebo.
I am confused abiut this
An engine is basically just a big air pump.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
With all due respect, the fact that you may not be able to take advantage of the "control" attributes of a manual transmission is simply a statement of your driving abilities or style, not a disclaimer of those potential attributes in the hands of someone that knows how to use them.
Don't get me wrong, we aren't a family of Formula One drivers. But I've humorously watched my 105 pound wife rock our former Isuzu Trooper out of 18" of snow playing with the gas and clutch while the neighbor stayed stuck with an automatic Grand Cherokee that he could not rock with the same "control", in spite of LSD and other Jeep "advantages". She also had more confidence making, for example, a quick left turn in that far less powerful 5-speed Trooper than our current slushbox MDX. Immediate engagement vs. momentary hesitation is the "control" issue there.
As far as keeping both hands on the wheel being a control advantage, you are right - if, in fact, you are a Formula One driver and trying to hold a line around a hairpin curve at 2.5 g's of lateral acceleration. But if you are talking about driving on public roads with a procduction car - even a Ferrari - and you cannot control a stick and the steering wheel at the same time, then you probably would also lose to my 105 lb. wife in an armwrestling contest. In 34 years and about 600k miles of driving, I've never had a single encounter in which I felt that having to use my right hand to shift gears compromised my ability to control the vehicle. Ever.
I can accept your claim that you don't obtain any control advantage with a manual over an automatic. For a lot of drivers, this may be the case. Certainly, after playing in a charity golf tournament yesterday, it was obvious that 90% of the duffers using $50/dozen Titleist Pro-V balls had no more "control" than if they had been using $15/dozen Top Flights (aka Rock Flights).
All I ask is that you not superimpose your opinions (or limitations, as the case may be) on me or others. I may not be able to hit a 235 yard 4-iron and have it stick 10 feet from the pin like Tiger Woods. But I can occasionally hit a 155 yard 8-iron and have it draw back on a slick green. So I will pay the $35 premium for the Pro-V's over the Rock Flights. You are free to play with whatever ball works for you.
Perhaps your neighbor who stayed stuck with an automatic Grand Cherokee is just not coordinated enough to rock his vehicle and get unstuck. This really is not difficult to do with an automatic, it certainly is much easier to do this by going from a forward gear to reverse in an automatic than it is in a manual. Anyway, if I have 18 inches of snow I'm pretty sure I'm getting the snow blower and shovel out anyway...no matter what transmission my vehicle has.
As for the Formula One driver comments...the same arguments apply to the manual transmission "control" advantages that was kind of the point, these differences are miniscule to non-existent in normal driving.
In relation to the actual topic, the real point is your perception of the control advantages (or any actual control advantages) are not going to save the manual transmission from ablivion or near-oblivion in the vast majority of cars on the market.