The Future Of The Manual Transmission

kyfdx

Why not leave it in 5th gear until you see the light?

If green, shift to 2nd and proceed... If red, push in the clutch and brake.

That would really minimize your clutch use..

qbrozen

that's what I do. I only clutch when I need to, not in anticipation but in reaction.

irismg

LOL I do that with my automatic! A no-no, huh?

irismg

OK, thanks! Now, define for me, "tag"!

irismg

Back when I had my '82 Mercury 2-seater, all I had to do was stay in first until 10mph, then upshift every 10mph thereafter. What I used to do when I slowed down was push clutch in and took right foot from off gas pedal and onto brake, and left the car in gear, unless the speedometer went down to below where I would have upshifted. If I went from 50 down to 25, for example, I depressed clutch and zigzagged the shifter down 4th to 2nd (or was it 3rd...probably 3rd since that's over 20mph), then let clutch back up. I never went to neutral. And I never used first for anything other than a dead stop. I never knew anything about "rev matching". Just upshift every ten miles per hour or whenever it sounds like it needs it, whichever comes first! This all may have been wrong, but it got me where I needed to go. By the same token, I have no idea what shape my clutch was in when I traded it in '89, but I do know it was still working!

It's all so complicated now! I think I'd be too scared to drive that car today with all you have to know anymore!

plekto

I only do this on that one exit, because I've probably driven it a thousand times(grew up right near the exit) - and I just don't want to press the clutch on more time - or hold it in.

I tested it today and I actually don't push the clutch in - just going 65mph and drop it into neutral and brake. Then put it in 2nd if I need to. I also do this a lot downhill, as the thing is a 4x4 with an offroad clutch. Silly amounts of drag and engine-braking. I actually have to accelerate at 30mph downhill in 3rd. So it's often easier to just go into neutral instead of listening to the noise.

I actually hate shifting as much as most people. Though I don't mind it, I always look to do as little of it as I can get away with. So holding it in 3rd at 3500rpm around town doesn't bother me at all, despite the engine and gearboix making a nice bit of noise which the cars around me give me odd looks over.

bumpy

Remember when you were a kid and you smacked someone on the shoulder, yelled "tag!", and ran off? Same idea. Give the gas pedal a quick push to rev the engine and let off again.

Rev-matching and all that other stuff is fun to do when you want to show off, but you can drive just fine without it.

british_rover

Yeah you don't need to do that other stuff it is just fun and if you do it right should reduce wear/tear.

qbrozen

So holding it in 3rd at 3500rpm around town doesn't bother me at all

It should when you go to the gas station. ;b

plekto

Well, if I run it hard, it gets 16mpg. If I baby it, maybe 18. It has very short gearing, so say, at 65mph, It's going 3000rpm when it's coasting along with cruise control.

jeffyscott

Although I recently switched to an automatic myself, I did do my part by teaching my 3 kids to drive manuals. I also supplied the first two with my cast-offs. I thought knowing how to drive one would give them more selection and save them some money.

They all now prefer manual transmissions. But finding them in a used car is not too easy. My 20 year old son recently totaled his '96 contour. He at first said he did not really care if he got a manual or automatic, but after driving a few automatics he decided maybe he wants to stick to a manual. His budget is $3000, so looking at maybe a 1999-01.

In 4 cyl automatics about the only cars where there is much selection is Escort ZX2 and Saturn SL/SC. Most others that we have looked for there is about 1 or none within 30 or even 50 miles. For example, if he wants another 4 cyl mtx contour, he has to go about 100 miles to find one.

So instead of increasing selection, I have effectively reduced it for them because of their strong preference for manuals . I do think in these older cars getting a manual eliminates one source of potential major problems and they did still have a fairly significant gas mileage advantage in most cases back then...so the money saving advantage is still there.

bristol2

Not sure if it is any help but if you have a Carmax near you, their website lets you filter by 'manual'.

You have to have one near you for it to help though...

jeffyscott

I didn't know that, but their prices are a joke and non-negotiable. Example: manual trans '02 Cavalier with 42 K mi for $9K...I don't think so.

ateixeira

Their business model is quite simple - buy low, sell high. But at least it's up front and hassle-free. Basically you just know you're going to get screwed. At other places, you only think you aren't.

boaz47

It is pretty easy to find a manual. The only restriction is it is not always in the vehicle you want. Some people have to decide if the transmission choice is more important than the engine or upgrades you are looking for. Sometimes the car you are interested simply isn't offered in a manual. Hybrids, Mini Vans and SUVs come to mind as do most upscale Luxury cars. while I do see manuals as an option in full sized trucks I can count on one hand the number I have seen in the last five years. In other cases, like the Toyota dealer near Nippon they simply aren't willing to stock manuals.

plekto

The perfect old beater(okay, two) for him for that price:

1:An old Honda Civic Hatchback. Nothing to not like and they depreciate quickly enough being hatchbacks. Oh - and he can toss some stuff in there as well.

2:1993 Volvo 240. Last year of the indestructible Volvo. cheap to fix and keep running and has a beautiful manual as well. Yes, it's old. But it won't eat you alive keeping it running. A wagon is even better of course.

Both also have a large amount of after-market parts and so on if he feels like making it perform a bit better.

jeffyscott

Thanks, a good percentage of Civics do seem to be manuals...but not to many of those hatchbacks. I should probably have him test drive a '97 or '98, in a sedan...despite the high prices.

1993 Volvo 240 would be really, really hard to locate.

I'm sure he'll find something...it is just that there would be so much more selection if he wanted an automatic.

stickguy

funny thing about that. I was discussiong them the other day with a guy at work that is big into Volvos. He said that with the later 240's (from the 90's) it is actually easier to find a stick shift wagon than sedan.

Not sure if it is because they just made more wagons, or for some reason wagon people also bought sticks.

I would snap up a clean '93 5 speed for my son, no problem. Hard to get into trouble with it, and safe as a tank if you do!

bristol2

Ebay?

kyfdx

'93 240s and old Civic hatchbacks?

Those are great choices.... but, the problem is.. everyone knows about them. The mid-90s Civic hatchback was as stripped as the car comes, but just try buying one.. they are like gold.

Really... great picks.. hard to find a for a decent price.

jeffyscott

About the only thing we have seen, with asking prices near his budget, with much selection is Escort ZX2. Drove one and it was a piece of crap...with only 70K mi. Not sure if they are all as bad or if this one was just abused. They also are not the safest cars.

May try for a 1994 Accord, that is a little older/rougher than I was figuring he needed to go but mileage is not too high (118K). It is rusted out behind one rear wheel and rust getting started in some other places and a bunch of other minor issues. I'm also guessing the A/C does not work. But it does have a manual transmission...and would probably serve him for at least a couple years.

I think he may buy it if the seller comes down from their asking price...which to me is too high for the condition.

Kids buying their first car really have to go out of their way to get a manual now. Most don't. Used car sales manager, at a low budget lot, told me they don't usually stock manuals because the kids don't know how to drive them.

plekto

Another option is to get a early 90s 4Runner. Manual, 4x4, and a nice basic truck. The 4 cylinder helps as well - plus the 2 ton weight is good in a crash.

It'll run you about 4K , but it's also a great choice. And tons easier to find than a 240.

catheriner

Perhaps there are more 240's available because the owners
are more conscientous about the maintainance.

Good strategy for the teen. They need a car that has a low
center of gravity and some size for protection,
Both my teens were required to drive a standard for their
initial driver training. Even though as young adults they
drive autos, believe the experience was beneficial.

rayainsw

While I applaud Caddy for bringing a manual trans version of the CTS w/DI V6 ( 304 HP ) to market, by their own estimates only 5% ( if that ) will be sold with this trans.

Yet every published test I have seen thus far has included numbers ONLY for the manual trans version.

I will be amazed if many Caddy dealers even stock this car. Much like the Lincoln LS V6 MT ‘of yore’. ( I could be wrong. ) And I am rather disappointed that no one has even seen fit to publish test numbers on the automatic trans version with the 304 motor.

Odd, seems to me – and ( perhaps ) this is all encouraging for the die hard manual trans people?

- Ray
Used to be a ‘die hard’ MT guy, now an auto trans guy . . .

habitat1

Publishing performance numbers for automatic transmission cars and picking a "winner" among them is, to me, a bit like picking the "best legs" from a lineup of Circus fat ladies. Any enthusiast that really cares about all around performance is likely to choose a manual....

....which, in the case of Caddilac, might be less than 5%. Who is buying them, anyway? GM is still flirting with bankruptcy and Cadillac won the dubious distinction of having 4-5 vehicles on the list of the 10 lowest resale values that I saw recently. It's actually less expensive to buy a Porsche 911 new and sell it in three years than a Cadillac that costs half as much up front, but depreciates 2.5x faster.

Sorry, off topic. But manual or automatic, isn't it just easier to flush your money down a toilet than fool around with a Caddy?

rayainsw

Well – my real point ( poorly made, I guess ) was that I’d expect those who really, really want the manual trans to continue would be encouraged by:

1 – The availability of a manual trans in a new $40+K car – even though the expected buy rate is very low.

And
2 – The fact that the manual trans is receiving attention in the motoring press.

. . . whatever one may think of Caddy, as a brand.
Sorry.
- Ray
Back in my hole . . .

qbrozen

It's actually less expensive to buy a Porsche 911 new and sell it in three years than a Cadillac that costs half as much up front, but depreciates 2.5x faster.

I believe you were exagerating for effect (or at least hope you were), but of course that makes no sense. Even if the twice-as-much Porsche were worth 60% after 3 years, the half-as-much Caddy would have to be worth less than 20%. I know the depreciation is bad, but it ain't THAT bad. I don't believe even Hyundais or Saabs depreciate 80% in 3 years.

nippononly

the press has privileged access to a fleet of cars that have almost exclusively manual transmissions, even as the same models being sold all over America are being manufactured solely with automatic transmissions. It's becoming more and more absurd with every passing year, and it's small comfort to manual fans.

In fact, with the amount of slobbering the press has done over DSG-type transmissions, I imagine more and more press cars will have them from now on, until we will no longer see tests of manual-equipped cars. :-(

ateixeira

Publishing performance numbers for automatic transmission cars and picking a "winner" among them is, to me, a bit like picking the "best legs" from a lineup of Circus fat ladies

Not when modern automatics are quicker.

That was true maybe 10 years ago, but I think that stereotype is a little outdated.

Besides, Flo-Jo had thick thighs and could still outrun all the skinny girls. :P

seminole_kev

Typically I still think MT are quicker in the 0-60 tests.....BUT much of that is they do some nice clutch dumps that you might not want to do with your own car.

Honestly I'm not sure what methodology magazine testers and such use these days.

ateixeira

C&D does several clutch drops and takes the quickest time. Severe abuse, basically.

Others, like Consumer Reports, do more real-world launches and times aren't as quick.

kyfdx

That 5-60 mph time that C&D does is pretty useful.. It is a rolling start, so no brake torquing... If you use it in comparison to the same test with other vehicles, it gives you more of a real-world scenario..

ateixeira

True, and the advantage manuals usually enjoy (not always, but usually) all but disappears.

lilengineerboy

True, and the advantage manuals usually enjoy (not always, but usually) all but disappears.

It depends how well they picked the ratios, and how deep second gear is. If you don't have to shift to 3rd to hit 60 that will substantially reduce 0-60 times. If 1st is dead until 10 mph or so, you might have been better off dumping the clutch to get wheelspin so the engine stays in its rev band.

kyfdx

The 5-60 test definitely favors high torque @ low rpm cars... Big american V-8s do great..

habitat1

I believe you were exagerating for effect (or at least hope you were)

A little, but not much. A 911 coupe doesn't quite cost twice as much as a Caddilac, but the total depreciation is very similar. I couldn't find the most recent residual value comparisons, but the following is very close to the figures I saw: Smart Money

Based upon the 5 year residual values for a 911 (53.48%) vs. several Caddilac models (27.2%), the depreciation would be about the same for a $75,000 911 coupe vs. a $45,000 Cadillac:

911 C2: $75,000 x 46.52% depreciation = $34,889
Caddy : $45,000 x 72.8% depreciation = $32,770

From my casual observations in the DC area, the real market here is worse. Plenty of demand for a 3-5 year 911 and they sell well in the private market. A 3-5 year old Caddy is a white elephant and candidate for a charitable donation/write off.

rayainsw

http://stage.caranddriver.com/features/2509/how-we-test-cars-page2.html

habitat1

That 5-60 mph time that C&D does is pretty useful.. It is a rolling start, so no brake torquing... If you use it in comparison to the same test with other vehicles, it gives you more of a real-world scenario..

Whose real world? :surprise:

I am rarely, if ever, coasting along at 5 mph in 1st gear with the clutch fully out. To go from 5 to 60 mph with any vigor, I'd depress the clutch, get the revs up to 3,000+ rpm and then take off in first gear. Mashing the gas pedel in first when the car is barely moving and the rpms are under 1,000 rpm is, frankly, stupid driving. No less stupid than doing clutch dumps at 6,000 rpm. There is a happy median that results in good acceleration, while preserving the engine, clutch and transmission.

I am, however, convinced that the 5-60 mph test was promoted by GM and Ford to make their low rpm high torque cars look better. Reminds me of the tests of 50-70 mph "passing" which were done in top gear for manual transmisions, but automatics would - you guessed it - automatically downshift. Duh! That tells me what? How my cars would perform if Forest Gump were driving them? :confuse:

ateixeira

Yep, and the relevant portion:

In a manual-transmission car, we usually start acceleration runs with a wheel-spinning launch. It's simple: The engine is revved to a high rate, and the clutch is abruptly engaged

They go on to say they try not to break anything (yeah, right), but ask yourself this....would you buy a fleet car that C&D had used?

Only a fool would say yes.

qbrozen

Oh, well, 5 years is a MUCH different story than 3 years, no doubt.

That article is still off, though. They don't even make the 2 Caddies listed there anymore. PLUS, I'm willing to bet the Porsche residual is calculated based on typical miles for THAT car, which is far less than typical miles for a Caddy. But, anyway, I'm being picky and way off topic.

jeffyscott

Another question is...are the starting prices MSRP or actual average transaction prices? I am guessing one gets a bigger discount on a Cadillac than Porsche.

ateixeira

How very true.

Residuals are usually calculated from MSRP. You can probably get $10 grand off a $45k Caddy without too much effort.

Any discount you could hope to get on the 911 would be more than offset by pricey options.

Remembe the Lincoln pickup? One dealer was giving away free Mercury Cougars for anyone that paid MSRP for the Lincoln.

So I guess the Lincoln would have steep depreciation, but when you traded in the Lincoln and the 911, the Lincoln owner could potentially still have a brand-new, zero mileage Cougar.

habitat1

Oh, well, 5 years is a MUCH different story than 3 years, no doubt

The three year figures I saw were WORSE, relatively speaking. All the figures assume 12k miles a year. Caddilacs appear to depreciate about 35-40% the day you drive them off the lot (i.e. first year). Porsches, about 12%. It's as if GM says when you hand them the check, "thanks and don't let the door hit you in the [non-permissible content removed] on the way out".

I don't have time to search the web for the exact article I read in the WSJ a couple of weeks ago, but you are free to try, if you are interested. Bottom line is why would anyone with any gray matter between their ears, buy a Caddilac that, even if it deosn't cost them quite as much as a 911, will, in fact cost them twice as much as an Acura TL or 1.5 times as much as Lexus GS (both also have over 50% residual values)?

ateixeira

Caddilacs appear to depreciate about 35-40% the day you drive them off the lot

Good thing you've probably negotiated a 20% discount off MSRP, at least, meaning the actual depreciation you experience (which is what matters) is closer to 15%, i.e. similar to the Porsche.

qbrozen

yes, good point, too.

habitat, I'm just not willing to call people stupid for buying a Caddy. And, frankly, I think it very rude of you to do so. I say let people drive what they like.

That said, I also find the 300hp V6 caddy a very intriguing option ... if with a 6-speed stick.

dudleyr

Consumer Reports has tested manual and automatics of several cars. The manual is typically 10% faster and 10% more fuel efficient according to them.

Example the Mazda3i did 0-60 in 8.6 seconds with the manual and 10.1 with the automatic. Highway mileage was 42 with the manual and 38 with the automatic. They do a "street" start with no clutch dumping.

EPA favors automatics (they can be programmed to shift up early and then adapt later to the owner) so the manual advantage is not always aparent there, but in the real world the advantage is very noticeable.

FWIW my '07 Accord I4 stick now has a lifetime average of 33.2 mpg, and the average of the last 10 fillups is 35.1 mpg. This is a mix of small town stop and go (max speed 35) and highway. That would be a tall order for the automatic to duplicate.

habitat1

habitat, I'm just not willing to call people stupid for buying a Caddy. And, frankly, I think it very rude of you to do so. I say let people drive what they like.

Fair enough. I didn't intend to insult anybody's "person" - but rather challenge their decision with some hard data. Which is different. Case in point, I don't think I'm a stupid person. But I got distracted during warm ups at a softball tournament on Sunday and took 40 stitches in the mouth. Stupid move, that I'm not likely to repeat.

I don't believe the average Joe or Jane walks in and gets a 20% or $10k discount on a $45k Caddy. If they did, GM would already be bankrupt, since that's about 2-3 times the markup over invoice. And GM takes full advantage of the fact that there are a lot of "buy American" types that will take a $2,500 off deal without ever even thinking about buying an Acura or Lexus.

In any event, it's way off topic here and I apologize for the digression and to anyone I may have offended. I'm now going to sip dinner through a straw.

iluvmysephia1

gotta hurt. :sick:

jeffyscott

When is the last time CR tested a manual transmission? They don't do it very often. Have you seen anything more recent than 2004?

I found Mazda3i test from Aug 2004, but numbers for 0-60 were 8.6 and 9.6. That was with a 4 speed auto. I wonder if the 5 speed would close the gap some? Gas mileage differences were 1-3 mpg the cars tested at that time. I don't know if they (or you) shift for economy, I do know that I don't when I drive a manual.

jeffyscott

I don't believe the average Joe or Jane walks in and gets a 20% or $10k discount on a $45k Caddy.

I imagine anyone who asks gets at least invoice minus the $4000 rebate...which would be about $6000 and a 15% discount. The point is comparisons of depreciation that are based on MSRP are useless when one of the cars is commonly sold at a heavy discount and the other is sold at or near MSRP.