Why so few economy cars with manual tranny?

pat

No need to get personal. Let's drop the speeding thread and move on, okay?

john500

I have a question about engine rpm and fuel economy. Has anyone read an article that actually addresses just the effect of engine rpm upon fuel economy? It is widely known that driving fast reduces fuel economy, however, I suspect the fuel economy loss is more greatly affected by air drag as its effect scales to a higher power with velocity. Does anyone have an article that I can read that took a 5-speed car and went 50 mph in 3rd, 4th and 5th gear and plotted the fuel economy versus engine rpm?

Mr_Shiftright

This article doesn't quite hit your question but it does offer some ideas as to all the factors affecting fuel economy and it does address rpm issues:

http://www.hondatuningmagazine.com/tech/0510ht_fuel_economy_tuning/

kneisl1

If you double the speed then you square the reisitance.

john500

Thanks for the information, Mr Shiftright, however, I am still not convinced of the basic premise postulated by most people on this forum.

I always drive in the high rpm band and I do not get fuel efficiency numbers significantly lower than the EPA values. The 2003 Honda Civic SI that I had was always driven at 5000 rpm and with the 2006 Toyota Corolla that I currently drive I try to stay at 4200 rpm (these are the rpm values that produce maximum torque according to the Edmunds site). I have read multiple citations that indicate that a diesel engine should be operated at the rpm that produces the maximum torque. For years, that is what I have done with gasoline cars (primarily because I drive smaller cars and I want to keep maximum passing power if I need it by staying in the power band - I am not very concerned about maximizing efficiency).

I would like to understand why a gasoline engine would be fundamentally different than a diesel engine. Intuitively, it makes sense to me that running the engine at the rpm that produces the maximum torque would make it the most efficient (which is about 65 % or the redline for a Corolla). Can anyone provide actual data isolating engine rpm versus fuel efficiency (that does not incoporate velocity which has clearly been theoretically and experimentally shown to decrease fuel efficiency via aerodynamic drag) for a gasoline engine to convince me to drive like a grandpa and "save" gas. Otherwise, I will be keeping my car at the maximum torque rpm range.

kneisl1

It should be pretty simple to drive both ways and see which produces the best mileage. You might have a problem with a "smart" engine though. The ECHO I drive "learns" the way you opeerate the car and sets the engine accordingly. Mine gets 40 mpg and about all I use the car for is to drive 6.5 miles to work. I almost never exceed 45 mpg (the speed limit) It took a few months of driving like that for the mileage to get that high, buts its been consistant for years. Unfortunately, I recently had to leave second shift for first dhift. People drive a lot faster and crazyier during the day so I cant go as slow now. My mileage has dropped to 36 mpg.

bottgers

I can't imagine keeping the RPMs that high all the time. That would be annoying. My guess is if these engines were meant to be operated at these high RPMs all the time, they'd only be equipped with 3 speed trannies instead of 5 speeds.

moparblue2

i do not drive that fast all the time. i have got 43mpg at 70mph with the cruise control on. no auto trans. will do that. the echo is one tuff little car.

bottgers

....I wonder if the Echo is the only car in the world that'll do 1 MPH for every HP it produces. That's pretty good!

electrobuzz

My 1991 Tercel (82 hp) could do 105...

moparblue2

can we get back to the 5 or 6 speed standard tran. why are their so few of them

bottgers

I don't mind so much that many of the larger, more powerful vehicles aren't available with manual trannies as they are powerful enough not to be hindered by an auto. However, I do believe cars like the Corolla, Yaris, Civic, Fit, Sentra, Versa, etc, should be produced in much larger numbers equipped with manuals. The reason is this; small, less powerful cars with automatics are doggy. I've driven Yaris', Corollas, Civics, and Echos, all with both manual and auto trannies. In each case, the manual equipped model easily outaccelerated the same model equipped with a auto. In fact, I work with a guy who owns an '03 Corolla with an auto and my '99 Corolla 5 speed (with 10 less HP mind you) will walk away from his '03. The difference between the 2 tranny types is substantial when talking about these smaller vehicles.

electrobuzz

why are their (sic) so few of them? mr. speedy mopar? here ya go...

I'd say that a MAJORITY of 20 year olds can't drive a stick. Sell not just for now, but for later, my friend. And there's that silly forwarded email out there about the Benzo that doesn't have a steering wheel, and is joystick controlled... no room for a stick in the future, evidently. And well, my 1991 Tercel ended up spending her last year in my ownership with a bungee and a hook in fifth gear. yep, the linkages broke on it... and i could spend $400 to fix it, or use a bungee to keep it in fifth.

It may have been a lack of quality engineering, or perhaps I chilled and did the hood cruise too much and my hand broke the connection, but wow, that was disappointing to see a Toyota manual "break" just 70K into her life.

postaldave

I disagree, and posit that the scarcity is not a lack of demand, but a deliberate choice the auto companies work to make it that way.

For example: go to Toyota.com and 'build' a manual Corolla. The number of packages available for the Manual are 1/2 of what the Automatic have. According to the MFG site, you can't even get Aluminum/or/Alloy wheels, or side-curtain airbags with a manual!

I've seen this at other mfg's as well, so they are the ones driving everyone to auto's vs manuals.

electrobuzz

While this could rapidly devolve into a chicken vs. egg argument, consider these numbers. Overall, people are less interested in a stick ... especially compared to 20 years ago:

"In (2006), 14.3 percent of women versus just 8.5 percent of men were shopping for a stick shift. In 1985, the numbers were dramatically reversed: 4.4 percent of women versus 52.8 percent of men."

http://www.pddnet.com/scripts/ShowPR.asp?PUBCODE=045&ACCT=0006487&ISSUE=0603&REL- TYPE=PR&PRODCODE=0000&PRODLETT=B&CommonCount=0

kneisl1

My personal belief is that the rosds are gettig much more crowded. As much as I love my manual transmission, driving one in rush hour traffic every day would be a nightmare. If I had to do that I would go out and buy an auto. Thats why I think most trannnies are auto and not manual.

postaldave

Fascinating article, which leads me to certainly scale down my accusations of guilt. Of course you could still suggest that this automatic trend has been driven by the automakers themselves. As more people drive automatics, the mfg's make fewer and fewer manuals. Since fewer are made, it makes finding one harder, leading frustrated manual drivers little choice but to go with an automatic.

Not to push a conspiracy theory (more a marketing theory)but I wouldn't be surprised to find that automakers are pushing automatics. As the roads grow more crowded (nice point kneisl1), and fewer manuals are being made, the economies of scale for automatics would probably improve dramatically.

Someone else suggested that producing a manual is more expensive now for automakers, and I'd not be surprised by that. I wouldn't be surprised either to find that there is a nice little profit center in the automatic sell-up ($300-$800) given the mfg's scale of production

iluvmysephia1

fewer and fewer young people (or any age person for that matter)know how to drive a stick and manufacturers are going to just keep amping up production of automatics.

moparbad

can we get back to the 5 or 6 speed standard tran. why are their so few of them

Nearly no one wants a manual, end of story.

boris13

I do. I ordered one.

If fuel economy is a priority, you get a manual transmission.

End of story.

pulgo

Well, I got an automatic 2001 Echo averaging 41MPG over the last 6 years.
Fuel economy is a big priority but my commute has a lot of stop and go. One slow stretch of road of about 5 miles takes me up to 45 minutes every morning. The rest of 35 miles takes another 35 minutes.
I would love a manual but it would drive me nuts having to shift manually given my longish commute.

bottgers

...the Echo or Yaris, fuel economy isn't a reason to choose tranny type. The difference in fuel economy between the two types is so miniscule it isn't even worth considering. However, the big difference is in acceleration. I've driven both the Echo and Yaris, and both with an auto and a manual. With both models, the manually equipped version accelerates much better. The autos feel like dogs compared to the manuals.

boris13

In real-world user reviews, manual Yaris hatchbacks seem to average around 32-36 mpg in the city, whereas automatic hatchbacks often don't even reach 30 city mpg (28 is common). That, to me, is significant. And let's face it, less than 30 mpg city is pretty mediocre fuel economy. I do a lot of stop-and-go driving, so city mpg capability is more important than highway mpg capability.

nippononly

Toyota programs its automatics to resist downshifting so as to increase fuel economy, the manuals are much more zippy in the Yaris and the Echo (I have driven both transmissions a couple of times in the Yaris and the Corolla; my Echo is a manual but I never drove an automatic Echo, but I can only imagine the difference is the same given the similarity of the older and newer models).

bottgers

It isn't just because of the shifting programming because I've driven other small cars comparing autos to manuals and the difference is pretty much the same with all of them. I think it has more to do with the fact that a manual tranny tranfers more of the engine's power to the wheels than does an auto tranny, and when you're talking about subcompacts that only produce around 100 HP, the difference is very noticeable.

joe131

How about posting your average MPG for 5 or 10 tankfuls in a row? Maybe you got an extraordinay Corolla so far a MPG is concerned?
One fillup is not necessarily an accurate test.

electrobuzz

My average mileage since June, 2006 is 33.5 MPG.
That includes the wondelful winter additives that are thrown into Colorado gasoline... and a greater amount of city driving.

If you go light, keep the RPM's under 3K... and in the summer 45+mpg is very possible (a tailwind can't hurt).

mcdawgg

Stopped by late one night, and I noticed that the local dealer still has ONE manual transmission Corolla - the same one they have had since November!! That sure tells you something about the demand for stick shifts!

lhanson

Do you think they might be able to deal on that car? Where do you live?

bottgers

You should be able to deal on ANY car that's been sitting on a lot that long.

mcdawgg

Sorry, no where near Memphis.

I would think they would love to get rid of it cheap, but I tried to buy from them and they are a real pain.

When they do finally sell it, I bet they don't get another manual in.

moparblue2

they do not want to sell this car. it is the bait they run in the newspaper to get people on the lot. then they try to sell you higher priced cars with more option. more options mean more profit for dealer.

lhanson

I can't believe someone hasn't taken the bait. The only reason I would pass on it is if it didn't have A/C and even then I would have to think long and hard, but I guess I would let my good friend Backy take it to Minnesota with him. It would fit him better there than here in Memphis where it is in the mid 90's from May to October.

pat

They actually said that to you?

Mr_Shiftright

That is totally illegal...."bait and switch"....if you could prove it, you could put that dealer into uncomfortably hot water with your local D.A.

kiawah

I wouldn't consider that illegal and/or a bait and switch.

They have an El-cheapo model on the lot with minimum features and a corresponding low price to lure people in. People come in, look at it, compare it's features to a higher trim level model, think about owning the car for 5 years, and figure what the heck....I don't want to crank windows for 5 years....I'll buy a higher trim model. It's the purchasers decision to buy-up.

Nothing says a dealer has to accept a lower offer than what has been published in their advertisement.

Mr_Shiftright

You may not consider it illegal but the law does, even in the way you understand it:

Here's what the definition is supposed to be:

Definition of bait and switch

"An illegal tactic in which a seller advertises a product with the intention of persuading customers to purchase a more expensive product."

I think the fact that this car is still around sort of proves intention...but I'm not a lawyer, so I dunno....

It's very suspicious, to say the least, that the car hasn't sold.

A car like that wouldn't last one week at "my" dealership---presuming it wasn't "silly-priced" so as to avoid selling it.

kiawah

Well I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that in order to be bait and switch, the dealer would NOT have the item advertised, and then as a result tell them they have to buy a more expensive product.

We wouldn't have 1 bedroom apartments advertised and offered in an apartment complex. We wouldn't have Sears with Good, Better, Best Paint. We wouldn't have the ability to buy 'basic' cable TV, without the Disney channels. This marketing and sales concept is throughout our society, and nothing illegal about it.

* * * * * * * * * *
Edit: added Wikipedia description of bait & switch (not that it is a legal authority on this)

In retail sales, a bait and switch is a form of fraud in which the fraudster lures in customers by advertising a product or service at an unprofitably low price, then reveals to potential customers that the advertised good is not available but that a substitute good is. The goal of the bait-and-switch is to convince some buyers to purchase the substitute good as a means of avoiding disappointment over not getting the bait, or as a way to recover sunk costs expended to try to obtain the bait. It suggests that the seller will not show the original product or product advertised but instead will demonstrate a more expensive product.

Other advertising practices, such as the use of loss leaders or the use of sales techniques to steer customers away from low-profit items, depend on many of the same psychological mechanisms as a bait and switch. In the United States, courts have held that the purveyor using a bait and switch operation may be subject to a lawsuit by customers for false advertising, and can be sued for trademark infringement by competing manufacturers, retailers, and others who profit from the sale of the product used as bait. However, no cause of action will exist if the purveyor is capable of actually selling the goods advertised, but aggressively pushes a competing product.

Likewise, advertising a sale while intending to stock a limited amount of, and thereby sell out, the loss-leading item advertised is legal in the United States. The purveyor can escape liability if they make clear in their advertisements that quantities of items for which a sale is offered are limited.

Mr_Shiftright

The dealer WOULD advertise the "bait", and then switch it when you get there.

It's illegal to do this. With Sears or a cable company you CAN buy the cheapest advertised product. With bait and switch, they have no intention of selling you the "bait". Either it'll be "gone" before you get there or there will be some other obstacle. But you can buy Sears' cheap paint or basic cable, no problem, if you want it.

So really the only way we'd know on that manual tranny car is for someone to go in and try to buy it at MSRP or less.

DAs often do this, send in "plants" to test for a bait and switch. If it's a real B&S, they'll bust 'em for it.

But yes, if the dealer advertises a manual tranny Yaris for $40,000, and you want to pay that, then there's no crime involved, that's true.

nightfrog65

I personally wouldn't drive anything but a manual transmission. When I was at the dealership, they had about 10-11 auto Yarii, but only 2 manual transmission models: 1 Liftback 3 door and 1 Sedan. I was really lucky to find a black liftback on the lot.

IMHO, A small car, especially a subcompact with a 4 cyl, should have a manual transmission in order to get the most power out of the small engine. I've never test driven an auto Yaris, but imagine that it would be a little on the weak side with a 4-speed auto.

mcdawgg

I completely agree.

bottgers

I have driven the Yaris in both an auto and manual and the auto did feel sluggish compared to the stick. I wouldn't own a subcompact with an automatic.

pulgo

I have a 2001 Echo with 170k miles on the odometer. Not sluggish at all. The only reason it is an automatic is because my commute has about an hour of stop and go, twice a day, and the continuous manual shifting is very tiring.

tundradude

Even though my truck is an automatic (no choice), my 95 Corolla and 05 xB are manuals and I ordered them that way.

07corollas

I drove all automatics until I got a 05 Scion TC, test drove the automatic and the lurches drove me nuts...so did the manual in that car but I digress..my new 07 corolla is one of the smoothest easiest shifting cars I have ever driven

electrobuzz

Shifting is as smooth as silk in the '06 as well...

irismg

I have a question about this. In stop and go, or gridlock driving, one need not shift higher than second, would you not? I'm curious as to how that is tiring. Could you please explain?

Thanks

irismg

This talk of Americans not wanting manuals has me wondering. They say that in Europe, the cars are majority manual transmission, unlike here. And yet, surely they have traffic, gridlock, stop-and-go, too. I wonder why Europeans tolerate driving stick so well and Americans can't? I wonder if Americans got used to maybe not handling the steering wheel and the cell phone at the same time, would it make a difference??

What do you guys think? Is there more to it than that??

kneisl1

Stop and go traffic on the freeway would be murder on a manual transmission (clutch) to say nothing of the driver. On the freeway youre 1 2 3 4 then 321 then 234 up and down up and down. Its far easier to have an auto. Im not Euros dont have auto also in the cities.

Mr_Shiftright

It's probably because they are used to, or remember, stick-shifts on big American cars, which are/were generally clunky, and/or coupled to huge, high compression engines, which snap your neck every time you let off the gas, and/or clutch pedals on American cars that require huge foot pressure. (note: domestic cars have improved a lot in these areas last ten years, but memories die hard).

I agree, shifting one-two in a little Scion is about as hard as wiggling your finger.