Yes, but you go against type. I was looking to get another car just last month and I decided to use the Edmunds car search feature for my area. I wanted a used car so i could pay cash. Well I thought I could get more of a car for cash with a used car. I wanted a 4x4 or AWD so Subaru was on the list. The problem was with the exception of a WRX even the Subarus were about 90 percent automatics. My conclusion was either manual owners keep their vehicles longer or that even Subaru sells more Automatics than manuals.
I was a commuter for many years driving from the Inland Empire to LA. I know full well why they have put in cup holders in most vehicles. There is nothing interesting about driving a manual in heavy stop and go traffic, unless it is on two wheels. (Did that for eight years five days a week.)
But I knew you and Nippon would trade car companies before you switched.
"Our long-termer's touchy clutch, rubbery shifter and groaning clutch pedal have kept me from enjoying the car. If you're going to buy a G, get the automatic. We wish we did."
That's too bad. My father's '03 G35 Sedan 6-speed has a very comfortable, very direct feeling short throw shifter and a very easy to modulate clutch. I wonder what car mag beat on the tester before Edmunds got it.
It is the idea that different people drive the vehicle that has given some manuals a bad reputation. I used to go to some of the new car releases for Chrysler and GM. When they released the Crossfire I was a bit interested. Only they didn't bring any manuals to test. Not even in the compitition cars they had us drive to compare. The reason, explained one of the men working at the show, was that more than 800 people would test drive one car evey day and they were replacing clutches every week.
As I said, and your post exemplifies, we are governed by the lowest common denominator - the least competent among us determine the products that we must all suffer. The incompetent are blissful in their mediocrity while the more competent or intelligent must bear the double penalty of understanding what they have been denied.
I know this has come up before, but wanted to make sure that coasting in neutral down a slight grade in a true manual is not harmful to the engine or fuel economy long term. (Safety issues and reaction issues aside). I've been told that this is bad for the engine in automatics.
This is just a guess but it would seem to me the only problem would be on re-engaging the transmission. You could be going 70 MPH and the engine will be turning 800 rpm when you pop that puppy back in gear. The clutch plate would be responsible for bringing the motor back up to speed. It would be slightly better than dumping the clutch at 3500 RPM.
Even Habitat has a vehicle with a Automatic in his fleet.
But that MDX is in some slight danger of being replaced with a Porsche Cayenne 6-speed, especially as we head towards warranty expiration. If Acura offered the new MDX with a manual, they'd have my business for sure.
And consider that Acura got our business in the first place by offering a 6-speed manual in the redesigned 2004 TL. We never would have bought an automatic TL and probably wouldn't have bought the MDX if we weren't already "in the family". Not to mention that at least 4-5 of our friends and neighbors bought TL's over the past 3 years (all automatics) partially as a result of our recommendation.
I'm not trying to give more importance to manual transmissions than is warranted, but I do think that, even today, the availability of a manual transmission makes the "sports" package complete for many enthusaists and has a halo affect on overall sales.
Coasting with the transmssion in neutral should do absolutely no harm to an engine with a manual transmission. Mr. Boaz must have forgotten how easy it is to rev match when re-engaging the transmission.
As I said, and your post exemplifies, we are governed by the lowest common denominator - the least competent among us determine the products that we must all suffer. The incompetent are blissful in their mediocrity while the more competent or intelligent must bear the double penalty of understanding what they have been denied.
Not always, I am pleased to report.
The builder we have selected to build our new house just completed a relatively modestly sized (3,950 s.f.) but exceptionally well designed and extremely high quality true Craftsman style Bungalow in Bethesda, Maryland. Notwithstanding the softer housing market, it was appraised at $2,615,000, over $600 per square foot. He is going to move into it himself, but has several prospective buyers tempting him with offers. The big crackerbox style 7,000+ s.f. McMansions in the neighborhood have been sitting on the market at prices around $2 million, or under $300 per s.f.
I wish more people valued quality architecture over quantity of space, as it would make our neighborhoods look a lot nicer. But there still a few out there, like our builder, who don't succumb to the lowest common denominator - and are rewarded for their good taste.
Now I have to figure out if we can keep the 911 or need to sell it to pay for that real stone fireplace and cherry floors. :surprise:
You assumed that I thought a person that would ask that question would rev match. Other than the idea it is against the law in my state. So the damage is to your wallet. LOL And then again there is no engine braking when coasting in neutral.
Also I might add if you happened to listen to Car Talk Tom and Ray answered this very question some lady asked because she thought her brothers were pulling her leg. Coasting in Neutral is a bad idea and even worse if you have passengers. You don't coast your Porsche do you?
Man 4,000 square feet is huge. When I finish my attic and basement I might have 3,000 square feet in my house. Lets see add the little loft over the garage if I finish that and the tree house in the back, it has power wired in, and I might hit 3,400 feet.
So, watching the news with one eye the other night...
Reported car-jacking - Jacker attempted to grab a BMW; report indicated that he "was unable to drive the car" so had to have the owner drive him someplace, where he jumped out of car and was last seen running away.
Way I figure it, only about two more years before I can start parking with the windows open and key in the ignition!
coasting in neutral is a pointless exercise, no upside. it reduces mpg, control, legality, and increases clutch wear. boaz you are one stubborn dude. your opposition to abs and stability control is funny, except when you are near me in traffic where the computers and abs/yaw-control ability to pulse brakes on *one wheel at a time* may save my life as well as yours. but hey, you are making a silent-scream political statement by avoiding these features, i'm sure that is almost as great a thrill as driving a 50 mpg diesel is for me sometimes (woo hoo). there have got to be better ways to achieve both satisfaction and political change, man. maybe drive to polls and to an adult beverage establishment or sporting event afterwards (designated-driver can drive you home!) i'm just sayin.
"I do think that, even today, the availability of a manual transmission makes the "sports" package complete for many enthusaists and has a halo affect on overall sales."
Unfortunately, we see this taken to its logical conclusion - a manual available ONLY in the sport package - in more and more instances all the time now. Look at the aforementioned TL for example. When you bought yours, you could still get a stick in the regular model. Now in 2007, the stick is only available in the TL-S for approximately $6000 over base sticker. If they do this to the TSX too when the new one arrives next year, it will be a bummer. :-(
On a different front, word is the next Corolla will sell in 4 trims, one of which will be automatic-only for the first time in the history of the Corolla. Toyota continues to trend away from manuals, even as I trend away from Toyota at the same pace....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Honda was pretty much the king of the FWD manual transmission from the late-80s on. The '93 Accord's transmission was a pleasure to shift, it had a very positive gear engagement, it was easy to rev-match, and the ratios were well chosen if a little on the tall side. The shifter was a leather piece and once the finger cutting plastic trim thing around the bottom was gone, it felt good in my hand. The throws were a little long, but nothing terrible. The '07 still has a great feel to the transmission, throws still seem a little long, and I don't like the knob quite as much, but the Momo Anatomic Short in leather and carbon fiber will take care of that and add some bling. The clutch on the '07 is much easier to use than the clutch on the '93, which was hard to launch and prone to chatter. I actually think the '93 had a bad clutch from the factory, but it never really got better or worse over the 15 years of driving that car.
You assumed that I thought a person that would ask that question would rev match. Other than the idea it is against the law in my state. So the damage is to your wallet. LOL And then again there is no engine braking when coasting in neutral.
The LOL part is you, boaz, living in a state where the legislators are clearly a rung down from my 12 year old in intelligence and my 9 year old in common sense. Not that my state is much better, but what do they drink and smoke out there? Are you seriously telling me that somehow you could be cited for "coasting" but not (yet) for talking on a hand held cell phone while eating a Big Mac and applying lip gloss? Pitiful, and you have my condolences.
Now, to the issue of coasting. Essentially, with a manual transmission, every time you push in the clutch you are coasting. Reread that and think about it. What, can you ever conclude is the difference to your clutch if you push it in and hold it (all the way in, not riding it) for 0.5 seconds or 55 seconds. Absolutely none, assuming you are rev matching (or not) to the same degree when you let it out. And who in the hell would be stupid enough to do a clutch dump going 40-50-60 mph without rev matching?? Only somebody that should be permanantly assigned to an automatic or, better yet, the passenger seat.
I'm not advocating coasting. Nor am I suggesting it's a good idea to do it down a 3 mile 6%+ grade while riding your brakes.
But, it so happens that there is a nice gentle grade for 2-3 miles on a particular route I used to frequently drive through Pittsburgh back 4-10 years ago. Being bored, I started seeing how far I could get in neutral (when traffic wasn't an issue), before having to re-engage the transmssion. I did this probably about 30-40+ times over the years in my 1995 Maxima. That Maxima is still around, has 155k miles on the original clutch; front brake pads did not need replacing until 90k miles and rear pads not until 120k miles.
So what are you going to claim is the damage to my wallet?
P.S. You have raised another case for why your heads-up-their-butts state legislators might want to mandate manual transmissions. Take an automatic and point it down a 8% grade and the average mindless automatic driver will not downshift the car to enable engine braking and instead ride their brakes all the way to the bottom. I'd bet the majority of manual drivers would downshift to a lower gear as if it was second nature. There is no doubt in my mind that if automatics were outlawed, we'd have safer roads by eliminating some drivers who aren't coordinated or "engaged" enough in what they are doing behind the wheel.
Take an automatic and point it down a 8% grade and the average mindless automatic driver will not downshift the car to enable engine braking and instead ride their brakes all the way to the bottom.
To take that one step further, many (all?) modern automatic transmissions with torque converters actually disengage when the throttle is closed and the vehicle is moving (unless cruise control is engaged). In the case of our two minivans, if I crest a hill and take my foot off the gas, the RPMs will drop off to ~1100 while the vehicle itself accelerates. Geez, if the grade is steep enough and long enough, these vans would be quite happy freewheeling their way well past 100 mph (with absolutely no change to the engine RPMs).
I'd bet the majority of manual drivers would downshift to a lower gear as if it was second nature.
Absolutely.
There is no doubt in my mind that if automatics were outlawed, we'd have safer roads by eliminating some drivers who aren't coordinated or "engaged" enough in what they are doing behind the wheel.
I second the motion. All those in favor say "aye".
And I bet I know the route habitat1 is referring to in Pittsburgh (Parkway West through Liberty Tunnel?). Been guilty of "coasting" that one in my M5 a few times.
humanity-habitat1, the damage to your wallet is miniscule but you are getting infinitely lower mpg if you 'coast' downhill in neutral gear compared to coasting-downhill-in-gear. that's because when you are coasting-down-in-gear, zero fuel is being injected. but when you are coasting-down-in-neutral, nonzero fuel is being injected. unless you turn off the ignition too! in the distant wayne-and-garth past a pal of mine did this with his shiny new 1978 manual-trans Pacer that had zero power options - at top of "route 2 hill" he shifted to neutral and we coasted for about 4 miles all the way to "steve's ice cream". he did have to restart the engine to parallel-park however.
That brings up another point. They need systems like hybrids have that shut off the motor at red lights and instantly restart the motor when the light turns green. Engine running while not moving = 0 MPG
humanity-habitat1, the damage to your wallet is miniscule but you are getting infinitely lower mpg if you 'coast' downhill in neutral gear compared to coasting-downhill-in-gear. that's because when you are coasting-down-in-gear, zero fuel is being injected. but when you are coasting-down-in-neutral, nonzero fuel is being injected.
That urban legend was debunked by a "Myth Busters" analysis some time ago. The "bust" goes something like this:
The experiment assumption is that you are coasting downhill 300 feet for 1 mile and then "driving" uphill 300 feet for 1 miles to be at the same elevation, start to finish. (approximately 6% grade both directions). Starting speed was 50 mph and finishing speed was 50 mph. Intermediate speeds were not restricted.
It is true that when you are coasting downhill in neutral, you are using a miniscule amount of fuel to keep the engine running at idle (at no load). However, when you are coasting in neutral, there is no engine braking and the vehicle accelerates to a higher speed. When you get to the uphill portion of of the run, the faster coast speed takes you further up the hill before you have to reengage (at 50 mph).
If the car has been effectively engine braking by remaining in gear on the downhill portion, you haven't burned fuel going downhill, but you've used up the kinetic energy of the hill to move the engine cylinders rather than accelerate the car. And, therefore, you will need to spend a lot more energy reengaging sooner on the uphill portion, and accelerating back to 50 mph.
The urban legend comes from only considering the first half of the trip. Save a tiny bit of gas on the downhill portion.... but burn a lot more on the uphill portion, due to starting at a lower speed. (Not to mention, you lose time). In the example I saw, the vehicle speed was reduced from 50 to about 35. Whereas on the coasting alternative, the vehicle speed at the bottom of the hill had increased from 50 to about 65. That 30 mph difference more than made up for the miniscule amount of fuel burned at a no load idle when the uphill climb back to the original elevation was considered.
The moral of the story, as I recall, was that whenever there is a "braking effect", whether it be engine braking or applying your actual brakes, net energy is lost. And the amount of gas used at idle on most modern cars with no load on the engine is miniscule by comparison. Which, if you think about it, is the same principle why stop and go driving at 30 mph results in much lower fuel efficiency than highway driving at 60 mph, even though the air resistence on the latter is 4 times the former.
I have a buddy who has a PhD from Duke in Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science He could do an "infinitely" better job of articulating this than I just did, but that's the best I can do with my measily MBA.
P.S. This wasn't actually a Myth Busters episode - I believe I read about the experiment it in Popular Mechanics at my doctor's office.
Coasting in Neutral has been against the law in my state as long as I have been driving. It is in the handbook and on the test in some cases. Article 11 section 21710. The driver of a motor vehicle when traveling on down grade upon any highway shall not coast with the gears of such vehicle in neutral.
For all the reasons car talk mentioned. In a modern fuel injected car it takes a slight amount more fuel the coast than it does to leave it in gear. You can not respond to an emergency by accelerating and so forth and so on.
So I don't rely on the legislation to have much concern for the wants and needs of the enthusiast.
"It is in the handbook and on the test in some cases. Article 11 section 21710. The driver of a motor vehicle when traveling on down grade upon any highway shall not coast with the gears of such vehicle in neutral."
I'm thinking that that law is well out of date as many modern automatic transmissions disconnect the engine and transmission while descending a grade.
That is also the law in England and other places, and I bet if you checked your own state's code of regulations closely, you would find it is a regulation in your state too.
Regardless, I coast my car quite regularly, in places where it won't speed up but would require gas to maintain speed if it were still in gear. Will probably continue to occasionally use my cell phone in the car after that law goes into effect too. Both regulations are unenforceable.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I have always wondered how they could tell if I were coasting or not. I have heard some CHP offices say they can tell but they may just be pulling my leg. I do understand that there is no fuel savings with a modern fuel injected car because the fuel given to the engine is even less than if it is at idle according to most of the things I have read. Has something to do with the engine has to power the power stearing pump and some other belt fed accessories while in neutral but the engine in gear will do that without fuel. There were several sites that explained it.
But it was interesting to see your post on Toyota. If Nissan, Toyota and Honda leave you stranded you may have to go to Subaru or Mazda if you plan on keeping your name.
The point of the exercise wasn't as much my opposition to ABS and Skid control as to mandated features. The insurance companies supported ABS enthusiastically in the early days only to see no decrease in one on one car accidents where the offending vehicle ran into the back end of another. I have listen to all the reasons for this and some may be valid. I now have two vehicles with ABS because they both came with it in the trim level of vehicle I wanted. Once in 4x4 mode that option is negated in one vehicle however. But I found it interesting that the manual is so often defined by how it feels and helps someone feel connected to the car and yet braking and cornering could use some computerized assistance.
My resistance to such computerized systems didn't seem to phase the manufacturers one little bit and yet we are assured that there will be such a hue and cry if they ever try and drop manuals from our favorite style of cars that the manufacturers will tremble in fear and reverse their decission. I understand the idea of niche vehicles and have conceded they may increase the longevity of the manual in cars sold in America. I just question the viability of the manual in the vast majority of vehicles we see on the road today. All agree that less that 10 percent drive manuals on US highways. All agree that some manufacturers offer fewer and fewer manuals in their main stream vehicles. Habitat may have nothing to fear because he is willing to pay extra for a sports car. even if he did have one slip to the dark side. Daysailer admits to an automatic darkening his driveway as well. If such enthusiasts can be lured over to a vehicle because of availability how does that paint a bright future for the manual in everyday vehicles? While I agree with daysailer that Hybrids do not preclude the use of a manual they do seem like a perfect excuse for the manufacturer to drop them in their offerings.
I once drove a 50 MPG diesel. Well it was close, maybe 45 to 47. It was a 1987 or 88 VW rabbit diesel. I can assure you it was no thrill but it was a manual.
I am counting on Honda not to leave me stranded. Nissan and Toyota, not so much!
And then there's always Subaru, they're good for another 50 years of manuals. ;-)
As a last resort I can count on BMW and Porsche, only of course right now there isn't one even remotely enviro-friendly model between the pair. They better get on that! :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Can you picture a Hybrid BMW or Porsche? In fact do you picture any Hybrids with manuals in 10 years let alone 50? You do have the advantage of liking small Hondas so maybe you can count on them. But as you know they dropped the manual in the CR-V. None in the Odyssey. The Accord Sedans with the V-6 are auto. You might like a coupe. The Civic Hybrid doesn't come in a manual. One reason I suppose you have not considered a hybrid. No manual in the Pilot or the Ridgline. Looks like a Honda with a V-6 and a manual is pretty rare. But you like I-4s so it might not matter to you. With your devotion to dependability I can't see you with a German car even with a manual.
The point of the exercise wasn't as much my opposition to ABS and Skid control as to mandated features. The insurance companies supported ABS enthusiastically in the early days only to see no decrease in one on one car accidents where the offending vehicle ran into the back end of another.
But that isn't the case. There is a reduction in rear-end collisions (of course we can't say this is just based on ABS in vehicles, CHMSLs and significant advancements in brake and tire technology have happened as well) but that reduction came at a cost, an increase in "single vehicle off road" accidents.
hi habitat1. you changed the subject. i was talking about mpg comparison for a long-enough downhill and how coasting in neutral uses infinitely more fuel than coasting in gear. you are welcome to introduce new subjects of course, but please try to recognize when you do that and try not to make apples to oranges comparisons. btw, i'm embarassed on your behalf that you list college degrees of you & your friends.
boaz-forty-seven, thank you for your reply. all your points are very well taken. i generally share your loathing for more software in my vehicles, but i am glad to relent when i see a 'value add' such as for ABS & yaw-control and elect to pay the optional/extra cost for yaw-control especially. your point about whether there will be a hue & cry about the elimination of manual-trans availability is well taken too. i don't see a hue and cry, i just see people voting with their wallets... I plan to keep buying stickshift cars every few years until i run out of lifetime or money. if they become unavailable i'll have to keep my cars longer and/or reevaluate what else to buy - perhaps stickshift/diesel pickup-trucks will remain available if stickshift cars disappear.
"i was talking about mpg comparison for a long-enough downhill and how coasting in neutral uses infinitely more fuel than coasting in gear."
Well, as with everything else, it depends. To be sure if there is a STOP sign at the bottom of the grade, then coasting in neutral will use a tad more fuel than if you roll down the hill in gear. That said, if there is a long flat or another grade that needs to be climbed following the down slope, then the vehicle with the highest speed at the bottom will roll further before the application of the throttle is required to keep the speed up to acceptable levels. In this scenario, the vehicle that coasted down the hill in neutral (without using the brake) will use measurably LESS fuel over the same distance than the vehicle that was left in gear.
I didn't change the subject; you didn't clarify your assumptions. I think the study I cited is a pretty reasonable analysis. Perhaps you happen to live in a parrallel universe where all your driving is strictly downhill? But if that's the case, you don't need an engine in your car at all, do you?
As for you feeling embarassed for my self-deprecating comment about my NOT being an ME (and perhaps not articulating my post in technically correct language), thanks, but I think you have bigger issues to worry about.
thanks shipo. you too are changing the subject along the lines that our esteemed myth-buster did. but it appears that you recognize that you are doing so. i'm talking about a 'steady state' downhill scenario. in that scenario it definitely does not "depend". instead it is simply factual that coasting-downhill-in-gear uses zero fuel and coasting-downhill-in-neutral uses nonzero fuel: infinitely more than the in-gear case. assume the slope of the hill is such that the vehicle will not slow-down if left in-gear, and the simplicity of the comparison becomes clear. in that case the vehicle in neutral will speed up but will continue to use nonzero fuel.
habitat, indeed i didn't make all the assumptions crystal clear but perhaps i have by now. i'm trying to keep the scenario simple so that the point is also simple and clear. as for parallel-universe/issues, either might boggle your mind. almost nothing embarasses me, including giving free advice: don't sell yourself short. don't sell your manual-transmission vehicle short.
Comments
I was a commuter for many years driving from the Inland Empire to LA. I know full well why they have put in cup holders in most vehicles. There is nothing interesting about driving a manual in heavy stop and go traffic, unless it is on two wheels. (Did that for eight years five days a week.)
But I knew you and Nippon would trade car companies before you switched.
2007 Infiniti G35 Sport: Get the Automatic
I wonder what car mag beat on the tester before Edmunds got it.
But that MDX is in some slight danger of being replaced with a Porsche Cayenne 6-speed, especially as we head towards warranty expiration. If Acura offered the new MDX with a manual, they'd have my business for sure.
And consider that Acura got our business in the first place by offering a 6-speed manual in the redesigned 2004 TL. We never would have bought an automatic TL and probably wouldn't have bought the MDX if we weren't already "in the family". Not to mention that at least 4-5 of our friends and neighbors bought TL's over the past 3 years (all automatics) partially as a result of our recommendation.
I'm not trying to give more importance to manual transmissions than is warranted, but I do think that, even today, the availability of a manual transmission makes the "sports" package complete for many enthusaists and has a halo affect on overall sales.
Not always, I am pleased to report.
The builder we have selected to build our new house just completed a relatively modestly sized (3,950 s.f.) but exceptionally well designed and extremely high quality true Craftsman style Bungalow in Bethesda, Maryland. Notwithstanding the softer housing market, it was appraised at $2,615,000, over $600 per square foot. He is going to move into it himself, but has several prospective buyers tempting him with offers. The big crackerbox style 7,000+ s.f. McMansions in the neighborhood have been sitting on the market at prices around $2 million, or under $300 per s.f.
I wish more people valued quality architecture over quantity of space, as it would make our neighborhoods look a lot nicer. But there still a few out there, like our builder, who don't succumb to the lowest common denominator - and are rewarded for their good taste.
Now I have to figure out if we can keep the 911 or need to sell it to pay for that real stone fireplace and cherry floors. :surprise:
Also I might add if you happened to listen to Car Talk Tom and Ray answered this very question some lady asked because she thought her brothers were pulling her leg. Coasting in Neutral is a bad idea and even worse if you have passengers. You don't coast your Porsche do you?
Sorry, but there is nothing at all modest about that.
This, among other phrases, renders your post among the best I've seen lately.
Keep the faith. We're not all stupid &/or lazy, but we certainly are outnumbered.
Reported car-jacking - Jacker attempted to grab a BMW; report indicated that he "was unable to drive the car" so had to have the owner drive him someplace, where he jumped out of car and was last seen running away.
Way I figure it, only about two more years before I can start parking with the windows open and key in the ignition!
boaz you are one stubborn dude. your opposition to abs and stability control is funny, except when you are near me in traffic where the computers and abs/yaw-control ability to pulse brakes on *one wheel at a time* may save my life as well as yours.
but hey, you are making a silent-scream political statement by avoiding these features, i'm sure that is almost as great a thrill as driving a 50 mpg diesel is for me sometimes (woo hoo). there have got to be better ways to achieve both satisfaction and political change, man. maybe drive to polls and to an adult beverage establishment or sporting event afterwards (designated-driver can drive you home!)
i'm just sayin.
Unfortunately, we see this taken to its logical conclusion - a manual available ONLY in the sport package - in more and more instances all the time now. Look at the aforementioned TL for example. When you bought yours, you could still get a stick in the regular model. Now in 2007, the stick is only available in the TL-S for approximately $6000 over base sticker. If they do this to the TSX too when the new one arrives next year, it will be a bummer. :-(
On a different front, word is the next Corolla will sell in 4 trims, one of which will be automatic-only for the first time in the history of the Corolla. Toyota continues to trend away from manuals, even as I trend away from Toyota at the same pace....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The '07 still has a great feel to the transmission, throws still seem a little long, and I don't like the knob quite as much, but the Momo Anatomic Short in leather and carbon fiber will take care of that and add some bling.
The clutch on the '07 is much easier to use than the clutch on the '93, which was hard to launch and prone to chatter. I actually think the '93 had a bad clutch from the factory, but it never really got better or worse over the 15 years of driving that car.
The LOL part is you, boaz, living in a state where the legislators are clearly a rung down from my 12 year old in intelligence and my 9 year old in common sense. Not that my state is much better, but what do they drink and smoke out there? Are you seriously telling me that somehow you could be cited for "coasting" but not (yet) for talking on a hand held cell phone while eating a Big Mac and applying lip gloss? Pitiful, and you have my condolences.
Now, to the issue of coasting. Essentially, with a manual transmission, every time you push in the clutch you are coasting. Reread that and think about it. What, can you ever conclude is the difference to your clutch if you push it in and hold it (all the way in, not riding it) for 0.5 seconds or 55 seconds. Absolutely none, assuming you are rev matching (or not) to the same degree when you let it out. And who in the hell would be stupid enough to do a clutch dump going 40-50-60 mph without rev matching?? Only somebody that should be permanantly assigned to an automatic or, better yet, the passenger seat.
I'm not advocating coasting. Nor am I suggesting it's a good idea to do it down a 3 mile 6%+ grade while riding your brakes.
But, it so happens that there is a nice gentle grade for 2-3 miles on a particular route I used to frequently drive through Pittsburgh back 4-10 years ago. Being bored, I started seeing how far I could get in neutral (when traffic wasn't an issue), before having to re-engage the transmssion. I did this probably about 30-40+ times over the years in my 1995 Maxima. That Maxima is still around, has 155k miles on the original clutch; front brake pads did not need replacing until 90k miles and rear pads not until 120k miles.
So what are you going to claim is the damage to my wallet?
P.S. You have raised another case for why your heads-up-their-butts state legislators might want to mandate manual transmissions. Take an automatic and point it down a 8% grade and the average mindless automatic driver will not downshift the car to enable engine braking and instead ride their brakes all the way to the bottom. I'd bet the majority of manual drivers would downshift to a lower gear as if it was second nature. There is no doubt in my mind that if automatics were outlawed, we'd have safer roads by eliminating some drivers who aren't coordinated or "engaged" enough in what they are doing behind the wheel.
To take that one step further, many (all?) modern automatic transmissions with torque converters actually disengage when the throttle is closed and the vehicle is moving (unless cruise control is engaged). In the case of our two minivans, if I crest a hill and take my foot off the gas, the RPMs will drop off to ~1100 while the vehicle itself accelerates. Geez, if the grade is steep enough and long enough, these vans would be quite happy freewheeling their way well past 100 mph (with absolutely no change to the engine RPMs).
I'd bet the majority of manual drivers would downshift to a lower gear as if it was second nature.
Absolutely.
There is no doubt in my mind that if automatics were outlawed, we'd have safer roads by eliminating some drivers who aren't coordinated or "engaged" enough in what they are doing behind the wheel.
I second the motion. All those in favor say "aye".
Best Regards,
Shipo
Did I say AYE! clearly enough?
And I bet I know the route habitat1 is referring to in Pittsburgh (Parkway West through Liberty Tunnel?). Been guilty of "coasting" that one in my M5 a few times.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
CVT's and DSG's are your future, gentlemen. Coast in to that.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Not in my future they're not.
that's because when you are coasting-down-in-gear, zero fuel is being injected. but when you are coasting-down-in-neutral, nonzero fuel is being injected.
unless you turn off the ignition too! in the distant wayne-and-garth past a pal of mine did this with his shiny new 1978 manual-trans Pacer that had zero power options - at top of "route 2 hill" he shifted to neutral and we coasted for about 4 miles all the way to "steve's ice cream". he did have to restart the engine to parallel-park however.
So will manual transmission TD4 LR2/Freelander 2 again Europe only for now.
That urban legend was debunked by a "Myth Busters" analysis some time ago. The "bust" goes something like this:
The experiment assumption is that you are coasting downhill 300 feet for 1 mile and then "driving" uphill 300 feet for 1 miles to be at the same elevation, start to finish. (approximately 6% grade both directions). Starting speed was 50 mph and finishing speed was 50 mph. Intermediate speeds were not restricted.
It is true that when you are coasting downhill in neutral, you are using a miniscule amount of fuel to keep the engine running at idle (at no load). However, when you are coasting in neutral, there is no engine braking and the vehicle accelerates to a higher speed. When you get to the uphill portion of of the run, the faster coast speed takes you further up the hill before you have to reengage (at 50 mph).
If the car has been effectively engine braking by remaining in gear on the downhill portion, you haven't burned fuel going downhill, but you've used up the kinetic energy of the hill to move the engine cylinders rather than accelerate the car. And, therefore, you will need to spend a lot more energy reengaging sooner on the uphill portion, and accelerating back to 50 mph.
The urban legend comes from only considering the first half of the trip. Save a tiny bit of gas on the downhill portion.... but burn a lot more on the uphill portion, due to starting at a lower speed. (Not to mention, you lose time). In the example I saw, the vehicle speed was reduced from 50 to about 35. Whereas on the coasting alternative, the vehicle speed at the bottom of the hill had increased from 50 to about 65. That 30 mph difference more than made up for the miniscule amount of fuel burned at a no load idle when the uphill climb back to the original elevation was considered.
The moral of the story, as I recall, was that whenever there is a "braking effect", whether it be engine braking or applying your actual brakes, net energy is lost. And the amount of gas used at idle on most modern cars with no load on the engine is miniscule by comparison. Which, if you think about it, is the same principle why stop and go driving at 30 mph results in much lower fuel efficiency than highway driving at 60 mph, even though the air resistence on the latter is 4 times the former.
I have a buddy who has a PhD from Duke in Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science He could do an "infinitely" better job of articulating this than I just did, but that's the best I can do with my measily MBA.
P.S. This wasn't actually a Myth Busters episode - I believe I read about the experiment it in Popular Mechanics at my doctor's office.
For all the reasons car talk mentioned. In a modern fuel injected car it takes a slight amount more fuel the coast than it does to leave it in gear. You can not respond to an emergency by accelerating and so forth and so on.
So I don't rely on the legislation to have much concern for the wants and needs of the enthusiast.
I'm thinking that that law is well out of date as many modern automatic transmissions disconnect the engine and transmission while descending a grade.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Regardless, I coast my car quite regularly, in places where it won't speed up but would require gas to maintain speed if it were still in gear. Will probably continue to occasionally use my cell phone in the car after that law goes into effect too. Both regulations are unenforceable.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
But it was interesting to see your post on Toyota. If Nissan, Toyota and Honda leave you stranded you may have to go to Subaru or Mazda if you plan on keeping your name.
My resistance to such computerized systems didn't seem to phase the manufacturers one little bit and yet we are assured that there will be such a hue and cry if they ever try and drop manuals from our favorite style of cars that the manufacturers will tremble in fear and reverse their decission. I understand the idea of niche vehicles and have conceded they may increase the longevity of the manual in cars sold in America. I just question the viability of the manual in the vast majority of vehicles we see on the road today. All agree that less that 10 percent drive manuals on US highways. All agree that some manufacturers offer fewer and fewer manuals in their main stream vehicles. Habitat may have nothing to fear because he is willing to pay extra for a sports car. even if he did have one slip to the dark side. Daysailer admits to an automatic darkening his driveway as well. If such enthusiasts can be lured over to a vehicle because of availability how does that paint a bright future for the manual in everyday vehicles? While I agree with daysailer that Hybrids do not preclude the use of a manual they do seem like a perfect excuse for the manufacturer to drop them in their offerings.
I once drove a 50 MPG diesel. Well it was close, maybe 45 to 47. It was a 1987 or 88 VW rabbit diesel. I can assure you it was no thrill but it was a manual.
And then there's always Subaru, they're good for another 50 years of manuals. ;-)
As a last resort I can count on BMW and Porsche, only of course right now there isn't one even remotely enviro-friendly model between the pair. They better get on that! :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
lawbreaker!
and I bet you exceed speed limits, too :surprise:
But that isn't the case. There is a reduction in rear-end collisions (of course we can't say this is just based on ABS in vehicles, CHMSLs and significant advancements in brake and tire technology have happened as well) but that reduction came at a cost, an increase in "single vehicle off road" accidents.
you are welcome to introduce new subjects of course, but please try to recognize when you do that and try not to make apples to oranges comparisons.
btw, i'm embarassed on your behalf that you list college degrees of you & your friends.
your point about whether there will be a hue & cry about the elimination of manual-trans availability is well taken too. i don't see a hue and cry, i just see people voting with their wallets... I plan to keep buying stickshift cars every few years until i run out of lifetime or money. if they become unavailable i'll have to keep my cars longer and/or reevaluate what else to buy - perhaps stickshift/diesel pickup-trucks will remain available if stickshift cars disappear.
Well, as with everything else, it depends. To be sure if there is a STOP sign at the bottom of the grade, then coasting in neutral will use a tad more fuel than if you roll down the hill in gear. That said, if there is a long flat or another grade that needs to be climbed following the down slope, then the vehicle with the highest speed at the bottom will roll further before the application of the throttle is required to keep the speed up to acceptable levels. In this scenario, the vehicle that coasted down the hill in neutral (without using the brake) will use measurably LESS fuel over the same distance than the vehicle that was left in gear.
Best Regards,
Shipo
As for you feeling embarassed for my self-deprecating comment about my NOT being an ME (and perhaps not articulating my post in technically correct language), thanks, but I think you have bigger issues to worry about.
i'm talking about a 'steady state' downhill scenario. in that scenario it definitely does not "depend". instead it is simply factual that coasting-downhill-in-gear uses zero fuel and coasting-downhill-in-neutral uses nonzero fuel: infinitely more than the in-gear case.
assume the slope of the hill is such that the vehicle will not slow-down if left in-gear, and the simplicity of the comparison becomes clear. in that case the vehicle in neutral will speed up but will continue to use nonzero fuel.
as for parallel-universe/issues, either might boggle your mind.
almost nothing embarasses me, including giving free advice:
don't sell yourself short.
don't sell your manual-transmission vehicle short.