Interesting video, but the reality is that a lot of automatics, SMG's and DSG's are great in a stright line drag race. There isn't much skill in using "launch control" and putting the pedal to the metal.
My issue has always been more with the feel and control one gets in downshifting and upshifting in real world driving, especially those occasional winding country roads. And while the SMG may be the king of the dragstrip in this video, the manual transmssion still rules Nurburgring and similar circuits with respect to manual vs. Tiptronic equiped 911's.
P.S. Regarding the physical stress and strain of manual transmssions in heavy traffic, DC is second only to LA in the nations worst. And at 50, I may not still be at my "fighting weight" from when I was 30. But if my body sunk to such a state of rebuttal that driving a modern stick put me in line for physical therapy and rehab, I think I'd just take an entire bottle of Advil and not wake up. Hell, the thought of missing a few of baseball and softball games due to rotator cuff and ACL surgeries last year was enough to get me back on the floor doing push ups. But in neither case was I relegated to an automatic after the anethesia wore off. Enough typing, I'm going to drop down and crank out 60 before the phone starts ringing.
Nobody wants an old Mecedes with automatic, but the rarer manual equipped models aresold almost instantly.
Funny that you say that. A friend of mine had a 240D 4-speed manual when I met him 20+ years ago. Kept it until about 1995 when, at 250k miles, he was too cheap to have the broken temperature guage fixed, didn't realize the radiator had leaked and the car overheated and the engine blew.
In the meantime, he has done well for himself, moved to the SF Bay area and currently drives an AMG E55 until his E63 arrives. But we still reminisce about that 240D, with crank up windows, barely working air conditioning and about 70 horsepower trying to push about 2 tons of car loaded with 3-4 guys on our golfing trips into the Shenendoah Mountains. On a couple of occassions, we thought we were going to have to get out and push the car up the hills.
He doesn't yet know it, but his wife is shopping for a 240D 4-speed to give him on his 50th next spring. And the price of a nicely restored one is about three times what he paid for his nearly new one 25 years ago. Automatics, far less so.
Yup, I hear you, but the trend with MT looks to me like the LP vs. the CD trend at a slower pace. LP was great analog sound, awesome to "mix" and fought the CD hard but eventually CD took over. LP players ceased to exist one day. LP was not bad technology, it just got obsolete.
You talk to teenagers about LPs, 33RPMs or 45RPMs or even CDs and they are like, Whaaaat? MP3 man :surprise:
Oh, and no worries, dad, at the age of 65+, still drives his 2005 MT car, problem here is that now the 2008 he wants no longer offers MT at all
Mom used to drive MT as well, but we had to change clutches on her car every 6 months to a year. The problem was a little bit different, the change was not due to age or injury, she just never ever learned how to completely engage/disengage the clutch as she used to drive around resting her foot on the pedal. For her, AT was a good move .
Those are points that have already been made and are generally accepted. For most Americans the manual is simply old technology. Not for the niche drivers but for the majority. The question that is posed many times is will there be a point that mainstream manufacturers simply stop offering them? I don't know but Nissan looks to be heading in that direction.
As nice as nostalgia is, she would be better off getting the same car with the better I-6 engine. A 280SE is a wonderful car with about 170HP. Quick and it also has the extra wood trim and so on. Or if she's really a purist, an older 250S. Same deal - way more power and easier to drive.
Though, in my book, the best of the older Mercedes were the 220SE/230Smodels from the mid 60s. They honestly make the early 70s models look rather plain.
I couldn't tolerate a 240D with an auto - it needs that extra performance ability had with a manual simply to make it less of a road hazard. A dangerously slow car, one would be a real risk taker to take it on a fast interstate.
Speaking of old MB and manual vs auto - my fintail has an auto, and I am fine with it, it is very sturdy, if not sometimes clunky, but at least technically it is a 4 speed. The alternative would be a 4 speed column shift, and I loathe column shifts - the whole movement doesn't seem natural to me, and what's the point when the car has standard bucket seats anyway? Some later fintails and MB afterwards had a floor shift manual, that would be pretty decent.
About that restored 240D...I can't imagine a really pristine one bringing more than $7500 or so - but of course, people can pay as much as they like.
Yep, the fintails are hard to beat, so much more modern than a ponton, but a lot more character than what came later. A nice one is a relative bargain in the old car market, as they are so reliable and usable.
Geez, I read the 240D posts this morning and then two hours later on the way back from a client site, I find myself following a 240D with a manual transmission (judging on the visable way the gear changes rocked the body). The car was a creamy white in color, didn't look to have been restored, and yet was in wonderful condition. ;-)
For most Americans the manual is simply old technology. Not for the niche drivers but for the majority. The question that is posed many times is will there be a point that mainstream manufacturers simply stop offering them? I don't know but Nissan looks to be heading in that direction.
One comment, for Americans it is not an old technology, it just never went mainstream. In my 19+ years driving, Manual has never been a preferred choice in the US, while in the rest of the world, the same model, has MT. As for when they will stop offering MT, don't really know but my guess is that it will be based in the market, not as global initiative to kill it off alltogether. My guessed order would be:
-USA (First) -Canada -Mexico -Central and South America -Asia (except Japan) and Africa -Australasia (Australia, New Zealand), Middle East (and Japan) -Western Europe -Eastern Europe (Last)
Talking about MT disappearing. Today I just found out that Mazda will no longer offer MT for the 2008 Mazda5 Touring in the US market. That was a really nice extra that no other competitor offered in the past, but I guess economically does not make sense (for this market). I'm telling ya...
2006-2007 Mazda5 in the US: -Sport. MT: Yes -Touring. MT: Yes -Grand Touring. MT: No
2008 Mazda5 in the US: -Sport. MT: Yes -Touring. MT: No -Grand Touring. MT: No
Well they will keep it for now anyway. The hard part is that for manual drivers the defining factor seems to be feel and control and that can't be defined in such a way that the consumer can look at and see. You can show or at least describe ease of use and even comfort in adds.
But I do still feel that the Manual is considered old technology in the US. It was the basic transmission for many years and in the 50s and 60s was referred to as a "standard" transmission. The Honda Civic comes standard with a manual. The most popular upgrade or option for the Civic? The Automatic transmission. Almost every full sized truck made in the US offers a manual but almost evey full sized truck you see on the road is a automatic.
As you pointed out there comes a point where the manufacturer seems to feel it isn't profitable to even offer a manual. I don't know what that point will be be it looks to be heading that way for Nissan.
I have come to accept Habitat's contention that Porsche and maybe BMW will resist the trend. MB more than likely will give in much sooner. The Japanese will make whatever the Americans will buy and they don't like having two different lines for one car. Look at Lexus. Only the base IS can be had with a manual and not in AWD. All the other cars offered by Lexus are automatics and many are CVTs for 2008. The LS 600h L is 104k and only comes in a CVT and the only Sporty car they offer the SC 430 is a automatic. Remember for Lexus the SC is the Sport model.
is following Ford's instruction on manual offering: offer it only on the most bare-bones trim of any model for which it is available, then build only cars with few-to-no options and force them on dealers as price leaders.
In the case of the Mazda5, it's a stupid philosophy to have, Not only is that car in need of every ounce of extra push the manual provides, but the manual does better for fuel economy.
And here's some entertainment for boaz: I believe Mercedes WILL be the first mainstream manufacturer to completely eliminate manuals in the U.S. (even now they exist mostly in name only, unless you special-order), and VW/Audi won't be far behind. On the Asian front there is no question in my mind the first manufacturer to do so will be Toyota, but the Germans will get there first. I think Nissan will follow Toyota's lead soon after because they love CVTs so much.
I continue to remain very optimistic that Porsche, Honda, and BMW will be holdouts in that whole business. I am hoping Subaru and Mazda will do the same, but I fear for Mazda because of the excessive influence of Ford.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
:confuse: I'm not a Lexus fan, but I always thought that the IS was the Sport one and the SC was the nice 2 door coupe/convertible (not too much of Sport blood). But you are right, not even the sportiest IS-F comes with MT, it is only offered with 8-Speed SPort Direct-Shift (SPDS), whatever that means (with paddle shifters). I drove a rental Saturn Aura with those the other day and is fun, but not the same
Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, I'm sure that after so many posts in this thread this has been discussed plenty so I may just be making trouble :P
I think it is delusional to think that the manufacturers are leading the trend away from manuals. The reality is they are only following the market. The market for manual transmissions, in most makes and models, is shrinking because most buyers do not want them, not because of some Ford inspired (in the case of Mazda) conspiracy.
No worry, you are simply getting caught up and are only adding a new perspective. Jeff has stated the simple fact that the consumers are driving the market not the manufacturers.
The only people who sell them consistently - brand new - is Carmax. I hear you about the "low trim" model. They're cheap, but I'm not cranking another window for the rest of my life.
Going back even further than 19 years...I recall my mother's 1966 Mercury Monterey with the breezeway window. It was quite the accomplishment for her to even buy it, given where she'd come from, plus the fact that a lot of 'em back then wouldn't even sell to a woman. It was an automatic, though, and back in the day, the times were kind of hardscrabble, and the surest sign that you had either made it or were "moving on up" was to buy a car that you didn't have to do the shifting for it! Having an automatic meant you had some class, especially if you got a luxury model. I do remember her saying she had tried to learn standard on a friend's car in the 50's, but nearly ruined the transmission! The first time I remember even seeing a car that had to be shifted was when I was a teenager in the '70s, and on a lot of the cars my classmates had, outside of the occasional Charger or Mustang, the shifter was on the steering wheel!
Yeah, but there are still a lot of "niche drivers" who I bet would be willing to pay more for a MT even if they don't produce them in masses. (Especially those who are fans of the new generations of muscle cars.)
I've posted this before and I'll write it again...
Personally I am willing to pay more for that third pedal under the dash. That said, if it becomes an "extra cost option", then Mr. Open-Shirt-Bleached-Blond-Chest-Hair-Multiple-Gold-Neck-Chains won't be able to brag about "Gettin'er with ALL the options" unless he opts for a stick shift. Given how insecure and status conscious many Americans are, my guess is that if they raise the price of the manual transmission option, sales will go UP.
Personally I am willing to pay more for that third pedal under the dash.
You and me both. Along with the Mrs.
I'd gladly have paid $1,000 more for a 6 speed manual on our 2005 MDX. We would be getting better fuel economy, much better performance, and as we approach 10k miles until warranty expiration, I wouldn't be worried about being one of Acura's many auto transmission faiulre victims. The extended warranty costs $1,500+ and the auto transmission is at least half of the reason I'd consider get it. My wife is voting for a trade up to a Porsche Cayenne GTS 6-speed manual, but that would peg the value of the transmission switch at about $40,000, just a bit more than we want to spend.
If I'm not mistaken, the 545i 6-speed cost more than the 545ia, although some other goodies were included.
If I remember correctly, my 540I cost more with the manual. I know the guzzler tax was more, and I don't remember if the manual cost more, or if it was a no cost option.
Perhaps it was that the 540/545 6-speeds came standard with all or part of the "sport package".
I recall a business associate who got the 540iA with the optional sport package and it stickered for about the same as the 6-speed, with a higher gas guzzler tax as well. I think it was a combination of the gearing and larger tires that reduced the EPA estimate by 1-2 mpg.
Do you still have the 540i 6-speed? If so, how many miles and how is it doing?
I drove a 540 6 speed in '01 when I was shoppling (came real close to a new 525, but cheaped out and got a used maxima).
IMO, the 540 was a beast. But a fun one! The 525 was perfectly balanced and usable with the 5 speed, but the 540 was almost too much effort (overkill?) for the stick.
I thought the same thing when I recently drove my BILs new 550 (545?) 6 speed. Very fast, but I think it might be better balanced with the AT (not the smg, the TC version).
I suppose I would get used to the hot rod aspect, or am just used to smaller engined cars that you could wind out more, but the V8 models just take a lot of the pleaseure out of the stick, and certainly any need for extracing maximum performance!
I wouldn't own something like a Fit with an AT, but a V8 5 series? different story.
I would, of course, have the MT toy to go with it!
Diff'rent strokes... though I kinda agree with you. I've bored everyone here with my love affair with the 540, so i will not repeat it. However, if I had driven a 530 with the 6speed, I'd have bought one. I found the 525 simply underpowered, even though it compared well to my Accord 5Speed.
I will say that the 540 6speed can function very well as a 4 speed - it can comfortably move in 2nd, and is quiet in 5th. The thing is an absolute blast in 3rd gear acceleration though - can be addictive lol.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the MT is less pleasurable with the V8, but it does have some "hot rod" built in...
It depends on the car - if I was buying a 1.8 liter, 100 HP commuter sled, I would want the manual, but would expect it to be less than the auto. If I was buying something for high performance, I would be willing to pay about $1500 for my choice of the MT. - A real manual, with three pedals, not SMG etc.
Habitat, still have the machine. 133K on the clock today (might add a few hundred this w/end). It is doing well, though I am having some HVAC issues right now, and I still have not figured out the true cause of my leaky rear doors. Only other thing is cosmetic - the front of this car takes a beating from road chips, so I'll probably get the hood re-painted at some point.
True, under mass production, the manual transmission and supporting architecture of the car costs less to produce, however, the extra upfront costs (vehicle engineering, pollution controls and certification) are not insignificant, and since there are fewer cars sold with manual transmissions, there are fewer cars to spread that cost against. Said another way, if it costs ten million dollars (as a hypothetical number) each to develop the components for two otherwise identical cars and to get them certified, then ten million is spread against say 200,000 cars with automatic transmissions at a cost to the buyer of $50 per car. Meanwhile, the other ten million for the development and certification of the manual transmission equipped sibling can only be spread against say 20,000 cars meaning that the cost to the buyer is $500 per car.
well, i think it addresses the question asked earlier about what people will pay. I have noticed this practice with "sportier" cars (ie, those vehicles where people might prefer a manual). The 4-cyl accord, for instance was still cheaper with the manual over auto. The Accord V6 and Acura TL, however, was a different story. I'm pretty sure there are other examples out there.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
05 GTO (holden monaro) cost an extra ~$300 due to manual-trans option. but that was more than cancelled-out due to the ~$1300 gas-guzzler tax applying only to the auto-trans GTOs.
I would pay $1000-1500 extra to have a manual trans, which is roughly the premium most companies are charging now for an auto. And that applies to any car I might buy, sporty or basic.
What's more, I expect this scenario to become reality at some point - I would much prefer this to automakers dropping the manual entirely.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I suppose I would get used to the hot rod aspect, or am just used to smaller engined cars that you could wind out more, but the V8 models just take a lot of the pleaseure out of the stick, and certainly any need for extracing maximum performance!
The previous generation M5, with 400 hp and a 6-speed manual is still one of my favorite sedans of all time. Short throw 6-speed, exceptional handling, powerful engine that loved to rev. And certainly no more difficult to drive than my Nissan Maxima 5-speed.
Putting an automatic slushbox on that car would have been a capital offense punishable by death, or at least castration.
i hear ye, Habby1! i can't say i agree with stick-in-the-mud-guy! for me, a v8-with-stickshift has been a primary vehicular REQUIREMENT for 25 years or more, except for when I had really bad tendonitis for a year or two. and 22 to 24 mpg is rather "OK" mpg for V8-stick. even better for the corvette dudes who get 30 mpg highway! what citizens they are!
put your seatbacks and traytables in the closed and upright position and prepare for takeoff.
MTs have always been less expensive than their AT counter-parts because of less complexity / components / manufacturability, etc.
I'm not sure that assumption always holds true. I'd love to see an actual cost comparison between my Acura TL's limited production 6-speed manual transmssion, with the synchro gears and short throw shifter compared to their mass produced 5-speed auto (that, by the way, has a poor reliability record). There was no difference in price, and I bet not much in cost.
Why would one want to pay MORE for a MT, when traditionally, they are 750-1500 less than their AT counterparts?
I think that's already been answered, but in case you missed: better performance, better fuel economy, better reliability/lower maintenance and repair exposure, more fun to drive. I don't think anybody is saying they would hand the dealer an extra $1,500 if they didn't have to, but from my perspective, an automatic transmssion has negative value.
If I'm not mistaken, when polyester was first produced, clothes made with this "miracle fiber" were more expensive than their wool or cotton counterparts. It didn't take long for most to recognize that, in spite of higher procduction costs, and its "no-wrinkle" convenience, polyester clothes didn't "feel" as good as the real thing. Similar analogy of vinyl siding replacing real wood on homes. Now you have people paying a lot more for a wool suit than polyester ones and real wood than vinyl siding. Cost differences do not always equate to value differences. Mass production may make automatic transmissions less expensive to produce than manuals, but even if they do, I'll pay up to get my preference. Just like I am to get a house with real stone and wood.
a. The cost to manufacture is often ancillary to the rule of supply and demand. Take for instance when unleaded gas first came out, unleaded was cheaper to produce because gasoline is naturally unleaded but the gas stations charged a premium for it because it was perceived as "better".
b. Most American drivers still perceive that auto trannys (AT) are more desirable. They are therefore willing to pay a premium for an AT. Conversely, manufacturers are able to charge more for an auto equipped model.
c. In certain high performance models, the perception is the opposite, hence the comparable (or even higher) cost of a manual equipped model.
d. IRT Shipo's example of how autos could be cheaper to produce... good point but manual transmissions (MT) are far more popular in other parts of the world so keep in mind the bigger picture when calculating design/production costs.
e. Until recently, MTs were more fuel efficient but the gap is essentially gone now. I think the ever increasing sophistication of ATs, combined with the more widespread use of CVTs, will eventually lead to the demise of the “relatively” widespread availability of the MT and it will eventually be relegated to the performance car niche market.
f. "Manumatics" are also making a dent in demand for MTs by providing the perceived control of a MT while maintaining the convenience of an AT. And of course your typical American driver is all about convenience :P
I consider "manumatics" a bad joke. CVT's just a joke. Well engineered SMG's and DSG's offer some of the control of a three pedal manual. But slushbox automatics that can be manually shifted are still slushboxes, no matter how many gears or "sophistication" you put in them. Kind of like "fine imported polyester" from my previous example.
that manumatics are the future of the crapbox auto. I think in 10 or 15 years autos will all be DSGs on the more expensive models, CVTs on the cheaper ones (in mainstream vehicles, that is, I am not talking F1 and exotics here).
And if I had to take a guess, I would add that once they get the costs of DGSs down, it will be all-DSGs all the time, and the motorboating CVTs will be deservedly consigned to automotive history once more...
And I hope that manuals will survive all those changes and still be around when DSGs are the only other choice out there. And if manuals are only available on sport models at that point, I guess all my future car purchases will be sport models...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
d. IRT Shipo's example of how autos could be cheaper to produce... good point but manual transmissions (MT) are far more popular in other parts of the world so keep in mind the bigger picture when calculating design/production costs.
That fact is not lost upon me; however, certification for the U.S. market ain't cheap. Even if the physical transmission and infrastructure has already been designed for any given car for other markets, there is still the cost of developing the U.S. pollution controls and then getting it certified. While that most likely totals less than what it would cost a domestic manufacturer to develop a car with a manual transmission for our market, it still means that they have far fewer cars upon which to spread the additional development and the certification costs.
Another argument for raising the sales price of the manual transmission kind of dovetails with what a client of mine did a number of years ago. He bought a company that manufactured (among other things) terrazzo shower floors (primarily for institutional use like jails and hospitals). The terrazzo business was on a long gradual decline and had reached the point where he was losing money on each floor sold, so, in an effort to wean his customer base off of those floors in favor of his new (more profitable, more stylish, better looking but slightly less durable) acrylic composite floors, he did what any good University of Chicago MBA would do, he tripled the price. Guess what? Sales shot through the roof both in terms of profit but also in terms of units. "Hell," he said one morning, "if folks are happy paying these kind of prices, I'm going to happily keep building them."
I think that if the auto manufacturers increase their profit margin on manual transmissions, they might find it to be good business to keep building them and even actively market them.
I think that if the auto manufacturers increase their profit margin on manual transmissions, they might find it to be good business to keep building them and even actively market them.
Not a bad idea. Perception drives demand which drives pricing but... good luck trying to change the public's perception that an automatic is better.
As others have pointed out, in many cases the manufacturers reinforce this perception by essentially marketing manuals as cheap/inferior/undesirable by only offering them on stripped entry-level models
Comments
Nobody wants an old Mecedes with automatic, but the rarer manual equipped models aresold almost instantly.
My issue has always been more with the feel and control one gets in downshifting and upshifting in real world driving, especially those occasional winding country roads. And while the SMG may be the king of the dragstrip in this video, the manual transmssion still rules Nurburgring and similar circuits with respect to manual vs. Tiptronic equiped 911's.
P.S. Regarding the physical stress and strain of manual transmssions in heavy traffic, DC is second only to LA in the nations worst. And at 50, I may not still be at my "fighting weight" from when I was 30. But if my body sunk to such a state of rebuttal that driving a modern stick put me in line for physical therapy and rehab, I think I'd just take an entire bottle of Advil and not wake up. Hell, the thought of missing a few of baseball and softball games due to rotator cuff and ACL surgeries last year was enough to get me back on the floor doing push ups. But in neither case was I relegated to an automatic after the anethesia wore off. Enough typing, I'm going to drop down and crank out 60 before the phone starts ringing.
Funny that you say that. A friend of mine had a 240D 4-speed manual when I met him 20+ years ago. Kept it until about 1995 when, at 250k miles, he was too cheap to have the broken temperature guage fixed, didn't realize the radiator had leaked and the car overheated and the engine blew.
In the meantime, he has done well for himself, moved to the SF Bay area and currently drives an AMG E55 until his E63 arrives. But we still reminisce about that 240D, with crank up windows, barely working air conditioning and about 70 horsepower trying to push about 2 tons of car loaded with 3-4 guys on our golfing trips into the Shenendoah Mountains. On a couple of occassions, we thought we were going to have to get out and push the car up the hills.
He doesn't yet know it, but his wife is shopping for a 240D 4-speed to give him on his 50th next spring. And the price of a nicely restored one is about three times what he paid for his nearly new one 25 years ago. Automatics, far less so.
You talk to teenagers about LPs, 33RPMs or 45RPMs or even CDs and they are like, Whaaaat? MP3 man :surprise:
Oh, and no worries, dad, at the age of 65+, still drives his 2005 MT car, problem here is that now the 2008 he wants no longer offers MT at all
Mom used to drive MT as well, but we had to change clutches on her car every 6 months to a year. The problem was a little bit different, the change was not due to age or injury, she just never ever learned how to completely engage/disengage the clutch as she used to drive around resting her foot on the pedal. For her, AT was a good move
Though, in my book, the best of the older Mercedes were the 220SE/230Smodels from the mid 60s. They honestly make the early 70s models look rather plain.
Speaking of old MB and manual vs auto - my fintail has an auto, and I am fine with it, it is very sturdy, if not sometimes clunky, but at least technically it is a 4 speed. The alternative would be a 4 speed column shift, and I loathe column shifts - the whole movement doesn't seem natural to me, and what's the point when the car has standard bucket seats anyway? Some later fintails and MB afterwards had a floor shift manual, that would be pretty decent.
About that restored 240D...I can't imagine a really pristine one bringing more than $7500 or so - but of course, people can pay as much as they like.
Best Regards,
Shipo
One comment, for Americans it is not an old technology, it just never went mainstream. In my 19+ years driving, Manual has never been a preferred choice in the US, while in the rest of the world, the same model, has MT. As for when they will stop offering MT, don't really know but my guess is that it will be based in the market, not as global initiative to kill it off alltogether. My guessed order would be:
-USA (First)
-Canada
-Mexico
-Central and South America
-Asia (except Japan) and Africa
-Australasia (Australia, New Zealand), Middle East (and Japan)
-Western Europe
-Eastern Europe (Last)
2006-2007 Mazda5 in the US:
-Sport. MT: Yes
-Touring. MT: Yes
-Grand Touring. MT: No
2008 Mazda5 in the US:
-Sport. MT: Yes
-Touring. MT: No
-Grand Touring. MT: No
Oh well, at least the Sport will keep it.
Source:
http://www.edmunds.com/mazda/mazda5/2008/index.html
Well they will keep it for now anyway. The hard part is that for manual drivers the defining factor seems to be feel and control and that can't be defined in such a way that the consumer can look at and see. You can show or at least describe ease of use and even comfort in adds.
But I do still feel that the Manual is considered old technology in the US. It was the basic transmission for many years and in the 50s and 60s was referred to as a "standard" transmission. The Honda Civic comes standard with a manual. The most popular upgrade or option for the Civic? The Automatic transmission. Almost every full sized truck made in the US offers a manual but almost evey full sized truck you see on the road is a automatic.
As you pointed out there comes a point where the manufacturer seems to feel it isn't profitable to even offer a manual. I don't know what that point will be be it looks to be heading that way for Nissan.
I have come to accept Habitat's contention that Porsche and maybe BMW will resist the trend. MB more than likely will give in much sooner. The Japanese will make whatever the Americans will buy and they don't like having two different lines for one car. Look at Lexus. Only the base IS can be had with a manual and not in AWD. All the other cars offered by Lexus are automatics and many are CVTs for 2008. The LS 600h L is 104k and only comes in a CVT and the only Sporty car they offer the SC 430 is a automatic. Remember for Lexus the SC is the Sport model.
In the case of the Mazda5, it's a stupid philosophy to have, Not only is that car in need of every ounce of extra push the manual provides, but the manual does better for fuel economy.
And here's some entertainment for boaz: I believe Mercedes WILL be the first mainstream manufacturer to completely eliminate manuals in the U.S. (even now they exist mostly in name only, unless you special-order), and VW/Audi won't be far behind. On the Asian front there is no question in my mind the first manufacturer to do so will be Toyota, but the Germans will get there first. I think Nissan will follow Toyota's lead soon after because they love CVTs so much.
I continue to remain very optimistic that Porsche, Honda, and BMW will be holdouts in that whole business. I am hoping Subaru and Mazda will do the same, but I fear for Mazda because of the excessive influence of Ford.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
:confuse: I'm not a Lexus fan, but I always thought that the IS was the Sport one and the SC was the nice 2 door coupe/convertible (not too much of Sport blood). But you are right, not even the sportiest IS-F comes with MT, it is only offered with 8-Speed SPort Direct-Shift (SPDS), whatever that means (with paddle shifters). I drove a rental Saturn Aura with those the other day and is fun, but not the same
Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, I'm sure that after so many posts in this thread this has been discussed plenty so I may just be making trouble :P
http://www.lexus.com/isf/isf/fstory.html
well thanks Nippon for the agreement.
Fun topic!
-Rocky
Personally I am willing to pay more for that third pedal under the dash. That said, if it becomes an "extra cost option", then Mr. Open-Shirt-Bleached-Blond-Chest-Hair-Multiple-Gold-Neck-Chains won't be able to brag about "Gettin'er with ALL the options" unless he opts for a stick shift. Given how insecure and status conscious many Americans are, my guess is that if they raise the price of the manual transmission option, sales will go UP.
Best Regards,
Shipo
You and me both. Along with the Mrs.
I'd gladly have paid $1,000 more for a 6 speed manual on our 2005 MDX. We would be getting better fuel economy, much better performance, and as we approach 10k miles until warranty expiration, I wouldn't be worried about being one of Acura's many auto transmission faiulre victims. The extended warranty costs $1,500+ and the auto transmission is at least half of the reason I'd consider get it. My wife is voting for a trade up to a Porsche Cayenne GTS 6-speed manual, but that would peg the value of the transmission switch at about $40,000, just a bit more than we want to spend.
If I'm not mistaken, the 545i 6-speed cost more than the 545ia, although some other goodies were included.
I recall a business associate who got the 540iA with the optional sport package and it stickered for about the same as the 6-speed, with a higher gas guzzler tax as well. I think it was a combination of the gearing and larger tires that reduced the EPA estimate by 1-2 mpg.
Do you still have the 540i 6-speed? If so, how many miles and how is it doing?
IMO, the 540 was a beast. But a fun one! The 525 was perfectly balanced and usable with the 5 speed, but the 540 was almost too much effort (overkill?) for the stick.
I thought the same thing when I recently drove my BILs new 550 (545?) 6 speed. Very fast, but I think it might be better balanced with the AT (not the smg, the TC version).
I suppose I would get used to the hot rod aspect, or am just used to smaller engined cars that you could wind out more, but the V8 models just take a lot of the pleaseure out of the stick, and certainly any need for extracing maximum performance!
I wouldn't own something like a Fit with an AT, but a V8 5 series? different story.
I would, of course, have the MT toy to go with it!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
For the most part, companies are still selling manual equipped cars for the same as or less than their automatic siblings.
Best Regards,
Shipo
I will say that the 540 6speed can function very well as a 4 speed - it can comfortably move in 2nd, and is quiet in 5th. The thing is an absolute blast in 3rd gear acceleration though - can be addictive lol.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the MT is less pleasurable with the V8, but it does have some "hot rod" built in...
MTs have always been less expensive than their AT counter-parts because of less complexity / components / manufacturability, etc.
Why would one want to pay MORE for a MT, when traditionally, they are 750-1500 less than their AT counterparts?
As has been pointed out here before, that's just not true ... at least not the "always" part.
My 6MT Accord was exactly the same MSRP as the auto.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Yeah, I was making a generality. The justification for charging more is what? Changes in assembly on the line or something?
Geesh.
Make sense?
Best Regards,
Shipo
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
rah rah: bring back the gas-guzzler tax!?!?!
What's more, I expect this scenario to become reality at some point - I would much prefer this to automakers dropping the manual entirely.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The previous generation M5, with 400 hp and a 6-speed manual is still one of my favorite sedans of all time. Short throw 6-speed, exceptional handling, powerful engine that loved to rev. And certainly no more difficult to drive than my Nissan Maxima 5-speed.
Putting an automatic slushbox on that car would have been a capital offense punishable by death, or at least castration.
for me, a v8-with-stickshift has been a primary vehicular REQUIREMENT for 25 years or more, except for when I had really bad tendonitis for a year or two.
and 22 to 24 mpg is rather "OK" mpg for V8-stick. even better for the corvette dudes who get 30 mpg highway! what citizens they are!
put your seatbacks and traytables in the closed and upright position and prepare for takeoff.
I'm not sure that assumption always holds true. I'd love to see an actual cost comparison between my Acura TL's limited production 6-speed manual transmssion, with the synchro gears and short throw shifter compared to their mass produced 5-speed auto (that, by the way, has a poor reliability record). There was no difference in price, and I bet not much in cost.
Why would one want to pay MORE for a MT, when traditionally, they are 750-1500 less than their AT counterparts?
I think that's already been answered, but in case you missed: better performance, better fuel economy, better reliability/lower maintenance and repair exposure, more fun to drive. I don't think anybody is saying they would hand the dealer an extra $1,500 if they didn't have to, but from my perspective, an automatic transmssion has negative value.
If I'm not mistaken, when polyester was first produced, clothes made with this "miracle fiber" were more expensive than their wool or cotton counterparts. It didn't take long for most to recognize that, in spite of higher procduction costs, and its "no-wrinkle" convenience, polyester clothes didn't "feel" as good as the real thing. Similar analogy of vinyl siding replacing real wood on homes. Now you have people paying a lot more for a wool suit than polyester ones and real wood than vinyl siding. Cost differences do not always equate to value differences. Mass production may make automatic transmissions less expensive to produce than manuals, but even if they do, I'll pay up to get my preference. Just like I am to get a house with real stone and wood.
a. The cost to manufacture is often ancillary to the rule of supply and demand. Take for instance when unleaded gas first came out, unleaded was cheaper to produce because gasoline is naturally unleaded but the gas stations charged a premium for it because it was perceived as "better".
b. Most American drivers still perceive that auto trannys (AT) are more desirable. They are therefore willing to pay a premium for an AT. Conversely, manufacturers are able to charge more for an auto equipped model.
c. In certain high performance models, the perception is the opposite, hence the comparable (or even higher) cost of a manual equipped model.
d. IRT Shipo's example of how autos could be cheaper to produce... good point but manual transmissions (MT) are far more popular in other parts of the world so keep in mind the bigger picture when calculating design/production costs.
e. Until recently, MTs were more fuel efficient but the gap is essentially gone now. I think the ever increasing sophistication of ATs, combined with the more widespread use of CVTs, will eventually lead to the demise of the “relatively” widespread availability of the MT and it will eventually be relegated to the performance car niche market.
f. "Manumatics" are also making a dent in demand for MTs by providing the perceived control of a MT while maintaining the convenience of an AT. And of course your typical American driver is all about convenience :P
-Frank
I consider "manumatics" a bad joke. CVT's just a joke. Well engineered SMG's and DSG's offer some of the control of a three pedal manual. But slushbox automatics that can be manually shifted are still slushboxes, no matter how many gears or "sophistication" you put in them. Kind of like "fine imported polyester" from my previous example.
And if I had to take a guess, I would add that once they get the costs of DGSs down, it will be all-DSGs all the time, and the motorboating CVTs will be deservedly consigned to automotive history once more...
And I hope that manuals will survive all those changes and still be around when DSGs are the only other choice out there. And if manuals are only available on sport models at that point, I guess all my future car purchases will be sport models...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That fact is not lost upon me; however, certification for the U.S. market ain't cheap. Even if the physical transmission and infrastructure has already been designed for any given car for other markets, there is still the cost of developing the U.S. pollution controls and then getting it certified. While that most likely totals less than what it would cost a domestic manufacturer to develop a car with a manual transmission for our market, it still means that they have far fewer cars upon which to spread the additional development and the certification costs.
Another argument for raising the sales price of the manual transmission kind of dovetails with what a client of mine did a number of years ago. He bought a company that manufactured (among other things) terrazzo shower floors (primarily for institutional use like jails and hospitals). The terrazzo business was on a long gradual decline and had reached the point where he was losing money on each floor sold, so, in an effort to wean his customer base off of those floors in favor of his new (more profitable, more stylish, better looking but slightly less durable) acrylic composite floors, he did what any good University of Chicago MBA would do, he tripled the price. Guess what? Sales shot through the roof both in terms of profit but also in terms of units. "Hell," he said one morning, "if folks are happy paying these kind of prices, I'm going to happily keep building them."
I think that if the auto manufacturers increase their profit margin on manual transmissions, they might find it to be good business to keep building them and even actively market them.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Not a bad idea. Perception drives demand which drives pricing but... good luck trying to change the public's perception that an automatic is better.
As others have pointed out, in many cases the manufacturers reinforce this perception by essentially marketing manuals as cheap/inferior/undesirable by only offering them on stripped entry-level models
-Frank