That's what I found a lot when shopping with my brother.
Exception was the Subaru Forester. You can get the Premium model with the all-weather package and still get a manual. He had to wait a month, but he got the big moonroof, heated seats, 6CD, etc.
Subaru, VW, Jeep, Mitsubishi, and a few others offer a manual as an option on virtually all of their vehicles. And a lot of luxury cars (think CPO) offer manual. Even a stripped-down TSX with manual is far better than most base model cars out there. Hardly anyone that I know of wouldn't also consider a CPO Honda versus a new one. 30-40K on one of these is hardly worth bothering about in terms of wear and tear.
$20K will buy you a 2010 TSX with manual in a couple of months. It's a serious contender as you have less insurance, registration, and depreciation, making it dead even with 16K new if you keep the car for 5-6 years.
I'd rate the base model Camry (18K) as certainly better inside than, say, a top trim Fiesta or Fit. The Patriot is fairly mediocre inside, but at ~13K in two months from now, it's a good alternative to the typical "I need a set of wheels" econobox. (29mpg highway isn't so awful, either) I can tow and haul far more cargo as well. People bag on it as a failed SUV, but it's really the biggest cheap hatchback out there. Kind of like a Fit XL. :P
Also, the Fit only gets 4mpg better combined, btw. And only 3 mpg better than a base Camry.(despite being 1K+ lbs heavier, no less... go figure)
Fit: (5 spd manual) 27 City 33 Highway 29 Combine
Camry: (6 spd manual) 22 City 33 Highway (same as the Fit!) 26 Combined
I personally loathe the Camry for a number of reasons (#1 being the styling), but compared to a Fit, it's SO worth the extra 2K. And it might save your bacon in a crash. Small cars still get punked hard in crashes these days, especially with so many people driving urban assault vehicles around.
*edit* Manual only with all Chrysler products. No exceptions to this rule. The last one I owned with manual still worked great at nearly 200K miles. Even the crummy Neon I owned for three months (long story there) was perfectly fine to drive because once again, I got manual. I feel for people who were suckered into buying automatics and then had them die in 40-60K.
Although I seriously doubt you could get a 2010 TSX manual for 20k. The original list on that is 32 or something, isn't it. Does it really lose 12k in 2 years? Somehow that doesn't sound like the right number. But if it's true, I may need to think about it someday.
A 2 year old TSX might well beat a new Civic Si sedan...
And yeah the Camry (or Accord 5 MT) gets only a few mpg less than a Fit. I have trouble figuring that one out. What is it? Aerodynamics? Less advanced engine? Lack of a 6 speed? I just don't know...
Or check this out--a new Accent gets the same highway mpg as the new Elantra. the Accent is a lot smaller and has a smaller engine. Both new models with new tech. What gives?
$23K today. When the next year models come out in two months, it'll be $20K like I said. The base model comes with leather, MP3, power everything... blah blah blah...
It really does depreciate that fast. The smart money is always on a CPO or used near-luxury car about 3-4 years old. Because even the base trim is so much better than the best compact car, since the U.S. models are de-contented so much compared to the typical European model (where you CAN get a tiny car with leather and upper-end options)
As for the Camry, it's entirely the 6th gear. And Toyota manuals are good. Honda's are better, though. The TSX is a win-win combination.
I had to say that's an aberration. 2009 TSX base with manual around Boston have asking price of $22 to 25K and all of them have over 40K miles. That dealer must not know how to market a low mileage Acura.
I've actually kind of been shopping them. Prices in Alabama seem significantly higher than your Boston prices, so high that it seems like a better idea just to buy a new one.
I've snooped around, and you could find a 2010 TSX base model for around $20K, but it would have to have around 50K on it, and not be a sharp sharp car...."decent, base option driver". A low miles, pristine 2010 TSX for $22K would be a home run indeed. More like $27K.
Well, when the 2012 models come out, everything will drop down to the 18-23K range for a three year old CPO TSX. That's just two short months, from now, and is very compelling.
It's a very nice car inside. I am anal about the insides of cars when I'm reviewing them (have a lost of about 50 things in my head - bit of a hobby of myself and my best friend to go test-drive cars) and it only had 3 or 4 things that weren't perfect. Only the Mercedes C class and CTS did better. The GPS in the CTS has real-time traffic updates, for instance. Most of these are truly minor things like how the map pockets work and the positioning of the e-brake handle and so on. The Honda Fit, as an example, was closer to 30 little things wrong with it, which is about normal. The TSX, CTS, and C class surprised me as usually I have to be looking at a 60K+ car to get a near perfect score. For ~30K for a base model, the TSX is a steal. Even moreso, used.
*interesting fact* - The TSX is the Accord in Japan. The "Accord" in the U.S. is actually a step down from the Japanese version. If you wonder why the new Accord isn't quite as nice and improved over the old one, that's why. Honda is charging a premium for the new Accord and slapping an Acura badge on it.
30 things wrong with the Fit. That's a lot for a car top rated by CU. I believe you. I'm just wondering if you'd list some.
Back in early 2010 I was looking for a car. And the TSX was on my list, even though it's really rather above my price range and what I make. Anyway, I took it for a test drive, and I was quite impressed. One thing I like too is that Acura gives you a loaded model as the "base." I thought the acceleration was very nice with the manual. And the manual was beautiful to shift.
The new Civic Si, however, has the same engine and yet weights about 500 pounds less. And so the Si is pretty much faster than most Acuras at this point...
Anyway, if you thought the TSX was close to perfect before, you should try the 2011 model. They improved the engine and transmissions and squeezed out a bit more mpg. They also did improved the already excellent navi and a few other things here and there.
The Honda/Acura press release really made it sound like a pretty good mmc.
2011 Acura TSX Sedan Further Improves Style, Performance and Efficiency TORRANCE, Calif. - 11/16/2010
Despite the TSX sedan being a top choice in its class, Acura has not rested on its laurels, as a host of major updates have been made for 2011. Topping the list, the TSX sedan receives a freshened exterior look along with a wide array of new features and technology-- with particular attention being paid to further improving quality and cabin quietness. In addition, significant improvements have been made to both the 2.4L I-4 and 3.5L V-6 engines that yield improved fuel efficiency, lower emissions and longer engine life.
"The 2011 TSX offers even better looks, more owner relevant technology and class-leading fuel economy," said Jeff Conrad, vice president of Acura sales. "In short, the best entry luxury car just got better."
Acura's philosophy of smart luxury is well evidenced by the combination of great looks, a luxury interior available with a wide variety of technology features, and excellent safety-- all for an exceptional level of value. Thanks to this great mix of attributes, the TSX has the largest percentage of buyers under 30 among all luxury sedans and has remained the volume leader within its segment according to Global Insight.
Exterior On the outside, the 2011 TSX receives a new front fascia, revised chin spoiler, new fog light garnish assembly and an updated grill. The updated front end teams with new underbody panels to improve aerodynamics. At the rear, revised taillights and an updated rear license plate garnish add more visual appeal for the TSX.
The standard 17-inch 5-spoke aluminum wheels for the 2.4L 4-cylinder model are more cutting edge as they now incorporate a machined lip on the face of the spokes, and the split 5-spoke 18-inch aluminum wheels remain standard with the 3.5L V-6 model.
Interior Inside, the 2011 TSX receives a host of visual upgrades in the form of revised styling for the center console, darker trim pieces, brightly finished door handles, an updated parking brake handle and new garnishes for the steering wheel. In addition, new is contrasting-color stitching for the leather seats, door armrests and center console. Rear seat occupants will enjoy added comfort thanks to the addition of heating/cooling vents mounted at the rear of the center console.
Acura is known for its outstanding array of user relevant technology, and the 2011 TSX further expands on this concept. New for 2011, the TSX with available Technology Package now includes an LED backlit full VGA navigation screen (that generates 400-percent better resolution than before), improved navigation system functions (faster performance, improved search ability and expanded map coverage), Song By Voice™ (SBV) user interface, a 60-gigabyte hard disk drive (HDD) system, and the ability to download 15-gigabytes of personal music to the HDD system. Now with the ability to store more than 3,500 songs*, there is no longer a need to carry around bulky CDs.
Acura has always put much emphasis on building an interior that is exceptionally quiet, and for 2011 the TSX has even greater cabin serenity thanks to items such as a new acoustic glass front windshield, even thicker side glass, increased use of sound-deadening insulation, improved floor mats and new underfloor covers.
Drivetrain The 2011 TSX sedan remains fun to drive thanks to two powerful engine choices with class-leading fuel efficiency; a spirited 2.4L inline four cylinder engine and a torquey 3.5L V-6. For 2011, both engines receive numerous improvements to reduce internal operating friction which help improve fuel economy, lower carbon dioxide (CO2) output and increase engine life.
As a result, the friction reduction measures are a significant element to improve fuel economy as evidenced by improvements in city, highway and combined fuel economy for both the 2.4L I-4 and the 3.5L V-6. 2011 TSX EPA estimated city/highway/combined fuel economy ratings** TSX model EPA rating strong>Improvement (versus 2010 model) 2.4L I-4 (5AT) 22/31/26 mpg +1 city, +1 highway, +1 combined 2.4L I-4 (6MT) 21/29/24 mpg +1 city, +1 highway, +1 combined 3.5L V-6 (5AT) 19/28/23 mpg +1 city, +1 highway, +2 combined
New automatic transmission programming helps maximize the engine output by allowing for Shift Hold Control during cornering along with "smart shift" functionality that allows for semi-manual operation when in Drive-- not just when in Sport Mode. In addition, the Sequential SportShift 5-speed automatic transmission now features a fluid warmer that helps improve shift quality, transmission durability and engine fuel economy for TSX owners who live in colder climates.
Pricing On sale at Acura dealerships on November 23, the 2011 TSX with 2.4L I-4 engine will have an MSRP of $29,610 for both manual and automatic transmission models. Equipped with the available Technology package, the MSRP will be $32,710. The TSX with 3.5L V-6 engine will have an MSRP of $35,150, or $38,250 when equipped with the Technology Package.
Subaru, VW, Jeep, Mitsubishi, and a few others offer a manual as an option on virtually all of their vehicles
Even among those only Subaru and Jeep offer a manual in their small crossover. Outlander is CVT/6EAT only. VW may have the DSG, I'm not sure to be honest, but no true manual. Jeep limits them to base models.
ateixeira: good update. Sorry to hear the CRV dropped the manual.
What have we got for $20,000. The lowest level of Sonata, as mentioned, is a pretty impressive machine for the price. The main weakness is awful rear visibility.
The manual on the Sonata is said to shift pretty well, but it has an automatic rev limiter that kicks in when you shift to improve mpg that is supposed to take quite a bit of getting used to...Or, maybe you never get used to it and it just sucks.
What have we got for $20,000. The lowest level of Sonata, as mentioned, is a pretty impressive machine for the price. The main weakness is awful rear visibility
I can comment on its twin, the Kia Optima. Went with my brother to drive a base model with a manual.
Sad to say, I was a bit disappointed. The steering was a bit lazy and the clutch feel didn't reward driving very much. My brother and I both MUCH preferred the shifter in the Kia Sportage, way more fun to drive. WAY more, and go figure, on paper you wouldn't think so.
Funny thing is both had an issue you mentioned - poor rear visibility.
Put it this way, if I were in the market right now, I'd probably go test one more Kia - the Sorento, also with a manual. Roomier and better visibility than the Sportage.
Sucks you can't get Kia's big moonroof with an MT, though. Subaru does, so why not Kia?
Also, I'd love to see an Optima SX with a manual. Hoping that the better wheels and tires would address the steering, and then I could overlook the clutch feel.
I bought a Chevy Cruze LS stickshift a week ago; traded VW TDI 5-speed with 120k. The Cruze is fantastic so far, especially the 6-speed (manual of course) transmission.
But the Cruze sounds great. Like the styling on that one fairly well. And good to hear it has a nice manual from someone who can appreciate it. Can you give us a bit more of a report ellas. How is the visibility? Controls? Etc.?
Well, with the Fit, it was little things. Mostly because it was designed for the Japanese market and a lot of the interior isn't properly switched for the U.S. setup. A good example is how the rear seat bench is longer on the side behind the driver. In Japan, that's the closest to the curb. So the best seat in the rear is the one least used as the driver usually has their seat much farther back than the front passenger. The seats don't have height adjustment on the U.S. models for some reason (but do in Japan?) There are no rear AC vents.(stupidly easy to design into the center console on most cars and a must-have for passengers) The cup holders are too close to the dash and your ipod link, cell phone charger, or similar will hit the cups. The oil filter is in a horrible place that's nearly impossible to get at. (though Toyota is the same in most cases). The oil pan can't be changed without lifting the engine. There is no center armrest to speak of. (the optional one isn't useful for someone driving stick) The clutch pedal is about half an inch too close to the brake pedal. The rear opening is significantly smaller than the loading floor due to horribly rounded edges that were done for aesthetic purposes. You can't see the front of the #@$# hood. This makes parallel parking an exercise in faith(the Civic also has this issue)
Lots of little things like that. (this is just from memory, though they may have fixed one or two things in the last two years) Nothing major, though, except that the seat fabric is miserably low-budget. Would it kill them to have spent $100 extra on the fabric and make it at least as nice as your typical sofa?
I have to admit I kind of like that "can't see the hood I'm driving on air" feeling. But I guess it does make parking tougher. I haven't noticed that in my Mazda5 thought, which has that type of hood.
Seems like you make some valid points on the Fit.
What did you think of the improvements Acura made to the tsx for 2011.
If they ever get in stock to a significant degree, I hope you'll go check out a 2012 Civic Si sedan and give your rating on that one...
The improvements to the TSX were stunning. You could go over it and aside from a small group of issues like the fact that the tires are needlessly low-profile and it uses premium gas, it's almost a perfect score. Dual zone heat? Check. Good stereo? Of course. Seats are comfy, Shifter knob feels good in your hands, seat stitching is good, has homelink, moonroof, fog lamps, bluetooth, traction control, stability control, leather, the interior feels soft enough to the touch, and so on. And it's all standard.
note - I'd still take a CPO CTS with manual over one, though, just because it's RWD.
To kit up a Buick Regal to these levels (as an example), you'd be pushing 30K. Something irks me about a 25K car with 5-6K in options. This hurts resale values and the overall image. Of *course* you want everything in a car if you can get it.(well, aside from NAV - the aftermarket units work better, just like aftermarket radios usually do).
The auto magazines rag on about how poor the 4 cylinder engine is, but let's face it. If it's not doing 0-60 in 6 seconds, it's crap in their minds. For us normal people, the manual and 200HP is more than adequate to get around town. I don't think half of the people reading this have ever gone 0-60 in 6 seconds in a car, and if they have, they certainly don't drive around town that fast.
And, like all of the better Hondas, the transmission is video game easy. The Fit, less so, but the 6 speed transmission in the TSX is nearly identical to the one used in the S2000.
visibility seems similar to jetta to me, but i understand a rear camera system is standard for 2012 cruze?!
controls also seem OK - the only ones i mostly care about are steering/clutch/shifter & seat positioning and how the vehicle performs in a drift/emergency/sideways/backwards at highway speed - all that stuff seems fine! (ok, haven't gone quite 65 mph backwards yet with this car, but will report back afterwards if it comes up again.)
For other controls, I don't have enough miles/long-roadtrips to know! It tunes to Howard 100 & 101 in most excellent fashion, but I had to throw away the free 3 months XM in order to hear Howie and 'convert' from Sirius to XM.
Also the car-tooth phone integration is awesome, with an occasional glitch/confusion as it initiates call with iphone! ! ! ! i think i am discovering how to workaround that but will be happy to help Chevrolet technicians diagnose it for a nominal fee.
during commutes/etc, I'm going to be catching up on LOTS of phone calls with verizon iphone and Cruze-tooth phone integration.. I wish I had time to drive to florida just to find out about the other controls sooner.
One of my favorite things about Cruze LS controls is the blue/red heat/cool adjustment dial! I always prefer that to "set a number" type of HVAC in cars. It's a case of: "Less Software = Better" . Seems like most cars have the modern/crappier/set-a-temperature controls. I've never driven or been in any car where I actually liked those, even when they are dual zone blah blah adaptive blah blah.
Have you driven a Mazda 6 with 6 speed manual? While it is the lowest trim level (no sunroof, Bluetooth), the transmission is quite good and great clutch feel. All for about $19,000. Dealer stated they would install a sunroof, as that is one thing I do want. This is also one of the few MT cars that actually have cruise control also. The Sonata, Kia, and Kizashi don't have cruise on the MT cars (Kizashi's lowest trim with MT has no cruise, but the Sport model at a much higher price does).
"This is also one of the few MT cars that actually have cruise control also."
Seriously? I've been driving manual transmission equipped cars exclusively since the late 1970s and the last time I saw a car with three pedals under the dash and no cruise control was when I bought my 1979 Scirocco. When I bought my current ride (a 2009 Mazda3), I looked at the following cars, and all of them had both features: - Ford Focus - VW Rabbit - Mazda3 - Honda Civic - Toyota Corolla - Chevy Cobalt - Subaru Impreza
Based upon your above post, I'm stunned to learn in this day and age there are any cars available without cruise control, regardless of transmission type.
The 04 Civic VP does not have C/C. It is an automatic. Perhaps it is just me, but even on interstates using C/C is more an exercise in turning it off more times than we have it on. I have stopped using it for trips LONG ago.
Given where I live (SF Bay Area) I probably wouldn't even order CC on a manual transmission car again, unless it was just part of some other package I wanted. I just can't use it, and it's doubly annoying with a stickshift. At least with an automatic, when you start going up a long grade, the trans will shift for you.
Not having cruise is almost a deal killer for me, right up there with crank windows (and my next car better have AUX too). Actually I'd rather give up the power windows instead of cruise.
I can only think of three or four times in the last ten years, where I've used cruise...
Mostly it's late at night, when I probably shouldn't be driving... I notice that when I get fatigued, I can either pay attention to vehicle placement, etc... but, can't seem to keep a steady speed.. Or, if I concentrate on my speed, the attention to the road deteriorates... If I use the cruise, I can concentrate on the rest and all is good..
That tends to happen way before I feel sleepy... just something I noticed on long trips, late at night... mostly by myself..
Otherwise, it seems more trouble than it's worth... It's the first option I would give up..
Not only do I use Cruise Control on an almost daily basis (more on that later), I love the fact that in a manual transmission equipped car, all I need to do the disengage it is to tap the clutch. As for driving in a hilly area in a car with the CC engaged, I've found it to be an exceedingly rare condition where I'll need to down-shift so that the car has enough torque to maintain speed.
With the above in mind, where on the U.S. highway system would one need to downshift to maintain speed while climbing a grade; between Bishop and Tom's Place on US-395 maybe? I suppose it depends upon the car, but the last time I drove up and over Sherwin Summit I had the CC engaged and had no problem maintaining speed. Of course that car had a turbocharged 2.2 liter mill; it may have been a different story if I was driving my current ride (a 2009 Mazda3 with a normally aspirated 2.0 liter motor).
My uses for Cruise Control: -- I use it during my daily commute; I routinely am out in front of the morning commute traffic, and am able to travel long stretches while in CC. -- I often use CC on our local two lane roads; roads which wind around over hill and dale (meaning they're fun to drive at extra legal speeds), and which are highly patrolled. I cannot count the number of times in just the last month where I was tooling along at 40 mph with the CC engaged and passed the local constabulary sitting on the side of the road just itchin' to pull someone over.
I did a 30 mile round trip along the lake shore yesterday and used it. I'm sure it saved me a ticket or two in Boise tooling around town at 35 too. I reckon I use it every time I leave town.
With the steering wheel buttons (and the overdrive on/off button), playing with my speed using the cruise is the closest I can get to any kind of shifting. I often bleed off speed going uphill by hitting the "minus" button and cancel cruise going downhill. Then I "resume" on the flats.
If anything, I'm more engaged with driving using cruise instead of just keeping my foot in one position.
Never had one in a manual that I can compare it to.
Yep, the only time I use it these days is for speed traps.
I don't like CC going up hills--it wastes gas and it's hard on the engine, lugging it at low RPM. If you had a vacuum gauge, you'd see how much vacuum drops in 6th gear going up hills. Or if you can maintain high vacuum, maybe not. :P
My MINI is supercharged, with reduction pulley as well, and I can rip the tires off the car in first gear, but I can't pull 6th gear going up some hills without lugging the engine more than I'm comfortable with. The gearing is simply too high.
"I don't like CC going up hills--it wastes gas and it's hard on the engine, lugging it at low RPM."
I think it was Charles Lindbergh who proved quite conclusively that there is no such a thing as "lugging" and engine regardless of throttle setting if said engine is over roughly 2,000 rpms (plus or minus 10% depending upon the engine). As for wasting gas, running up a hill in top gear at say 2,300 rpms at WOT will use considerably less fuel than downshifting and running up the same hill at the same speed at say 2,800 rpms and partial throttle.
Two TDI's have actually pointed the way to better mpg's. When I apply the diesel techniques to normally aspirated gassers, the effect is also better mpg's for the gassers. For anything not flat, use of CC seems detrimental to fuel mileage.
I would refine your statement a bit. If in rolling hills, then yes, the use of Cruise Control will not be the most efficient use of fuel, however, if we're talking about long grades, then the reverse is true, running up a long grade with CC engaged will use less fuel.
Well Charles Lindbergh was wrong about a lot of things. Lugging is lugging and it depends on the engine and gearing. Some engines lug at 2,000 rpm and some don't.
But "lugging" definitely exists and its bad for an engine. In fact I couldn't think of a worse thing to do to an engine aside from running it out of oil or overheating it.
Mine "lugs" going up hills in 6th gear. What can I say? I know from lugging. I'm not going to do that to my engine. Your results may vary.
I just tell people to try it and see. If your car starts to buck and bog in high gear, yer luggin' it.
As for the whole throttle angle/ rpm thing, Road & Track did a lot of testing for optimal fuel mileage, and they found that depressing to mid-throttle, and running up to mid-rpm, gave them the best results.
Long grades can be a tad misleading. I regularly do "long grades" up and return of app 110 miles (zero to 7,300 altitude highway 80 Sacramento, CA to Lake Tahoe, CA or Reno NV,... return). I would guess if I did that road TOTALLY by myself on C/C, I could conceivably post better mpg. Real world conditions and safety issues, however probably conspire against that.
Yes that holds true in my own practical experiences also. You also do not want to approach the limits of your (clutches)clamping limits on a 5/6 speed manual also by using one to two "TOO many gears", i.e., going up in 6th when you should be going up in 4th. Drive trains are really designed with a so called sweet spot or sweet range in mind. It is really up to one to find what that is.
Perhaps your lugging problem is not a matter of the wrong gear, just the wrong speed. When I had my 4-cyl Nissan pickup, it couldn't hold 65 mph on I-5's Rice Hill in 5th... but at 80, no problem.
Yes, to a point you would be right...at higher speed, I'd be more up in the power band. But you can't drive fast anymore in California unless you're in the boonies. I see more cops than I've ever seen before.
Top 10 States for Writing Speeding Tickets: 1. Ohio 2. Pennsylvania 3. New York 4. California 5. Texas 6. Georgia 7. Virginia 8. North Carolina 9. Massachusetts 10. Connecticut
And yes, again, ruking is right about strain on the clutch when you're lugging down too far in a gear. I always use that system to test a clutch when I'm buying a used car...drop it into 5th gear and try to chug up a small hill at low speed. If the clutch is slipping, that's the time it'll show up---infallible test.
"Well Charles Lindbergh was wrong about a lot of things. Lugging is lugging and it depends on the engine and gearing. Some engines lug at 2,000 rpm and some don't."
I believe my exact statement included the proviso of "plus or minus 10%". As for Mr. Lindbergh being wrong about a lot of things, true, and most of them were geo-political; when it came to engines he was usually spot on, this scenario being one of them. The fact is, when he first put forth the proposition of high manifold pressure and low RPMs, the "experts" were agast at the very notion; after many-many tests and engine tear-downs he was more than vindicated.
I've never argued that lugging doesn't exist, however, based upon both personal experience and available engineering studies the following is true in 99% of the cases:
- - Engine lugging thresholds: - - - You cannot lug at WOT an engine when (all engines are assumed to be 4-stroke designs): -- said engine has six or more cylinders, is normally aspirated, has a stroke of at least ~85% of the bore, and is rotating at a minimum of 1,800 rpms. -- said engine has four or five cylinders, is normally aspirated, has a stroke of at least ~95% of the bore, and is rotating at a minimum of 2,000 rpms. -- said engine has six or more cylinders, is turbocharged, has of at least ~85% of the bore, and is rotating at a minimum of 2,000 rpms. -- said engine has four or five cylinders, is turbocharged, has of at least ~95% of the bore, and is rotating at a minimum of 2,200 rpms. -- said engine has six or more cylinders, is mechanically supercharged, has of at least ~85% of the bore, and is rotating at a minimum of 2,200 rpms. -- said engine has four or five cylinders, is mechanically supercharged, has of at least ~95% of the bore, and is rotating at a minimum of 2,400 rpms.
Under the assumption that the vast majority of late model engine fall within the above guidelines (including the one in your car), I have to ask; when you say your car "lugs" in 6th gear, does it contradict any of the above?
FWIW, the only engine I know of which falls outside the above criteria and which I've found is easy to "lug" is the H4 motor in the Subaru Impreza.
. . .the last time I drove up and over Sherwin Summit . . .
Wow, a trip down memory lane. I lived (as a very young child) at the Hot Creek Fish Hatchery, not far from Mammoth Lakes, and learned the nearby roads fairly well. In fact, they were the first I remember in my life, and given the amount of time I've spent on the road since, very significant.
The old road from Bishop up Sherwin Grade is still there, though you have to hunt for it a bit, and when I did a decade or so ago, memories flooded back, in a big way.
Oh, and to the point, I spent today driving around Colorado in a car with a manual & cruise, and used the cruise anytime the road & traffic permitted. Besides which, I use cruise every day when I commute to work. Fortunately, I don't have to deal with bumper-to-bumper traffic, so I can set up 65 or 70 and go.
I installed aftermarket cruise on my first Miata, and it worked like a charm.
Hmmmm....well that chart seems to be stating the obvious, doesn't it? All it says is ultimately, under a certain RPM (which varies according to the type of engine) any engine will lug.
I know all this by the seat of my pants, and so do you. The car speaks to us.
And yes, in 6th gear in CC going up a long grade my MINI engine will eventually drop rpm, lower and lower, and then start to lug....this presumes the speed limit to begin with. If I "charge" the hill at 90 mph I'd probably be okay, depending on the length of the grade of course.
For real torque you need displacement---the number of cylinders has nothing to do with the torque. My MINI is only 1.6L. With low rpm, there's not much boost, so while the car is a little demon while on boost, it hasn't the torque to avoid lugging.
Comments
That's what I found a lot when shopping with my brother.
Exception was the Subaru Forester. You can get the Premium model with the all-weather package and still get a manual. He had to wait a month, but he got the big moonroof, heated seats, 6CD, etc.
With a manual, of course.
$20K will buy you a 2010 TSX with manual in a couple of months. It's a serious contender as you have less insurance, registration, and depreciation, making it dead even with 16K new if you keep the car for 5-6 years.
I'd rate the base model Camry (18K) as certainly better inside than, say, a top trim Fiesta or Fit. The Patriot is fairly mediocre inside, but at ~13K in two months from now, it's a good alternative to the typical "I need a set of wheels" econobox. (29mpg highway isn't so awful, either) I can tow and haul far more cargo as well. People bag on it as a failed SUV, but it's really the biggest cheap hatchback out there. Kind of like a Fit XL. :P
Also, the Fit only gets 4mpg better combined, btw. And only 3 mpg better than a base Camry.(despite being 1K+ lbs heavier, no less... go figure)
Fit: (5 spd manual)
27 City
33 Highway
29 Combine
Camry: (6 spd manual)
22 City
33 Highway (same as the Fit!)
26 Combined
I personally loathe the Camry for a number of reasons (#1 being the styling), but compared to a Fit, it's SO worth the extra 2K. And it might save your bacon in a crash. Small cars still get punked hard in crashes these days, especially with so many people driving urban assault vehicles around.
*edit*
Manual only with all Chrysler products. No exceptions to this rule. The last one I owned with manual still worked great at nearly 200K miles. Even the crummy Neon I owned for three months (long story there) was perfectly fine to drive because once again, I got manual. I feel for people who were suckered into buying automatics and then had them die in 40-60K.
Although I seriously doubt you could get a 2010 TSX manual for 20k. The original list on that is 32 or something, isn't it. Does it really lose 12k in 2 years? Somehow that doesn't sound like the right number. But if it's true, I may need to think about it someday.
A 2 year old TSX might well beat a new Civic Si sedan...
And yeah the Camry (or Accord 5 MT) gets only a few mpg less than a Fit. I have trouble figuring that one out. What is it? Aerodynamics? Less advanced engine? Lack of a 6 speed? I just don't know...
Or check this out--a new Accent gets the same highway mpg as the new Elantra. the Accent is a lot smaller and has a smaller engine. Both new models with new tech. What gives?
True:
GLS
2.4L 4-cyl. engine
Manual transmission
Up to 24 cty/35 hwy mpg
Lot of car for the money with that Sonata. But I hate the bad rear visibility on it.
$23K today. When the next year models come out in two months, it'll be $20K like I said. The base model comes with leather, MP3, power everything... blah blah blah...
It really does depreciate that fast. The smart money is always on a CPO or used near-luxury car about 3-4 years old. Because even the base trim is so much better than the best compact car, since the U.S. models are de-contented so much compared to the typical European model (where you CAN get a tiny car with leather and upper-end options)
As for the Camry, it's entirely the 6th gear. And Toyota manuals are good. Honda's are better, though. The TSX is a win-win combination.
$22k CPO with those miles is either an incredible deal, a car with previous damage, or a BS ad where they'll tack on extras once at the dealership.
But, in any case, still not far off $20k at this point, as plekto suggests.
'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
It's a very nice car inside. I am anal about the insides of cars when I'm reviewing them (have a lost of about 50 things in my head - bit of a hobby of myself and my best friend to go test-drive cars) and it only had 3 or 4 things that weren't perfect. Only the Mercedes C class and CTS did better. The GPS in the CTS has real-time traffic updates, for instance. Most of these are truly minor things like how the map pockets work and the positioning of the e-brake handle and so on. The Honda Fit, as an example, was closer to 30 little things wrong with it, which is about normal. The TSX, CTS, and C class surprised me as usually I have to be looking at a 60K+ car to get a near perfect score. For ~30K for a base model, the TSX is a steal. Even moreso, used.
*interesting fact* - The TSX is the Accord in Japan. The "Accord" in the U.S. is actually a step down from the Japanese version. If you wonder why the new Accord isn't quite as nice and improved over the old one, that's why. Honda is charging a premium for the new Accord and slapping an Acura badge on it.
Back in early 2010 I was looking for a car. And the TSX was on my list, even though it's really rather above my price range and what I make. Anyway, I took it for a test drive, and I was quite impressed. One thing I like too is that Acura gives you a loaded model as the "base." I thought the acceleration was very nice with the manual. And the manual was beautiful to shift.
The new Civic Si, however, has the same engine and yet weights about 500 pounds less. And so the Si is pretty much faster than most Acuras at this point...
Anyway, if you thought the TSX was close to perfect before, you should try the 2011 model. They improved the engine and transmissions and squeezed out a bit more mpg. They also did improved the already excellent navi and a few other things here and there.
The Honda/Acura press release really made it sound like a pretty good mmc.
http://www.acura.com/PressReleaseArticle.aspx?year=2010&id=5752
2011 Acura TSX Sedan Further Improves Style, Performance and Efficiency TORRANCE, Calif. - 11/16/2010
Despite the TSX sedan being a top choice in its class, Acura has not rested on its laurels, as a host of major updates have been made for 2011. Topping the list, the TSX sedan receives a freshened exterior look along with a wide array of new features and technology-- with particular attention being paid to further improving quality and cabin quietness. In addition, significant improvements have been made to both the 2.4L I-4 and 3.5L V-6 engines that yield improved fuel efficiency, lower emissions and longer engine life.
"The 2011 TSX offers even better looks, more owner relevant technology and class-leading fuel economy," said Jeff Conrad, vice president of Acura sales. "In short, the best entry luxury car just got better."
Acura's philosophy of smart luxury is well evidenced by the combination of great looks, a luxury interior available with a wide variety of technology features, and excellent safety-- all for an exceptional level of value. Thanks to this great mix of attributes, the TSX has the largest percentage of buyers under 30 among all luxury sedans and has remained the volume leader within its segment according to Global Insight.
Exterior
On the outside, the 2011 TSX receives a new front fascia, revised chin spoiler, new fog light garnish assembly and an updated grill. The updated front end teams with new underbody panels to improve aerodynamics. At the rear, revised taillights and an updated rear license plate garnish add more visual appeal for the TSX.
The standard 17-inch 5-spoke aluminum wheels for the 2.4L 4-cylinder model are more cutting edge as they now incorporate a machined lip on the face of the spokes, and the split 5-spoke 18-inch aluminum wheels remain standard with the 3.5L V-6 model.
Interior
Inside, the 2011 TSX receives a host of visual upgrades in the form of revised styling for the center console, darker trim pieces, brightly finished door handles, an updated parking brake handle and new garnishes for the steering wheel. In addition, new is contrasting-color stitching for the leather seats, door armrests and center console. Rear seat occupants will enjoy added comfort thanks to the addition of heating/cooling vents mounted at the rear of the center console.
Acura is known for its outstanding array of user relevant technology, and the 2011 TSX further expands on this concept. New for 2011, the TSX with available Technology Package now includes an LED backlit full VGA navigation screen (that generates 400-percent better resolution than before), improved navigation system functions (faster performance, improved search ability and expanded map coverage), Song By Voice™ (SBV) user interface, a 60-gigabyte hard disk drive (HDD) system, and the ability to download 15-gigabytes of personal music to the HDD system. Now with the ability to store more than 3,500 songs*, there is no longer a need to carry around bulky CDs.
Acura has always put much emphasis on building an interior that is exceptionally quiet, and for 2011 the TSX has even greater cabin serenity thanks to items such as a new acoustic glass front windshield, even thicker side glass, increased use of sound-deadening insulation, improved floor mats and new underfloor covers.
Drivetrain
The 2011 TSX sedan remains fun to drive thanks to two powerful engine choices with class-leading fuel efficiency; a spirited 2.4L inline four cylinder engine and a torquey 3.5L V-6. For 2011, both engines receive numerous improvements to reduce internal operating friction which help improve fuel economy, lower carbon dioxide (CO2) output and increase engine life.
As a result, the friction reduction measures are a significant element to improve fuel economy as evidenced by improvements in city, highway and combined fuel economy for both the 2.4L I-4 and the 3.5L V-6.
2011 TSX EPA estimated city/highway/combined fuel economy ratings**
TSX model EPA rating strong>Improvement (versus 2010 model)
2.4L I-4 (5AT) 22/31/26 mpg +1 city, +1 highway, +1 combined
2.4L I-4 (6MT) 21/29/24 mpg +1 city, +1 highway, +1 combined
3.5L V-6 (5AT) 19/28/23 mpg +1 city, +1 highway, +2 combined
New automatic transmission programming helps maximize the engine output by allowing for Shift Hold Control during cornering along with "smart shift" functionality that allows for semi-manual operation when in Drive-- not just when in Sport Mode. In addition, the Sequential SportShift 5-speed automatic transmission now features a fluid warmer that helps improve shift quality, transmission durability and engine fuel economy for TSX owners who live in colder climates.
Pricing
On sale at Acura dealerships on November 23, the 2011 TSX with 2.4L I-4 engine will have an MSRP of $29,610 for both manual and automatic transmission models. Equipped with the available Technology package, the MSRP will be $32,710. The TSX with 3.5L V-6 engine will have an MSRP of $35,150, or $38,250 when equipped with the Technology Package.
Even among those only Subaru and Jeep offer a manual in their small crossover. Outlander is CVT/6EAT only. VW may have the DSG, I'm not sure to be honest, but no true manual. Jeep limits them to base models.
RAV4 and CR-V both dropped the manual option.
What have we got for $20,000. The lowest level of Sonata, as mentioned, is a pretty impressive machine for the price. The main weakness is awful rear visibility.
The manual on the Sonata is said to shift pretty well, but it has an automatic rev limiter that kicks in when you shift to improve mpg that is supposed to take quite a bit of getting used to...Or, maybe you never get used to it and it just sucks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9eCB8754Z4
looks like fun.
And this is more or less where I live. Hey, maybe that is me! In my dreams...
I can comment on its twin, the Kia Optima. Went with my brother to drive a base model with a manual.
Sad to say, I was a bit disappointed. The steering was a bit lazy and the clutch feel didn't reward driving very much. My brother and I both MUCH preferred the shifter in the Kia Sportage, way more fun to drive. WAY more, and go figure, on paper you wouldn't think so.
Funny thing is both had an issue you mentioned - poor rear visibility.
Put it this way, if I were in the market right now, I'd probably go test one more Kia - the Sorento, also with a manual. Roomier and better visibility than the Sportage.
Sucks you can't get Kia's big moonroof with an MT, though. Subaru does, so why not Kia?
Also, I'd love to see an Optima SX with a manual. Hoping that the better wheels and tires would address the steering, and then I could overlook the clutch feel.
The Cruze is fantastic so far, especially the 6-speed (manual of course) transmission.
But the Cruze sounds great. Like the styling on that one fairly well. And good to hear it has a nice manual from someone who can appreciate it. Can you give us a bit more of a report ellas. How is the visibility? Controls? Etc.?
Lots of little things like that. (this is just from memory, though they may have fixed one or two things in the last two years) Nothing major, though, except that the seat fabric is miserably low-budget. Would it kill them to have spent $100 extra on the fabric and make it at least as nice as your typical sofa?
Seems like you make some valid points on the Fit.
What did you think of the improvements Acura made to the tsx for 2011.
If they ever get in stock to a significant degree, I hope you'll go check out a 2012 Civic Si sedan and give your rating on that one...
note - I'd still take a CPO CTS with manual over one, though, just because it's RWD.
To kit up a Buick Regal to these levels (as an example), you'd be pushing 30K. Something irks me about a 25K car with 5-6K in options. This hurts resale values and the overall image. Of *course* you want everything in a car if you can get it.(well, aside from NAV - the aftermarket units work better, just like aftermarket radios usually do).
The auto magazines rag on about how poor the 4 cylinder engine is, but let's face it. If it's not doing 0-60 in 6 seconds, it's crap in their minds. For us normal people, the manual and 200HP is more than adequate to get around town. I don't think half of the people reading this have ever gone 0-60 in 6 seconds in a car, and if they have, they certainly don't drive around town that fast.
And, like all of the better Hondas, the transmission is video game easy. The Fit, less so, but the 6 speed transmission in the TSX is nearly identical to the one used in the S2000.
controls also seem OK - the only ones i mostly care about are steering/clutch/shifter & seat positioning and how the vehicle performs in a drift/emergency/sideways/backwards at highway speed - all that stuff seems fine! (ok, haven't gone quite 65 mph backwards yet with this car, but will report back afterwards if it comes up again.)
For other controls, I don't have enough miles/long-roadtrips to know!
It tunes to Howard 100 & 101 in most excellent fashion, but I had to throw away the free 3 months XM in order to hear Howie and 'convert' from Sirius to XM.
Also the car-tooth phone integration is awesome, with an occasional glitch/confusion as it initiates call with iphone! ! ! ! i think i am discovering how to workaround that but will be happy to help Chevrolet technicians diagnose it for a nominal fee.
during commutes/etc, I'm going to be catching up on LOTS of phone calls with verizon iphone and Cruze-tooth phone integration..
I wish I had time to drive to florida just to find out about the other controls sooner.
I always prefer that to "set a number" type of HVAC in cars.
It's a case of: "Less Software = Better"
.
Seems like most cars have the modern/crappier/set-a-temperature controls. I've never driven or been in any car where I actually liked those, even when they are dual zone blah blah adaptive blah blah.
Bel Air Car Guy
Seriously? I've been driving manual transmission equipped cars exclusively since the late 1970s and the last time I saw a car with three pedals under the dash and no cruise control was when I bought my 1979 Scirocco. When I bought my current ride (a 2009 Mazda3), I looked at the following cars, and all of them had both features:
- Ford Focus
- VW Rabbit
- Mazda3
- Honda Civic
- Toyota Corolla
- Chevy Cobalt
- Subaru Impreza
Based upon your above post, I'm stunned to learn in this day and age there are any cars available without cruise control, regardless of transmission type.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Mostly it's late at night, when I probably shouldn't be driving... I notice that when I get fatigued, I can either pay attention to vehicle placement, etc... but, can't seem to keep a steady speed.. Or, if I concentrate on my speed, the attention to the road deteriorates... If I use the cruise, I can concentrate on the rest and all is good..
That tends to happen way before I feel sleepy... just something I noticed on long trips, late at night... mostly by myself..
Otherwise, it seems more trouble than it's worth... It's the first option I would give up..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
With the above in mind, where on the U.S. highway system would one need to downshift to maintain speed while climbing a grade; between Bishop and Tom's Place on US-395 maybe? I suppose it depends upon the car, but the last time I drove up and over Sherwin Summit I had the CC engaged and had no problem maintaining speed. Of course that car had a turbocharged 2.2 liter mill; it may have been a different story if I was driving my current ride (a 2009 Mazda3 with a normally aspirated 2.0 liter motor).
My uses for Cruise Control:
-- I use it during my daily commute; I routinely am out in front of the morning commute traffic, and am able to travel long stretches while in CC.
-- I often use CC on our local two lane roads; roads which wind around over hill and dale (meaning they're fun to drive at extra legal speeds), and which are highly patrolled. I cannot count the number of times in just the last month where I was tooling along at 40 mph with the CC engaged and passed the local constabulary sitting on the side of the road just itchin' to pull someone over.
With the steering wheel buttons (and the overdrive on/off button), playing with my speed using the cruise is the closest I can get to any kind of shifting. I often bleed off speed going uphill by hitting the "minus" button and cancel cruise going downhill. Then I "resume" on the flats.
If anything, I'm more engaged with driving using cruise instead of just keeping my foot in one position.
Never had one in a manual that I can compare it to.
I don't like CC going up hills--it wastes gas and it's hard on the engine, lugging it at low RPM. If you had a vacuum gauge, you'd see how much vacuum drops in 6th gear going up hills. Or if you can maintain high vacuum, maybe not. :P
My MINI is supercharged, with reduction pulley as well, and I can rip the tires off the car in first gear, but I can't pull 6th gear going up some hills without lugging the engine more than I'm comfortable with. The gearing is simply too high.
I think it was Charles Lindbergh who proved quite conclusively that there is no such a thing as "lugging" and engine regardless of throttle setting if said engine is over roughly 2,000 rpms (plus or minus 10% depending upon the engine). As for wasting gas, running up a hill in top gear at say 2,300 rpms at WOT will use considerably less fuel than downshifting and running up the same hill at the same speed at say 2,800 rpms and partial throttle.
But "lugging" definitely exists and its bad for an engine. In fact I couldn't think of a worse thing to do to an engine aside from running it out of oil or overheating it.
Mine "lugs" going up hills in 6th gear. What can I say? I know from lugging. I'm not going to do that to my engine. Your results may vary.
I just tell people to try it and see. If your car starts to buck and bog in high gear, yer luggin' it.
As for the whole throttle angle/ rpm thing, Road & Track did a lot of testing for optimal fuel mileage, and they found that depressing to mid-throttle, and running up to mid-rpm, gave them the best results.
Top 10 States for Writing Speeding Tickets:
1. Ohio
2. Pennsylvania
3. New York
4. California
5. Texas
6. Georgia
7. Virginia
8. North Carolina
9. Massachusetts
10. Connecticut
And yes, again, ruking is right about strain on the clutch when you're lugging down too far in a gear. I always use that system to test a clutch when I'm buying a used car...drop it into 5th gear and try to chug up a small hill at low speed. If the clutch is slipping, that's the time it'll show up---infallible test.
I believe my exact statement included the proviso of "plus or minus 10%". As for Mr. Lindbergh being wrong about a lot of things, true, and most of them were geo-political; when it came to engines he was usually spot on, this scenario being one of them. The fact is, when he first put forth the proposition of high manifold pressure and low RPMs, the "experts" were agast at the very notion; after many-many tests and engine tear-downs he was more than vindicated.
I've never argued that lugging doesn't exist, however, based upon both personal experience and available engineering studies the following is true in 99% of the cases:
- - Engine lugging thresholds:
- - - You cannot lug at WOT an engine when (all engines are assumed to be 4-stroke designs):
-- said engine has six or more cylinders, is normally aspirated, has a stroke of at least ~85% of the bore, and is rotating at a minimum of 1,800 rpms.
-- said engine has four or five cylinders, is normally aspirated, has a stroke of at least ~95% of the bore, and is rotating at a minimum of 2,000 rpms.
-- said engine has six or more cylinders, is turbocharged, has of at least ~85% of the bore, and is rotating at a minimum of 2,000 rpms.
-- said engine has four or five cylinders, is turbocharged, has of at least ~95% of the bore, and is rotating at a minimum of 2,200 rpms.
-- said engine has six or more cylinders, is mechanically supercharged, has of at least ~85% of the bore, and is rotating at a minimum of 2,200 rpms.
-- said engine has four or five cylinders, is mechanically supercharged, has of at least ~95% of the bore, and is rotating at a minimum of 2,400 rpms.
Under the assumption that the vast majority of late model engine fall within the above guidelines (including the one in your car), I have to ask; when you say your car "lugs" in 6th gear, does it contradict any of the above?
FWIW, the only engine I know of which falls outside the above criteria and which I've found is easy to "lug" is the H4 motor in the Subaru Impreza.
Wow, a trip down memory lane. I lived (as a very young child) at the Hot Creek Fish Hatchery, not far from Mammoth Lakes, and learned the nearby roads fairly well. In fact, they were the first I remember in my life, and given the amount of time I've spent on the road since, very significant.
The old road from Bishop up Sherwin Grade is still there, though you have to hunt for it a bit, and when I did a decade or so ago, memories flooded back, in a big way.
Oh, and to the point, I spent today driving around Colorado in a car with a manual & cruise, and used the cruise anytime the road & traffic permitted. Besides which, I use cruise every day when I commute to work. Fortunately, I don't have to deal with bumper-to-bumper traffic, so I can set up 65 or 70 and go.
I installed aftermarket cruise on my first Miata, and it worked like a charm.
There's always a way.
I know all this by the seat of my pants, and so do you. The car speaks to us.
And yes, in 6th gear in CC going up a long grade my MINI engine will eventually drop rpm, lower and lower, and then start to lug....this presumes the speed limit to begin with. If I "charge" the hill at 90 mph I'd probably be okay, depending on the length of the grade of course.
For real torque you need displacement---the number of cylinders has nothing to do with the torque. My MINI is only 1.6L. With low rpm, there's not much boost, so while the car is a little demon while on boost, it hasn't the torque to avoid lugging.