The Future Of The Manual Transmission

stever · September 2012

Mr_Shiftright · September 2012

I'd be interested in driving one with the V-6 and 6/speed manual transmission, to see if aggressive driving would overpower the Accord's brakes and suspension.

I can readily see the appeal of the 6 speed mated to their base engine, but I'm not sure I understand why anyone would choose a V-6 with the 6/speed--I think that would pretty much kill resale value.

I suppose you could market it as the 'poor man's BMW' (don't they ALWAYS say that?) but that won't work if you actually DO feel like a poor man when you push the car to its limits.

ruking1 · September 2012

It would be interesting to actually hear/read WHY they got back into the 6 speed M/T market. Because I actually do drive poor man's BMW's, (VW's, TDI Jetta's and Touareg) . I can't help but think it has a lot to do with oems like Mazda and VW offering really GOOD 6 speed manuals.

Mr_Shiftright · September 2012

I think as long as your client doesn't get to drive an actual BMW, then that type of marketing works just fine. But if they hopped out of one into the other, they'd notice the difference right away.

ruking1 · September 2012

Most bimmers come with A/T's. The BMW 335 D only came with A/T.

habitat1 · September 2012

It would be interesting to actually hear/read WHY they got back into the 6 speed M/T market.

I'd like to think it's because they read my posts where I gave Honda/Acura credit for having some of the nicest 6-speeds gearboxes this side of Porsche (current TL is very good, previous S2000 was great). But that's probably wishful thinking regarding the value of my opinion.

As far as a "poor man's BMW", the last car that really positioned itself in that slot was IMO, the former Nissan Maxima SE, that came with a manual transmission, sport suspension, bigger brakes and the "4DSC" moniker. I had a 1995 version of that car and notwithstanding FWD limitations, it was not as far behind the 328i in overall performance as you would have thought. Quicker 0-60, a little slower in the slalom. It even won COTY awards that year. As soon as the Maxima started bloating up and went to a CVT only transmission, their sales plummeted. So maybe Honda thinks that with the 3-seires becoming a $40-50k+ car, there's room for a new contender in the sporty FWD $10-$15k less than 3 series market.

stever · September 2012

Supposedly a Honda engineer reads the forums all the time so you never know. :shades: I think that engineer is based in Japan though and probably has no input on Accords for the US market.

wwest · September 2012

"..WHY they got back into..."

It may very well be that they have licensed/adopted the VW automatic engine "up-rev" technique that dramatically improves the safety factor for a MT in a FWD or F/awd vehicle.

More finely "tuned" (QUICK acting) TC, and/or automatic engine derating in lower gear ratios, has proved to be adequate for alleviating loss of traction, directional control, instances in FWD or F/awd vehicles during acceleration.

But that doesn't solve the problem of the driver being too aggressive in downshifting, or inadvertently so not being full cognizant of roadbed conditions and the often resulting loss of control. The VW technique addresses THAT issue.

bpizzuti · September 2012

...is called Mazda. They claim the enthusiast market Honda used to have before Honda decided they wanted to be like GM and Toyota.

Mr_Shiftright · September 2012

Well they all say they're the "poor man's BMW" but they're really not. They're "close enough" for many folks, but driving them back to back you really notice that there's $10,000 less built into them.

bpizzuti · September 2012

Well, there's also the matter of BMW not exactly being BMW anymore, at least in "driving machine" terms. Other than Mazda, who else out there would really get the title? Audi maybe?

qbrozen · September 2012

I'd be interested in driving one with the V-6 and 6/speed manual transmission, to see if aggressive driving would overpower the Accord's brakes and suspension.

Well, considering it is bigger and heavier than my '04 v6 6-speed, I'd bet on it. That car was flat out dangerous if pushed too hard. And I'm not talking THAT hard. Even my '98 T5 (a 6-year-older car that was built on an even older platform) had far higher limits. The Accord's understeer was just HORRENDOUS.

qbrozen · September 2012

Audi? Ha.

Fact is, they are all getting too damned bloated. I would speak up for the 1-series, but supposedly that is going FWD soon, so get it while you can.

I'd look to Porsche or Lotus for an "ultimate driving machine."

bpizzuti · September 2012

Well, MINI isn't horrible either...Lotus is nice, Porsche was always there, but they're at the "Exotic" end of the scale, above BMW level, and WAY above Mazda level.

Don't tell me we have to cede the title to Caddy? I refuse to give it to them until they dump the Escalades. :shades:

benjaminh · September 2012

"Well they all say they're the "poor man's BMW" but they're really not. They're "close enough" for many folks, but driving them back to back you really notice that there's $10,000 less built into them."

I think the difference in money is closer to $15,000-$20,000 when comparing a 2013 Honda Accord to a comparably equipped BMW 3 series.

As you say, they are very different cars for very different market segments.

Mr_Shiftright · September 2012

Nobody can touch BMWs engine technology. A Mazda still sounds like a can of angry gnats when you press on the gas---how annoying. :P

bpizzuti · September 2012

Don't mess with a swarm of angry gnats. :shades:

qbrozen · September 2012

As much as I defend that FWD can be sporty, I just can't give award a FWD platform with "the ultimate driving machine" title.

bpizzuti · September 2012

And why not? FWD platforms do have certain advantages in handling. Neither FWD or RWD is perfect.

AWD on the other hand... :shades:

habitat1 · September 2012

FWD platforms do have certain advantages in handling.

As a former 1995 Nissan Maxima SE owner and a current 2004 Acura TL 6-speed owner, I think these two cars are almost as good as you can get in FWD. But there is no way they don't have significant performance handling limitations compared to RWD. The only possible advantage is that, if you take their natural 60/40 fornt weight imbalance as a given, you can improve snow traction with FWD. But BMW doesn't take that as a given and virtually every vehicle they make is close to a 50/50 balanced car.

As for AWD being better than RWD? I attended a Porsche Performance Driving event today at Summit Point and asked that very question to some of the instructors at lunch. We ran the track for 6 laps each in 911S's, Panamera's and Boxsters S's. All of the 911's were RWD, 2 of the 4 Panamera's were AWD. The general preference among the instructors for the 911's was RWD (lighter weight, more ability to throttle steer, etc). For everyday driving with a Panamera, it was a split decision.

bpizzuti · September 2012

On a FWD car you can do a lot more accelerating in a turn without losing control. Much harder to do with RWD, whereas an FWD car will simply pull the rest of the car along with it.

RWD's advantages are in straight-line acceleration thanks to weight-transfer. But given that I hate driving in a straight line, my second choice after an AWD is a FWD. And I'm usually not willing to sacrifice the MPGs to get an AWD as a daily driver (they are inefficient power-wise, but you'll never ever break one loose).

wwest · September 2012

"...AWD on the other hand.."

Which...?

F/awd or R/awd...?

And then which F/awd of the myriad of versions.

habitat1 · September 2012

I've logged about 330,000 miles on decent, sporty, FWD cars: Integra, Maxima, TL. You say FWD can accelerate through a turn better than RWD?? Is that after you have plowed into the turn with a weight transfer that puts about everything but the tailpipe over the front wheels? And is that carefully managing the accelerator so as not to induce torque steer? I can't half use the horsepower of my TL without inducing wheel hop and dangerous oversteer in a turn, so not sure what FWD sport sedan you may be driving that could handle it better. And if you do lose control in a FWD car do you just grab the bible out of the glove box because you are SOL at that point?

I don't drive on public roads with anywhere near the enthusiasm I did yesterday at Summit Point. So perhaps some of the pitfalls of FWD would not be as obvious doing the grocery store run or the daily commute. But I don't think there is a FWD car made that could make it around the track in less than twice the time as a Boxster S in the hands of the professional drivers. And the professionals don't need (or want) the extra weight of AWD as a control aid. Heck, they turned off all of the electronic nannies before giving us a "hot lap" with them in the drivers seat.

bpizzuti · September 2012

Well, ideally it'd be the system off of the STI, which is manually adjustable. But other than that, 50/50 split. Subie systems are the best.

bpizzuti · September 2012

so not sure what FWD sport sedan you may be driving that could handle it better.

it's called a Mazda3. :shades:

qbrozen · September 2012

On a FWD car you can do a lot more accelerating in a turn without losing control. Much harder to do with RWD, whereas an FWD car will simply pull the rest of the car along with it.

Yes, you are right... it pulls the car right off the track. Trust me, I've autocrossed and tracked RWD, FWD, and AWD. If you apply power too early with FWD, you increase understeer and wheelspin. If you apply too early with RWD, you increase oversteer and wheelspin. AWD allows you to apply power earlier in a typically neutral manner, but you still have to be cautious with it, and you have the added weight penalty.

The advantage to RWD is that you can use the throttle (throttle steer) to adjust in a corner moreso than with FWD. If I overdrive a corner with RWD, a dab of throttle and a little tail out action can correct it. Overdrive with FWD and your only course of action is to slow down.

After some adjustments, my GTI was definitely a fantastic autocross car, but I can assure you that I could NOT put power down in a corner. Nothing but wheelspin.

habitat1 · September 2012

it's called a Mazda3.

O.K. then it's probably unfair of me to compare a sporty compact car to a sports car like the Boxster relative to driving dynamics. But I think if you drove something like a BMW 1-series against your Mazda3 around a track with instructor input to get the most out of each, you would quickly conclude that RWD and 50/50 weight balance offers some distinct handling advantages to FWD and a nose heavy weight distribution. At least that's what I found comparing my TL to a BMW 335i. The 2004 TL 6-speed, with a stiffer suspension and Brembo brakes not available on an automatic, is a far superior handling car than the automatic version. But it's no BMW when you are hitting the brakes hard before entering a turn and then powering around it.

I haven't driven the Mazda3, but hear that it is one of the better handling sporty compact cars available - and Mazda doesn't try to overpower the car with a high HP engine that might look good on paper, but induces excessive torque steer and wheel hop when pushed. I'm sure that for 99% of the driving I do, it would feel just fine. This isn't a debate on that, rather the laws of physics and mechanics as they apply to that other 1% of the time.

ateixeira · September 2012

I'd look to Porsche or Lotus

For a while there the Corvette Z06 was lighter and shorter than a Porsche 911.

There is hope - the new 911 is lighter and has shorter overhangs.

Lotus appears to be bloating up, too. Will we get another Elise and Exige, or will they move up in weight and content to better meet modern desires?

ateixeira · September 2012

Nobody can touch BMWs engine technology

Well, the smooth, naturally aspirated inline 6s are gone. The turbo 4 clatters like a diesel and start/stop makes them shake like an 80s econobox. More importantly they lost that instant throttle response they were known for.

So even BMW can't touch BMW. :sick:

Mr_Shiftright · September 2012

EGG-exactly!

An angry can of gnats driving front wheels is even less of a BMW.

Aside from the obvious FWD driving characteristics, as you add HP you increase torque steer, especially on a light, small car. They've come a long way to curing torque steer, but it's still there, especially with a manual transmission.

Torque steer on a supercharged MINI is nasty, for instance.

wwest · September 2012

50/50 split requires a totally open center diff'l/planetary and only "works" with equal F/R traction. Like the current WRX, and with no functional VC.

ruking1 · September 2012

This is opague to most consumers.

volkov · September 2012

The longevity of an early 90s Dodge minivan transmission is less than a clutch.

Or a 90's Ford Taurus - those things went through trannies faster than tires.

ateixeira · September 2012

Some imports, too. Pre 2004 Honda V6s and 626 with the CD4E trans are 2 I can think of.

wwest · September 2012

Yes, right up until they find themselves in actual need for AWD functionality. And damn few of those, which is exactly what the industry "banks" on.

volkov · September 2012

Just got to demonstrate a push start to my boys last week. Long story why the battery went dead, but a gentle decline to the empty parking lot had the car up to walking speed in about 20 yards and that was all it took to get us going again. Not something to do on a regular basis, but nice to know the option is there without having to wait 45 mins for the tow truck jump start, and we were on a very tight schedule.

bpizzuti · September 2012

These days sticks can't do that either.

wwest · September 2012

Used to be that Ford automatics could do that but then they eliminated the otherwise useless rear, output drive shaft, ATF pump.

"..sticks can't.."

Please explain/elaborate....

Unless you mean battery so low the ECU/Etc. doesn't run...

bpizzuti · September 2012

That only works with a generator, not with today's alternators.

volkov · September 2012

ECU that's all I can think of. Battery can't be flat dead, but mine was down enough that the clock reset!!

2009 fwiw which I think is pretty modern so should qualify for "these days"

xwesx · September 2012

It still works. I did it frequently (multiple times a week) with my Escort. I'm curious whether it will work on my Fiesta with the push-button start. Were it not for that goofy ignition, I'm sure it would start just fine. I'll have to try it now.

wwest · September 2012

Absent an ECU/Electronics voltage problem with more modern cars I have never found a battery being so discharged that a push start doesn't work. '78 911 and '88 911 have both worked at one time or another.

dudleyr · September 2012

You can absolutely still push start a stick. You do need to have the battery installed to complete the circuit, but it does not need any charge.

With a generator you don't even need a battery in the car. I drove my '63 Corvair all summer without a battery. Just parked on hills.

I pushed a '57 chevy automatic to start it once - had to get up to abut 45 mph though (pushed with another car).

habitat1 · September 2012

Now that my statute of limitations is up, I can confess that I even clutch started my 2005 911 once when the battery died and I was parked on a slight grade in our neighborhood. There are all sorts of skull and crossbones warnings in the owners manual not to do it, but it worked just fine, with no ill effects. If Porsche hasn't installed something to mechanically prevent this old trick, I doubt anyone else has either.

Hopefully Porsche doesn't read this and try to retroactively jail me.

wwest · September 2012

"..You can absolutely still push start a stick..."

Provided it isn't new enough that it requires an ECU or electronics to "fire" the engine.

"..it does not need any charge..."

If we're talking about a car old enough that it still uses the "kettering" ignition system, "points" and coil inductive "kick", it would still need a minimum battery charge to initially power up the alternator rotor.

Maybe a magneto ignition out of an old farm tractor or aircraft engine..?

wwest · September 2012

"..battery died.."

Only 2 possibilities...

1. While the battery didn't have enough charge to power the starter motor it did have enough to FULY power the necessary electronics systems.

2. Absent the above you would need to have had enough battery charge to initialize the alternator and then pushed the car far enough to have the alternator system bring the voltage level up to "snuff".

dudleyr · September 2012

Understand that even if the battery has no charge the alternator will provide power once you "pop" the clutch to engage the engine. In a case like this it may take a few seconds (2 or 3) to start the engine, but it will still start.

ruking1 · September 2012

For me that might be IFFY. I tried that one session in a TDI with a REAL dead battery and it did not start. Now whether that was peculiar to me, I don't know. So I think Wwest's post probably covers a lot of the minority (being a minority has M/T's)

Funny thing about VW Jetta TDI batteries are they really give little to NO warning. On one battery, I had just finished a three hour freeway trip. Luckily I had parked it in the garage. I went to start, deader than a door nail. Jump start, nada. Jump start with tow truck, (they have more powerful jumpers I think) nada, rolling start nada. Change out with oem battery @ VW dealers voila !!!!

wwest · September 2012

Unlike the old DC generators the alternator's rotor does not retain any residual magnetism when power is removed. So, without some minimum level of battery charge to power the alternator rotor the engine electronics will not be powered.

wwest · September 2012

"..tow truck, (jump) nada..."

Sorry, but given the overall circumstances/situation I have to believe the dealer did something more tham simply drop in a new battery.

The Future Of The Manual Transmission

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles