Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views The Future Of The Manual Transmission
5809 messages, Last post on Dec 03, 2009 at 12:30 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: andys120 (Sep 05, 2008 7:12 am) I prefer three pedals for personal reasons, but any non-slushies should be similar in performance and mileage. I'll happily concede that point. |
|
|
Replying to: dudleyr (Sep 05, 2008 7:39 am) We are talking about right now with cars that most people buy - the difference is staggering. Well, not exactly. The current Jetta GLI and Rabbit GTI can be had with both a manual 6-Speed as well as a 2-Pedal 6-Speed DSG automatic. Both cars can be had for the low to mid twenty thousand dollar range, and the automatic is only an extra $1,075. That said, the mileage difference favors the automatic in the city and the manual on the highway (the GTI has combined ratings of 25 for both transmissions, however the city is 21 for the manual and 22 for the automatic, and the highway is 31 for the manual and 29 for the automatic). Best regards, Shipo |
|
|
Replying to: andys120 (Sep 05, 2008 6:12 am) Ah ha! Another Koolaid drinker who bought into the party line  As for the differences in gearing, most of that one second advantage in 0-60 times would disappear if taller final drives were introduced into manual versions. At first blush that sounds like a good theory but have you ever done a 0-60 run for time? I'm guessing not since in most cars you'll still be in 3rd gear when you hit 60  Do you think anyone can detect a one second difference in 0-60 times except with a stopwatch? Yep you pretty much confirmed my suspicion that you're not the type to "see what a car can do". Maybe while driving an under-powered econobox that has 10+ sec 0-60 times a one sec difference isn't all that noticeable but the faster the car the more obvious the difference. Certainly for someone who views a car as nothing more than a means of transportation (and millions of Americans fit that description), an automatic is an excellent choice. But if you value performance, mpg, or just the pure act of driving and being one with the machine... nothing beats a manual  -Frank
|
|
|
OK - lets talk VW VW DSG tranny on the TDI 2.0. manual 30/41 DSG 29/40 This is EPA not real world and the manual is still better. Real world the diff will be greater. Look at EPA on the Accord and the other cars in the CR list the MT and AT are about the same, but in actual driving the MT is significantly better. |
|
|
Replying to: dudleyr (Sep 05, 2008 7:03 am) Yes, put a 6th gear in all manual transmissions! I read a few months ago that Toyota was going to be using 6 speed manuals in NA - they already are selling them overseas. I will have to find the article. |
|
|
Replying to: p0926 (Sep 05, 2008 8:05 am) Sorry to blow the socks off your theory but I am an auto enthusiast of long standing having owned cars such as the Pontiac GTO ('70 convertible/MT-4) and a Mustang 5.0L ('86 Convertible/ MT-5)and I have participated in Autocrosses and Rallys numerous times. My current ride is an A/T '00 BMW 528i. I'd drive an M/T if I could but physical disability prohibits that. I'm thankful that in the real world slushboxes have improved to the point where you are not condemned to life in the slow lane or to mediocre mileage, my Bimmer gets 22-23mpg in town and 29-30 on the highway (I drive fast and have the tickets to prove it.  ) I have no idea what it's 0-60 time is, all I know is that when I floor it to pass on a country road it does the job very quickly. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dudleyr (Sep 05, 2008 5:28 am)  andys120: did you actually read the linked chart from CR? I think it makes it pretty clear that EPA ratings aren't a good frame of reference when comparing between manual and auto models of the same car. The nature of the EPA test favors the auto. And besides that, I feel that someone actually focusing on fuel-saving has a lot more options for gas-saving in a manual than in an automatic, simply by the way they drive it. |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 05, 2008 10:00 am) Our Forester is getting great mileage, a whole lot better than the 22 mpg they report for their auto. Still, the 5 speed they tested was significantly quicker as well. |
|
|
The mpg they report in the article is their calculated average. It is the same procedure for all cars and it involves a city test (quite grueling), a highway test (steady 65 mph) and a 150 mile loop of mixed driving. If you drive carefully you can do much better, as you have reported. The numbers themselves are less meaningful than their relation to each other, as everybody drives differently. They said the Accord stick averaged 26 mpg, and I am at 33.4 mpg lifetime over 41,000 miles in my '07 Accord I4 MT.
|
|
|
Replying to: dudleyr (Sep 05, 2008 12:59 pm) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views The Future Of The Manual Transmission
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
