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
5807 messages, Last post on Nov 26, 2009 at 7:20 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: elroy5 (Nov 29, 2008 8:37 pm) As for Used to be, manuals were much cheaper. Not so much anymore I disagree. The premium for an automatic is larger than ever, up to $1500 in some cases for a regular ol' crapbox TC automatic, and $4000 or more for some of the latest wonder trannies, AKA dual clutch autos. Used to be, manuals were much cheaper to repair. Not so much anymore, unless you can do it yourself, and avoid the high labor rate at repair shops Have you priced it lately? It's still hard to get a manual repair over $1500, many are under $1000. Try to get an automatic rebuilt for under $2500 - go ahead.  Used to be, a manual was more economical mpg wise. Not anymore By coincidence I have owned both manual and automatic versions of my current 1.8L Matrix, and the same car with the same driver and the same driving patterns gets 15% better fuel economy with the stick than it does with the auto. For me that's several hundred dollars a year saved. Used to be, a manual was more reliable. Not so much, with syncro problems, clutch problems, etc. they can be just as problematic. Now I know you are just joshing.  OTOH, it is all too true that the large Hondas are becoming harder and harder to find on dealer lots with a manual - Accords, Elements, and of course CRV is going on its second year with no manual option.  But manual Fits and Civics? Dealer lots are teeming with those!
|
|
|
Replying to: elroy5 (Nov 29, 2008 8:37 pm) Sure, a manual can be fun, on those rare occasions when there is an open twisty road Some of us have fun with manuals even in traffic. If you don't, so be it. I don't find "constant shifting" to be a pain at all. Used to be, manuals were much cheaper. Nippon addressed this, but in our Accords, the manual is still cheaper. Used to be, manuals were much cheaper to repair. Still true, manuals ARE cheaper to repair. And besides, they last longer than automatics. Used to be, a manual was more economical mpg wise. Since you monitor the Real World Accord Mileage forum here, you know that, in general, the manuals get better overall mileage. Because of the taller gearing, the automatics will sometimes get better highway mileage, but even that is rare. Used to be, a manual had the performance edge. I test drove an automatic and manual Accord when I bought my 06. There was no comparison. The auto was gutless compared to the stick. Used to be, a manual was more reliable. With my 95 Accord at almost 230k, you'll have a tough time making this argument with me. Everyone I talk to says the same thing. The manuals last forever. It's great that you prefer an automatic and there are some advantages for people who need/desire them but I disagree with what you've said here. 
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Nov 29, 2008 8:47 pm) An entire new transmission for my truck is $1100. Not rebuilt, but have-to-break-it-in new and shiny. A clutch kit? Seriously? $150-$200, tops. A mechanic can yank a trans, put in the new one and a clutch in an hour or two. Labor to replace a clutch or transmission on a RWD manual is a fraction as much as a FWD automatic. I got mine replaced and put together for $500 labor plus parts, which were another $600 in gears and so on(after 320K miles!). Also, if the thing starts to die again, you can baby it and coax it along for a year or more. An automatic just dies and sits like a rock. The last two that I had go bad on me(80-100K is common life now for a torque converter) died with 2-3 blocks warning. Working, working, rock that had to be towed out of the middle of the road. But the real advantage is that my truck gets the same performance out of a 4 as the exact same model does with the V6 and the automatic. Literally.
|
|
|
Replying to: tallman1 (Nov 30, 2008 9:24 am) Nippon addressed this, but in our Accords, the manual is still cheaper. Accord coupe V6 auto, and Accord V6 6 speed, same price. Look it up. Used to be, a manual was more economical mpg wise. Since you monitor the Real World Accord Mileage forum here, you know that, in general, the manuals get better overall mileage. Because of the taller gearing, the automatics will sometimes get better highway mileage, but even that is rare. I'm not talking about some mileage forum, where people are inclined to stretch the truth (a lot). I'm talking about the official numbers on the window stickers, which I am more inclined to believe. Used to be, a manual was more reliable. With my 95 Accord at almost 230k, you'll have a tough time making this argument with me. Everyone I talk to says the same thing. The manuals last forever. Again, you are basing your conclusions on what other manual Accord drivers say (biased). Look at the Accord forums and you see a lot of posts about their manuals popping out of 3rd gear, and having trouble getting the problem solved. If you happen to be out of warranty, it can cost thousands in labor alone at a stealership. I have never had a problem with either of my automatics. I just don't see the big advantage of a manual transmission these days. And after all this, when you are ready to sell your manual Accord, you will find much fewer buyers. People who drive manuals, think they are somehow more skilled drivers than the automatic driver. I drive both, just about every day, and that's just not the case. Just because you change your gears by hand, doesn't make you a better, more skilled driver. An automatic driver can actually keep both hands on the wheel, where they should be. I will agree manuals can be a little more durable, and in some cases cheaper to buy and operate. The differences are not what they used to be, however.
|
|
|
Replying to: plekto (Nov 30, 2008 11:03 am) Same torque and same towing capacity? Funny that isn't the case with full sized trucks what kind of truck do you have? As far as replacing a transmission all RWD cars are easier to replace than FWD I believe. When I bought my PT one of the things I did that surprised the salesman was look under the car to see if I could get to the bell housing and transmission without having to drop the engine. My Saturn cost over $1000.00 in parts and labor to replace a clutch and pressure plate. My sons Ford Mustang had that ford 4 speed auto and we had it rebuilt for just over $1050 two years before. Yes some manuals are easier and cheeper to fix but not all. But nippon makes a valid point, manuals are still plentiful if you are willing to change what kind of car you want. It is harder to find a manual V-6 Accord or Camry on the lots, but you could order one I believe. However if you are more interested in the transmission than the car you could drop down to a sub compact Honda or Toyota and find one easier. But the OP posted a chief concern that many commuters have expressed and that is ease of driving to commute with a Automatic. That may be the number one reason automatics out number manuals more than 9 to 1. Right wrong or disagree it is still the fact listed by consumers for making the switch. It is going to take a real change in our culture to get people back into a stick. And it Hybrids and EVs are in our future even that will not help. Shoot even the Smart car isn't a manual.
|
|
|
Replying to: elroy5 (Nov 30, 2008 7:17 pm) Wow... out of all the trimlines Honda offers, you found the only one that is the same: The V6 Coupe. I know you know that all the other manuals (coupes and sedans) are $800 cheaper. $800 is some serious cash in my book. I'm talking about the official numbers on the window stickers, which I am more inclined to believe. That's fine. I'm inclined to believe my own numbers and I'm way ahead of the EPA sticker. I was also talking about combined mileage, not just highway. It's closer but manuals still do better, generally. Again, you are basing your conclusions on what other manual Accord drivers say (biased). Actually, I was basing my conclusions on personal experience and Honda sales and service dept staff. I also don't remember ever talking to anyone who thought an automatic was as reliable or the same cost to repair as a manual. And you know that there are always many more problems posted than those who post no problems, automatic or manual. I don't have a problem with anyone who prefers to drive a manual. I never said manual drivers are more skilled. I do know that whenever I've sold a manual, I've never had any trouble selling and getting top dollar. Go ahead and tell me you don't want to use your left leg. Tell me that you want both hands on the wheel at all times. Tell me that you don't mind paying more for what you find convenient. Tell me that the differences are narrowing. Just don't tell me that they are the same.
|
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Nov 30, 2008 8:45 pm) Same torque and same towing capacity? Funny that isn't the case with full sized trucks what kind of truck do you have? Not on paper, but in actual use after the torque converter and so on is added to the equation? Absolutely. See, they always measure engine power in a lab with a device attached to the output shaft. Never on an actual dyno with the wheels and transmission attached, because automatics suck enormous power. Also, to get those 0-60 times, they power shift the automatic after dumping it manually out of neutral at near redline. The Corvette, for instance, is designed to last 200 such full bore launches before the thing breaks. This sort of behavior is unreasonable, hard on the equipment, and completely unrealistic. Yet almost all magazines and manufacturers do it. Top Gear this last season, in fact, tried to replicate these times. Nothing even came close. 20% slower was the best their testers could manage on a test track. Add in an automatic and normal letting it do what it wanted(just hit the gas) and it was nearly 50% slower in most cases than the claimed specs. Add in lag for shifting and unlocking the torque converter when trying to make a pass, plus the fact that I can rev the blots off of my little 4 twice as fast and it's really exactly the same. Oh - the truck? A Toyota 4 Runner. 4000lbs. 4x4 gearing. V6 with 160HP(claimed) gets punked by my little ~120HP 4 for everything other than rock crawling, because there you can actually rev the 6 to 4000rpm and hold it there as you creep over stuff. With a newer vehicle? You can do the same with a 4cyl Tacoma and the V6.
|
|
|
I was musing about the whole manual transmission state of affairs this morning on the way to work, thoughts that I suppose were provoked by the very promising "stick-shift driving lesson" I gave my 14 year old son last night. It has been postulated in this discussion many times that one of the main factors contributing to the decline in manual transmission popularity is the fact that so many parents no longer drive them, and as such, they don't teach their kids "the art of the stick." Funny thing though, I had no such tutelage in spite of the fact that while I was growing up I had a mom, a step-mom, a father, and not one but two step fathers. Unfortunately not one of them drove a stick-shift car for the duration of my time at home (I did find out in later years that both my father and my first step-father were well versed in the proper operation of a clutch pedal). So, that said, "Why," I asked myself, "did I even bother teaching myself how to drive a stick when I was 19 (two years after I left home)?" While I have no concrete answer to the above rhetorical question, I do find it quite interesting that all three of my brothers and my one sister have never once bought a new personal vehicle that had fewer than three pedals under the dash (I qualified it that way as we've all had automatic equipped "family haulers" that weren't offered with manual transmissions, fortunately our spouses drove the automatics for the most part). So, here we have a group of five kids, raised by a group of five adults. Not one of the five adults drove a manual transmission while we were growing up, and yet, not one of us kids will willingly buy a car with an automatic transmission. Go figure. Best regards, Shipo
|
|
|
Replying to: shipo (Dec 05, 2008 4:57 am) 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: shipo (Dec 05, 2008 4:57 am) IMO the manual by its nature is so far superior to the automatic that even after 40 years of advancements in the computer industry (and 100 in the automotive industry) the automakers STILL can't make an automatic that gives you as much control of the engine and the gears as the simple manual shifter does. Alas, we have less and less people every year, ESPECIALLY in the U.S., that know what they are missing. So despite its superiority the manual is, I believe, doomed in the long run in all but niche cars. I am hoping (and feeling more and more confident all the time) that the wide availability of the manual will outlive my remaining driving years though.
|
|
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
