Those petals have to be good for +4 mph.
Driving a stick -- interesting but highly obsolete
- Thread starter M1Accord
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
Originally Posted By: grampi
but I have to say it's a royal PITA to drive in heavy traffic. I think this vehicle will be replaced with something that has an auto tranny...
That's a legitimate argument in favor of automatics. That's a very subjective one, but its why I favor choice: those who, for whatever reason (such as the one you gave) need or prefer an auto should be (as they are) entitled to have that choice.
Likewise, those of us preferring manuals, should be offered the same choice. This is one point in favor of older cars: manual transmissions are a little easier to find (although you have to go farther back than I can shop to find them here in numbers equal to automatics).
-Spyder
As far as finding used cars with manual trannies, it very much depends on the type of vehicle you're looking for. When I was looking to by a used Corolla, I bought the first one I found because I knew how rare Corollas are with sticks.
My top 2 choices last time in the market were a 2001-02 Civic or 2000+ Corolla. Both turn up often enough on the market, but if its priced reasonably and in good shape, it goes to the first person to show up with money in hand.
I bought the first one i found that was priced reasonable and in good shape (and I was the first and only one to look at it) - in my case it turned out to be an auto, but given the above, I was prepared to make that sacrifice since Toyota made auto transmissions tend to be long lived, and being between cars, I couldn't turn it down just because it was an auto.
Next time in the market, it'll be for a second car to complement this one, and I'll be able to hold out for a manual.
-Spyder
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
Originally Posted By: grampi
but I have to say it's a royal PITA to drive in heavy traffic. I think this vehicle will be replaced with something that has an auto tranny...
That's a legitimate argument in favor of automatics. That's a very subjective one, but its why I favor choice: those who, for whatever reason (such as the one you gave) need or prefer an auto should be (as they are) entitled to have that choice.
Likewise, those of us preferring manuals, should be offered the same choice. This is one point in favor of older cars: manual transmissions are a little easier to find (although you have to go farther back than I can shop to find them here in numbers equal to automatics).
-Spyder
As far as finding used cars with manual trannies, it very much depends on the type of vehicle you're looking for. When I was looking to by a used Corolla, I bought the first one I found because I knew how rare Corollas are with sticks.
My top 2 choices last time in the market were a 2001-02 Civic or 2000+ Corolla. Both turn up often enough on the market, but if its priced reasonably and in good shape, it goes to the first person to show up with money in hand.
I bought the first one i found that was priced reasonable and in good shape (and I was the first and only one to look at it) - in my case it turned out to be an auto, but given the above, I was prepared to make that sacrifice since Toyota made auto transmissions tend to be long lived, and being between cars, I couldn't turn it down just because it was an auto.
Next time in the market, it'll be for a second car to complement this one, and I'll be able to hold out for a manual.
-Spyder
Originally Posted By: severach
I prefer standard transmissions in stop-n-go traffic. It's like having two brakes.
A lot of people do that with their scooter in Asia. Kinda scary but it works for over a billions folks. Actually, there are a lot of accident but I think other factors are more at play than using a clutch to coast. They even call the clutch a foot brake. Scary stuffs.
I prefer standard transmissions in stop-n-go traffic. It's like having two brakes.
A lot of people do that with their scooter in Asia. Kinda scary but it works for over a billions folks. Actually, there are a lot of accident but I think other factors are more at play than using a clutch to coast. They even call the clutch a foot brake. Scary stuffs.
Originally Posted By: rpn453
Originally Posted By: JOD
As far as F1, it's pretty irrelevant to this discussion, but let's not pretend that people are using sequential automatics because they're "better". Fully-automatic transmissions, including CVT's are against the rules. If they weren't, most people familiar with the sport agree the landscape of transmissions would look a lot different.
Probably true, but it's hard for me to imagine leaving gear selection decisions to something other than the driver. An unexpected gear change could have bad results. I suppose it may be possible to set it up so that undesirable or unexpected shifts never occur, even in an abnormal situation involving driver error with unusual inputs, and to have different shift points depending on track position. Are automatic transmissions banned in all racing (with turns)? Are they common, or even used, in any race series? I'd be interested in finding out more about the use - experimental or otherwise - of automatic transmissions in F1 or any other race series, if you know of any sources. It doesn't seem like manually selecting shift points would be much of a hindrance to an F1 driver who only has to push a button to demand a shift, but I guess acceleration would be a little faster if the upshift could occur at a precise engine speed every time.
Good video on the Williams CVT. I can see how CVTs would be a benefit. It's sort of unfortunate that they don't allow the technology to progress naturally, but I also wouldn't want to listen to F1 cars with CVTs.
I found a brief article on the Williams CVT:
http://www.ret-monitor.com/articles/1104/transmission/
http://www.ret-monitor.com/articles/1187/formula-one-cvt-part-2/
CVTs aren't used in pro racing for the following reasons - outside of regulations:
1. They aren't as efficient in coupling vs. a clutch, especially on the high end - this alone kills it
2. The seamless shift concept has been done with software with clutches, so CVTs lose its only benefit
3. CVTs are not reliable with high torque applications
Originally Posted By: JOD
As far as F1, it's pretty irrelevant to this discussion, but let's not pretend that people are using sequential automatics because they're "better". Fully-automatic transmissions, including CVT's are against the rules. If they weren't, most people familiar with the sport agree the landscape of transmissions would look a lot different.
Probably true, but it's hard for me to imagine leaving gear selection decisions to something other than the driver. An unexpected gear change could have bad results. I suppose it may be possible to set it up so that undesirable or unexpected shifts never occur, even in an abnormal situation involving driver error with unusual inputs, and to have different shift points depending on track position. Are automatic transmissions banned in all racing (with turns)? Are they common, or even used, in any race series? I'd be interested in finding out more about the use - experimental or otherwise - of automatic transmissions in F1 or any other race series, if you know of any sources. It doesn't seem like manually selecting shift points would be much of a hindrance to an F1 driver who only has to push a button to demand a shift, but I guess acceleration would be a little faster if the upshift could occur at a precise engine speed every time.
Good video on the Williams CVT. I can see how CVTs would be a benefit. It's sort of unfortunate that they don't allow the technology to progress naturally, but I also wouldn't want to listen to F1 cars with CVTs.
I found a brief article on the Williams CVT:
http://www.ret-monitor.com/articles/1104/transmission/
http://www.ret-monitor.com/articles/1187/formula-one-cvt-part-2/
CVTs aren't used in pro racing for the following reasons - outside of regulations:
1. They aren't as efficient in coupling vs. a clutch, especially on the high end - this alone kills it
2. The seamless shift concept has been done with software with clutches, so CVTs lose its only benefit
3. CVTs are not reliable with high torque applications
Originally Posted By: M1Accord
I am learning to drive... While it is fun to throw the stick around and "select" my own gear, I think the joy factor is highly over-rated and the technology is truly obsolete.
Perhaps after you learn how to shift gears in a manual transmission car, and then after you have the opportunity to drive a good one, you'll discover the fun factor.
Right now your opinion is not worth a smashed mini-Snickers in the bottom of a trick-or-treat bag.
I am learning to drive... While it is fun to throw the stick around and "select" my own gear, I think the joy factor is highly over-rated and the technology is truly obsolete.
Perhaps after you learn how to shift gears in a manual transmission car, and then after you have the opportunity to drive a good one, you'll discover the fun factor.
Right now your opinion is not worth a smashed mini-Snickers in the bottom of a trick-or-treat bag.
Originally Posted By: PeteTheFarmer
Originally Posted By: M1Accord
the technology is truly obsolete.
The physics still favors a mechanical clutch over a fluid coupling. The laws of physics are never obsolete.
Exactly right.
Originally Posted By: M1Accord
the technology is truly obsolete.
The physics still favors a mechanical clutch over a fluid coupling. The laws of physics are never obsolete.
Exactly right.
Originally Posted By: Tornado Red
Originally Posted By: PeteTheFarmer
Originally Posted By: M1Accord
the technology is truly obsolete.
The physics still favors a mechanical clutch over a fluid coupling. The laws of physics are never obsolete.
Exactly right.
Correct, but I never studied law.....(Bugs Bunny)
This, along with no computer will, ever figure out how to offset driver judgment.
Originally Posted By: PeteTheFarmer
Originally Posted By: M1Accord
the technology is truly obsolete.
The physics still favors a mechanical clutch over a fluid coupling. The laws of physics are never obsolete.
Exactly right.
Correct, but I never studied law.....(Bugs Bunny)
This, along with no computer will, ever figure out how to offset driver judgment.
Originally Posted By: Tornado Red
Originally Posted By: PeteTheFarmer
Originally Posted By: M1Accord
the technology is truly obsolete.
The physics still favors a mechanical clutch over a fluid coupling. The laws of physics are never obsolete.
Exactly right.
Well that may be, but a search of epa estimates might surprise you.
I used my wife's 2005 Camry for example. The 5 speed automatic get an estimated 31 highway. Anyone care to guess what the manual gets?
Anyone?
30 highway. Both 21 in the city.
(Off topic)In reality neither one of these numbers are accurate for us. When my wife drove it 12 miles each way to work all city driving, she got about 16-17 mpg (slightly less than my Grand Marquis.) On the freeway the Camry will hit 32 - 34.
One of my daughters is now driving this car to college - about 35 miles each way, about 60 percent city, 40 percent freeway. Over the last 3 months she has average between 26 - 27 mpg. This is filling up at the same gas station and even the same pump 99 percent of the time.
The old epa estimates for this car was 24/34 automatic, 24/33 for the manual. This is for the 2.4 L engine.
On the other hand, a 2005 Corolla w/ manual does 2 MPG BETTER than an automatic, of course realizing that the manual is a 5 speed, the automatic is a 4 speed.
I understand why some people like a manual transmission. Been there - done that. My point is that the blanket statement of "a manual transmission gets you better MPG" is not necessarily true anymore.
Originally Posted By: PeteTheFarmer
Originally Posted By: M1Accord
the technology is truly obsolete.
The physics still favors a mechanical clutch over a fluid coupling. The laws of physics are never obsolete.
Exactly right.
Well that may be, but a search of epa estimates might surprise you.
I used my wife's 2005 Camry for example. The 5 speed automatic get an estimated 31 highway. Anyone care to guess what the manual gets?
Anyone?
30 highway. Both 21 in the city.
(Off topic)In reality neither one of these numbers are accurate for us. When my wife drove it 12 miles each way to work all city driving, she got about 16-17 mpg (slightly less than my Grand Marquis.) On the freeway the Camry will hit 32 - 34.
One of my daughters is now driving this car to college - about 35 miles each way, about 60 percent city, 40 percent freeway. Over the last 3 months she has average between 26 - 27 mpg. This is filling up at the same gas station and even the same pump 99 percent of the time.
The old epa estimates for this car was 24/34 automatic, 24/33 for the manual. This is for the 2.4 L engine.
On the other hand, a 2005 Corolla w/ manual does 2 MPG BETTER than an automatic, of course realizing that the manual is a 5 speed, the automatic is a 4 speed.
I understand why some people like a manual transmission. Been there - done that. My point is that the blanket statement of "a manual transmission gets you better MPG" is not necessarily true anymore.
EPA mileage numbers are measured on a rolling road, in a climate-controlled building. A one or two mpg difference is insignificant, because the differences between two identical cars with identical transmissions can be greater than 2 mpg.
Besides, fuel mileage is not the only reason to choose a manual transmission. Longevity is another reason, personal preference is another, and maybe safety is a factor at least with some drivers and in some conditions.
Besides, fuel mileage is not the only reason to choose a manual transmission. Longevity is another reason, personal preference is another, and maybe safety is a factor at least with some drivers and in some conditions.
Originally Posted By: oldmaninsc
Originally Posted By: Tornado Red
Originally Posted By: PeteTheFarmer
Originally Posted By: M1Accord
the technology is truly obsolete.
The physics still favors a mechanical clutch over a fluid coupling. The laws of physics are never obsolete.
Exactly right.
Well that may be, but a search of epa estimates might surprise you.
No surprise, I've seen examples like this before, but never took the next step of comparing the transmission and final drive ratios.
Originally Posted By: Tornado Red
Originally Posted By: PeteTheFarmer
Originally Posted By: M1Accord
the technology is truly obsolete.
The physics still favors a mechanical clutch over a fluid coupling. The laws of physics are never obsolete.
Exactly right.
Well that may be, but a search of epa estimates might surprise you.
No surprise, I've seen examples like this before, but never took the next step of comparing the transmission and final drive ratios.
Originally Posted By: ffracer
CVTs aren't used in pro racing for the following reasons - outside of regulations:
1. They aren't as efficient in coupling vs. a clutch, especially on the high end - this alone kills it
2. The seamless shift concept has been done with software with clutches, so CVTs lose its only benefit
3. CVTs are not reliable with high torque applications
Then why were they immediately banned?
If what you say were actually true, there would have been no reason to regulate them out of existence. It's obviously speculation, but a lot of folks (most) have speculated that CVT's would ubiquitous were it not for the regulations.
CVTs aren't used in pro racing for the following reasons - outside of regulations:
1. They aren't as efficient in coupling vs. a clutch, especially on the high end - this alone kills it
2. The seamless shift concept has been done with software with clutches, so CVTs lose its only benefit
3. CVTs are not reliable with high torque applications
Then why were they immediately banned?
If what you say were actually true, there would have been no reason to regulate them out of existence. It's obviously speculation, but a lot of folks (most) have speculated that CVT's would ubiquitous were it not for the regulations.
In response to Oldmanfromsc, you are correct, on certain models the gear ratios selected had the manual geared in high (differential ratio x high gear ratio)to run 200 to 300 RPM more than the auto version of the same vehicle. In these cases, you lose the advantage in fuel mileage. It does pay to do a little research before buying.
When I got my little Ford Ranger, I thought about getting the extended cab version. Don't really need it(just me in the truck usually, once in a while with my wife),but has it's benefits. The regular cab came with 3.73 gears, the extended cab came with 4.10 gears(2.3 manual on both,same transmission)that's the way Ford made all of them. The extended cab version will be turning a few hundred RPM more at highway speeds than the reg cab, and get a few less MPG.
All things being equal, same car, same differential gearing, the manual car will get a couple extra MPG.
When I got my little Ford Ranger, I thought about getting the extended cab version. Don't really need it(just me in the truck usually, once in a while with my wife),but has it's benefits. The regular cab came with 3.73 gears, the extended cab came with 4.10 gears(2.3 manual on both,same transmission)that's the way Ford made all of them. The extended cab version will be turning a few hundred RPM more at highway speeds than the reg cab, and get a few less MPG.
All things being equal, same car, same differential gearing, the manual car will get a couple extra MPG.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Tornado Red
Longevity is another reason, personal preference is another,...
I hope you will not be too surprised that there is generally a deduction for manual trans at trade in.
Might be long lived in YOUR hands, but not necessarily everyone has your skills.
Many people imagine they can drive a stick. Somewhat fewer actually can.
Longevity is another reason, personal preference is another,...
I hope you will not be too surprised that there is generally a deduction for manual trans at trade in.
Might be long lived in YOUR hands, but not necessarily everyone has your skills.
Many people imagine they can drive a stick. Somewhat fewer actually can.
Originally Posted By: ffracer
CVTs aren't used in pro racing for the following reasons - outside of regulations:
1. They aren't as efficient in coupling vs. a clutch, especially on the high end - this alone kills it
2. The seamless shift concept has been done with software with clutches, so CVTs lose its only benefit
3. CVTs are not reliable with high torque applications
1. Really? It's just gears on the inside, same as any other transmission.
2. Eliminating shift time and drivetrain shock are only a small part of a CVT's benefit. The biggest benefit of a CVT is that it allows the engine to run in a narrower range of RPMs. Besides the obvious benefit of always running at peak power, this means the engine can be further optimized for that RPM range and produce a lot more power.
3. Not all race cars are high torque. Don't F1 cars produce something like 300 lb-ft?
CVTs aren't used in pro racing for the following reasons - outside of regulations:
1. They aren't as efficient in coupling vs. a clutch, especially on the high end - this alone kills it
2. The seamless shift concept has been done with software with clutches, so CVTs lose its only benefit
3. CVTs are not reliable with high torque applications
1. Really? It's just gears on the inside, same as any other transmission.
2. Eliminating shift time and drivetrain shock are only a small part of a CVT's benefit. The biggest benefit of a CVT is that it allows the engine to run in a narrower range of RPMs. Besides the obvious benefit of always running at peak power, this means the engine can be further optimized for that RPM range and produce a lot more power.
3. Not all race cars are high torque. Don't F1 cars produce something like 300 lb-ft?
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: Tornado Red
Longevity is another reason, personal preference is another,...
I hope you will not be too surprised that there is generally a deduction for manual trans at trade in.
Might be long lived in YOUR hands, but not necessarily everyone has your skills.
Many people imagine they can drive a stick. Somewhat fewer actually can.
very true. manual trans cars get hit hard at trade in time.
the irony is, the dealers don't want to be stuck with them, but when I was selling saturns years ago, there were certain manual cars you KNEW you could sell, if you could just get one. manual trans SW wagons for example. they were so rare that some salesmen had a 'call me when you get one' list.
Originally Posted By: Tornado Red
Longevity is another reason, personal preference is another,...
I hope you will not be too surprised that there is generally a deduction for manual trans at trade in.
Might be long lived in YOUR hands, but not necessarily everyone has your skills.
Many people imagine they can drive a stick. Somewhat fewer actually can.
very true. manual trans cars get hit hard at trade in time.
the irony is, the dealers don't want to be stuck with them, but when I was selling saturns years ago, there were certain manual cars you KNEW you could sell, if you could just get one. manual trans SW wagons for example. they were so rare that some salesmen had a 'call me when you get one' list.
Originally Posted By: Tornado Red
Besides, fuel mileage is not the only reason to choose a manual transmission. Longevity is another reason, personal preference is another, and maybe safety is a factor at least with some drivers and in some conditions.
I never said it was. Others here have been saying it! That was part of my point is that MPG really shouldn't be a consideration.
As for longevity - we could argue that one as well. I have one vehicle that has over 200K miles on the original tranny. This is a Ford A4LD transmission which many say wasn't known for it's long life. I've known some people who have gone through 2 clutches by then (not me personally).
Though I would agree it's USUALLY cheaper to replace a clutch (I've replaced quite a few over the last 40 or 50 years) than an automatic transmission.
Besides, fuel mileage is not the only reason to choose a manual transmission. Longevity is another reason, personal preference is another, and maybe safety is a factor at least with some drivers and in some conditions.
I never said it was. Others here have been saying it! That was part of my point is that MPG really shouldn't be a consideration.
As for longevity - we could argue that one as well. I have one vehicle that has over 200K miles on the original tranny. This is a Ford A4LD transmission which many say wasn't known for it's long life. I've known some people who have gone through 2 clutches by then (not me personally).
Though I would agree it's USUALLY cheaper to replace a clutch (I've replaced quite a few over the last 40 or 50 years) than an automatic transmission.
Yeah, I haven't heard much about the clutch.
A wear item that can last quite a while but can also be killed quickly with poor driving.
My top employee has an 85 Mustang GT with a 5 speed stick, over 160,000 miles on the original clutch!
My ex wife burnt up a clutch in a Nissan in 30k miles.
Extremely driver dependent
A wear item that can last quite a while but can also be killed quickly with poor driving.
My top employee has an 85 Mustang GT with a 5 speed stick, over 160,000 miles on the original clutch!
My ex wife burnt up a clutch in a Nissan in 30k miles.
Extremely driver dependent
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Yeah, I haven't heard much about the clutch.
A wear item that can last quite a while but can also be killed quickly with poor driving.
My top employee has an 85 Mustang GT with a 5 speed stick, over 160,000 miles on the original clutch!
My ex wife burnt up a clutch in a Nissan in 30k miles.
Extremely driver dependent
So are brakes, and I don't see anybody automating them, and some brake jobs on new cars can run for close to the price of clutch replacement. Same goes for tires, tires for most new cars that come in with 17inch stock rims will cost close to $1k, and I don't see peole objecting to these costs as much as it is for the clutch.
I wonder why is that, the moment you mention a manual transmission, most will say "I don't like the cost of clutch replacement". How is that different form brakes and tires? And DSG fluid replacemant at VW costs about $400 a pop every 40k miles, yet people demand more gears, bigger rims and small profile tires which aslo cost a lot.
Yeah, I haven't heard much about the clutch.
A wear item that can last quite a while but can also be killed quickly with poor driving.
My top employee has an 85 Mustang GT with a 5 speed stick, over 160,000 miles on the original clutch!
My ex wife burnt up a clutch in a Nissan in 30k miles.
Extremely driver dependent
So are brakes, and I don't see anybody automating them, and some brake jobs on new cars can run for close to the price of clutch replacement. Same goes for tires, tires for most new cars that come in with 17inch stock rims will cost close to $1k, and I don't see peole objecting to these costs as much as it is for the clutch.
I wonder why is that, the moment you mention a manual transmission, most will say "I don't like the cost of clutch replacement". How is that different form brakes and tires? And DSG fluid replacemant at VW costs about $400 a pop every 40k miles, yet people demand more gears, bigger rims and small profile tires which aslo cost a lot.
geez, where do you buy tires?
My car wears 275/40/20 and I typically pay about 180 bucks for a really nice hi performance tire. I can buy cheapos for about 150 each.
And brakes are automated. Ever hear of 'brake assist'? How about ABS?
As for brake pricing, it can be ridiculous at the stealerships. My car can cost well over a grand (1500.00+) for all 4 rotors and pads installed. Yet decent pads are 100 bucks for all 4 wheels online, and I bought brand new Mopar slotted rotors for 80 bucks each.
My car wears 275/40/20 and I typically pay about 180 bucks for a really nice hi performance tire. I can buy cheapos for about 150 each.
And brakes are automated. Ever hear of 'brake assist'? How about ABS?
As for brake pricing, it can be ridiculous at the stealerships. My car can cost well over a grand (1500.00+) for all 4 rotors and pads installed. Yet decent pads are 100 bucks for all 4 wheels online, and I bought brand new Mopar slotted rotors for 80 bucks each.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
geez, where do you buy tires?
My car wears 275/40/20 and I typically pay about 180 bucks for a really nice hi performance tire. I can buy cheapos for about 150 each.
And brakes are automated. Ever hear of 'brake assist'? How about ABS?
As for brake pricing, it can be ridiculous at the stealerships. My car can cost well over a grand (1500.00+) for all 4 rotors and pads installed. Yet decent pads are 100 bucks for all 4 wheels online, and I bought brand new Mopar slotted rotors for 80 bucks each.
Overall, I agree with what you are saying. But brake jobs on many Euro cars can run into a $1000+ job no matter where you get the parts, and excluding labor... you do have an advantage by having an American car in pricing brakes.
geez, where do you buy tires?
My car wears 275/40/20 and I typically pay about 180 bucks for a really nice hi performance tire. I can buy cheapos for about 150 each.
And brakes are automated. Ever hear of 'brake assist'? How about ABS?
As for brake pricing, it can be ridiculous at the stealerships. My car can cost well over a grand (1500.00+) for all 4 rotors and pads installed. Yet decent pads are 100 bucks for all 4 wheels online, and I bought brand new Mopar slotted rotors for 80 bucks each.
Overall, I agree with what you are saying. But brake jobs on many Euro cars can run into a $1000+ job no matter where you get the parts, and excluding labor... you do have an advantage by having an American car in pricing brakes.
- Status
Similar threads
