Manual tranny vehicle

[Al]

I have always had one auto and one manual in my garage since 1967. I have had only one problem with an auto and that was an 82 Pontiac Phoenix. The 80's were the time period when GM autos self distructed on comand.

If you treat an auto right it will (in general) go well over 100K with no problems. Also auto's are easier on the engine. So in general the engine will give a longer life with an auto.

 

[andrews]

I still prefer a stick over an auto. I had a Ford Escort ('92) that was well taken care of. At just over 70k miles the transmission blew out on me in the middle of nowhere. Boy was I ticked! Since then I've never really wanted an auto. I've heard that at present, the Dodge minivans have a terrible transmission problem. Seems they tend to puke at around 40 to 100k no matter what you do. Also, surprisingly, I've heard that a rather large number of Honda Accords have had auto transmission issues. I was told that when Honda started trying to make the shifting smoother, in the past couple of years, the transmissions have lost some of their previous ability to last a long time. I don't know, I just feel a little more assured when I drive a stick.

 

[Gary Allan]

Autos aren't the reliable things that they were in the 60's and 70's. They're far too sophisticated and far too long out of warranty when they typcially fail.

But just because you have a stick doesn't mean you're home free. They can be as much of a POS as the automatic is lame. It's a crap shoot either way. I find it so hard to believe that this aspect of the automotive industry has devolved in quality and durability over 30-40 years of advancement.

 

[rjundi]

If you want that mileage and a superior shifting car get a Honda Accord. Honda/Acura's have incredible manuals, in my opinion like BMW's. The rest are decent.

 

[Doug]

What about a VW TDI? You'll get over 50mpg in one of them, plus it'll last 500k miles.

 

[Drew]

I also recommend a new VW TDI. The fuel economy of the new PD engine is not as good as the previous engine but still better than anything else on the road. I am averaging 46 mpg cruising 80-85 mph on my hour long commute each day. Reliability has been good for past six month, not a single CEL while my Dad who bought his new Camry the same month I got my VW has been back to the shop 4 times.

 

[buster]

quote:

---

Also auto's are easier on the engine. So in general the engine will give a longer life with an auto.

---

Not sure this is true. I've always been told the opposite.

I thought manuals were better for the engine, depending on how you drive of course and will last longer. Honda Accord 6spd is VERY smooth. Almost bought one.

Can someone post a pic or site to the new TDI?

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:
Autos aren't the reliable things that they were in the 60's and 70's. They're far too sophisticated and far too long out of warranty when they typcially fail.

---

I thouroughly disagree-I was driving in the 60's and 70's. In point of fact Chrysler had the most reliable transmission Ford and Chevy were not as good. The 2 speed GM Power Glide was reliable but if you abused it-even a little it was toast.

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:

quote:

---

Also auto's are easier on the engine. So in general the engine will give a longer life with an auto.

---

Not sure this is true. I've always been told the opposite.

I thought manuals were better for the engine, depending on how you drive of course and will last longer. Honda Accord 6spd is VERY smooth. Almost bought one.

Can someone post a pic or site to the new TDI?

---

The reason that autos are easier on engines is that there is almost no shock. My vehicles over the years had better engine durability with autos.

 

[pacem]

I am leaning towards Camry with V6 and manual. And a station wagon.

My main reasoning for manual is fuel economy. The rpms are lower vs. an overdrive transmission, resulting in lower fuel consumption. An identical vehicle will have higher mpg with a manual transmission.

Generally, what I've seen is that overdrive autos in best case last almost as long as engines (and often not) but manual transmissions can last several engines in a vehicle, with multiple clutches installed.

[ October 29, 2004, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: pacem ]

 

[andrews]

Pacem,
I think you will be extremely pleased with the Camry stick. Someone posted that a VW was more reliable....well, I wouldn't bet on that over the lifetime of a vehicle. Time and time again, Toyota has been far better at reliability than VW's. Not that VW's haven't come a long ways, they are just geared more towards handling and speed than reliability and longevity. The only area of concern for your Toyota may be if they use salt on the roads where you live. I've noticed that some Toyotas and Hondas seem to rust in this type of nasty environment quicker than some other cars.

 

[Doug]

I guess we won't get anywhere saying which one is better, as many of us have "opinions"

Well, my "opinion" is that a VW has a total edge over Toyota. Japanese engineering is good, but German is WAY better.

If you want the best mpg and a great car, you WON'T beat a manual TDI, period! My aunt has one, one time when driving down to CA from OR, she average 58 mpg......

 

[Drew99GT]

And you'll need that 58mpg for every time you take that VW in to get it fixed

 

[buster]

Al you may be right but I've heard the opposite several times. Who knows, who cares right?

In terms of engineering reliability, Toyota does a better job. Thats a fact based on data.

German engineering is great, but over rated IMO. VW's quality is bad in many of their cars. Always electrical problems. I know 6 people that have had Audi's/VW's and had nothing but problems with them.

For $40k, there is no car in the world that can compete with the Vette. US engineering can rival the best in the world. Look at what the Fort GT did to the high end exotics? It takes money thats all. Germans do make excellent cars/engines. I just don't see them being anymore reliable then others.

quote:

---

And you'll need that 58mpg for every time you take that VW in to get it fixed

---

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
Al you may be right but I've heard the opposite several times. Who knows, who cares right?

---

Right on

 

[Doug]

"And you'll need that 58mpg for every time you take that VW in to get it fixed"

Naahhh.

Don't know why I am defending them, I don't even own one. I don't own any foreign made or foreign named car. BUT, to say Japp stuff is superior to German engineering, nope, ain't gonna believe that one. I've seen many a Honda and Toyota's have issues.

You know, I read an article the other day saying that GM is almost better than Japp and German made vehicles in customer service and overall customer satisfaction.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

In point of fact Chrysler had the most reliable transmission Ford and Chevy were not as good.

---

Yes, the TF727 and 904 were very reliable ..as were the TH350 and TH400 and C6, C4, C4s ..and the FMX and the Powerglide.

You had some VERY powerful engines in front of those transmissions pulling some VERY heavy vehicles. They were relatively simple and fairly cheap to rebuild on the rare occasions that this was needed. Trans life was weighed in number of owners per decade...not miles.

on the otherhand you'll see TONS of later model Tauri and DC vehicles (the caravans get stripped before they hit the dirt) in junk yards because the cost of an overhaul exceeds the value of the car. $2-4 grand for a trans is ridiculous ..and it's all due to the needlessly sophistacated electronics and mechanicals that they employ. OD automatics were in use in the 60's Caddies and were highly reliable. Chrysler even saw fit to make their transmissions so lame that it required special fluids throughout their evolution. You flog ..or maybe not even flog ..a domestic automatic in a FWD and most RWD/4WD (just about all of them) and you're looking at troubles.

 

[pacem]

I am ready for a manual 5-speed after driving autos my whole life.

I've had real good luck with full size GM vehicles and would get a mid 90's LeSabre with 3.8L except I fear it's transmission won't last as long. In general, I have seen so many issues from autos lately, that I am not sure I will own another one again.

So I narrowed down my choices to Mazda 626 with V6, Subaru Legacy with 2.2L and Toyota Camry (if it makes a manual)

I want at least 30mpg, and 35 is even better.

I know there are domestic vehicles with manuals but it seems all of them are compact and traditionally cheaply-built with low quality. I would buy a full size Park Avenue if it had a manual, now that would be a good combo.

Also a station wagon is a big plus.

 

[ALS]

I would buy a full size Park Avenue if it had a manual, now that would be a good combo.

Have you looked at a 2005 Pontiac GTO it is available with a 6 speed Manual. If your looking for a full size car with a manual. The Volvo V70 wagons can be had with a 5sp manual with 2.4 160 HP engines and a 6 sp with the 300 HP engine.

[ October 29, 2004, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: ALS ]

 

[andrews]

Pacem,
I would go for the Camry. They do offer it in manual as well. The Mazda would probably barely make your mileage requirement. Also the longevity on some Mazdas is not the best. The Subaru is an ok vehicle, I just don't care for the engines in them. The one Subaru that I had was not a very good vehicle. The engine ran fine but it was noisy and unrefined, nothing like a Toyota vehicle. Another bonus would be the resale value of a Toyota. It's right up there with Honda.