Corolla v Civic v Hyundai/Nissan moeds

: The other issue, is why would you want a low end car with a manual : transmission..
I was just pointing out that it is an option. If someone is comfortable
with manual transmission (as OP stated) and wants to save money while still getting Corolla quality, he can.
I have owned manual and automatic Toyotas and never had problem selling either kind.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And as gas prices climb closer to $4/gal, small efficient manual transmission vehicles will be more desirable. I expect to see a premium on manual trans, small engine cars pretty soon in the US.
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As CVT's gain ground, the benefits of a manual transmission (in terms of fuel economy) fade. Most CVT's are either equaling or exceeding the mpg rating of manuals. I'm not ready to trust CVT's yet, and prefer to see them proven over time, but they do show promise.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CVT's have been in common production since 1989, Subaru Justy & Honda Civic HCH how long do they need to be around before you can trust them?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I was not aware that they were in common production for those cars. Are you quite certain? Most of the Civics I'm aware of had automatics or standards.
In any event, not all manufacturers have a lot of experience with them. If you want to jump on board with a manufacturer's early ventures into a technology, be my guest. Experience has shown that to be less than advisable.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Zeppo wrote:

The newer automatics are so efficient that they often get higher mileage than a manual transmission in the same car. No one that drive extensively in heavy stop and go traffic is going to put up with a manual transmission.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Most of the reason a manual Toyota Corolla still gets better mpg than an automatic Toyota Corolla is that the manual has a 5-speed tranny while the auto has a 4-speed one.
For other makes and models, and in the last five years or so, changes in auto tranny design have resulted in it often surpassing manual trannies when it comes to mpg, when comparing the same models whose only difference is the tranny.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Elle wrote:

I don't think so. Can you explain that?
Clay
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

www.fueleconomy.gov , among other sites, indicates the 2008 Corolla is available with either a manual 5-speed (five forward gears) tranny or an automatic, 4-speed (four forward gears) tranny. Generally for diverse driving (e.g. some kind of cross between city and highway driving), the more gears, the better the odds the engine has of running at optimal fuel efficiency.
Though I probably should have qualified this somewhat. For one, with other makes, there are some automatic four-speed trannies with variable yada that can do as well as or better than manual five-speeds.
The bigger point to me is that it's worth checking the MPG for both the auto and manual versions of a particular model and year before just assuming the manual tranny will do better than the auto.
Lastly, as others are saying and MPG aside, I think manual transmissions tend to be cheaper to maintain and are less prone to breakdown.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Elle wrote:

Actually, an automatic transmission can easily go 200K miles with no repairs or maintenance other than perhaps one change of fluid. 200K miles of city driving on a manual will require at least one clutch change. For highway driving, you could go longer on a clutch.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, you're speaking in possibilities and outliers. I am talking about averages. I can say that, anecdotally, reports of serious problems with auto transmissions are much more common in this newsgroup than reports of serious problems with manual trannies. Fact is the engineering of an auto tranny is far more complicated than that of a manual. This of course translates to a greater propensity for problems.

I would not generalize like this. Clutch wear depends on shifting style as well as stops and starts. I do not do all city driving but it's been almost all suburban driving, with some city and highway. My 91 Civic is on 204k miles on its original clutch.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Elle wrote:

LOL, it actually was Elmo one talking about outliers, claiming that 125K miles to be the norm for an automatic transmission. Maybe it's the norm for Ford or Chevy (actually I don't believe that either), but definitely for Toyota and Honda.
A Canadian study on longevity (11-20 year old cars) showed the following as the five non-luxury vehicle brands with the highest percentage of vehicles (based on number originally sold):
Saturn Toyota Honda Mazda Volkswagen
Of course you don't know how much was spent to keep these going that long, how much oil the engines consumed, or how much was spent on repairs in years 1-10, but there's no reason to believe that these owners were willing to spend more on repairs than owners of more poorly ranked vehicles.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

For reference here are my facts: My '95 Concorde now has 140k kms on it. The engine runs perfectly, gets the original fuel mileage, goes 8k on a liter of oil and the auto shifts as new. The only repairs on the engine were a set of plugs at 95k, and replacement of the rubber parts on the engine external , associated with the fuel and PVC system, in '06. Engine service is oil changes at 5 to 8 k, always twice per year, plus a few air filters. The only transmission service has been oil changes every 50k plus a flush at 120k. A friend of mine has a '94 of the same car going strong at 210k. I've read the design was for 200k miles (300k kms)
This is not unusual, but typical of this engine transmission. Transmission failures from '94 on are usually due to lack of adequate service.
Oh I should mention that although I often drive on severe winter roads to the ski hills, the body is rust free and stil shines lovely. The body has had no special treatment, just washed with Turtle wash and wax.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You're lucky because I have yet to see one that doesn't have any rust in my area.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Elle wrote:

Actually, this mileage is related to less transmission slippage, not gear selection. I have seen some automatics that were close in mileage, but I would like for you to point out one that surpasses the manual.
Clay
--
Warning: keyboard may cause involuntary vowel movement - Clay Ferriola

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Current generation Honda Civic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

The only one I see that get better mileage is the CNG version.
Clay
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope. Look again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

Okay, where am I to look? I didn't see it on Honda's' site, nor Fueleconomy.gov
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not to sound condescending or anything, but I am glad you chimed in, because on further reading, I thought it should be pointed out that a major factor in automatics traditionally getting worse MPG is the torque converter. The TC represents a "fluid coupling," whereas the manual tranny's clutch etc. are a mechanical linkage. Energy transmission losses are greater with the liquid linkage. As many of the pros here know. (I am just an amateur who works on her own car and reads like crazy to understand it.)
But this has changed somewhat with the advent of the "lock up torque converter."
Optimal gearing is still said to be a factor, though. Several other factors are said to play significant roles, as well. So my post did not do justice to why older automatic trannies were less efficient than manual trannies.

Sure. www.fueleconomy.gov. Just sort of randomly, based on checking this a few times in the last several years, and using only the same engine size for a given model:
2007 Civic, same engine size, both five forward speeds: Manual = 26 MPG city, 34 MPG highway Auto = 25, 36
2007 Subaru Impreza (an all-wheel drive vehicle) Manual (5-speed) = 19, 26 Auto (4-speed) = 20, 25
2007 Nissan Sentra Manual (6-speed) = 24, 31 Auto (variable gear) = 25, 33
2007 Hyundai Elantra Manual (5-speed) = 24, 33 Auto (4-speed) = 25, 33
2007 Kia Rio Manual (5-speed) = 27, 32 Auto (4-speed) = 25, 35
From this survey, I think we could argue that newer automatic trannies seem to do better at highway speeds, even though it often has fewer gears. The lock up converter (used only at higher speeds) is the first area I would explore to explain most of this higher efficiency. I see the lockup converter started gaining in popularity around the late 1970s but ISTM only recently did all models start having them. I see the 1995 versions of the cars above never saw the autos beating the manuals for miles per gallon. Granted other improvements may have been implemented, like continuously variable transmissions (CVT).
The Sentra is interesting, since for the two versions I compared, the big difference is the variable gearing in the auto. It's the only model that beat the manual version in both city and highway.
Toyota OTOH seems to consistently have no models where the auto does better than the manual under city or highway conditions.
Again, just an amateur here.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.