Topic: Feature: Long Live the Manual Transmission (and How to Save it)

[OliverD]

Reports on the Focus manual gearbox were favourable on this forum not so long ago.

It's a good gearbox in terms of feel and action but Ford couldn't be bothered with it for North America so they plonked down a 5-speed. Totally missing a ratio; when I test drove a Titanium version (sport suspension, summer tires.....!) I liked the car a lot but the lack of a highway cruising gear was a deal killer. It was running something over 3k rpm @ 120km/h and considering I drive rural highways at 120-140km/h, that would get pretty old fast.

That's not terrible. My V6 Mazda 6 was at 3k rpm at 120.

[KGcobalt]

I remember driving manual when I first got my G1 7 years ago. Went out with my brother that night in his then winter beater 03 Sunfire right after a snow storm. I stalled it so many times, but it was great. I didn't really learn fully until I bought a manual car and had to figure it out on the driving home from the dealer. Having already known the basics and fundamentals it only took me about a week of driving it to learn to drive it smoothly. Since this was in high school, I always remember when driving with friends people would ask "Well how do you know when to shift?" or "What happens if you shift without that other pedal?" etc. There were maybe a handful of people in my graduating class that could drive manual. I think a lot of it has to do with people just not being interested in cars in general. They'd rather drive their parent's Toyota Corolla/Camry or Hyundai Sonata or whatever and use it as a tool to get from point A to B and nothing more. I doubt that will change anytime soon.

By far the best manuals I've driven have been BMWs. They just feel so direct when you shift, and you need to be able to get that gas/clutch action so close to perfect to drive them smoothly that when you master it, it's so rewarding to drive (especially the xdrive cars). I find VW and Audi feel very rubbery and disconnected by comparison. I also agree that Hyundai/Kia are garbage. Poor shift feel and horrendously bad clutch feel.

[Gurgie]

I have only owned 1 automatic car in my life out of the 7 I've gone thru & I've also had 3 different motorcycles, so in my eyes ANY manual is better than an automatic as it gets you involved in the actual driving of the car, you feel what the car is doing and can control it better still I believe.  In my daily commute I will take a manual everyday!!!  Had a loaner Dodge Dart for the past 2 weeks while my Jeep was in for repairs & the auto drove me nuts!!  Now I'm back in my Wrangler rowing the big 6 speed happily, makes me feel like driving an old pick-up truck with a manual... much more entertaining!!  Heck even driving a 1960 Beetle with all of 35hp & no syncros was a blast!

I'm sure there might be some cars where on a track having an automatic (new Z-06) is better & might actually be more fun, but the 3 pedal dance is perfect for me!  As for the feel of different manual's, I gotta say my Porshce feels pretty decent for a 1986, the throws are a bit longer, but the clutch take up & feel are great!!!  As for other manuals, I find the Mazda 3 is a great one, Honda Civic's were always light & fun feeling, my 08 Altima was pretty good, BMW boxes are nice, both in the 3 series & in the Mini's, Audi/VW boxes were always good as well, can't say anything about any others as I haven't driven them.

[mlin32]

My only experience with a Hyundai manual gearbox was on a Kia Cee'd diesel manual.....wasn't too bad, though not as smooth/slick a shifter feel as VW or BMWs I've driven.

Try driving a VW Polo 1,2 TDI (3-cyl diesel) with the manual.......now that requires a bit of concentration to start-off right without stalling! Still a good gearbox, just wasn't used to rowing such a small diesel drivetrain.

Regarding the gearing on the Focus, the 5-speed manual also spaces the gear ratios a bit farther apart than I'd like, but I'm persnickety on carmakers getting the gearing just right. Ideally the top gear should be around 2750-3000rpm in the normal, highway cruising range (130-140km/h). Then again, I may have been a bit spoiled by driving BMWs for the past 8 years that seem to get it just right regardless of gearbox.

[dkaz]

Ideally the top gear should be around 2750-3000rpm in the normal, highway cruising range (130-140km/h). Then again, I may have been a bit spoiled by driving BMWs for the past 8 years that seem to get it just right regardless of gearbox.

My manual Skyactiv 3 spins at about 2200 RPM at 100 and 3100 at 140. I think the Cruze Eco spins even lower.

[tpl]

How many manufactures actually supply a manual worth driving 

Audi, Porsche, BMW,....

Honda, UK Fords.

[aquadorhj]

Honda.



everybody should drive Honda Manual.



My little brother learned manual on 01 or 02 Kia Rio.   that car had some issues, but manual worked OK.  rubbery as hell, vague gates, synchros were worn, clutch sucked balls and broken clutch cable mount didn't help any. 

then he bought a Civic manual.    so much easier to drive, such a nice shift action, nice light clutch.

If everyone had to learn manual on a Honda, i think manual adoption rate would be higher.

[dkaz]

Nicest manual I've driven is the current gen Ford Focus. Not Civic easy, but smooth shifting with a nice weighted clutch.

I haven't driven any newer Honda manuals but I've owned three 85-88 Honda Civic wagons. They were easy to drive. But I love my Mazdas, also top tier stick shifts. My 08 Corolla was terrible and sloppy, though the clutch was easy. My 91 Corolla was good. From what I hear from most FRS owners, Toyota relearned how to build a good stick shift again.

[DriverJeff]

How many manufactures actually supply a manual worth driving 

What the heck is that supposed to mean?  My fun to drive ratio is so much higher when I test drove the manual Mazda6 vs the auto...

Yeah, well, you can skip the Kias... and sorry Force, but as much as I prefer a manual, Hyundai don't make great manuals, while their automatics are quite good... Fords' ain't that great until you get up into Mustang territory. and credit Subaru for doing a good job on this generation WRX/STI. Nissan manuals are pretty horrid - I absolutely loather the one in the Juke Nismo RS.

The Genesis coupe's stick isn't great, but I don't mind the set up in the Accent.  I find that a really fun little car to drive.  Likewise, I thought the Fiesta with the stick shift we drove a few weeks ago for the comparo test was really pretty decent.  2015 Mustang GT set up is nice too -- surprisingly light for such a muscular car. 

You're not wrong about that Juke Nismo.  That was misery.

The WRX's 6-speed is a little clunky and the hanging revs between shifts is annoying.  I'm tempted to swap out the trans fluid for something that might help smooth it out, esp in the cold weather. 

[HeliDriver]

   I'm sorry but all of the talk about a six speed gearbox is over the top as far as I am concerned. Five is plenty good and more is not better...for what. I don't regard 3000 rpm at 120 km/ as being high with mid to small engines. It's no good having a higher gear if the engine will not hold it on the highway. Maybe the old overdrive switch could be brought back though on top gear for flat highway cruising...with the wind behind. I have never had an overdrive...it's not that little button on the shifter of small cars these days...literature calls this overdrive but it is not. It merely delays the shift point on auto trans to give more acceleration...more like an under-drive device and mostly not ever used. Overdrive somehow reduces the revs in top gear without the need of another gearbox ratio...presumably another device is involved that is not manually clutched but merely operated by a switch.
   These were used a lot on British imports here to save the old engines a bit on long continuous speed stretches...MG, TR.

Overdrive just means that the final drive ratio is less than 1:1, i.e. the transmission output shaft is spinning faster than the engine crankshaft.

Back in the day (your day ), that was accomplished with a separate box stuck onto the transmission, but nowadays it's just an extra gear in the same box. Still overdrive, though. In fact, a lot of modern transmissions have more than one overdrive gear: IIRC, the 9-speed auto box in the Cherokee has four of them.

And that little button on the shifter doesn't engage overdrive (top gear), it locks it out.

[tpl]

Ah yes.  The Laycock De Normanville Overdrive unit.  I had it in my MGB, worked in 3rd and 4th and very useful it was too.   IIRC they only had one problem...if the safety switch did NOT disengage the overdrive in reverse it was time for a new one...it would just be destroyed internally.

[johngenx]

Drive a Honda S2000 - and experience arguably the best manual installed in a road car.  Honda's FWD shifters are as good as they get - but they're not as good as the S2K.

My Miata is excellent.  The clutch is light and easy to engage.  The five speed shifts quickly and easily - I prefer the old five cogger to the later six speed.  But it lacks the absolute precision of the S2K.

I had a Camaro with a Muncie M22 - strong but ugh, not the nicest trans to use.

[Weels]

You're not wrong about that Juke Nismo.  That was misery.
The WRX's 6-speed is a little clunky and the hanging revs between shifts is annoying.  I'm tempted to swap out the trans fluid for something that might help smooth it out, esp in the cold weather.

Oh come on, the Juke wasn't that bad...  (wow i just defended a juke)
The WRX is a bit balky/clunky but i quite liked it.  I do remember the rev hanging a bit, but i guess i wasn't always driving it like my hair was on fire like some others... 
Best manual i've experienced i think was the Mini Cooper S, followed closely by the MX5.  Both of those are better than Honda's IMO.

Worst was the Dart from an earlier comparo a year or two ago... issue there was the clutch tho'

[OliverD]

You're not wrong about that Juke Nismo.  That was misery.
The WRX's 6-speed is a little clunky and the hanging revs between shifts is annoying.  I'm tempted to swap out the trans fluid for something that might help smooth it out, esp in the cold weather.

Oh come on, the Juke wasn't that bad...  (wow i just defended a juke)
The WRX is a bit balky/clunky but i quite liked it.  I do remember the rev hanging a bit, but i guess i wasn't always driving it like my hair was on fire like some others... 
Best manual i've experienced i think was the Mini Cooper S, followed closely by the MX5.  Both of those are better than Honda's IMO.

Worst was the Dart from an earlier comparo a year or two ago... issue there was the clutch tho'

Which gen Cooper S? I don't find the R56 has that great of a shifter, personally. It's not bad but it doesn't stand out.

[aquadorhj]

Best manual i've experienced i think was the Mini Cooper S, followed closely by the MX5.  Both of those are better than Honda's IMO.

interesting...  i've tried both and I would rate Mazda's higher than Mini, but both below Honda.  Mazda closely replicate honda feel, i think, but generally a little heavier everything, but clutch may be better than honda. 

Mini, on the other hand,...  feels much like any VW or BMW.   solid, but not much feel, and bit notchy.

[GearDrivenCam]

Like many on here - I've only ever owned manual transmission cars.  I just prefer to interact more with my vehicles.  I also ride motorcycles.

I have a question that's been bothering me for quite some time though.  And it goes like this..... Are automatics really NOW more efficient than manual transmission cars?  Many seem to make this assumption.  But I think this assumption needs to be challenged.

1.  It seems that virtually any magazine or online publication I've read that involves this discussion - and includes debates among mechanical engineers - all arrive at the same conclusion. Apart from DCTs - manuals are still more efficient in general than CVTs, and multi-speed slushboxes.  I'd be curious to see further debate on this issue.

2.  Others who disagree often point to EPA mileage figures for evidence. Really?!? Can these figures really be used as evidence?  Even in these cases the manual transmission vehicles come pretty close to their automatic counterparts - in terms of fuel economy - yet in many instances the manual version of the same cars are geared much lower.  Take the previous generation Honda Fit for instance and its more favourable EPA highway figures.  At about 110 kph, it revs at around 3500 RPM for the manual (based on online reports).  Many will say that it needs to - to be able to merely maintain it's speed on the highway, as it's a low powered vehicle.  And they weigh more than small Hondas of old.  Yet the 5-speed automatic version of the same car turns 2500 RPM at 110 kph (based on online reports).  So if the argument is true - then the 5-speed automatic Fit would be unable to maintain its speed at 110 km/hr? Of course - this is silly.  The highway RPMs of the 5-speed automatic Fit actually seem to correspond well with what I used to see on the highway with my 5-speed manual 1988 Honda Civic DX Hatch.  So why not gear the manual similarly to the automatic?  I bet the EPA highway numbers would go up noticeably for the manual version.  Some say that owners of small hatchbacks want shorter gearing - so they have better passing power on the highway - and this is who the manufacturers are marketing these cars to.  Really?  Check out all of the complaints online for the previous generation Honda Fit concerning engine RPMs at highways speeds for the 5-speed manual.  While these are admittedly anecdotal reports - is it true that those who purchase the Fit manuals can't simply gear down into 4th, or don't really care about NVH associated with higher RPM, and associated fuel economy penalties?  Strangely - many rejoiced when the new 6-speed manual Fit arrived last year.  They assumed the 6th gear would be taller for better highway fuel economy.  Yet - Honda decided to just make the ratios tighter - so there are more gears - but with 6th being just as short as 5th - in the previous generation.  Nice.

3.  So now I have friends telling me that they would rather purchase a 5-speed automatic transmission car because they are more fuel efficient than the same car in a 5-speed manual.  Their impression is that the fuel-economy advantage of manuals has disappeared - so there is no other reason to now buy one - other than to save perhaps $1500 on the price of the car.  Is this true?  Or is it just that manufacturers are simply gearing manuals lower - perhaps to steer sales to their more expensive automatics?  I'm not one to claim a conspiracy - but manufacturers are claiming the take up rate for manual transmission cars is declining - yet at the same time they seem to be exacerbating the problem by making some of the previous advantages (e.g., fuel economy, cost) less appealing to customers.  Some manufacturers are now resorting to charging extra for a manual transmission equipped vehicles.   Is it any surprise that fewer people (at least in North America) are purchasing manuals?

[Weels]

Which gen Cooper S? I don't find the R56 has that great of a shifter, personally. It's not bad but it doesn't stand out.

Was the one from the affordable fun comparo i took part in last summer

http://www.autos.ca/car-comparisons/comparison-test-affordable-everyday-fun-cars/

I keep flip-flopping between what i liked best - the Mini had the nicest clutch/shifter action (very buttery smooth), but i liked the slightly notchy shifter feel in the MX5 better.  I can't WAIT to get my hands on a 2016.
The Civic was nice too, but I preferred the Mini & MX5

[SaskSpecV]

How many manufactures actually supply a manual worth driving 

What the heck is that supposed to mean?  My fun to drive ratio is so much higher when I test drove the manual Mazda6 vs the auto...

Yeah, well, you can skip the Kias... and sorry Force, but as much as I prefer a manual, Hyundai don't make great manuals, while their automatics are quite good... Fords' ain't that great until you get up into Mustang territory. and credit Subaru for doing a good job on this generation WRX/STI. Nissan manuals are pretty horrid - I absolutely loather the one in the Juke Nismo RS.

I've driven my fair share of great manuals and plenty of mediocre ones. I've only ever driven one or two that were bad enough to make me prefer an automatic.

I only have an "n" of 1 for driving Hyundai manuals - but I can safely attest that the Elantra Touring stock M/T was pretty "meh".  Nothing wrong with it (for a not-particularly-sporty economy car), and I'd still take it any day of the week over an auto, but the throws were quite long and the gates not really well defined.  But the B&M sport shifter improved things considerably - much shorter throws and more precision.  1-2 shift is still a little notchy though.  Maybe Hyundai should partner with the aftermarket more often on these sorts of projects? 

But that B&M shifter is worlds apart from the TSX manual (best I've driven - better than 335xi, A4, G35 manuals, but never tried the S2000 / Miata / Porsches).  It's definitely preferable (less notchy) than the Spec V was though.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I haven't driven a recent manual that I found to be bad. Certainly nowhere near the god awful cable actuated ones from the 1980s.

I think I'm one of the few who don't particularly care for the feel of Honda shifters. They just seem fragile to me. I like a bit of mechanical feedback. The Golf 1.8TSI I drove had a pretty decent feel to it, and I liked the feel of the clutch. Both offered some of the feedback I prefer compared to the last Civic I drove.

[drive67]

Like many on here - I've only ever owned manual transmission cars.  I just prefer to interact more with my vehicles.  I also ride motorcycles.

I have a question that's been bothering me for quite some time though.  And it goes like this..... Are automatics really NOW more efficient than manual transmission cars?  Many seem to make this assumption.  But I think this assumption needs to be challenged.

1.  It seems that virtually any magazine or online publication I've read that involves this discussion - and includes debates among mechanical engineers - all arrive at the same conclusion. Apart from DCTs - manuals are still more efficient in general than CVTs, and multi-speed slushboxes.  I'd be curious to see further debate on this issue.

2.  Others who disagree often point to EPA mileage figures for evidence. Really?!? Can these figures really be used as evidence?  Even in these cases the manual transmission vehicles come pretty close to their automatic counterparts - in terms of fuel economy - yet in many instances the manual version of the same cars are geared much lower.  Take the previous generation Honda Fit for instance and its more favourable EPA highway figures.  At about 110 kph, it revs at around 3500 RPM for the manual (based on online reports).  Many will say that it needs to - to be able to merely maintain it's speed on the highway, as it's a low powered vehicle.  And they weigh more than small Hondas of old.  Yet the 5-speed automatic version of the same car turns 2500 RPM at 110 kph (based on online reports).  So if the argument is true - then the 5-speed automatic Fit would be unable to maintain its speed at 110 km/hr? Of course - this is silly.  The highway RPMs of the 5-speed automatic Fit actually seem to correspond well with what I used to see on the highway with my 5-speed manual 1988 Honda Civic DX Hatch.  So why not gear the manual similarly to the automatic?  I bet the EPA highway numbers would go up noticeably for the manual version.  Some say that owners of small hatchbacks want shorter gearing - so they have better passing power on the highway - and this is who the manufacturers are marketing these cars to.  Really?  Check out all of the complaints online for the previous generation Honda Fit concerning engine RPMs at highways speeds for the 5-speed manual.  While these are admittedly anecdotal reports - is it true that those who purchase the Fit manuals can't simply gear down into 4th, or don't really care about NVH associated with higher RPM, and associated fuel economy penalties?  Strangely - many rejoiced when the new 6-speed manual Fit arrived last year.  They assumed the 6th gear would be taller for better highway fuel economy.  Yet - Honda decided to just make the ratios tighter - so there are more gears - but with 6th being just as short as 5th - in the previous generation.  Nice.

3.  So now I have friends telling me that they would rather purchase a 5-speed automatic transmission car because they are more fuel efficient than the same car in a 5-speed manual.  Their impression is that the fuel-economy advantage of manuals has disappeared - so there is no other reason to now buy one - other than to save perhaps $1500 on the price of the car.  Is this true?  Or is it just that manufacturers are simply gearing manuals lower - perhaps to steer sales to their more expensive automatics?  I'm not one to claim a conspiracy - but manufacturers are claiming the take up rate for manual transmission cars is declining - yet at the same time they seem to be exacerbating the problem by making some of the previous advantages (e.g., fuel economy, cost) less appealing to customers.  Some manufacturers are now resorting to charging extra for a manual transmission equipped vehicles.   Is it any surprise that fewer people (at least in North America) are purchasing manuals?

I never bought a manual because it was cheaper or better fuel economy but the control when you drive.
Automatics are for commuters not drivers. Paddle shifters are a  gimmick no one uses after a few times. Big engine automatic north American muscle car is for the 50+.
Some people look at their car as an appliance where a automatic would be best.
If you want to get the most out of a car buy manual.