Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I prefer a manual from a reliability standpoint. It's not uncommon for manuals to be functioning perfectly at 250,000 miles, although pretty much any manual with that mileage will have needed one or maybe even two clutch replacements. It's very uncommon for an auto to make it that far without an expensive rebuild, even if you are still changing ATF fluid with high quality synthetic every 25-30K miles. You generally only need to change manual trans gear oil every 50K miles. Clutch replacements can run $700 or so on average, but that's way cheaper than an average $2.5K auto trans rebuild.
A lot of automatic defensiveness in here even though so far it's just been about the positives of the manual rather than attacking autos...
It's not like manuals have not evolved. There are feather light assisted clutches with features like hill hold assist these days which are quite different from the manuals of old. I actually prefer a manual in traffic as it's always my right leg in an automatic that ends up bugging me in bumper to bumper traffic. Easier to crawl in first gear or just give it a bump with a partial clutch engagement and cruise along without touching the brakes in a manual.
Comparing it to a smart phone isn't quite right. An automatic transmission is a ~$1000 option to make your car slower, less mechanically efficient, and less engaging. It's like if going to a smart phone meant that it did not perform calls as well despite being much more expensive than a flip phone....oh wait.
have you been paying attention to how the epa tests(well epa designed and manufacturer performed in most cases) have not been reflecting real world numbers?
Do realize that really just means lifetime of the warranty right? I would get that changed.
I've yet to see an automatic put down more power than a manual and doubt I ever would. Traditional automatics will always have more drivetrain loss just due to the mechanics.
Not with lockup torque converters that physically lock the inside and outside of the converter together for a locked up direct drive connection that is the same as an engaged clutch. Automatic cars have had those for many, many years now. Hell, the 2004R that I have in a '79 Chevy pickup has one.
Quote:
Any better mileage out of the automatic is just due to design choice on the gearing to make the equivalent manual sportier but even then in the same model manual owners usually turn in better numbers.
Your first statement is true, the design choices of modern automatics make them both quicker and deliver better fuel economy. But manual drivers of the same model rarely can beat them. Mostly DUE to those design choices (the auto has better gearing, quicker shifts, etc). Look at modern car specs between equivalent cars and the Autos are faster. DCTs definitely are, but even the torque converter modern autoboxes are seeing the same kinds of advantages in performance and economy both. Most of them are better at matching the gear to the driving than they used to be, too, though some still fall on their face in that regard (the autobox in the current MINI Cooper is a good example of that. The gearbox tends to hunt around more than it should).
Most automatics, however, are tuned for smooth shifts and luxurious, seamless shifting. For the longest time, this did indeed mean they got worse fuel economy and slower acceleration. Older transmissions, like the 2 and 3 speed Domestic units of the '60s-80s, could be upgraded however, to shift much firmer and faster and have much better acceleration than manuals, mostly because they could build power during the shift. Modern transmissions are much better in this regard.
Do realize that really just means lifetime of the warranty right? I would get that changed.
Oh, I know, but it's well known that a flush and refill at this kind of mileage often induces failure due to dislodging years of gunk buildup... My last one was still perfect at 185k miles, and I have friends with the same model car (E38 BMW) that have 225-250k miles on the original transmissions and fluids.
The complexity only matters out of warranty, but even then, modern transmissions are lasting a long time. My own daily driver has 155k miles on it's original 5 speed automatic and "lifetime fill" fluid.
Rational people drive their vehicles much longer than the warranty. 300 bucks for a clutch vs 3k for a tranny? easy decision.
Oh, I know, but it's well known that a flush and refill at this kind of mileage often induces failure due to dislodging years of gunk buildup... My last one was still perfect at 185k miles, and I have friends with the same model car (E38 BMW) that have 225-250k miles on the original transmissions and fluids.
You are only 50k over. Should absolutely change it ASAP. Why in the world would you not change it? Its like not getting an oil change.
Driving a stick is too much trouble for my tastes. I just want to get where I'm going.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
