"Zeppo" <zeppo_m@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:68thd6F2ug99jU1@mid.individual.net...

>
> 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.
>

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-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"Newbie" <newbie@no.spam> wrote
> TWO, I am not sure if "apples to apples" is as fair a
> comparison as you
> make it sound. Corolla is available in cheaper versions,
> Prius is not.
> A manual CE would not only cost less but also have better
> mpg.

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.

 

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?

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:b6721$48299e65$6215af4f$12810@ALLTEL.NET...
>
> "Zeppo" <zeppo_m@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:68thd6F2ug99jU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> 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-
> mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
>

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <120520081216367764%rps@null.void>, RPS <rps@null.void>
> wrote:
>
>> I would like basic safety features (line anti-lock brakes) and comforts
>> (4-door, AC). Very high priority running cost (mpg, reliability). I can
>> live with manual or automatic. I would consider new, or low-mileage
>> dealer demos etc, but not "really used". (Like everyone else, I thought
>> about Prius but it looks too expensive.)
>
> Well, you may be thinking that it's "too expensive to buy". It may or
> may not be too expensive to operate.

It's fine, as long as you sell it before the batteries need to be
replaced. Toyota is very clever with the Prius batteries in the way they
never discharge them very deeply, at least in the U.S. (in other
countries there is a button that allow greater electric range by
allowing the batteries to discharger more). This allows them to claim
that they last a very long time, when in fact they are losing efficiency
from day one. _They_ get to decide when the batteries are worn out. It's
similar to how automakers define "normal" oil consumption to avoid
having to repair oil-burning engines.

You're much better off with a Corolla than a Prius, unless you're
driving huge amounts of miles (then you're better off with one of the VW
TDI vehicles). I recently sold something on craigslist to someone that
drove up in a new TDI. Since they don't sell these in California, I
asked him how he got it, and he said that there's a dealer in Marin
county that brings in slightly used TDIs from Oregon (I think they need
7000 miles on them) then sells them as used cars. Very high mileage and
very good engines. VWs have good longevity, even if they have more
initial problems.

 

Newbie wrote:
> Justbob30 <NoThank@you.com> wrote:
>
> : Before you say you cant afford a hybrid, lets take a look at the web site,
> : base Prius $21,100, base Corolla auto (apples to apples) $17,110, difference
> : $2,715,
>
> ONE, the difference between your own numbers is $4000.
>
> TWO, I am not sure if "apples to apples" is as fair a comparison as you
> make it sound. Corolla is available in cheaper versions, Prius is not.
> A manual CE would not only cost less but also have better mpg.

Also, the Prius isn't heavily discounted off of MSRP, while the Corolla
is. There was brief period, after California gave out the maximum number
of carpool lane stickers for hybrids, that Prius street prices fell a
lot, but now with the higher gas prices they're back up.

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> Don't forget the size. The Prius is larger than the Corolla; if you
> think you'd want something larger that also gets good gas mileage,
> that's the Prius. If you think you're stuck with a Corolla-sized car,
> you're not. Not necessarily.

It's a little larger, though it's misleading because the cargo capacity
is higher only if you pile things up so you can't see out the back! It's
still closer to the Corolla in size than the Camry.

Corolla
-------
92.0 cubic feet: passenger compartment
12.3 cubic feet: cargo

Prius
-----
96.2 cubic feet: passenger compartment
16.1 cubic feet: cargo

Camry
-----
101.4 cubic feet: passenger compartment
16.7 cubic feet: cargo

 

Josh S wrote:

> Based on other rechargeable batteries I would expect a significant drop
> off in capacity after 3 to 5 years.
> Since the Prius will still run anyway I'm sure the batteries will be run
> into the ground before replacement.

This is true, but the way Toyota does battery discharging, the _usable_
capacity will be about the same. They don't take full advantage of the
battery, especially on the U.S. models (in other countries there's an
option to do deeper discharge). All they have to do to get ten years of
identical capacity is to slowly increase the discharge level to compensate.

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <1z7Wj.264367$pM4.120239@pd7urf1no>,
> Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>> TWO, I am not sure if "apples to apples" is as fair a comparison as you
>>> make it sound. Corolla is available in cheaper versions, Prius is not.
>>> A manual CE would not only cost less but also have better mpg.
>> Hmmm,
>> Cost of battery pack when it needs replacing?
>
> Is no different than the cost of the traditional automatic transmission
> when it needs replacing.
>
> And after 125K, a traditional auto trans will need replacing. It seems
> to be normal nowadays.

Maybe on some vehicles. I know a lot of high-mileage Corollas (>200K)
and it's certainly not normal to need a new transmission, at least no
one I know of with a high-mileage Corolla (or Camry, or Accord, or
Civic) has ever needed one.

Where did you get the idea that it was "normal?".

 

Zeppo wrote:
> "Newbie" <newbie@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:130520080707350336%newbie@no.spam...
>> Justbob30 <justbob30@nevermind.com> wrote:
>>
>> : 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.
>
> 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.

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.

 

Elle wrote:

>
> 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.
>

>
I don't think so. Can you explain that?

Clay

 

"frijoli" <crabman@dud.net> wrote
> Elle wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
>>
> I don't think so. Can you explain that?

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.

 

Elle wrote:
> "frijoli" <crabman@dud.net> wrote
>> Elle wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>> I don't think so. Can you explain that?
>
> 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.

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.

 

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
> Elle wrote:
>> "frijoli" <crabman@dud.net> wrote
>>> Elle wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> I don't think so. Can you explain that?
>>
>> 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.
>
> Actually, an automatic transmission can easily go 200K
> miles with no repairs or maintenance other than perhaps
> one change of fluid.

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.

> 200K miles of city driving on a manual will require at
> least one clutch change.

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.

 

In article <0sqdnQEWsIx1YLXVnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Justbob30" <NoThank@you.com> wrote:

> Before you say you cant afford a hybrid, lets take a look at the web site,
> base Prius $21,100, base Corolla auto (apples to apples) $17,110, difference
> $2,715, City epa for Prius is 48, Corolla 26 Presuming that is the best you
> could do in either car (not likely) the Prius would use 250 gallons of gas a
> year, the Corolla 461 presuming your 12,000 per year driven....@ lets say
> $4.50 a gallon you would save $949 per year/ 2715=2.8 years for break even,
> then you would save oh I don't know $1000 a year in gas, not to mention be
> driving a MUCH cleaner car and doing your own little part to reduce the use
> of fossil fuel.

A good analysis, but real world consumption figures show the Prius lower
than the EPA rating, much lower in cold winter weather.
On the up side for the Prius here in Canada there are Gov. rebates for
low consumption vehicles, which drop the price of the Prius
significantly, the Camry hybrid quite a bit and even the Corolla
slightly.

 

Elle wrote:

> Actually, you're speaking in possibilities and outliers. I
> am talking about averages.

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.