My family is getting larger, and the wife’s 10 year old Mazda6 is starting to show its age.
We would really like a new, mid-sized (or larger) car with a manual transmission. The new Mazda6’s appear to be our only option.
Up until recently, the new Ford Fusion was available with a puny turbo’d 1.8L and a manual, but it was dropped for 2015. Too bad, I think it’s a handsome car.
Do you know of a new mid-sized car (2015 model year and on), available with the ole three-pedal?
That was easy!
Thank you jz!
Nice!
As a driver who prefers manual transmission, I find it annoying that my car choices are so restrictive. Even worse is when only the lower trim level will have manual.
This is why I bought my first Mazda: a 2015 Mazda6 Touring. Yet I couldn’t get heated seats or GPS.
I should move overseas where manuals are more prevalent.
Makers can’t afford to offer cars on the GM plan, with nearly any of hundreds of options available a la carte on every model.
I like manuals, too, but modern autos are so good in nearly every respect that I’m not surprised there’s little demand for them outside of sporting models.
realize that manuals are more prevalent in those markets because engines are a lot smaller. Case in point, the base engine for a UK Ford Fiesta is a 60 hp 1.2 liter engine, compared to the 1.6 liter base engine in a US Fiesta which has twice the hp.
Looks like I’ll never own a 5 series newer than 2014.
What does the size of the engine have to do with whether or not you have a manual? All the muscle cars in the not so distant past had manual transmissions.
I think that’s because gas is about the equivalent of 6+ bucks a gallon over there.
when you only have 50 or 60 hp, you don’t have much to spare for the trans to soak up. modern automatics take a lot less power to run than boxes of old, but when you have little power in the first place then the effect is proportionally larger.
that’s because back then manual transmissions:
Neither are true anymore. for manuals 7 speeds seem to be the limit, and a single-countershaft box is limited to about 650 to 700 lb-ft of input torque. Meanwhile, we have 8- and 9-speed automatics (with 10-speeds coming out next year) and some can handle 800+ lb-ft of input torque.
You might be able to find a leftover 2014 Subaru Legacy or Outback with one. They only ditched the stick in those this year.
Take the Mazda6: same engine across all 3 trim levels. But the manual is not offered with the top trim.
Other cars are similar.
Finding a midsize with a stick won’t be easy. Not likely to see one on a dealer’s lot if you want a new one.
Jeep Wrangler!!!
I never owned an automatic transmission until I bought a 2009 Jeep Patriot. I finally could justify trading it in on a new Wrangler. I’m happy again.
When I got my Mazda CX-5 last year I was really disappointed that they only offered a manual with the 2.0 engine. I went with the larger 2.5 engine, but the automatic just isn’t as fun to drive as a stick.
The big reason why the trim levels with small engines have stick shifts these days is simply the cost of the transmission. In the US, for various reasons the used car market is pretty robust so there isn’t much of a market for low-spec ultra cheap new cars like there still is among certain buyers in Europe and elsewhere. In the US, the sort of cheapskate buyer that’s going to balk at an extra $1500 for an automatic (or $2000 for a bigger engine, or $500 for power windows, etc) is just going to buy a used car so the car makers don’t even bother offering those poverty-spec cars here anymore.
As GreasyJack alluded to, manual transmissions in cars appeal to two kinds of people:
“Enthusiasts” because they want the experience, and “cheapskates” because they think it’ll save them money on the purchase (it might) and on fuel (probably not.) The simple fact is that the percentage of buyers who want a manual transmission on a mainstream car like an Accord, Fusion, etc. is small and continually shrinking. Automakers have to deal with the heartburn of certifying manual transmission versions of their vehicles for crash, fuel economy, and emissions separately from the equivalent automatic-equipped versions. And one thing people tend not to realize is that it’s a lot harder to certify manual transmissions for emissions. See, engines hate abrupt changes in RPM/load, and no matter how good you think you are a human will never shift as smoothly as a computer-controlled automatic or DCT. And when you let out the clutch aggressively causing your engine to drop several hundred RPM in a short time, it belches out trace pollutants that are harder and harder to clean up as emissions standards get more strict. so as the take rate for manuals decreases, the business case for offering them gets harder to justify.
Now, for performance-geared cars, there will be manual transmissions for as long as possible because the take rate justifies it. I have a recent Mustang GT with a 6-speed manual, and last I read the take rate for manual trans on the Mustang was something like 50-60% for the GT and 30-40% for the V6. That makes it still worth doing. The Fusion, on the other hand… no frickin’ way. I’d be shocked if the take rate for a manual trans on a '13 or '14 Fusion was higher than 2-3%.
Worse is that the Patriot had a CVT, which is its own big barrel of suck.
Just FYI, my boyfriend had a manual VW CC. That thing was like the TARDIS- it was HUGE on the inside, but sleek on the outside. He loved loved loved that car and the attention it got him(people would approach him at gas stations and stores and compliment him on the car, and it was my favorite of the several he’s had), and hated trading it in. Unfortunately National Capital Region traffic is not conducive to having a manual, so no more CC. 
You should definitely take a look at it.
Great list. I came to post that the VW Passat is still available with a manual, with various engines, including, I think, the new diesel, which will probably be my next car once my present Passat reaches the end of its life. Which could be a while – it’s a 2002, but it only has about 50,000 miles, maybe a bit less, on it.
I’m not even sure that’s true for any signficant level of the term. The way vehicles are engineered these days, it’s not a matter of taking parts collection 1-99 and adding part number 100, which might be a cheaper or 'spensiver item. Manual and auto vehicles are completely different in many places and by the time you’ve eliminated manual shift linkage and clutch pedal gear, you’ve likely saved much of the cost of a cooler and the other bits that are unique to autos, as well as having simpler overall external gear. (A simple cable-driven gear selector vs. one complex enough to handle 5-speed shifting of an FWD transaxle with decent “feel” and longevity.)
Autos are more complex internally but still only a patch on the engineering and manufacturing sophistication of modern engines. And, as noted, they are not only far better at managing driveline conditions for fuel economy, emissions, and road conditions, but for overall performance as well.
Barring a very few vehicles that have crappy auto options, the only reason to choose a manual any more is (1) for the fun of it. The very modest weight and cost savings vanish into the overall picture.
We’re a long ways from the days of “performance cars have a lean, mean manual and only Mom’s old station wagon has a heavy, gas-hogging slushbox.”