# Any Mid-sized cars with manual transmissions? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 7, 2015, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-mid-sized-cars-with-manual-transmissions/717057 "2015-04-07T19:03:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-mid-sized-cars-with-manual-transmissions/717057/21 "2015-04-08T13:57:35Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > 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. There’s also that a manual transmission vehicle is less likely to be stolen. On the other hand, for the same reason it’s harder to sell second-hand as well… ETA: For the OP, why not look as something like a Ford Focus? It’s not _that_ small, top end trim lines come very nicely equipped, and they are still available with manual. In fact, the Ford Focus ST is manual only. Bottom line, some of the current “compact” cars are not much smaller than a “midsize” car from 15-20 years ago, and you don’t have to give up the nicer quality and technical gizmos. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-mid-sized-cars-with-manual-transmissions/717057/22 "2015-04-08T14:05:03Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > … you don’t have to give up the nicer quality and technical gizmos. Actually, this should read, “you don’t necessarily have to give up…” Some of the top option packages of “compact” cars sadly do not have manual available. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-mid-sized-cars-with-manual-transmissions/717057/23 "2015-04-08T14:06:49Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > There’s also that a manual transmission vehicle is less likely to be stolen. Is that by number (manuals being a far smaller proportion of any fleet) or percentage? But yeah, car thieves not typically being the brightest of bulbs (although I once knew one of the acknowledged grand masters of the field… long story), autos are easier to rip. Not really a compelling argument for choosing one, though. ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-mid-sized-cars-with-manual-transmissions/717057/24 "2015-04-08T14:14:35Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > 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. weeeeellll… I’m usually a hardcore realist when it comes to the manual vs. automatic flame wars (in that I hold the line that an automatic will always win on economy and emissions.) But I do conceded that a manual may be better for performance _in the hands of a skilled driver._ for example, on a track a skilled driver might know that it’s better to hold in one gear for a stretch or around a curve where an automatic might force a shift. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-mid-sized-cars-with-manual-transmissions/717057/25 "2015-04-08T14:32:22Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Is that by number (manuals being a far smaller proportion of any fleet) or percentage? By %, actually. A lot of would-be thieves can’t even drive manual, especially regarding the joy-ride kind of car theft. And “professional” thieves actually out to resell or part-out cars, who probably _can_ drive them, apparently usually skip over manuals because they aren’t as easy to sell quickly. Hence my comment about it being harder to sell them second-hand–it’s a niche market (to my sadness.) > [@](#): > > But yeah, car thieves not typically being the brightest of bulbs (although I once knew one of the acknowledged grand masters of the field… long story), autos are easier to rip. Not really a compelling argument for choosing one, though. Yeah, not really. But it does remain a small advantage. The biggest one for me by far is the “fun to drive” argument. A sporty call with an automatic just seems really wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-mid-sized-cars-with-manual-transmissions/717057/26 "2015-04-08T14:44:42Z")
> [@jz78817](#): > > As **GreasyJack** alluded to, manual transmissions in cars appeal to two kinds of people: > > 1. Enthusiasts > 2. Cheapskates. > > “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. I’ve been driving for 35 years and have never owned a vehicle with an automatic transmission. The car I have now is a 2011 Honda CR-Z. I love almost everything about it. The look is great with just the right amount of sporty without being an ostentatious wannabe, and the driver side feels like a cockpit. I love the autostop at red lights and when pulling into a gas station, and the corresponding autostart when pulling away. I also love the average 44 mpg I get. The one thing I am not in love with is how quickly I must change gears. Throwing from first to fourth requires going through all the gears in approximately 3 seconds. What’s the point? So I’ve gotten into an admittedly bad habit of changing from first to second, then to fourth (skipping third), and then to sixth (skipping 5th). How much damage am I causing, if any? ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-mid-sized-cars-with-manual-transmissions/717057/27 "2015-04-08T14:56:10Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > I’ve been driving for 35 years and have never owned a vehicle with an automatic transmission. ok. > [@](#): > > The one thing I am not in love with is how quickly I must change gears. Throwing from first to fourth requires going through all the gears in approximately 3 seconds. What’s the point? So I’ve gotten into an admittedly bad habit of changing from first to second, then to fourth (skipping third), and then to sixth (skipping 5th). How much damage am I causing, if any? none. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-mid-sized-cars-with-manual-transmissions/717057/28 "2015-04-08T15:09:51Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > The one thing I am not in love with is how quickly I must change gears. Throwing from first to fourth requires going through all the gears in approximately 3 seconds. What’s the point? So I’ve gotten into an admittedly bad habit of changing from first to second, then to fourth (skipping third), and then to sixth (skipping 5th). How much damage am I causing, if any? None. The car doesn’t care if you go in sequence. If you’re shifting into too low a gear in terms of RPMs and lugging the engine, it might be a different story. Or shifting really late all the time and hitting the rev limiter before you shift. But otherwise you’re good to go, just be sure you’re leaving and landing on a decent amount of RPMs. ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-mid-sized-cars-with-manual-transmissions/717057/29 "2015-04-08T15:17:15Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > None. The car doesn’t care if you go in sequence. If you’re shifting into too low a gear in terms of RPMs and lugging the engine, it might be a different story. Or shifting really late all the time and hitting the rev limiter before you shift. But otherwise you’re good to go, just be sure you’re leaving and landing on a decent amount of RPMs. Yep, there’s an indicator in the dash advising when to shift up or down, and a warning indicator if the RPMs are too high or too low to have shifted, although I don’t need the indicators as the engine immediately complains if I shift up or down outside of the appropriate RPM range. ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-mid-sized-cars-with-manual-transmissions/717057/30 "2015-04-08T15:19:18Z")
> [@jz78817](#): > > ok. > > none. Thanks. It is good to know that my skipping gears is not causing damage. All my previous cars have been 5-speed and I never had to advance through the gears as quickly as my CR-Z requires. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-mid-sized-cars-with-manual-transmissions/717057/31 "2015-04-08T15:29:07Z")
I’m driving a Ford Focus ST, with a 6-speed manual (which is all that is available for that car! Hooray!) I skip gears occasionally, too, especially, shall we say, when engaged in spirited driving. Sounds like you’re doin’ fine. ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-mid-sized-cars-with-manual-transmissions/717057/32 "2015-04-08T15:30:06Z")
the only real ways to damage a manual trans are things like: 1. ham-fisted “powershifting” which can wear or break the gear selector and/or shift forks 2. shifting without disengaging the clutch which can accelerate synchro wear 3. grinding on gear shifts which can rapidly wear out or trash the dog collars. ---
**Author:** ![GreasyJack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/df705f/32.png) [@GreasyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreasyJack)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-mid-sized-cars-with-manual-transmissions/717057/33 "2015-04-08T15:55:15Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > 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.” That’s all somewhat true, and simply the costs of engineering any extra option become hard to amortize with a low take rate, but modern automatics are still _massively_ more expensive than the manual which hasn’t changed much since the 60’s. There’s all sorts of shell games they do with pricing of course, but I think in general the extra $1-3k you can expect to pay for an automatic these days is probably a pretty reasonable approximation of how much more it actually costs to make. If you’re looking at a $13k Ford Fiesta or something similar that’s still pretty significant. > [@jz78817](#): > > 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. It’s certainly true that it’s more of a challenge getting a manual transmission car to play nice with the electronic engine controls given all the crazy stuff a human driver can do. However, at least in the US it’s not really a certification problem because they just test what the emissions are for a normal drive cycle. They don’t actually test to see what it’ll do under whatever crazy conditions an unskilled or bored driver might put the car. Furthermore, all of the more run-of-the-mill cars who’s manual options have disappeared from the US in the last few years are still offered in other countries. The actual engineering work of making a manual option that will pass an emissions test and won’t damage the emissions equipment if the driver does something crazy has already been done. ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-mid-sized-cars-with-manual-transmissions/717057/34 "2015-04-08T16:08:19Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s certainly true that it’s more of a challenge getting a manual transmission car to play nice with the electronic engine controls given all the crazy stuff a human driver can do. However, at least in the US it’s not really a certification problem because they just test what the emissions are for a normal drive cycle. They don’t actually test to see what it’ll do under whatever crazy conditions an unskilled or bored driver might put the car. the problem is that the test is still done by a person operating the car. Yes, it’s done on rolls, but even a trained test operator isn’t able to shift as smoothly as an electronically controlled automatic. I’ve witnessed emissions cert testing. I know how it works. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, all of the more run-of-the-mill cars who’s manual options have disappeared from the US in the last few years are still offered in other countries. The actual engineering work of making a manual option that will pass an emissions test and won’t damage the emissions equipment if the driver does something crazy has already been done. nonsense. Just because it’s acceptable in one region doesn’t mean it will pass standards here. the EPA emissions requirements have clamped down hard on trace pollutants, and are even stricter than e.g. Europe on things like NOx. Which is one key reason all of those diesel cars you can get in Europe don’t make their way over here. ---
**Author:** ![GreasyJack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/df705f/32.png) [@GreasyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreasyJack)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-mid-sized-cars-with-manual-transmissions/717057/35 "2015-04-08T16:41:09Z")
> [@jz78817](#): > > the problem is that the test is still done by a person operating the car. Yes, it’s done on rolls, but even a trained test operator isn’t able to shift as smoothly as an electronically controlled automatic. I’ve witnessed emissions cert testing. I know how it works. I am highly skeptical that the difference in tailpipe emissions between an equivalent car with an automatic and a manual being driven normally would even be measurable, let alone be the difference between passing and failing certification. The extra programming you have to do on a manual has everything to do with maintaining drivability and preventing damage to the engine or smog equipment in the face of an unpredictable driver. Unless there is some country somewhere that tests for “emissions when driver overrevvs badly on every shift” or “emissions when driver decides to just drive around in 2nd all day” that particular bit of engineering can pretty much just migrate over from market to market intact. (Also, the yawning gap between US and European emissions standards has pretty much closed over the last few years. At least in terms of emissions, at least any gasoline-powered car sold there could be sold here with minimal to no modifications.) ---
**Author:** ![Orionizer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orionizer/32/4442_2.png) [@Orionizer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orionizer)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-mid-sized-cars-with-manual-transmissions/717057/36 "2015-04-08T16:59:39Z")
> [@jz78817](#): > > Worse is that the Patriot had a CVT, which is its own big barrel of suck. Not to hijack, but what is it about CVT that sucks so badly? I’m not a technical car guy, so I’m not educated in this area at all, but I read the WIKI description and it looks like it would be better power distribution across the board. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-mid-sized-cars-with-manual-transmissions/717057/37 "2015-04-08T17:14:43Z")
> [@Orionizer](#): > > Not to hijack, but what is it about CVT that sucks so badly? I’m not a technical car guy, so I’m not educated in this area at all, but I read the WIKI description and it looks like it would be better power distribution across the board. 😕 I hated it, mostly because I prefer a standard transmission. Any kind of a load (like a light utility trailer) and the vehicle struggled. ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-mid-sized-cars-with-manual-transmissions/717057/38 "2015-04-08T17:29:36Z")
> [@GreasyJack](#): > > I am highly skeptical that the difference in tailpipe emissions between an equivalent car with an automatic and a manual being driven normally would even be measurable, let alone be the difference between passing and failing certification. that’s your prerogative, I guess. > [@](#): > > The extra programming you have to do on a manual has everything to do with maintaining drivability and preventing damage to the engine or smog equipment in the face of an unpredictable driver. Unless there is some country somewhere that tests for “emissions when driver overrevvs badly on every shift” or “emissions when driver decides to just drive around in 2nd all day” that particular bit of engineering can pretty much just migrate over from market to market intact. you’re being absurd here. The issue is how rapidly the engine changes speed/load when the driver/tester engages the clutch after a shift. if you’re inclined to disbelieve this can make a difference just because it “doesn’t sound right to you,” so be it. But [here](http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/9100X53N.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1976+Thru+1980&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C76thru80%5CTxt%5C00000020%5C9100X53N.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL) is a doc from the EPA itself showing how even just different shift points during testing affect tailpipe emissions. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-mid-sized-cars-with-manual-transmissions/717057/39 "2015-04-08T17:32:55Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > I hated it, mostly because I prefer a standard transmission. Any kind of a load (like a light utility trailer) and the vehicle struggled. I’ve got a CVT on my Outback. Except for the slightly annoying noise under load I haven’t noticed any issues with it. And I’ve driven all manuals before this car. ---
**Author:** ![GreasyJack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/df705f/32.png) [@GreasyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreasyJack)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-mid-sized-cars-with-manual-transmissions/717057/40 "2015-04-08T17:41:42Z")
> [@jz78817](#): > > you’re being absurd here. The issue is how rapidly the engine changes speed/load when the driver/tester engages the clutch after a shift. if you’re inclined to disbelieve this can make a difference just because it “doesn’t sound right to you,” so be it. But [here](http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/9100X53N.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1976+Thru+1980&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C76thru80%5CTxt%5C00000020%5C9100X53N.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL) is a doc from the EPA itself showing how even just different shift points during testing affect tailpipe emissions. That document doesn’t even remotely show what you’re claiming. It says that emissions change depending on the shift point. That’s pretty obvious (although is probably less true now than it was for a '77 Chevette) but different shift points can be achieved lots of different ways. It has _nothing_ to do with more emissions resulting simply from the shifts being performed by a human driver instead of an automatic transmission, which is what you’re claiming. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-mid-sized-cars-with-manual-transmissions/717057.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-mid-sized-cars-with-manual-transmissions/717057.md?page=3)