Consider the conditions you’re likely to be driving in. If you’re doing a lot of stop-and-go commuting on trafficky roads, the manual gear-shifting may get tiresome. Starting from a stop in hilly driving can be more challenging. Also, bear in mind that it’s harder to eat or drink in the car if you have to keep freeing up one hand for the stick shift.
All things being equal, a manual transmission will still get slightly better mileage than an automatic. But car makers have realized that most people who buy manuals these days do so because they like driving them and so they make the gear ratios lower on the manual version, resulting in zippier performance but lower fuel economy.
I agree with this, though some people seem to care more than others, and it really depends on what type of driving you do. I’ve always had manual transmission cars (I’ve been driving for about 17 years). I’ve had my current manual transmission car for 10 years. I do think manual transmissions are more fun to drive. But just today I ordered a new car, and I opted for an automatic transmission. For 90% of my real world day to day driving, the “fun” factor of the manual is outweighed by the annoyance of using it in heavy traffic. There are many things that make cars more fun to drive (big engines, stiff suspensions, sporty steering) that end up being less appealing for a daily driver in an urban area.
So, despite agreeing with (some of) the advantages, I doubt I’ll ever buy a manual transmission car again. That said, for the OP’s situation, manual might be the way to go if for no other reason than likely lower maintenance costs.
FWIW, The automatic I got on my new car (and the automatic on our other car) has a “manual” mode so you can shift manually if you really feel the urge, but it’s not quite the same, and I virtually never bother…
One more big advantage is that one can “push start” a manual.
If you are looking for a Honda Civic, at that mileage, it’s probably from the early 2000s. In that case, you probably shouldn’t get an automatic because the Honda automatic transmissions from that era are shoddily built pieces of shit. The manual transmission is only slightly better but still shit. Owners of Honda Accords from that era were able to successfully sue Honda for their defective transmissions but AFAIK Civics are SOL.
Here’s a better idea: Don’t buy a Honda Civic from that era. A 2002+ Ford Focus, for example, would be a far superior choice.
Thanks for the advice, I was looking at cars from around 2000-2002. Are the Civics before 2000 OK ? I am also looking at Integras but most I find are from 99 and earlier.
I’ve had all automatics. Two lived to 180K when the motor died.
One is around 180K and still running
One is over 233K and still running.
All on the original transmissions.
The only exception was a 1983 Chevy, in which the transmission died twice under 40K miles. The previous owner was a leadfoot, so that might have had something to do with it. The second time the transmission died, the repair was still under warranty from the first repair. Didn’t have any other issues with transmission from then on.
Now, that car was utter crap, even without that. Something was always breaking, and for the five years I had it, it was nothing but problems.
However, as always, YMMV.
1996-2000 generation is OK. The 2000-2005 Si with the 6 speed is also OK albeit less common and more expensive. Last generation for the Integra was 1997-2001 and they used the old 96-2000 Civic gear box so they should be OK too.
Honda Civics and Acura Integras are very poor choices for used cars because they:
-
Tend to retain resale value, which for you the used car buyer is a bad thing.
-
Use interference engines with timing belts. This sometimes works well with point #1, It is possible to never actually change the belt, since they retain their value, when the belt change interval comes up you can always dump the car on some unsuspecting college girl who thinks Hondas run forever with no maintainance. for a net loss of less than the cost of the belt job.
-
Attract young male buyers who tend to drive the crap out of them.
-
Are theft magnets with corresponding high insurance costs.
Your best bets in order from best-worst:
- 2002+ Ford Focus.
- A Toyota Corolla of some sort. It will suffer from he same high resale value and also be much worse driving than the Focus due to the cheap torsion bar rear suspension, but reliable and fuel efficient.
3)Some second rate Japanese compact car, Mazda protoge, Mitsubishi Mirage, Nissan Sentra, maybe a Subaru Impreza, etc. They have their quirks and some have high parts costs because of low sales volumes but most are OK for reliability.
4)Some larger GM/Chrysler car. GM/Chrysler’s small cars are all shit. Actually pretty much everything they made from that era except the Corvette and Viper was shit, but occasionally they had a good one, e.g. the 2003+ Chrysler LH cars, or 4 cyl manual transmission Sebrings. You need to do more research to know which ones.
An old Integra or Civic is a theft magnet? Maybe I’m wrong but I think if I am going to steal cars and risk prison I want to steal something worth more than $3-5k.
I don’t have a problem with the prices I see for Civics or Integras , there are plenty for sale around here at good prices. I am looking at Corollas too. I am not looking at cars only based on price. Also a lot of Civics I see are 4 doors and I don’t think those are bought by young males.
I would never in a million years buy a used GM or Chrysler car, you could not even pay me to drive one.
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=434545
Also, many car thieves aren’t looking to sell the car – some are just looking for an easy joy ride or transpotration from A to B. Many are on drugs and aren’t thinking through their decisions carefully. Those old Hondas are easy targets.
I should add that where I live, car theft is basically a non issue. Also here in NC we have among the lowest insurance rates in the country. It’s been that way for a long while. I am shocked when I hear what people in other states pay for car insurance.
My manual-transmission '03 Maxima refuses to be push started. I tried it once while cruising down the street:
- hold clutch to floor
- key off until engine dies
- key on
- clutch out, engine being driven by wheels at previous cruise RPM
- clutch in, engine dies
I don’t know if it’s an ant-theft thing or a safety thing, but after a key-off event, the computer refuses to run the engine again until the key has gone all the way to the “crank engine” position.
But that doesn’t mean it can’t be push-started, it just means you need to turn the key to “start” as part of the process. And while your perfectly running car would have started when you did that, a car that won’t crank because of a low battery or faulty starter will then be able to start via push-starting, while it could not start from merely turning the key.
For the same price, you can get a Ford Focus with half the miles and 5 years newer. There is no question the Focus will be more reliable and requires no timing belts. According to the NHTSA it is also significantly safer in a crash.
It may have an alternator with no permanent magnets and require the the key in the ‘crank engine’ position to ‘excite’ the coils in the alternator. This will only work if the battery can supply enough power to do that. But that’s just a guess.
Yes, but it’s so ugly! (Not as bad as a Prius, I’ll grant).
Who says the Focus is more reliable than a Civic? Not Consumer Reports who have the best ratings around on reliability. Check out the April 2010 issue.
You shouldn’t try to teach people with a stick. Try kindness, instead.
Because the Focus is 5 years newer and has half the mileage?
Consumer Reports also has the 2001 Honda Accord on it’s recommended list. I use to read Consumer Reports when I was a child, nowadays I don’t need it because I actually know what the common problems and repair costs across various models and generations are and I can understand non-linear data without some magazine breaking it down into little red and black circles and blanket generalizations with no specifics. In any case since you don’t want to hear anything that doesn’t conform to your specific world view, buy whatever you like.
A newer car with less miles is always more reliable than an older car? It doesn’t matter the brand or how the car was driven or maintained? So I should ignore everything else, just buy the newer car and I’m better off?