Given a well maintained car, which of the two options is cheaper overall over time?
I would think standard. Clutches nowadays seem to last 150K or better on most cars, and most cost less than 1000 to replace. Automatics might hold up even longer, but rarely twice as long. Most cost more than 2000 to rebuild.
Do brakes factor into this equation as well? Having the benefit of transmission braking in a manual will undoubtedly lessen the wear on the brake pads.
Although by doing that, you’re probably wearing out the clutch faster, and brakes are cheaper than clutches.
What about mileage? Standard transmissions generally enjoy somewhere around 2-5 mpg over their automatic counterparts, given the same car.
This isn’t necessarily true in most modern cars. The automatic often has a slightly higher final gear and will often achieve better highway mileage.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2008f.jsp?year=2009&make=Honda&model=Civic&hiddenField=Findacar
If you don’t change gears when slowing down in a standard, I see no reason why your clutch would wear faster. If I’m in 5th coming off the freeway, I can just coast in gear until I get down to where I would need to put it into neutral anyway.
The only way I see to wear out the clutch faster using engine/transmission breaking is if you are constantly putting it in and out of gear. (5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, Neutral)
Also, the mileage gap between standard and automatic has been lessening lately, and I’ve even seen some manufacturer posted mileage estimates of new cars that the automatic is actually higher than the standard counterpart(can’t recall cite ATM), even in an identical model (other than the transmission)
I’m sure it depends on the driver. Manual transmissions will last much longer in the hands of someone who rev-matches and double-clutches than someone first learning how to drive one. Automatics are less affected by driving skill.
I thought double clutching was a thing of the past, given innovations in gearbox design.
Anyone have the dope on that?
From what little I remember:
Double clutching was much more useful before the increases in gearbox design, yes. Specifically, I believe it was the introduction or improvement of the synchromesh (link).
However, I have heard reports that on the rare occaison that the synchros go out, double clutching can at least get you where you are going. Even in my mid-90’s Civic, when I double clutch I can feel the difference in the smoothness of the shift. I know, anecdote != data.
But, in my defence, I put over 100K miles on my first clutch on the car that I learned to drive a standard on.
Past the edit window.
For thos who aren’t familiar with the double clutch technique:
:dubious:Every car I have had, or looked into, in the last few years has had one more gear in a manual than an auto. Thus my Volvo c30 has 6 gears, the automatic version had 5. The EPA site shows both versions more or less identical.
And in your case, that’s a Computer controlled automatic trans.
Here’s another data point with a Chevy, showing better MPG with the manual:
I’m talking about going from fifth (or sixth) to third (or fourth) while you negotiate such an offramp after you have slowed down a little bit. I can slow down much faster, and hardly have to use my brakes. I also can launch from a rolling stop at a light better by downshifting into second and coasting if I can get the light timing right. I don’t need to stop at all.
Yeah, I think double clutching, when done correctly, prevents the synchronizers from having to do much. Since they operate using friction, synchros can wear out eventually so some find it worthwhile to help them out.
I recently got rid of a 1997 Mazda pickup with 250,000 miles on the original clutch. The 2nd gear synchro had apparently started to go, and I found it very helpful to double clutch when coming down into 2nd (to turn a corner, for example). It was sometimes a bit of a struggle to get the shifter into 2nd gear, but a properly rev-matched double clutch would see it slide straight in.
That’s it. I wouldn’t bother when upshifting but it can be really helpful when downshifting to pass someone.
I have a Thunderbird SC with a Mazda M5R2 transmission (maybe the same as your truck) which frequently suffers 1-2 gear synchronizer failure. Double clutching is known to prolong the life of the synchronizer.
Double clutching is no longer required on a modern trans but rev matching on a downshift is good for the gears and is advisable. In fact some advanced transmissions like the automatic in the BMW 335i and probably others blips the loud pedal for you when you are in manual mode and shift down (i.e. 4 to 3 or 3 to 2 etc).
The double clutch (manual) trans in the M3 does the same thing.
And for the poster who coasts from 5th to a stop, what would you do in an emergency - if you had to suddenly accelerate? I was taught to always be in a gear that would get you out of trouble and to this day shift down through the gears as I slow down to a halt. I learned to drive in England in the very early 80s though so maybe the process in the US is different since most people drive autos. Heck here (US) you don’t even need to pass your test on a stick to actually drive one. How dumb is that?
Perhaps not as dumb as it appears to you, keeping in mind that the purpose of a driver’s test in the States is not so much to demonstrate technical proficiency in operating an automobile as to show a knowledge and understanding of traffic rules and regulations. If one knows how to go, steer, and stop, it’s (usually) a minor addition to the skill set to learn how to use a clutch and shift.
Manual transmission vehicles are also less likely to be stolen (at least, according to my own anecdotal experience and logic), or borrowed by friends and family for that matter. Fewer people know how to drive them. That’s got to save money in the long run…TRM