Well,
I'd like to hear if manual is worse on the engine than the auto. The argument I hear is that manual cars will lose value much faster BECAUSE manual tranny kills engine 3x as fast as the auto...I have hard time believing that.
thanks

 

I have never heard of that theory. My manual truck has a 5 speed with 152k miles on it with no problems with the engine's performance.

 

Don't know who you listen to but they have no clue about cars and you should stop listening to them

 

manual is only $1k cheaper. only possible way manual can be more harmfull is when u redline it every single time.

 

The reason family cars with manual transmissions are usually cheaper than those with autos is because 99% of americans are lazy and don't want to do any extra work, including shifting gears, thus they seek automatic transmissions. Higher demand for automatics = higher prices. Economics 101.

 

Actually, if the value drops at all it's because the majority of Americans are too stupid to comprehend the function of a manual, thus it's less sellable. Besides, it's a safety hazzard because it's too hard to coordinate a clutch, a brake, gas, a shifter and your cell phone/cigarette/makup/coffee etc.


98 Maxima SE
5-speed with 114,000 miles.

 

crap, someone beat me to it by just a couple minutes!

 

Many times a manual car will be driven harder since most of the people who would take the extra effort to drive a manual normally push the car more. Of course this doesn't always apply. But realistically there is no additional physical wear on the engine from the different types of trannies.

 

I agree with the other responses. I had a 85 Honda Accord manual that was my high school car, everyone borrowed it, we drove it in the sand, and that thing still got me 205k miles. Moms had an 86 accord, 180k miles till I was hit by a drunk driver in it.

 

My auto cost the same as a manual when I bought my 02 SE.

 

It's the driver the causes wear and tear on an engine, not the tranny.

 

When the G35 came out, it cost more to get a manual transmission

 

I guess I can envision the notion that Americans are lazy. It's finally starting to catch up with us. I wonder if 25 years from now, whether we will be the world's most powerful nation, or not? Over the last decade China has kicked our butts. Korea too.

Anyway, I don't think demand has anything to do with the higher price of automatics. The price is artificial, just as the price of super unleaded gasoline. Oil was $59/barrel, super was 2.199. Oil went below $50, super was 2.399. No relationship whatsoever.

The last generation BMW 540i cost more with a manual than automatic. Again, that's pricing/marketing, as the demand for the automatic 540 was greater than the manual.

 

Correct me if i am wrong. When an auto is in D at a full stop, and you are pressing brakes down, the engine wants to move the car but your brakes are stopping it. So you strain the engine more i guess.

 

Not true, its all about economics. There wasn't a huge demand for maxima's with a 5-speed so nissan didn't make that many. If you take a look at auto trader, well taken care of 5 speeds usually go for as much as a well taken care auto.

 

An auto has a torque conveter to "seperate" the engine and tranny much like a clutch would. So no that does not wear out the engine any more. The TC normally doesn't wear out like a clutch does however.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/torque-converter1.htm

 

I disagree. If you look at the world as one marketplace, the "demand" for manuals is high. Ask your European friends how many of them don't know how to drive a stick, or fly into a European airport and see what kind of tranny your rental car has.

The reason that you don't find a lot of 5-spd cars for sale in autotrader is the manuals are usually wholesaled-off, not retailed. They're hard to move. Why does a well-taken care of 5-spd defy KBB or NADA as you say? It doesn't.

And if it is economics as you say, care to elaborate? Don't just say supply/demand, explain yourself.

 

wtf are you all saying -issues of economics have to do nothing with this topic.

I suppose there is a difference in longevity of the engine equipped with a manual tranny is less than the same equipped with auto tranny. When shifting a manual, we do let go of our gas pedal, thus decreasing the RPMs, and running to a higher rpm's in each gear before we shift. That way there's a bigger load on camshaft bearings...BUT there is nothing to be concerned about: modern engines are very advanced and internals are made to last. Your engine is more likely to fail because of oil pump or head gasket failure.

 

Europe is starting to sell more and more automatics...the reason why they drive mostly manuals is because it's more fuel efficient.

 

That's right, genius. Xenon headlamps, satellite navigation, ABS on a bare-bones car. Those are all big-ticket $ items on the option list. Their pricing has nothing to do with economics. If they do, explain. That's so cliche to say "it's ECON 101." What the Fed did today at 2:15 pm, that's economics, and trust me, Greenspan did not mention aging 4th gen Maximas in his report.

 

You're not the one to teach me about economics, you idiot.

The guy simply asked if there's any reason to believe that engines paired with manual tranny are more likely to wear out faster compared to ones w/automatic tranny. He did not ask if the brand new car equipped with auto typically cost more, and has better resale.

Everyone but the two ppl had shifted the topic into discussion of why there aren't many manual-equipped cars sold in the US, and why are they so popular in Europe.

 

never heard of that theory myself...

 

You're the idiot. Part of the original poster's theory was 5-speeds losing value much faster than autos because of the supposed added stress to the engine. So resale value and the economics of it is relevent to the discussion.

 

IMO, since autos are becoming the 'standard', there is more research and $ going into manuals (6 spd) then autos. Thats why they are the same price, or, in some cases, cost more then an auto. Low volume = Higher price

 

What's the rpms @65 mph on an auto vs. manual?

 

^That doesnt matter since you can be doing that in 3 different gears in a stick.
I still cant believe this dumb thread is alive

 

OK, what are the RPMS on those 3 gears?

 

I think the rpms are about 2700-2800 at 65 in 5th. A buddy of mine has an intrepid and its an auto and does about 2200 at 70mph. For some reason it seems like maxs rev higher, probably because of engine make. Engines are made to run and endure. Cars mostly highway driven seem to last awhile, and seem to run cleaner because of exhaust velocity etc, blows out more carbon therefore less build up. The transmissions are different story, it seems like autos go out more and are more sensitive. More to worry about like fluid levels,hydrolic pressure, and clean filter. With manuals you only have to worry about replacing the clutch and gear oil every blue moon. On a manual, it's easier to abuse the engine like a bad downshift, over reving the engine, etc. it depends on the driver. Most manual drivers that own a max know how to drive it properly. I would buy a used 5 speed max before a new auto anyday.