Honda Car Forum

"Zeppo" <zeppo_m@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:68thd6F2ug99jU1@mid.individual.net...

>
> And as gas prices climb closer to $4/gal, small efficient manual
> transmission vehicles will be more desirable. I expect to see a premium on
> manual trans, small engine cars pretty soon in the US.
>

As CVT's gain ground, the benefits of a manual transmission (in terms of
fuel economy) fade. Most CVT's are either equaling or exceeding the mpg
rating of manuals. I'm not ready to trust CVT's yet, and prefer to see them
proven over time, but they do show promise.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

"Newbie" <newbie@no.spam> wrote
> TWO, I am not sure if "apples to apples" is as fair a
> comparison as you
> make it sound. Corolla is available in cheaper versions,
> Prius is not.
> A manual CE would not only cost less but also have better
> mpg.

Most of the reason a manual Toyota Corolla still gets better
mpg than an automatic Toyota Corolla is that the manual has
a 5-speed tranny while the auto has a 4-speed one.

For other makes and models, and in the last five years or
so, changes in auto tranny design have resulted in it often
surpassing manual trannies when it comes to mpg, when
comparing the same models whose only difference is the
tranny.

CVT's have been in common production since 1989, Subaru Justy & Honda Civic
HCH how long do they need to be around before you can trust them?

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:b6721$48299e65$6215af4f$12810@ALLTEL.NET...
>
> "Zeppo" <zeppo_m@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:68thd6F2ug99jU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>>
>> And as gas prices climb closer to $4/gal, small efficient manual
>> transmission vehicles will be more desirable. I expect to see a premium
>> on manual trans, small engine cars pretty soon in the US.
>>
>
> As CVT's gain ground, the benefits of a manual transmission (in terms of
> fuel economy) fade. Most CVT's are either equaling or exceeding the mpg
> rating of manuals. I'm not ready to trust CVT's yet, and prefer to see
> them proven over time, but they do show promise.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
>

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <120520081216367764%rps@null.void>, RPS <rps@null.void>
> wrote:
>
>> I would like basic safety features (line anti-lock brakes) and comforts
>> (4-door, AC). Very high priority running cost (mpg, reliability). I can
>> live with manual or automatic. I would consider new, or low-mileage
>> dealer demos etc, but not "really used". (Like everyone else, I thought
>> about Prius but it looks too expensive.)
>
> Well, you may be thinking that it's "too expensive to buy". It may or
> may not be too expensive to operate.

It's fine, as long as you sell it before the batteries need to be
replaced. Toyota is very clever with the Prius batteries in the way they
never discharge them very deeply, at least in the U.S. (in other
countries there is a button that allow greater electric range by
allowing the batteries to discharger more). This allows them to claim
that they last a very long time, when in fact they are losing efficiency
from day one. _They_ get to decide when the batteries are worn out. It's
similar to how automakers define "normal" oil consumption to avoid
having to repair oil-burning engines.

You're much better off with a Corolla than a Prius, unless you're
driving huge amounts of miles (then you're better off with one of the VW
TDI vehicles). I recently sold something on craigslist to someone that
drove up in a new TDI. Since they don't sell these in California, I
asked him how he got it, and he said that there's a dealer in Marin
county that brings in slightly used TDIs from Oregon (I think they need
7000 miles on them) then sells them as used cars. Very high mileage and
very good engines. VWs have good longevity, even if they have more
initial problems.

Newbie wrote:
> Justbob30 <NoThank@you.com> wrote:
>
> : Before you say you cant afford a hybrid, lets take a look at the web site,
> : base Prius $21,100, base Corolla auto (apples to apples) $17,110, difference
> : $2,715,
>
> ONE, the difference between your own numbers is $4000.
>
> TWO, I am not sure if "apples to apples" is as fair a comparison as you
> make it sound. Corolla is available in cheaper versions, Prius is not.
> A manual CE would not only cost less but also have better mpg.

Also, the Prius isn't heavily discounted off of MSRP, while the Corolla
is. There was brief period, after California gave out the maximum number
of carpool lane stickers for hybrids, that Prius street prices fell a
lot, but now with the higher gas prices they're back up.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> Don't forget the size. The Prius is larger than the Corolla; if you
> think you'd want something larger that also gets good gas mileage,
> that's the Prius. If you think you're stuck with a Corolla-sized car,
> you're not. Not necessarily.

It's a little larger, though it's misleading because the cargo capacity
is higher only if you pile things up so you can't see out the back! It's
still closer to the Corolla in size than the Camry.

Corolla
-------
92.0 cubic feet: passenger compartment
12.3 cubic feet: cargo

Prius
-----
96.2 cubic feet: passenger compartment
16.1 cubic feet: cargo

Camry
-----
101.4 cubic feet: passenger compartment
16.7 cubic feet: cargo

Josh S wrote:

> Based on other rechargeable batteries I would expect a significant drop
> off in capacity after 3 to 5 years.
> Since the Prius will still run anyway I'm sure the batteries will be run
> into the ground before replacement.

This is true, but the way Toyota does battery discharging, the _usable_
capacity will be about the same. They don't take full advantage of the
battery, especially on the U.S. models (in other countries there's an
option to do deeper discharge). All they have to do to get ten years of
identical capacity is to slowly increase the discharge level to compensate.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <1z7Wj.264367$pM4.120239@pd7urf1no>,
> Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>> TWO, I am not sure if "apples to apples" is as fair a comparison as you
>>> make it sound. Corolla is available in cheaper versions, Prius is not.
>>> A manual CE would not only cost less but also have better mpg.
>> Hmmm,
>> Cost of battery pack when it needs replacing?
>
> Is no different than the cost of the traditional automatic transmission
> when it needs replacing.
>
> And after 125K, a traditional auto trans will need replacing. It seems
> to be normal nowadays.

Maybe on some vehicles. I know a lot of high-mileage Corollas (>200K)
and it's certainly not normal to need a new transmission, at least no
one I know of with a high-mileage Corolla (or Camry, or Accord, or
Civic) has ever needed one.

Where did you get the idea that it was "normal?".

Zeppo wrote:
> "Newbie" <newbie@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:130520080707350336%newbie@no.spam...
>> Justbob30 <justbob30@nevermind.com> wrote:
>>
>> : The other issue, is why would you want a low end car with a manual
>> : transmission..
>>
>> I was just pointing out that it is an option. If someone is comfortable
>> with manual transmission (as OP stated) and wants to save money while
>> still getting Corolla quality, he can.
>>
>> I have owned manual and automatic Toyotas and never had problem selling
>> either kind.
>
> And as gas prices climb closer to $4/gal, small efficient manual
> transmission vehicles will be more desirable. I expect to see a premium on
> manual trans, small engine cars pretty soon in the US.

The newer automatics are so efficient that they often get higher mileage
than a manual transmission in the same car. No one that drive
extensively in heavy stop and go traffic is going to put up with a
manual transmission.

Elle wrote:

>
> Most of the reason a manual Toyota Corolla still gets better
> mpg than an automatic Toyota Corolla is that the manual has
> a 5-speed tranny while the auto has a 4-speed one.
>

>
I don't think so. Can you explain that?

Clay