2015 Mazda3 Sedan & Hatch - 2.5 Liter "S" Model with Manual Transmission

[brandini]

A CTSV or RS4/6 is not a highway cruiser. They are compromise sports cars. tighter suspensions, stiffer springs, lower, do not a highway cruiser make.

Highway cruiser = s-class, non-v caddies, and similar, with non factory performance trim levels. The whole point of a highway cruiser is that it's not your fun weekend car, gets good gas mileage, and has many others out there like it so parts are cheap. A Mazda6 would be a fine highway cruiser, especially if available with the diesel and wagon that Europe gets.

Put yourself in stop and go traffic, then make the decision, as that is and will more commonly be the norm for most of the US. Commutes can be hell, especially for us that live near tunnels that seem to inherently cause traffic as if a spell had been cast on them. Nobody likes feathering a clutch in stop and go up a grade for a mile in a crowded smelly tunnel.

 

[concept]

That's why I say, Why not have the best of both worlds - a manual trans sporty car for city/countryside runs, and an economical commuting vehicle, which doesn't have to be boring, just because it has an auto trans.

 

[nate0123]

Sorry, Nathan about the name error.
Can you see yourself driving a Mercedes S550 with manual trans?

If so, you'd have to pay someone at least $20,000 to install a manual in a luxury cruiser like the MB. Is that what you'd do? Big. heavy cars and manual trans just don't go together, at least to me. It's like putting 20" wheels and tires on a Miata - just not right.

Cars that are not available with a MT are not even the slightest bit on my radar. I'm sure the S-class is a nice car to ride in; I have no interest in driving one. If I bought a car to be chauffeured around in (this is not likely) yeah... it could be automatic.

A CTSV or RS4/6 is not a highway cruiser. They are compromise sports cars. tighter suspensions, stiffer springs, lower, do not a highway cruiser make.

Highway cruiser = s-class, non-v caddies, and similar, with non factory performance trim levels. The whole point of a highway cruiser is that it's not your fun weekend car, gets good gas mileage, and has many others out there like it so parts are cheap.

Fine, I'll take a non-sport version with MT. Though I'm sure either of the cars I mentioned would be brilliant on the highway. I don't need excessive amounts of suspension travel or low spring / damping rates; I much prefer buttoned-down cars.

The whole point of a highway cruiser is that it's not your fun weekend car, gets good gas mileage, and has many others out there like it so parts are cheap. A Mazda6 would be a fine highway cruiser, especially if available with the diesel and wagon that Europe gets.

I had a 2003 Mazda6 3.0 with MT. Stiffer linear rate MS springs & MS shocks, catback exhaust. It was great on the highway.

Put yourself in stop and go traffic, then make the decision, as that is and will more commonly be the norm for most of the US. Commutes can be hell, especially for us that live near tunnels that seem to inherently cause traffic as if a spell had been cast on them. Nobody likes feathering a clutch in stop and go up a grade for a mile in a crowded smelly tunnel.

Did you miss the part where I said nearly all of my driving is stop & go in traffic? I drive a MT daily, in heavy traffic, and wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[brandini]

No, but you're assuming everyone is of your line of thought, or doesn't have a bad knee or somesuch that would make that much shifting uncomfortable/unbearable.

And I had a 6 as well, 2007 2.3 auto and even it's auto was decent, but wanting to have fun and a bit more flexibility in autocross made me go find a Mazdaspeed Miata until grocery shopping was just too much of a hassle. Also realize that snow driving is way easier in an auto, off-roading is way easier, towing is way easier, so in many cases it's just not a good option.

It's also no fun in summertime with the AC blaring, seeming sucking 50 horsepower and making all the stop/starting that much more annoying. I liked the Mazdaspeed because the 6-speed with the 4.13 rear made 1st a crawling gear where I could tach up to 4k and coast in traffic then let it crawl in stop-go stuff. Was a nice game until the AC couldn't keep up.

The fact remains that newer automatics that only use the torque-convertor from 0-5mph don't suffer from the old lag that old autos did. They rev-match, they obey shift commands, they slip seamlessly from manual to automatic, shift without disrupting torque output to the wheels (keeping the car more settled, even mid-turn), and they don't ruin the entire experience. The tipping point from auto to manual effectively has become more in favor of autos because of that. Racing, auto-crossing, canyon-carvers, and control-freaks are still going to get an auto... but I'm firmly sitting on the fence. I haven't autocrossed in a while, and in a little under two hours I'll be making a two hour drive with 55mph speed limits that drop to 35 at times and could take up to 4 hours to complete, also with a drawbridge and tunnel to combat. There are sometimes I definitely wish I had an auto.

The "i do it so your reason is invalid" is not an actual reason.

 

[nate0123]

I'm just trying to refute the prevailing thinking that a MT makes an inferior or less pleasant companion in traffic. It's the traffic that sucks, not the car. I know it's a matter of preference, but I'd still rather have my manual in the stop & go. It makes what could be a dull commute more interesting.

 

[magicka]

....so if your grandfather left you his perfect-condition 72 Monte Carlo, you'd rip out the auto and install a manual?

Don't be ridiculous. A '72 Monte Carlo isn't sporty

I said "all other things being equal" I'd take a manual over an auto, not that I would never own an automatic. My father has a '64 Corvair sedan that he's had for going on 40 years, and my mother has a '69 Malibu convertible that my grandfather bought new. Both are auto, and, when they make it to my garage, they'll stay that way. Now, if I were looking to buy, say, a '71 Chevelle SS, I would absolutely be looking for a manual over an auto.

How about a Toyota Sienna for the kids? - manual trans?

If I ever need a minivan, the lack of a manual will be the least of my worries (sadbanana). If a vehicle I need (van/truck) or want (Bentley Continental GT) isn't offered with a manual, that's fine, but if there is a manual option I'll take it.

 

[concept]

I'm just trying to refute the prevailing thinking that a MT makes an inferior or less pleasant companion in traffic. It's the traffic that sucks, not the car. I know it's a matter of preference, but I'd still rather have my manual in the stop & go. It makes what could be a dull commute more interesting.

Yes, but when people start commenting that your left leg is twice the size of your right............

Seriously, you WILL change your mind as you get older. I've pretty much always had two cars, a manual and auto - the right tool for the right job. Then again, some folks will run giant, knobby tires on their jacked up 4X4 truck on the street - obviously, the wrong tool for that job, yo.

 

[concept]

Believe it or not, some guys installed manual trannies in their 70-72 Montes. They just HAD to have a manual!

Regarding minivans: Most, if not all I saw in China had manual transmissions. The richer people have mostly automatic-trans vehicles. Given the suicidal driving antics of the taxi drivers, THEY would be better off with autos.