I was going to trade it in...

[why?]

Originally Posted by Kal-El

What country are you in? I've never heard of a situation (in the US) where a dealer refuses a trade in. A dealer will take anything, even complete trash. They may not give you much, but they'll take it.
I have yet to see a single FRS or BRZ in the heavily populated northeast.
An odd analogy since most people don't know how to use Photoshop and computers don't come with Photoshop preloaded. It costs $700 (legitimately).

Yea, but who gets it legitimately except graphic artists? At this point though the term photoshop is a generic for any picture manipulation software. Some mistake MS paint for it.

And the reason it is a good analogy is because you don't need it to run a computer, but almost everyone that heavily uses a computer finds out that it does come in handy.

Originally Posted by Kal-El

It's already the case. Most of today's automatics are more efficient and faster than manual counterparts. With 6 speed autos commonplace, it's no surprise.

An exception is the Yaris because Toyota carried over the archaic 4 speed auto.

I disagree. There are some high tech automatic transmissions that are better than manuals, bet they have not filtered down to be mainstream yet. Most mainstream vehicles still use old fashioned slush boxes instead of high tech automatics.

Originally Posted by Captain Slow

Even if there are a few automatics which are technically getting better mileage than 5spd manuals....compare that to a 6 or 7 speed manual and you will see once again that the manual is more efficient. There is more drivetrain power loss through a slushbox and it also weighs considerably more than a manual box.

Not to mention that manual gearboxes are cheap and easy to fix should anything go wrong. Couple that with the better control it provides for performance or economy driving and it's a no-brainer. Manual transmissions will always be the choice for gearheads and for good reason.

I remember in the 90s folks saying that the automatic-equipped Supra turbo was actually slightly faster in a drag race than the manual counterpart....yet everyone I knew lusted after the manual because it was more fun :)

That is the thing though, there are automatics that provide better control and get better gas mileage. They shift faster and legitimately do everything better than a human could. At this point most of them come on a Ferrari. Although MB's 8 speed auto is rather amazing as well, as is VW's double clutch auto. These types of transmissions will eventually filter down to all cars.

Oh and yes, at this point you cannot buy a brand new Ferrari with a manual. Think on that.

Originally Posted by detroiter

There's a reason it's called a STANDARD transmission

because it was standard 60 years ago. The first automatic however did come out in 1904, and the Model T had one in 1908. So not so standard. Nothing in automotive tech is truly new. electric cars came out in the 1890's and at the turn of the century the fastest cars were steam powered.

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by why?

Yea, but who gets it legitimately except graphic artists? At this point though the term photoshop is a generic for any picture manipulation software. Some mistake MS paint for it.

And the reason it is a good analogy is because you don't need it to run a computer, but almost everyone that heavily uses a computer finds out that it does come in handy.



I disagree. There are some high tech automatic transmissions that are better than manuals, bet they have not filtered down to be mainstream yet. Most mainstream vehicles still use old fashioned slush boxes instead of high tech automatics.



That is the thing though, there are automatics that provide better control and get better gas mileage. They shift faster and legitimately do everything better than a human could. At this point most of them come on a Ferrari. Although MB's 8 speed auto is rather amazing as well, as is VW's double clutch auto. These types of transmissions will eventually filter down to all cars.

Oh and yes, at this point you cannot buy a brand new Ferrari with a manual. Think on that.


because it was standard 60 years ago. The first automatic however did come out in 1904, and the Model T had one in 1908. So not so standard. Nothing in automotive tech is truly new. electric cars came out in the 1890's and at the turn of the century the fastest cars were steam powered.

Call me paranoid, but I want to have a car, if possible, that is light enough for me to push by myself and has a manual transmission....so that I can compression start it on my own if necessary. Every manual transmission car I've owned fit this criteria.

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by why?

Yea, but who gets it legitimately except graphic artists? At this point though the term photoshop is a generic for any picture manipulation software. Some mistake MS paint for it.

And the reason it is a good analogy is because you don't need it to run a computer, but almost everyone that heavily uses a computer finds out that it does come in handy.



I disagree. There are some high tech automatic transmissions that are better than manuals, bet they have not filtered down to be mainstream yet. Most mainstream vehicles still use old fashioned slush boxes instead of high tech automatics.



That is the thing though, there are automatics that provide better control and get better gas mileage. They shift faster and legitimately do everything better than a human could. At this point most of them come on a Ferrari. Although MB's 8 speed auto is rather amazing as well, as is VW's double clutch auto. These types of transmissions will eventually filter down to all cars.

Oh and yes, at this point you cannot buy a brand new Ferrari with a manual. Think on that.


because it was standard 60 years ago. The first automatic however did come out in 1904, and the Model T had one in 1908. So not so standard. Nothing in automotive tech is truly new. electric cars came out in the 1890's and at the turn of the century the fastest cars were steam powered.

Last night I was looking at the April 2013 issue of Motor Trend and skimmed the article on the 2014 Subaru Forester. Subaru seems to be following the trend you discuss in your post above. The article mentions the 170 HP naturally aspirated version and the 250 HP turbocharged XT version. The article states that the 170 HP version is available with a 6-speed manual or a CVT, but that the 250 HP version is only available with the CVT. IIRC, there is quite a bit of difference in acceleration 0-60 between the two (6.2 sec vs 9.0 sec).

I picked up some brochures at an auto show here last month. I didn't sit in the Forester at the show (and didn't look at the sticker,) because the only Subaru I'd get is the base Impreza Hatchback. I looked at the brochures for the first time since the day of the show, and did find a 2014 Forester brochure. According to the brochure, the Motor Trend article is correct re the engine and transmission choices.

Another article I found online states that the CVT transmission in this Forester has a 6-speed manual mode and an 8-speed manual mode.