Yaris sales hit new low...

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by matti

I can say that I don't care if the Yaris has an old "non-tech" engine and transmission. I don't care if the technology is 30 years old: if it works and is proven to be durable, that's all I care about. I could not care less about having a "more modern" drivetrain if it would cost me more.

However, the 6-speed manual would be worth it to me if = +++ MPG and the +++ MPG paid for the increased cost by the 100k mile mark. If the increased cost wasn't paid for until the 150k mile mark, better 'manners' might still make the 6-speed manual worth the cost.

[roxy1]

Originally Posted by nookandcrannycar

However, the 6-speed manual would be worth it to me if = +++ MPG and the +++ MPG paid for the increased cost by the 100k mile mark. If the increased cost wasn't paid for until the 150k mile mark, better 'manners' might still make the 6-speed manual worth the cost.

at 15,000 miles/yr and $3.70/gallon, a 40 mpg car would save $112/yr over a 37 mpg car.

id guess that 6 speed version would be at least $1k higher, so you'd be looking at a good decade to recoup the costs.

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by roxy1

at 15,000 miles/yr and $3.70/gallon, a 40 mpg car would save $112/yr over a 37 mpg car.

id guess that 6 speed version would be at least $1k higher, so you'd be looking at a good decade to recoup the costs.

Yeah, but I've averaged about 2.5 x the 15,000 per year with my Yaris, accelerating the break even point had a 6-speed been available .

[bronsin]

Originally Posted by nookandcrannycar

However, the 6-speed manual would be worth it to me if = +++ MPG and the +++ MPG paid for the increased cost by the 100k mile mark. If the increased cost wasn't paid for until the 150k mile mark, better 'manners' might still make the 6-speed manual worth the cost.

Actually as long as the highest gear ratio (ie 4th in a four speed, 6th in a six speed) are the same so will the mileage be. And because you are winding through the gears (and burning gas as you do so) the more speeds the transmission has the worse the mpg.

Thus the most efficient transmission is a three speed NOT a six speed.

Get it?

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by bronsin

Actually as long as the highest gear ratio (ie 4th in a four speed, 6th in a six speed) are the same so will the mileage be. And because you are winding through the gears (and burning gas as you do so) the more speeds the transmission has the worse the mpg.

Thus the most efficient transmission is a three speed NOT a six speed.

Get it?

I was going by a general assumption that the set up on a 6-speed vs a 5-speed (on average) would allow the 6-speed to be at a lower rpm (and likely higher MPG) than the 5-speed at the same MPH.

If one wound through the gears ALWAYS at a low rpm (trying to get to 5th or 6th as quickly as possible without 'bogging'), wouldn't the diminished efficiency of more gears to 'row'/'wind' through be minimal, or almost non existent ?

[bronsin]

Originally Posted by nookandcrannycar

I was going by a general assumption that the set up on a 6-speed vs a 5-speed (on average) would allow the 6-speed to be at a lower rpm (and likely higher MPG) than the 5-speed at the same MPH.

If one wound through the gears ALWAYS at a low rpm (trying to get to 5th or 6th as quickly as possible without 'bogging'), wouldn't the diminished efficiency of more gears to 'row'/'wind' through be minimal, or almost non existent ?

In most six speed transmissions the highest speed is equal to or lower than the comparable highest speed in a five speed, four speed etc.

It is unusual for it to be higher which would result in lower rpms.

If you accelerated the engine to the same rpm in a six, five, and four speed transmission before shifting up you would have slightly less mpg the more speeds you shifted through. More speeds does NOT mean more mpg. The eight speed autos Chrysler and others have come out with are just pulling the wool over the eyes of the unwary consumer.

However as you suggest the difference might not be much or even noticeable in practical experience.

And a three speed transmission would not be as adaptable to varying road conditions as a six, five, or even four speed.

HOWEVER!

Manufacturers are guilty of misleading the public in many things. All the time they were increasing the size, weight, and displacement of cars like the Corolla they said "And the mileage is improved!"

Not so.

My sister in law had something like an 85 Camry that got 38 mpg around town while my wifes 05 Camry gets 22.

If you have your heart set on a six speed (soon to be SEVEN speed!) before purchasing get a print out of the final drive ratio of each speed and compare it to the five speed. In many case there IS no five speed to compare it to!

BUT you can always SKIP gears as I did on my motorcycles when going cross country or commuting to work. I shifted my ST1100 and 1300 1-3-5.

[roxy1]

Originally Posted by bronsin

Manufacturers are guilty of misleading the public in many things. All the time they were increasing the size, weight, and displacement of cars like the Corolla they said "And the mileage is improved!"

Not so.

My sister in law had something like an 85 Camry that got 38 mpg around town while my wifes 05 Camry gets 22.

.

that's because up until 10 years ago, manufacturers cared little about improving economy. it was all about making the car bigger, more comfortable, and quieter. that 85 camry had a big advantage in weight and was also infinitely less safe. that 85 camry got a rating of 23/29 (and 24/31 for the manual)

now that efficiency is being demaded from all sides, cars are getting bigger and more efficient. the 2014 camry (non hybrid) is close to 1000 lbs heavier, much larger, and far safer than that 85 camry. it is rated at 25/35 and I can get 39-40 in that car all day long.