In article <3l71qsF11f5dmU1 (AT) individual (DOT) net>,
Tom Reingold <tlr.usenet.0525 (AT) spambob (DOT) net> wrote:
I'd say you answered your own question.

I can't really say that I know which repair would cost more, but I'm
going to take a stab at it and guess the Subaru because I'm assuming
there would be more labor involved because of the AWD. Since YMMV and
all that, I think you'd be best off just hitting a local shop and getting
quotes for both cars.

Eugene Moon

Rent a manual trans for the first day of those lessons. After that, go with
the Honda. :-)

-John O

In article <TpCdnQ5TGrEcyXHfRVn-vQ (AT) mycybernet (DOT) net>, grape <j@s> wrote:
Not true. A manual transmission (like most other things on cars) requires
maintenance. For example, the clutch in my Subaru is currently in need of
replacement of its hydraulic fluid.

Also, manual transmissions can also have fragile parts, depending on how
they're built and designed. Two common failures I know of with manual
transmissions involve gear synchros and the gears themselves (typically
2nd gear - though I don't know why that is).

As for not having to worry about the transmission for the car's lifetime,
I'd say it's more common that transmissions that are treated nicely last
for good long times while those that are "abused" fail more quickly.
Whether the transmission is automatic or manual has nothing to do with
this.

While this was true back in the day, today's electronically-controlled
transmissions do a much better job of minimizing this. So, keeping in
mind that there are still cars sold without electronically-controlled
transmissions, I'd say there is no longer a real reason to choose a
manual transmission over an automatic solely based on fuel economy.

Agreed.

Eugene Moon

Eugene Moon wrote:

Hi,

I know this is only one person's experience with a bit of anecdotal
"evidence" tossed in, but I've found the mileage estimates on the window
stickers to be very close between manual and automatic versions of the
same car, while real life driving always seems to favor the manual,
often by a LOT. Especially around town.

As for the electronically-controlled part, I've yet to see where that's
all so great. Most of 'em I've driven, including the Camry I own, seem
to be programmed by Microsoft dropouts. The only way to be able to
predict what my Toyota's gonna do is to lock out the the electronics by
hitting the "power" button. At least it acts like a "proper" auto then!
OTOH, since it's a base model, it may not be all that electronic, but
the auto in the g/f's Civic is perfectly predictable and doesn't leave
the driver wondering "what's it gonna do next?"

As I said, just one person's experience and opinion.

Rick

I'm in Michigan. OK, I haven't see a manual rental in a long time, and
you're probably right...they don't exist. Anyway, the gist of that is "learn
on someone else's clutch." ;-)

-John O

All the other answers about how long clutches have lasted in other maeks and
models are quite irrelevant
to your question. Firstly the WRX has a powerband somewhere between 3500 and
6000 rpm, below about 3000
a GEO Metro would seem faster. A manual tranny is the only way to go to get
the best out of it. If you prefer an automatic, you would probably be
happier in another type of car. I needed a clutch replacement on my WRX at
42,000
which I did not think was too bad. A friend who owned a similar car managed
to get a new one under warranty at 36000 miles. I had an Outback immediately
preceding the WRX and needed a new clutch at 12000 miles which was replaced
under warranty after a lot of haggling with Subaru. Yes, I have got a lot
more miles from other makes before replacing clutches, but not Subaru. An
automatic is probably going to be a lot cheaper to run overall, but like I
say, it's a mismatch for the car.
"grape" <j@s> wrote

In article <dcrkpa02him (AT) enews2 (DOT) newsguy.com>,
paul <pharding100 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:
(snip)

Mmmm, yes. This reminds me: is it possible to find torque-speed curves
or fuel efficiency maps (by rpm and torque) and suchlike for the WRX
engines? I'd be interested to learn more about it, but I've not seen
any of those plots.

When you don't need the power - say, you're just cruising on an empty
highway, what rpm do you aim for?

-- Mark

KLS wrote:

I'm not sure how this wrecks the clutch, but I suppose re-engaging the
clutch afterwards while travelling at that speed probably isn't too good
for it. Something I always try to avoid is using the clutch as a brake:
there's downshifting, and then there's downshifting without
double-clutching or rev-matching. I wince sometimes when I'm in a manual
and someone doesn't rev-match when they downshift.. that loud whining noise
makes my back teeth twinge.

These scenarios seem to make much more sense. The instruction manual for my
STi is quite clear: the clutch should only slip when pulling away from a
stop (either in 1st, for normal driving, or 2nd if the road is particularly
hazardous and slippery.)