I was originally going to get an automatic but now I'm thinking I might get the 6-speed manual. The only drawback is that I have about a 40 minute commute in bumper to bumper traffic on the way home from work everyday where an automatic is much nicer.

Is anyone sorry that they got the manual transmission instead of the automatic?

Thanks!

 

If you have to ask the question about which to get than I suggest you get the auto. I think you have to truely and utterly enjoy rowing the rears and reving to even get a manual, otherwise you'll get sick of it in the long run.

 

FWIW, I have an automatic and it's my only TSX regret. OTOH, I drive 10 minutes to the train

If you get an AT, never spend any time here. You'll just wish you had an MT

(BTW, it really is a nice AT)

 

Manual typically has three advantages in my mind.

1) Cheaper
2) More fuel efficient
3) More fun

In the TSX, the manual is the same price. Strike one.
In the TSX, the auto is more efficient. Strike two.

The third one is the dealbreaker. Alone, it can overcome all other considerations. It can erase all the strikes if you can't live without the manual.

Picture yourself a year and a half from now. It's 5:30 p.m. and you're facing a 3 hour commute home in the rain (there's been an accident on your route home). Can you put up with shifting 500 times per block?

Now picture yourself two days later. It's Saturday and the sun is out. A clear and windy road is beckoning. You're driving an auto. Can you still have fun, or does your left foot feel too antsy?

Test drive both.

 

Go for the manual. Sure you have a 40 minute commute from work, but you're not going to only drive your car to and from work. Sure it's a pain in the ass to keep going in and out of first sometimes, but when you have some free time or find a stretch of open or curvy road you're really going to wish you have the manual tranny. Having the 6 speed really contributes to the driving experience and fun factor. Plus i've noticed as others have that when you put the car in 1st it seems to blip the throttle for you to prevent the car from stalling once the clutch has been engaged. Oh yeah Mike L. in the tsx's case the manual transmission doesn't follow the rule of better fuel economy. It says it on the window sticker plus when if you have it you're going to drive the hell out of it too.

 

You'll find lots of comments about how nice the MT is, and the reviews comment on this as well. I have a daily 80 km (50 mile) commute, so I got the AT. I use the sport shift mode almost all the time and it's fun in its own right since the shifts are reasonably quick. It's also handy to have the option to slap the shifter into D when in stop-n-go, answering the phone or cruising for a parking spot.

Like the above post, you must test drive both to decide.

 

You forgot 4), its faster

 

Actually I thought about 4) It's faster, but I didn't put it down because then my "strike one, strike two" analogy thingy wouldn't work.

I just assumed faster was more fun.

 

Well, it'll be stating the obvious, but 40 minute bumper to bumper commute? Manual will kill you. Automatic seems more appropriate given your situation. But if I were you, I would still get the manual (once you go stick, you can't go back) ;D

 

Ron140six,
I see you live in Cerritos (greater Los Angeles area for those of you who don't know where that is). You should also consider that traffic is only going to get worse where we live. The 40 minute commute may easily be a 1-hour commute in 3-4 years. This is exactly why I got an AT. Yes, I miss the MT sometimes driving down PCH or up to Big Bear but for 1.5 - 2 hours a day you will NOT wish you had an MT when sitting in traffic on that parking lot we call the 5, or 405. Just my

 

But on the other hand the 6MT is soo smooth and fun to drive...

 

Bumper to bumper isn't necessarily a killer with an MT. What really matters is how often/long you stay completely stopped. It's easy to creep along at 3-4 mph in heavy barely moving traffic.

What sucks is to have to come to a complete stop all the time.

 

I was in the same situation. I have a ~40 mile commute to work in NYC, and wanted the 6MT but opted for the 5AT. Here in NYC, its constantly stop and go so the AT was a no brainer because I intend to keep the car for at least 3 years. Usually coming home from work, I am so beat I do not want to think about shifting from 1st to N 500 times to get home.

The 6MT is amazing though, but the 5AT is not bad either. Test drive both and maybe count how many times you would have to shift into first on your commute home after a long day of work. That was my decision factor.

Hope that helps

 

manual is reportedly LESS fuel efficient.

personally I think that manual is overrated... even though I drove manual for the past 6 years. this is a luxury sedan... not a riceboy F-1 racer... not sure why you'd want to drive manual.

and as someone who has commuted through heavy traffic in manual... don't be stupid.

 

That makes no sense at all. I got a manual because I LOVE driving a manual. so i shouldnt have gotten the 6MT because it isnt a rice mobile? Hmm, rice mobile or an i'm-to-lazy-to-drive-a-manual-so-i-got-a-grandmom-tranny. I'll take the manual.

 

I have a similar 45 minute commute with plenty of traffic. I got the manual. You should, too. You WON'T regret it, it's a 6-speed for christ's sake. Auto's are for pussies.

There, I said it.

 

MT = rice?




Well here's another equation for you:
Crazytree =


Then I guess I'll have to buy a big wing for my ride and maybe some neons for underneath.

 

Spoken by a true AT owner.

 

But it IS a "sport sedan" (whatever that means).

Traffic schmaffic....either you want an automatic or you don't--it's that simple. And there's no need to put others down for their decisions.

 

This makes no sense, just because the Euro-R is labeled an Acura in North America is loses all of its sportiness? It certainly beats the hell out of any other Honda Accord, but at heart it is THE sporty Accord.

 

Except in 0-60 times

 

Ya but since the accord sedan can only come in auto, the acceleration times are almost the same

 

Ok, well sportiness IMO is not defined by who can drive faster in a straight line. I wouldn't call any V8 American muscle car sporty, powerful yes, sporty no.

They choose the Euro-R for track racing here in this vid for a reason link

 

Xizor, keep in mind though, that the Accord Type-S is the TSX, not the Euro-R. The Euro-R has a smaller , higher revving 2.0 litre engine, with 220 HP. It has has suspension, brake, and other improvements.

 

Also in the NYC area (except for my 2 years in DC, which is just like NYC traffic except with lots of hills ) and I've been driving stick for 20+ years. Based on my experience I've concluded:

1.) Bumper-to-bumper traffic is awful with a manual transmission.

2.) Bumper to bumper traffic is just as awful with an automatic.

When I'm looking for a new car I simply won't consider anything that's not available with a MT.

 

 

I'm with Mr. Shiftright. I wouldn't consider an automatic at this point in my life. However, it sounds like you should go with the auto (or else find a new job that's closer to home )

The TSX MT is awesome, but the car has many other qualities that make it a great/fun choice regardless.

 

Very true, I still find that the CL9/TSX/Type-S is the closest we'll have to a Euro-R and at least holds the spirit of sportiness.

 

Great post MikeL. You bring up great points, ask two great questions, but then don't give an opinion? (unless I missed it)

My advice, if you are the only one that will be driving this car. Get the manual, there should be no question in your mind if your the only one driving the car.

 

I think this is a related question so I'll ask it.

On most cars the AT costs more than the MT version. This is not the case with the TSX. Do you guys think that the resale value on an AT will be higher than on the MT, all other options being equal?

 

Probably not... but it all depends on demand. Sometimes MT is more popular with a certain car (especially if not as many MT's are produced), so you can never really know. With MT you also have clutch issues, but AT's have more possible transmission problems. Too many factors to really give a good answer.

 

For me.

I have been shifting for 20 years...and to me its fun when younger, but old when getting older.
I want to eat my burger, and not worry about shifting.

When I sit in traffic, I want to listen to the radio, not shift.
I want to look out the window, and enjoy the view when turning a hair pin, not focus on what gear I need to drop it in, or watch the tac.

I bought it because it’s a luxury car, not for racing, not for power shifting. I wanted four doors, for my buds when we head up to Tahoe to board.

I punch it and it goes just fine for me, I still pass most sport sedans out there...then again...why do the 1/4 dragsters prefer the auto over the manual....maybe because they are worried about keeping their foot on the gas , and both hands on the wheel. Pros and cons for either the auto or mt.


I sometimes drop it into shift mode, its still fun...but when I am done...its back to auto mode.

I think I have the best of both...I really do.

It’s your call...mine was the auto.
And I bet a properly tune auto may give the mt a run for the money. If speed and the fun factor is the concern then go mt, if not..its just cruising...well you know...

Does anybody know what the time differences are between the auto and the MT, from 0 to 60?

 

I know the TSX shoud be considered a "Sports Sedan" so in theory a MT should be of great value. But in reality 70% of TSX buyers opt for a AT. So in theory again the same should hoold true in the resale market.

I had a cousin who had a 2000 Accord Sedan 4 cylinder MT. It took him 5 months to find a buyer. Everyone who called was looking for a AT. I mean eveyone literally. Except the one guy looking for a MT that actually bought the car.

 

This is a little misleading. The TSXs don't sit on the lot too long. The buyers buy what is available. If Acura makes 70% of the TSX with AT then thats the percentage that gets purchased. I think its more a function of the pre-production market research that Acura did.

 

And there you have it

This man is a genius.

 

Personally, I miss the MT. But the AT is nice because of the convenience of having a car that anyone in the family can drive (we've had the misfortune of having the TL in the shop several times for various reasons and my mom doesn't drive stick). The AT is sufficiently quick for commuting, is still fun to rip around the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and gets decent (although not stellar) gas mileage. I still occasionally must indulge my need to drive an MT (test drive a few cars here and there or take my girlfriend's dad's Miata out), but for the most part, I don't regret the decision to get AT.

 

I'd have to agree that the AT will be better for resale. But it wont make as much of a difference as it does for the accord. If you look at other "sport sedans" like the A4 and 325 in autotrader, there is a good number of MT's.

 

I disagree. Would you have brought an MT if that's the only car they had on the lot, or would you have waited for a PWP AT? From the tone of the posts here, I think most MT drivers wouldn't buy the AT.

Anyways, if Acura is completely backordered on the MT, they would adjust production accordingly, because having too many AT's in inventory is expensive. Don't forget the same plant is doing Euro Accords which have a higher percentage of MT anyway.

 

There isn't much demand for MT from the general buyer population. My salesperson said 1/10 were MT, dunno how true that is though.

 

FANBOYS ON A RAMPAGE