Keep my manual Insight or buy an automatic?

[red1dr]

Shifting, what's that? I spend most of my time coasting in neutral....

I have to ask my sister to let me drive her CVT Insight next time I see her.

I agree with florida_gators, have one of each!

[joecvt]

Originally Posted by bagwell

I couldn't drive the insight with the CVT...at tleast the 5 speed has a little pep to it when needed...I cant imagine the CVT.
...plus the mileage hit
...plus manual tranny is fun for me.

A couple of people mentioned the fun factor of the manual. I don't get it I assume most people are not driving the MT like as if it were a sports car so where is the fun in shifting (and having to downshift for hills more than normal for a typical manual transmission car from Honda / Acura)
Besides the fact that the first sentence from Joekingiam was "I get tired of shifting."

Neither car is quick when compared to today's standards. 0-60 times are 10.8 for the MT and 11.2 for the CVT...Not really that much difference in terms in not wanting to drive a CVT due to acelleration issues.

Joekingiam: I think most people will agree that your mileage will likely go down with the CVT (it is just a question to what degree). But if driving conditions allow, you can get an average of 60 - 65 MPG with the CVT so it is not so bad when compared to all other production cars (except the MT Insight). I have driven manual tramission cars for over 20 years but I actually enjoy the CVT in not having to shift. It is also a different feeling than driving the typical automatic transmission car since there are no shifts at all, just smooth acelleration. As documented by the EPA, you will also step up into a better category of emissions level in the CVT. Both cars are great in what they were designed to do. It just boils down to personal preference as to what you want out of a car. You did not mention the current average MPG you are personally getting in your MT so it is hard to say that your MPG will go way down or slightly down....If your driving conditions and habbits put you at the low end of the MPGs for the MT then your MPG difference will not be much. If the you are able to stay in lean burn for high MPGs during your normal commute, then the MPG will be much different. Along with The Citrus Smoothie, I suggest looking at the begining section of http://www.insightcentral.net/commun...php?f=1&t=7648
for more pos and cons of both models.....

JoeCVT = Just your average CVT owner

[griller]

Pro: smooth as silk acceleration. (For me that is almost imperceptible acceleration since I try to hypermile it.)
Con: lose bragging rights as most efficient production car on the road.
Pro: gain the bragging rights as the most environmentally friendly gasoline production car on the road (afaik).
Con: lose bragging rights as most efficient production car on the road.
Pro: even your friend who never learned to drive a stick can test drive it and be green with envy.
Con: lose bragging rights as most efficient production car on the road.
Pro: easier to clean drivers side floor without that pesky clutch pedal in the way.
Con: lose bragging rights as most efficient production car on the road.

I pretty much had to buy the CVT because my wife had trouble with her knee and clutch pedal action would aggravate that.
Still, I really like not having to shift. It becomes a chore in Los Angeles traffic. If you are dealing with lots of stop and go, the auto tranny really reduces your workload.
Obviously the difference in mileage is significant if you are a serious hypermiler. But the difference in actual cost of gas is far less so, until gasoline gets to $10 per gallon anyway. On my commute I burn .2 gallons (US) each way. I get about 64 mpg going to work and back (13 miles, my weekend driving is what kills my lmpg) so at $4 per gallon it costs 81 cents one way. Supposing I got 74 mpg (its all city driving) in the stick shift I would spend 70 cents or so each way. A round trip difference of 22 cents per day. Yes, over many years that would add up, but life changes too rapidly to project costs like that for any long timespan I figure.
cheers
griller

[Joekingiam]

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you all who posted. You have all done a great job in helping me with pros and cons.
So my decision is the CVT Insight. I have a 2003 I am thinking about with 150000 miles.
Joe

[james]

"Neither car is quick when compared to today's standards."

Huh? What are you using as the standard? In practice, after a light changes I generally I find I'm well down the road before the cars in the other lanes have begun to move - and that's not even using full throttle 'cause full assist can trip an IMA light on mine.

[red1dr]

Originally Posted by griller

Obviously the difference in mileage is significant if you are a serious hypermiler. But the difference in actual cost of gas is far less so, until gasoline gets to $10 per gallon anyway. On my commute I burn .2 gallons (US) each way. I get about 64 mpg going to work and back (13 miles, my weekend driving is what kills my lmpg) so at $4 per gallon it costs 81 cents one way. Supposing I got 74 mpg (its all city driving) in the stick shift I would spend 70 cents or so each way. A round trip difference of 22 cents per day.
cheers
griller

Probably a bit more than that (at least for travel involving more of a mix of city, suburban, and highway), judging from data posted over at clean m p g dot com. Highest three MT Insights there report lifetime 85-95mpg (the 95mpg is an average taken over 65,000 miles). The highest CVT Insight listed there is at 63mpg. You report 64mpg and my sister reports about 63 from her CVT Insight, though hills make her drives really tough. Of course a far fairer comparison would be to put those three hypermilers into CVT Insights and see how they do.

Interestingly the highest Prii over there are at 70-75mpg. Is the Prius II SULEV?

I envy you: if I lived 13 miles from work rather than 34 miles I'd probably bicycle at least in good weather. I'm retiring soon and love it here, so no way I'm moving closer to work.

[joecvt]

Originally Posted by james

"Neither car is quick when compared to today's standards."

Huh? What are you using as the standard? In practice, after a light changes I generally I find I'm well down the road before the cars in the other lanes have begun to move - and that's not even using full throttle 'cause full assist can trip an IMA light on mine.

While true, upon starting out from a dead stop - the Insight does a pretty good job due to the torque available from the IMA motor. This may lead you to conclude that you will be able to beat the cars that you mentioned in 0-60 performance but you will not beat most cars produced in the same years as the Insight.

My proof - how about an average 0-60 time chart for light duty cars and trucks combined based from 1980 - 2007:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...8_fotw504.html

As you can see, the combined average from the year 2000 onward beats the Insight. Once again, these are official statics and not gut feelings.

You may say, well that chart is so close that we are only talking about a few tenths of a second in difference in the early 2000 years. But then again, that would lead me back to my original point that the difference between the CVT and the MT is only four tenths of a second

JoeCVT = Just your average CVT owner

[griller]

I envy you: if I lived 13 miles from work rather than 34 miles I'd probably bicycle at least in good weather. I'm retiring soon and love it here, so no way I'm moving closer to work.

JoeCVt
Yeah,
I would too, but any route I take through L.A. to my workplace is basically a death sentence when ridden on a bike. I've done it twice, other than having 13 miles home against a headwind of about 10mph it is otherwise very doable. My wife told me no mas until a bike path or other safety measures are available.

The figures I used for the cost breakdown just used my own mileage numbers, of course Joekingiam's numbers would be up to his commitment to hypermile or not.

Cheers
griller

edited for spelling