Toyota's new subcompact will use Mazda's Skyactiv engine

[fnkngrv]

Thing that will really suck for anyone wanting to be an enthusiast per my understanding is that there are barely any mods for the SkyActiv mills. Yeah, yeah, yeah...I know most folks don't purchase a Yaris for "enthusiasm" sake, but it is still something to consider. About the only interesting thing that I have seen is an SRI that is actually giving folks 2-3mpg higher results than stock which for many folks pays off the SRI in a year with roughly $165-$180 in savings.

[Hershey]

There's a Toyota dealer that has a C1 for $18,159 , C2 for $18,489 , C3 for $20,239 and a C4 for $22,199 . There's a Prius V3 for $24,169 . These are new '13s . A 2014 Yaris LE with the 4 speed auto is $17,480 before discounts . Not too much of a gap .

[Styx]

I found this while searching for more info on the Mazda 2.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-news/mazd...auto-show.html

From the article:

Toyota last year signed a deal with Mazda to get 50,000 annual units of the Mazda 2 subcompact, which will replace the Yaris in Toyota's North American lineup. The cars will be built in Salamanca, Mexico.

I guess they meant engines.

[JustPassinThru]

...comes a time when you've been there, done that.

I've driven a Fuller Road-Ranger ten-speed non-synchro. Floated the gears. Been there, done that; and since selling a manual is harder, when the time comes...why fight it? I have the start of arthritis in the hips.

To the point: I wonder how Mazda's drivetrain is gonna hold up next to Toyota's. Not all Japanese cars or engines are alike. Mitsubushi's V6s in Dodge products were not ANYWHERE near as reliable as Toyota engines; they were not any better than Dodge's own engines.

The Geo was a great car - while it lasted. 100,000 was its life; and I had three and can speak with authority.

Will this be another lemon Toyota makes? The flat-front van was a turkey; and not just because it rusted. It didn't have the strongest engine, either, and it wasn't cheap to repair when it did have problems.

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by JustPassinThru

...comes a time when you've been there, done that.

I've driven a Fuller Road-Ranger ten-speed non-synchro. Floated the gears. Been there, done that; and since selling a manual is harder, when the time comes...why fight it? I have the start of arthritis in the hips.

To the point: I wonder how Mazda's drivetrain is gonna hold up next to Toyota's. Not all Japanese cars or engines are alike. Mitsubushi's V6s in Dodge products were not ANYWHERE near as reliable as Toyota engines; they were not any better than Dodge's own engines.

The Geo was a great car - while it lasted. 100,000 was its life; and I had three and can speak with authority.

Will this be another lemon Toyota makes? The flat-front van was a turkey; and not just because it rusted. It didn't have the strongest engine, either, and it wasn't cheap to repair when it did have problems.

Although a Mazda is no Toyota in terms of longevity, I wouldn't hesitate buying a Mazda. Historically, they have been very well made. I have faith that this collaboration will work nicely. This Yaris replacement will no doubt fall short of the Yaris' unbelievable reliability, but it should prove to be a great car.

[Hershey]

The 1.3 ltr. used in the Ford Festiva ( Mazda 121 ) can / could last for 200,000+ miles .

[why?]

I guess most super cars and sports cars are never driven by "real men," since most don't come with manuals anymore. Try telling F1 drivers they are not "real men."

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by why?

I guess most super cars and sports cars are never driven by "real men," since most don't come with manuals anymore. Try telling F1 drivers they are not "real men."

^^^^^ A specific car for a specific purpose. If they can squeeze better performance out of an automatic, then that must be why the cars are so equipped. However, this doesn't necessarily reflect their non-track/non-professional preference .

[Kal-El]

That's the thing with today's automatics. They've now surpassed manuals in performance and efficiency. Other than enjoyment and durability, those were main selling points for sticks.

Automakers such as Lamborghini, Ferrari, & Porsche will tell you that you wouldn't be able to drive their cars as quick rowing the gears yourself.

[JustPassinThru]

Originally Posted by Kal-El

That's the thing with today's automatics. They've now surpassed manuals in performance and efficiency. Other than enjoyment and durability, those were main selling points for sticks.

Automakers such as Lamborghini, Ferrari, & Porsche will tell you that you wouldn't be able to drive their cars as quick rowing the gears yourself.

It's a sad loss for a tradition; but the truth of it is, in this age of electronic controls and drive-by-wire, an automatic makes more sense.

My 2009 Yaris was a manual. It was, IMHO, an imperfect setup. The electric accelerator didn't allow for easy double-clutch gear-syncronizing - as in a downshift at speed in traffic. Goose the pedal, and the computer would ignore it. Stab it again, and it would over-rev...and hold the high rev for half a second. Annoying.

Manual transmissions are a soon-to-be dead technology - like carburetors and distributors and points and condenser. It is what it is...some change is very good, and some, depressing...but there's no stopping progress.

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by Kal-El

efficiency

....but automatics only surpass manuals in 'COST efficiency' for people who don't know how to drive a manual properly .

[Thirty-Nine]

Regardless of the "real men" thing, I always prefer a manual. It's just more fun and engaging to drive.

[yougojay]

My testosterone levels are way too high to be driving a manual transmission anymore

[Thirty-Nine]

The differences is, however, a transmission can have a direct correlation on driving experience, whereas a carburetor or distributor does not.

Back in 2010, I had the Mitsubishi Lancer RalliArt turbo for review. It had plenty of power; fantastic Recaro Seats, and all-wheel drive. I took it on one of the curviest roads in the area to see how it handled. I was using the paddle shifters to blast through the gears, thinking, yes—this car is pretty fast. But you know what? The road wouldn't been more fun to pilot in my Yaris with a manual transmission despite the fact I'd likely be going slower. It's more engaging, more fun to me to press in the clutch and grab a gear. If speed is the only thing you're going for, then fine. However, there's something pure, something emotional about rowing your own gears—something that'll never be replaced by an automatic, CVT, or dual-clutch transmission. And while I do think all of the above-mentioned forms of automatics transmissions have their place (towing, fuel economy, traffic, whatever), they're just not as fun for me.

I will admit, the CVT is growing on me for cars that are miserly. If getting the best possible fuel economy is your sole goal, they do make sense. And ditto that for the dual clutch transmissions: If being as fast as possible is your goal, then the dual clutch makes sense. However, if I'm looking for fun, I'll take a manual most times.

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by Thirty-Nine

The differences is, however, a transmission can have a direct correlation on driving experience, whereas a carburetor or distributor does not.

Back in 2010, I had the Mitsubishi Lancer RalliArt turbo for review. It had plenty of power; fantastic Recaro Seats, and all-wheel drive. I took it on one of the curviest roads in the area to see how it handled. I was using the paddle shifters to blast through the gears, thinking, yes—this car is pretty fast. But you know what? The road wouldn't been more fun to pilot in my Yaris with a manual transmission despite the fact I'd likely be going slower. It's more engaging, more fun to me to press in the clutch and grab a gear. If speed is the only thing you're going for, then fine. However, there's something pure, something emotional about rowing your own gears—something that'll never be replaced by an automatic, CVT, or dual-clutch transmission. And while I do think all of the above-mentioned forms of automatics transmissions have their place (towing, fuel economy, traffic, whatever), they're just not as fun for me.

I will admit, the CVT is growing on me for cars that are miserly. If getting the best possible fuel economy is your sole goal, they do make sense. And ditto that for the dual clutch transmissions: If being as fast as possible is your goal, then the dual clutch makes sense. However, if I'm looking for fun, I'll take a manual most times.

+1000. I couldn't have said it better myself!

[nookandcrannycar]

Also, try (in a pinch) to compression start an automatic. I've been told that, technically, it is possible....but I've never seen it happen.

[JustPassinThru]

Originally Posted by nookandcrannycar

Also, try (in a pinch) to compression start an automatic. I've been told that, technically, it is possible....but I've never seen it happen.

You mean, push-start?

That ended with the Power-Glide. Chevrolet's old two-speed automatic could be push-started...I can't imagine how that worked, but the old-timers say it was possible. The then-new-in-the-1960s corporate TurboHydraMatic, used across all GM car lines and even with International Harvester and Kaiser Jeep, did away with that flow circuit. A THC automatic being pushed to start would play dumb, right until the bearings burned for lack of lubrication.

I have never heard of a Toyota automatic being able to be push-started. It's not like it might be a hidden-feature; it has to be designed in, with flow pumps that work both ways, from input either on the engine side or the output shaft.

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by JustPassinThru

You mean, push-start?

Yeah. Over the years (with different cars), if I had a situation where the car wouldn't quite turn over and start, I always knew that (if the car had a manual transmission) I could push the car, gain some momentum, get in the car, put it in gear, and let out the clutch to start the car. Most of the cars I've had with manual transmissions have been small, relatively light cars. I like knowing this is a possible easy solution to being stranded, and I have (at times) utilized this procedure.