Can an automatic vehicle have a manual transmission + clutch system installed?

[Comdrpopnfresh]

My car was an R-title and cost next to nothing. although it's a 93, it doesn't even have 55k miles on it yet, and yes, I'm fairly certain the odometer was not rolled back.

SKIP THE NEXT THREE PARAGRAPHS TO SEE MY QUESTION IF YOU FEEL THE NEED TO

I get really good mileage. Last time I traveled to school from home, back in August, I got 30 mpg highway. I don't do anything special- no crazy hypermiling stuff- just put cruise control on for level terrain, and if I feel the car can maintain or increase speed w/o throttling, I shift into neutral and let gravity do the work- it coasts amazingly for a early 90's 4-door sedan. On uphills, I'm very in-tune with the feedback of sound, vibrations and strain I feel from the engine, and keep the throttle up just at the threshold to keep it in a high gear and delivering the most power from that high gear w/o having the transmission downshift.

I'm not a muscle-head or anything... I just like learning about something from experience. I've been changing my oil, air filters, fuel filter, and oil filter for the last 12k miles. I'm not obsessed in 'just' an old camry- it's that i'm doing it on my own and seeing instant gratification- from lower maintenance bills, better mileage, and it feels good to know it all came from me.

In the past 6 months, I've filled my car up w/ E85 a few times (not successively) at about a ratio of 5gal E85 to the remaining 12-14 87 octane (I almost always fill up when I'm near E, and always top off to easily get a fair approximation of my mpg). No ill-effects. In fact, I get less idle vibrations, and starts are much smoother- pretty sure the fuel lines are as clean as they were when Clinton was in his first presidential term. Never noticed any decrease in mileage that is naturally inherent w/ ethanol vs petrol; pretty sure this signifies the cleaning effect on the fuel lines overrode the decrease in energy from E85, as my mileage held steady. After I did that a few times, and felt the cleaning effect was as good as it'd get, I changed the fuel filter, suspecting it was probably clogged like all get out- that, and I have no clue when it was, if ever, last changed. Regardless of periodic mileage maintenance intervals, a 15 yr-old car could use some things replaced proactively. At my last fill up w/ straight 87 octane I got 28 mpg w/ what I'd consider city driving (10-15 mile trips 2-5 times a month to Dr appointments, occasional 10 trips to walmart or target for college supplies + restocking of items). so I'm looking forward to a ~400 mile nearly all highway trek back home for thanksgiving break. Fingers crossed for 32-35 mph.

My question needs some background before being asked. When I approach a stale light I'm familiar with, and am sure it'll turn red before I can get through, or when stopping in traffic, going down hill, waiting at a light, or slowing w/o braking I move the shifter from drive to neutral. It's an automatic transmission, but there's no need to depress the shift-lock on the shifter to do it- it readily slips to and from D<->N when stopped, when coasting, even when I've just accelerated hard. Does this degrade the transmission? I'm very careful when going from neutral to drive when a light goes from red to green to allow the transmission time to shift into gear, and let the clutch grab on before applying any throttle- I don't want to mare or break off any gear teeth. Is this precaution enough to not shorten the life of the transmission or degrade it's performance/reliability?
Second question: Unless I fall into money and have nothing more pressing to spend it on, or nothing more helpful in my life or my family's, and unless the car is totaled, needs repairs > it's worth, or is stolen, I'm likely going to have the car until one of those things happens- it's in good physical shape in terms of the exterior and mechanics- and it meets my needs. However, I've noticed there is a back-pad on the left of the driver's leg space where a clutch petal would be on a manual, and I've seen pictures of the manual version of my car, and have concluded Toyota made a modular frame+design to fit either a manual or automatic transmission. If I'm right about that and my transmission were to die, could I have a manual along with a clutch pedal, and manual shifter installed? If so, any idea what the incurred cost would be compared to a replacement automatic. For instance, if you're assuming a rebuilt/certified auto-trans replacement, what'd be the cost for the same status (rebuilt/certified) manual?

thanks for any replies, advice, constructive comments, and/or praise

 

[Throckmorton]

Cliffs?

You must swap in the whole transmission, and possibly the computer, and it won't be cheap or easy.

Buy a different car

 

[ElFenix]

you use more gas shifting from D to N when coasting than if you left it in D. EFI engines cut fuel when coasting and let the momentum of the car keep the engine spinning. in N fuel must be used to keep the engine spinning. and when parked it would use the same amount of gas either way. so don't bother doing that. not to mention it's probably illegal and is unsafe.

i think what you're talking about in the footwell is the dead pedal, and i'ts just a place to put your foot.

it'd cost less to put a rebuilt auto in it than it would to get a manual and do the interior work.

 

[TehMac]

What Throckmorton said. Frankly, to swap out the tranny...not a good idea. I am shuddering at the idea. If your transmission fails, you should tell your parents this (I am assuming you're still under their auspices): You're far better off buying a used cool car than spending a shit load of money for a tranny to be installed in...well I'll be frank, a more shitty kind of car. I'm sure it's great, and it gets the job done, but really man, get another car if the tranny breaks.

If you're not under your parents, here's my advice; please get another car. There are used stick shift cars like Mustangs which pwn, for 8k. The depreciation is amazingly bad, but good for you if you want a cool car for cheap. A friend got a '99 5.7L V8 Camaro for 15k around 2 years ago, so really, cool cars await at low prices. And I'm talking really nice Camaro, beautiful car. The guy who drives it is a prick, but thats beside the point.



Summary: Tranny swaps = expensive
Conclusion: Get a cool used car for not much $$



EDIT: And what ElFenix said. ElFenix's advice is better than mine, and his ideas more sage, but I still think if you tranny breaks, you should get another car.

 

[thomsbrain]

I can confirm that most fuel injected cars completely shut off fuel flow when coasting in gear and when engine RPM is above idle. Once RPM drops to idle, then idle-level fuel flow resumes. So dropping the car into neutral will consume the same amount of fuel as idling, while leaving it in gear will consume zero fuel. It makes a big difference if you're coasting down a long mountain or something. Keep it in gear!

As for the tranny swap, from what I understand, this is possible, but you'd have to swap a lot of parts, including the computer. And you would likely need to source many of those parts from a junk-yard donor car. For a 93 Camry, there's just no way it's worth the trouble. We're not talking about a rare car here, so you could just buy a different one. And even with a manual, it still won't be fun to drive because it's a Camry. Also, the tranny should be pretty tough on that car. I'm guessing other things will break long before the tranny goes.

 

[Colt45]

Buy the same car but manual?

 

[DivideBYZero]

Do nothing.

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: Colt45
Buy the same car but manual?

This one. Look on Autotrader.com. There will be plenty.

 

[Zenmervolt]

It is possible. For example, it has been done many times with Porsche 944s as the three-speed automatic is rather anemic and most people now are looking for a 5-speed version.

That said, the 944 did not have any electronic controls for the transmission, so it was simply a matter of replacing the transmission, the torque tube, the bellhousing, and the flywheel as well as installing the necessary clutch paraphernalia. This is generally more time-consuming than simply replacing the automatic and is almost always done by the owner himself rather than hired out to a mechanic because of the labor cost.

For your Camry, chances are that you would need to replace the engine management computer as well and overall it is not a good investment since the car isn't really anything special. The reason people do it with 944s is that the 944 is much more of a "toy" for weekends and therefore is already an irrational investment. You're probably looking at close to double the cost of just replacing the automatic.

So, short answer: Yes, it would be possible to retrofit a manual transmission to your car. However, it would not be anything close to cost-effective.

ZV

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Yes, it's possible. But you need a bunch of parts in addition to the transmission. Including dash components, new pedals, and all that type of thing. Someone once added it up and to do a complete auto to manual swap on a Dakota with new components would run about $4000-5000.

It's cheaper to sell it and buy a new one that's how you want.

 

[Comdrpopnfresh]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
I can confirm that most fuel injected cars completely shut off fuel flow when coasting in gear and when engine RPM is above idle. Once RPM drops to idle, then idle-level fuel flow resumes. So dropping the car into neutral will consume the same amount of fuel as idling, while leaving it in gear will consume zero fuel. It makes a big difference if you're coasting down a long mountain or something. Keep it in gear!

As for the tranny swap, from what I understand, this is possible, but you'd have to swap a lot of parts, including the computer. And you would likely need to source many of those parts from a junk-yard donor car. For a 93 Camry, there's just no way it's worth the trouble. We're not talking about a rare car here, so you could just buy a different one. And even with a manual, it still won't be fun to drive because it's a Camry. Also, the tranny should be pretty tough on that car. I'm guessing other things will break long before the tranny goes.

When I do coast down a long mountain road in gear, my rpms don't drop below 1.2x1000. In neutral, they go to .3-.4x1000: I don't see how that doesn't equate to saving gas- there's no load on the engine. Plus, when I'm coasting downhill, I can go faster in N vs D, because there is no load, and thus no resistance on the drive. I mainly put it into neutral when approaching a stop to slow down w/o braking, so that I don't have to use gas to get there, just to stop. If I know I'm stopping for >15 sec, I turn the car off- which is why I put it in neutral- for the restart.

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Cliffs?

You must swap in the whole transmission, and possibly the computer, and it won't be cheap or easy.

Buy a different car

Agreed here...unless you have the ability to do it yourself. I've seen it done...but it takes some know-how and some determination.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Comdrpopnfresh

When I do coast down a long mountain road in gear, my rpms don't drop below 1.2x1000. In neutral, they go to .3-.4x1000: I don't see how that doesn't equate to saving gas- there's no load on the engine. Plus, when I'm coasting downhill, I can go faster in N vs D, because there is no load, and thus no resistance on the drive. I mainly put it into neutral when approaching a stop to slow down w/o braking, so that I don't have to use gas to get there, just to stop. If I know I'm stopping for >15 sec, I turn the car off- which is why I put it in neutral- for the restart.

you don't use gas when coasting above idle in D. you do use gas when coasting in N.

plus you can't engine brake if you're in N, which is something you should be doing when going down hills.


what you are doing is dangerous and results in greater gas use.

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Comdrpopnfresh

When I do coast down a long mountain road in gear, my rpms don't drop below 1.2x1000. In neutral, they go to .3-.4x1000: I don't see how that doesn't equate to saving gas- there's no load on the engine. Plus, when I'm coasting downhill, I can go faster in N vs D, because there is no load, and thus no resistance on the drive. I mainly put it into neutral when approaching a stop to slow down w/o braking, so that I don't have to use gas to get there, just to stop. If I know I'm stopping for >15 sec, I turn the car off- which is why I put it in neutral- for the restart.

you don't use gas when coasting above idle in D. you do use gas when coasting in N.

plus you can't engine brake if you're in N, which is something you should be doing when going down hills.


what you are doing is dangerous and results in greater gas use.

I love how they like to argue. But, but, neutral!

EDIT: For better mileage, you should be in D and accelerating downhill, using gravity to build up speed and slowly coast it off once back on level ground or the next uphill. That, and holding steady or slightly letting off on gas on an uphill.

The reason there isn't any load on the engine is because you disconnected it, so now the car has to use gas in order to keep it turning. In D, it is connected and the car can use the momentum you have instead of burning more gas to keep the motor from stalling.

I drove a 94 camry le for 7 years.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Comdrpopnfresh

When I do coast down a long mountain road in gear, my rpms don't drop below 1.2x1000. In neutral, they go to .3-.4x1000: I don't see how that doesn't equate to saving gas- there's no load on the engine. Plus, when I'm coasting downhill, I can go faster in N vs D, because there is no load, and thus no resistance on the drive. I mainly put it into neutral when approaching a stop to slow down w/o braking, so that I don't have to use gas to get there, just to stop. If I know I'm stopping for >15 sec, I turn the car off- which is why I put it in neutral- for the restart.

you don't use gas when coasting above idle in D. you do use gas when coasting in N.

plus you can't engine brake if you're in N, which is something you should be doing when going down hills.


what you are doing is dangerous and results in greater gas use.

it really depends on the situation and the car.

1) generally, because you can coast a lot longer while in neutral vs. fuel-cutoff in gear, you will use less fuel overall while by being in neutral for as long as possible.

2) older cars didn't necessarily have deceleration fuel cut-off. if you have a scangauge you can easily find out.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: Comdrpopnfresh
When I do coast down a long mountain road in gear, my rpms don't drop below 1.2x1000. In neutral, they go to .3-.4x1000: I don't see how that doesn't equate to saving gas- there's no load on the engine. Plus, when I'm coasting downhill, I can go faster in N vs D, because there is no load, and thus no resistance on the drive. I mainly put it into neutral when approaching a stop to slow down w/o braking, so that I don't have to use gas to get there, just to stop. If I know I'm stopping for >15 sec, I turn the car off- which is why I put it in neutral- for the restart.

When you put it in neutral while coasting down a hill, the engine must still use gas to keep running. There is still a load on the engine: all the pumps, belts, accessories, and alternator, plus the inherent friction of spinning the engine at idle. It uses the same amount of gas as it would if you were stopped and in neutral. Granted, that's a not a ton of gas, but it is some. Your car is moving and it is using gas while doing so, but none of that gas is helping you move.

If you leave it in gear and the RPM stays above idle while you coast, then the fuel injectors cut off the fuel flow completely. That means your car is using zero gas. None. Zero gas. The car is moving and yet it is using NO gas while doing. All the pumps, accessories, etc are being run by your car's momentum, not gas from your tank.

Coasting at 55 MPH, this is the difference between ~80 MPG in neutral, and INFINITY MPG in gear.

INFINITY > 80.

And yes, it is still better to coast in gear, even if you had to use the throttle a bit because the car slowed down more quickly than in neutral. I've proved it to myself using my ScanGauge II, which reports instantaneous and trip MPG, throttle position, RPM, etc. I climb and descend a 2000 foot mountain range every day for my commute and have tried all kinds of different strategies. The best mileage is achieved by climbing at the slowest possible speed without unlocking the torque converter in top gear (you have to pay attention for this, and it will vary depending on the grade), and then coasting in gear for as much of the distance back down as possible, avoiding both the throttle and brakes as much as possible. Done correctly and without traffic messing you up, you can actually get better mileage over the distance than you could on level ground (that's another story). But if I put it in neutral, I would merely waste gas the entire distance down the mountain for no reason at all. It would be like getting to my destination and then sitting with the car running in park for 15 minutes.

If you doubt me, just realize that I can average ~32-35 MPG on this commute, yet my car weighs significantly more than yours, has bigger tires, and has more than double the horsepower. You could be doing way better than me, not worse!

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Comdrpopnfresh

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
I can confirm that most fuel injected cars completely shut off fuel flow when coasting in gear and when engine RPM is above idle. Once RPM drops to idle, then idle-level fuel flow resumes. So dropping the car into neutral will consume the same amount of fuel as idling, while leaving it in gear will consume zero fuel. It makes a big difference if you're coasting down a long mountain or something. Keep it in gear!

As for the tranny swap, from what I understand, this is possible, but you'd have to swap a lot of parts, including the computer. And you would likely need to source many of those parts from a junk-yard donor car. For a 93 Camry, there's just no way it's worth the trouble. We're not talking about a rare car here, so you could just buy a different one. And even with a manual, it still won't be fun to drive because it's a Camry. Also, the tranny should be pretty tough on that car. I'm guessing other things will break long before the tranny goes.

When I do coast down a long mountain road in gear, my rpms don't drop below 1.2x1000. In neutral, they go to .3-.4x1000: I don't see how that doesn't equate to saving gas- there's no load on the engine. Plus, when I'm coasting downhill, I can go faster in N vs D, because there is no load, and thus no resistance on the drive. I mainly put it into neutral when approaching a stop to slow down w/o braking, so that I don't have to use gas to get there, just to stop. If I know I'm stopping for >15 sec, I turn the car off- which is why I put it in neutral- for the restart.

When coasting, in pretty much any modern fuel injected car, with your foot off the gas and the transmission in gear you are using zero fuel. Let me repeat that-YOU ARE USING ZERO FUEL!!! When you put the transmission in neutral you are using fuel to keep the engine running.

Putting the car in neutral to save gas doesn't work. You are using more gas when you do this.

 

[Comdrpopnfresh]

I'm not sure if I'm confused or ppl are misunderstanding anything. So let's start with this: thermodynamically, an ICE MUST exert a certain amount of work, provided by combustion (fuel usage) just to continue the idealized compression-heat addition-expansion-heat rejection cycle that provides work to move the shaft, and provide movement.
So if a car is in drive, power can be provided through mechanical manipulation, but resistance is introduced that is negligible when providing power from the engine to the tires. So then, if you aren't providing said power, wouldn't you only be providing resistance and load to the engine? I mean, my car accelerates quicker and can reach higher speeds if I coast in neutral downhill rather than in drive.

Engine braking- not too familiar with that- is it when you downshift on a manual to increase the rpms and resistance, limiting the speed of the trivetrain? I always cover the brake pedal when coasting regardless of what transmission setting, and always stay within a margin of speed to the speed limit.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

When coasting, in pretty much any modern fuel injected car, with your foot off the gas and the transmission in gear you are using zero fuel. Let me repeat that-YOU ARE USING ZERO FUEL!!! When you put the transmission in neutral you are using fuel to keep the engine running.

Putting the car in neutral to save gas doesn't work. You are using more gas when you do this.

actually, in many situations, putting the car in neutral does save gas. for maximum fuel efficiency, it's a matter of knowing when it's best to coast in neutral and when it's best to coast with the transmission engaged.

on long, steep hills it's better to have the transmission engaged for engine braking purposes and fuel cutoff. on flat roads, it's better to be in neutral since the car will coast longer without the engine engaged. with the transmission engaged, the time spent coasting with fuel cutoff is much shorter requiring you to step on the throttle to speed up more frequently compared with coasting in neutral.

 

[Comdrpopnfresh]

I didn't realize cars shut off gas flow to the engine if the momentum of the drive train was enough to keep the engine going. Sure my car has this? Seems kinda advanced. And if it did, would there be some sort of lag if I pressed the throttle, due to restart of fuel flow, and having to get it in the combustion chamber?

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: Comdrpopnfresh
I'm not sure if I'm confused or ppl are misunderstanding anything. So let's start with this: thermodynamically, an ICE MUST exert a certain amount of work, provided by combustion (fuel usage) just to continue the idealized compression-heat addition-expansion-heat rejection cycle that provides work to move the shaft, and provide movement.
So if a car is in drive, power can be provided through mechanical manipulation, but resistance is introduced that is negligible when providing power from the engine to the tires. So then, if you aren't providing said power, wouldn't you only be providing resistance and load to the engine? I mean, my car accelerates quicker and can reach higher speeds if I coast in neutral downhill rather than in drive.

Engine braking- not too familiar with that- is it when you downshift on a manual to increase the rpms and resistance, limiting the speed of the trivetrain? I always cover the brake pedal when coasting regardless of what transmission setting, and always stay within a margin of speed to the speed limit.

you will reach a higher speed going downhill without stepping on the throttle if you put the car in neutral vs. having the transmission engaged. however, with the transmission engaged, fuel-injected cars generally* will turn off the fuel injectors when the throttle is not pressed down and the engine rpms are above idle. whether being in neutral or having the transmission engaged in order to save fuel will depend on how steep the hill is, what the road is like after the hill (more hills or flat road), and general traffic conditions.

for example, if you're going down a steep hill, the road after the hill is flat, and there are no cars on the road, it's better to be in neutral since you will coast a lot longer after the hill before you have to step on the throttle to speed up again. however, given the same conditions, but having traffic around, it's better to have the transmission engaged while going down the hill since the fuel-injectors will shut off and you'll get engine braking.

* i say "generally" because on my mkv jetta, this happens when certain conditions are apply:

1st gear: never happens.
2nd gear: only happens above 2500 rpm
3rd-5th gear: only starts to occur after 2500 rpm but once that is reached, fuel injectors can continue to be off below that rpm.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: Comdrpopnfresh
I didn't realize cars shut off gas flow to the engine if the momentum of the drive train was enough to keep the engine going. Sure my car has this? Seems kinda advanced. And if it did, would there be some sort of lag if I pressed the throttle, due to restart of fuel flow, and having to get it in the combustion chamber?

your car might have it. i don't know when it was introduced, but my old '96 civic had it. and there is no lag with fuel restart once the throttle is pressed.

 

[Comdrpopnfresh]

thx for the info

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: jhu

1) generally, because you can coast a lot longer while in neutral vs. fuel-cutoff in gear, you will use less fuel overall while by being in neutral for as long as possible.

Sure. If you turn the engine off as well.
There is a given amount of potential energy in a car traveling at a certain speed at the top of a certain hill. All of the potential energy must be dissipated to leave the car at the bottom of the hill going the same speed (same kinetic energy).
If you leave it in D, the potential energy goes into compression losses and slightly more friction losses (higher RPM), heating up the engine slightly (which gets blown out of the radiator), and you lose the rest when you brake.

If you go into N, you lose less energy to friction losses because of a lower RPM, BUT you are also adding energy to the system by burning gas to keep the engine turning (this gets blown out of the radiator). While the rest of the car has more potential energy to play with since none of it is being used to turn the engine, that just means that you dissipate more of it through the brakes. If you do not brake you have the problem of added rolling resistance and wind resistance, which means that you end up losing a lot of the "additional" potential energy anyway.

Now obviously there's a turnover point where you will be dissipating so much more energy through frictional losses at a high RPM (leaving it in gear and coasting) that it will outstrip the fuel you would otherwise burn at a low RPM (idling in neutral), but if you keep it in top gear the difference in frictional losses is minor at most reasonable speeds.

Originally posted by: jhu
2) older cars didn't necessarily have deceleration fuel cut-off.

Sure. Because they had CARBURETORS. Any EFI engine that's even close to modern goes to full cut-off.

I can personally confirm that 80s EFI Toyotas go to full fuel cut-off when you go off-throttle. I would bet the life of my firstborn child that his 93 does as well.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: jagec

Now obviously there's a turnover point where you will be dissipating so much more energy through frictional losses at a high RPM (leaving it in gear and coasting) that it will outstrip the fuel you would otherwise burn at a low RPM (idling in neutral), but if you keep it in top gear the difference in frictional losses is minor at most reasonable speeds.

for very steep hills that's true. for gradual declines and flat roads, it's not.