hmm why discontinue the 6MT you ask...... (It's NOT discontinued, BTW)

General Discussion forum for Versa Owners
Adiaz360
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:33 pm

Post

Makes you wonder why they would discontinue the 6MT. Hmmm..i have one and i love it...except for a couple things. Now, i'm no mechanic by any means, but i've driven sticks before, and the gears on the V seem rough. I dunno, i wish i could buy a sport shifter for it or something to make it a little smoother. ALSO in between 1 and 2nd gear if i leave it between gears it will make a horrible grinding noise but i have my Clutch pushed ALL the way down, maybe its b/c its new, i dunno. Anyone know if there is even a short shifter, or sport shifter out that would fit the V? let me know..thanks guysAdam D. = Versa owner



User avatar
BBISHOPPCM
Posts: 1074
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:38 pm
Car: 2006 Murano S/AWD w/ Convenience Package

Post

I wanted to buy an SL 6/mt but the dealer wouldn't order it for me Well, I'm glad I got the CVT in the end, it's a great transmission, but I do miss owning a manual.

User avatar
Elmojo
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:27 pm
Car: 2007 Versa SL
Contact:

Post

I haven't heard anything about the 6MT being discontinued, but it would not surprise me in the least.

I have the 6MT, and I can say from extensive past experience with both Nissan and other vehicles, that this is the absolute worst transaxle I've ever had the misfortune of dealing with.

In fact, this, along with the weak gas mileage, are the only two complaints I have with the Versa.

The shifting is horrible, the clutch is jerky, and all the gears are about 15-20% too short.

I think dropping the 6MT is a smart option. Now if they would just replace it with a decent 6-spd transaxle and offer us poor current owners some sort of swap/upgrade option, the world would be a better place indeed.I'm not holding my breath.

Cheers!

M2Motoring
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:05 am
Car: 2007 Nissan Versa, 2005 Scion xB, 2002 Nissan Xterra, 1990 Mazda Miata, 1998 Mercedes Benz Slk230
Contact:

Post

i beg to differ. i myself love the 6mt. as far as the clutch, yeah its not the smoothest of trannys around. the gears are short for the 6mt for a reason. because it has 6 gears. overall ratio combined of the gears is simliar to cars in its class with a 5 speed. short gears help the car pick up and go. if the gears were long in all 6 it would make for a much slower versa. mileage wise i think it does great for its engine size. I'm averaging better mileage than my scion with this versa. its a thumbs up commuter car overall =)

User avatar
XterraVersa
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:01 pm
Car: Nissan Xterra & Nismo 350Z
Contact:

Post

I like it just fine. I would like taller gears though. My shift pattern is 1, 2, 4, 6 & it has no problems picking up speed to 65 mph. They should have spread the gears out a bit and make 6th gear a gear when going 75 mph the rpms would be around 2500 to trully make this a gas sipping econobox.

User avatar
Ever Victorious
Posts: 4723
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 6:03 am
Car: '08 Kia Spectra5, '73 AMC Hornet

Post

I agree with M2 and Xterra. There's nothing wrong with the transmission itself, save for the slightly odd gearing. If it were widened just a bit and kept the RPM's just a little lower on freeway cruise, it would be great.

I only ever had "jerky clutch" for the first three days, while I was getting used to it. And I was also being screwed up by the ASCD switch problem during that timeframe. And the only "bad shifting" happens when you try to shift too quickly.

User avatar
biggie
Moderator
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 2:31 am
Car: '16 Q70L/'14 Q60S Vert/'19 Armada/'09 FX35
Location: Clemmons, NC

Post

I also do like it so far, only had it a couple days. Do wish 6th was taller, it does need to be under 3k rpms at 70. Hopefully mpg will be good though.

I just couldn't stand the option of the auto/cvt, I knew I'd be bored out of my mind with it.

User avatar
Elmojo
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:27 pm
Car: 2007 Versa SL
Contact:

Post

I'm surprised EV agrees with the 6MT lovers, considering he's done a bit of auto-Xing.

For anyone who's done much performance driving, this manual tranny is unacceptable.

Those of you who like it have obviously never driven a truly smooth gearbox.Wait, maybe I should qualify that. Maybe you have driven better-shifting transaxles, but you're not expecting as much from the V, since it's an 'econobox'.

I respectfully disagree. Let me explain why:

1) The throttle-by-wire makes the RPMs hang between gears, forcing you to shift very slowly to achieve smooth shifts.

2) The engine has quite a bit of torque for it's size, but the short gearing (especially 1st) doesn't allow you to take advantage of it. I routinely have to shift from 1st to 2nd in the middle of a turn, which is both annoying and dangerous.

3) The 6th gear puts the revs at 3K @ 65mpg indicated.This is just silly. This car should only be pulling around 23-2500 @ 65mph for decent fuel economy. I submit the CVT as exhibit 'A'.

4) As a result, the new EPA numbers show about 28/34 city/highway (I think?), which is just horrible. My 10-yr old Honda Civic got a steady 32mpg in mixed city/hwy, whereas the V only gets about 28-29 mixed, and about 32 in straight highway driving. My friend's 2007 Toyota Corolla gets 37-40 on the highway, and it has a bigger engine! Go figure.

All-in-all, I love my V, so don't take this as a V-bashing session.However, I think Nissan dropped the ball in using the Renault gearbox in the V. I understand that the ratios were picked for Euro drivers and that the hanging RPMs are due to emission controls, but that doesn't make the car any more pleasant to drive.

Just my 2c,

User avatar
biggie
Moderator
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 2:31 am
Car: '16 Q70L/'14 Q60S Vert/'19 Armada/'09 FX35
Location: Clemmons, NC

Post

I would agree for performance shifting its not that good. But seriously who's buying this for performance?

motoguy128
Posts: 403
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:57 pm
Car: 2007 Nissan Versa S - 6 Speed

Post

I think it's smoothed out with a few miles... or I've gotten better at driving it. The RPM hanging isn't very noticeable with the A/C on.

THe mileage is on par for a nearly 2800lb car wiht a taller body. I can;t name a car with equal mileage that can match the headroom and legroom front and rear for under 15k ... you'll have to look at an SUV.

THe Honda Civic and Corolla both have taller top gears on their manual tranny. Both feel slower when accelerating in top gear. The Versas primary competitors the Fit and Yaris were far worse at freeway crusing on my test drivies.

If you do a lot of freeway driving, get the CVT. But if you want a simple do-it-all economy car, I like the 6 speed. I would never consider towing anything wiht an automatic tranny in a small car... but don't think twice with a manual tranny.

User avatar
Ever Victorious
Posts: 4723
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 6:03 am
Car: '08 Kia Spectra5, '73 AMC Hornet

Post

Elmojo wrote:I'm surprised EV agrees with the 6MT lovers, considering he's done a bit of auto-Xing.
Autocrossing does not automatically mean jamming through the gears as fast as possible. The fastest drivers are the smoothest drivers. Doing everything as quick as you can is the hallmark of a drag racer.

Quote »Those of you who like it have obviously never driven a truly smooth gearbox.Wait, maybe I should qualify that. Maybe you have driven better-shifting transaxles, but you're not expecting as much from the V, since it's an 'econobox'.[/quote]I've driven plenty of "smooth" or "better shifting" gearboxes. 300ZX, Legacy GT, WRX, New Sonata, Mazda6... the list goes on and on. And I will once again sound like a broken record in that I HATE "smooth" gearboxes because I can't always tell when I'm actually in gear. The most "upscale" gearbox I've ever driven that I actually LIKED was the Miata. Which, gee, has a very positive engagement feel like the Versa.

Quote »1) The throttle-by-wire makes the RPMs hang between gears, forcing you to shift very slowly to achieve smooth shifts.[/quote]This is ECU programming, not a general characteristic of TBW systems. Although I hate TBW's because they respond so slowly to throttle input. Sadly, cable throttles are going the way of the dinosaur.

Quote »2) The engine has quite a bit of torque for it's size, but the short gearing (especially 1st) doesn't allow you to take advantage of it. I routinely have to shift from 1st to 2nd in the middle of a turn, which is both annoying and dangerous.

3) The 6th gear puts the revs at 3K @ 65mpg indicated.This is just silly. This car should only be pulling around 23-2500 @ 65mph for decent fuel economy. I submit the CVT as exhibit 'A'.[/quote]I won't argue with you on the funny gearing, since it's geared for European roads. But a simple redesign of the gears would fix that.

I will also ignore your submission of CVT as exhibit A. Yes, it's a wonderfully smooth transmission and keeps your rev's at optimum at all times... BUT... Nissan has not had a CVT in production here for more than 7 years. To me they have NOT yet proven that they have gotten past the CVT reliability curse. Their first CVT's were what, '04? Talk to me again in '12 and if they haven't broken left and right then my mind will be changed. (I still won't intentionally buy one, I will always buy a manual if given the choice)

Quote »4) As a result, the new EPA numbers show about 28/34 city/highway (I think?), which is just horrible. My 10-yr old Honda Civic got a steady 32mpg in mixed city/hwy, whereas the V only gets about 28-29 mixed, and about 32 in straight highway driving. My friend's 2007 Toyota Corolla gets 37-40 on the highway, and it has a bigger engine! Go figure.[/quote]The new EPA numbers just reflect reality better. The old numbers were based on a very flawed testing system.

Also, your 10-year-old Civic weighs 400 pounds less than a Versa and has a 1.6L (I presume SOHC, unless it was an EX).

And for the record, the Corolla has the SAME size engine as a V, but weighs 300 lbs less. If the V weighed that little, no doubt it would get at least 2mpg better at all times. I'll ignore the comparison between the engines in the old Civic and the new Toyota since it is very difficult to compare the dynamics of a non-VVT engine to one that is.

But I guess I'm a bit old-school when I drive a car. I like feedback. I like to feel the road somewhat, I like to feel the engine and the transmission. I would die if I had to drive a Lexus or Infiniti as a daily because it would just feel... I guess like an out of body experience.


User avatar
biggie
Moderator
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 2:31 am
Car: '16 Q70L/'14 Q60S Vert/'19 Armada/'09 FX35
Location: Clemmons, NC

Post

Ever Victorious wrote:But I guess I'm a bit old-school when I drive a car. I like feedback. I like to feel the road somewhat, I like to feel the engine and the transmission. I would die if I had to drive a Lexus or Infiniti as a daily because it would just feel... I guess like an out of body experience.
Funny. To me this is like that. Guess its what you are use to (for myself harsher rides in my S13s).

In shifting the V seems good, as far as the feel goes. I'm still weirded out by the reverse over on the left and it doesn't feel like it goes as far as it should in the up motion. 1-5 feel good going in, even though its long throws and I'm taking some time to get use to the eng revving. 5-6 seems like it should have more of a positive feed back that you are staying over to the right far enough, I've done 5-4 a couple times(but that could be habbit).

User avatar
XterraVersa
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:01 pm
Car: Nissan Xterra & Nismo 350Z
Contact:

Post

EV the point about the CVT from Elmojo was that the gear ratio is better.

I bet Nissan did this not because it was easy, but because they want the CVT to have the best MPG number of all the trannies. If they did the gearing a little taller, the 6MT could be getting 36-42mpg highway.

I would have got the CVT if it had a simple switch in it. A three position switch for the trannie perfomance; (Super Econo/normal/max performance). This could keep the RPM range in the driving style you wanted (1500-2500/2500-3500/3500-redline).

These automakers need to start thinking how to maximize mpg in a car, while still being able to oofer performance to those that want it. The first car maker to offer a non-hybrid Versa sized car that gets 60+mpg & costs in the 15-20k range will make a killing. Just a few tweaks & the Versa could be there

M2Motoring
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:05 am
Car: 2007 Nissan Versa, 2005 Scion xB, 2002 Nissan Xterra, 1990 Mazda Miata, 1998 Mercedes Benz Slk230
Contact:

Post

i agree with what EV has said..

i had a spec miata i use to race..the gear shifting is simliar to that of the V, but my miata was a clunky pos haha. but still i dont have a problem shifting gears and catching the right rpms. yes i admit the trans isnt for racing, but the car wasnt for racing to begin with with the US market in mind. a full spec type R ek9 is fun fun fun =) well for fwd driving hehe


Return to “Versa General Chat”