Earle Horton wrote:
>
> "Jacqueline Passey" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > I am trying to find a good used Honda Civic hatchback with a manual
> > transmission in the Seattle area and so far haven't been having any
> > luck. I have found a few with automatic transmissions. The reason I
> > was looking for a manual is that it's a cheaper repair if/when it
> > breaks than an automatic (this is a car that I want to be able to drive
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> > for a long long time) but since it may not be possible to find one I
> > was thinking maybe I should compromise and go for the automatic
> > instead.
> >
> > Can anyone tell me more about how likely the automatic transmission is
> > to break down, at what approximate mileage range, and how much that
> > repair costs when it happens? Vs. breakdowns and repairs with the
> > manual transmission?
>
> A broken manual transmission is just that, broken. Automatics on the
> other hand have a lot of parts that wear out, but can be replaced.
> Typically, one buys a kit, replaces all the friction materials, and the
> auto is good to go for a hundred thousand more, assuming that the fluid
> is replaced at the recommended intervals. When a manual transmission
> goes, something breaks, and typically pokes a hole in the side of the
> transmission case, resulting in a total loss, of the transmission anyway.

Not in my experience. I've rebuilt several Honda manual transmissions.
They typically just need new bearings, seals, and synchros if they're worn.
Honda manual transmissions are very rebuildable.

Eric