Manual Transmission is Obsolete?

[kr_bitog]

Originally Posted By: silverrat
A lot of us cant afford to drive a performance car everyday. The manual transmission lets us have fun driving to work in a normal car that would otherwise be slow, but by having a manual makes life tolerable.

I agree with this, the auto transmission on the cheapest option always lousy, and manual give better enjoyment and performance.
The DSG and those smart "Auto" transmission does not comes cheap yet and when problem comes most of the time the option to repair is to replace the whole thing.

 

[Drew2000]

Hope the computerized "skip-shift" that forces a 1-4 upshift on the Mustang's new 6-speed manual is easy to disable like it is on the 'Vette.

 

[deeter16317]

One thing about the auto/manual deal...

- Manuals have a lot less moving parts, which means less things to break.

- And the clutch replacement on a manual is a lot less $$ than repairing an automatic.

As eluded to before, autos are easier to "control" via computer. And because of this, auto manufacturers can limit the "abuse" people do to the car and thereby limit the amount of warranty work they have. A lot of HD trucks have went to autos because of this...less driver error causing breakage.

 

[cos]

My Fusion has an electronic TB and it works quite well with the manual trans. IMO my car is far more fun to drive then the 4 cyl/auto version. Of course Fusions have a very smooth shifting sticks along with nicely weighted, easy to modulate hydraulic clutchs which makes the driving experience that much more rewarding.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Quote:
Since when are CTS-Vs available with 6L80Es?? (Or is it some other slushbox???


Since the 2009 introduction of the new style CTS. It's also a 6L90... not a 6L80.


So I take it that the 90 is a VERY beefed up version of the 80??
(I certainly hope so with all of that CRAZY brute torque of the LSA powerplant!!

)

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Drew2000
Hope the computerized "skip-shift" that forces a 1-4 upshift on the Mustang's new 6-speed manual is easy to disable like it is on the 'Vette.


Unless the Blue Oval engineers somehow hard wired, and hid/buried the program DEEP in the ECM (where it cannot be 'tuned out'), it will be the same as the GM Tremec T56es/6060s.

 

[JakeR22]

Originally Posted By: deeter16317
One thing about the auto/manual deal...

- Manuals have a lot less moving parts, which means less things to break.

- And the clutch replacement on a manual is a lot less $$ than repairing an automatic.

As eluded to before, autos are easier to "control" via computer. And because of this, auto manufacturers can limit the "abuse" people do to the car and thereby limit the amount of warranty work they have. A lot of HD trucks have went to autos because of this...less driver error causing breakage.


You second point is valid, until multiple clutch replacements are needed.

 

[caravanmike]

Originally Posted By: JakeR22
Originally Posted By: deeter16317
One thing about the auto/manual deal...

- Manuals have a lot less moving parts, which means less things to break.

- And the clutch replacement on a manual is a lot less $$ than repairing an automatic.

As eluded to before, autos are easier to "control" via computer. And because of this, auto manufacturers can limit the "abuse" people do to the car and thereby limit the amount of warranty work they have. A lot of HD trucks have went to autos because of this...less driver error causing breakage.


You second point is valid, until multiple clutch replacements are needed.

i have owned 7 manual transmissions over the years and replaced one clutch! if you know how to drive a standard clutch replacement is far and few between. mike

 

[u3b3rg33k]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
none of you guys have driven an auto integrated into the vehicle properly.

The moment you corner hard or use the throttle aggressively my slushbox 'awakens' into play mode, transforming into a downshifting wonder if you brake hard enough and holding gears through corners even if you lift the throttle!

Plus, with infinitely variable lockup you can have a hi stall converter that drives stock until you punch it.

Not all automatics suck.

Those reasons you list there are exactly what I dislike about automatics.

My bmw used to have a ZF 4HP22 automatic. It was probably my favorite automatic transmission as it was extremely predictable. I could run it up in gear WOT, back off a bit, and it'd shift at 4k (all while staying off the very evident kickdown switch). Same behavior in every gear.

With my foot at the right place on the throttle, I could accelerate to about 45mph with the engine only changing by a few hundred RPM. very smooth, very predictable in response to my actions.

The whole transforming in to play mode is exactly what I don't like. Sometimes I want to get more torque out of the engine without it jumping into "check this out" mode.

After doing my 5 speed swap, all I have to do is not shift out of 5th, and I can get the torque I need without additional fanfare.

As for holding gears, I usually want to hold gears while going downhill, which automatics don't seem inclined to do. The only ones that do seem to be diesels in tow/haul mode.

We have an automatic AWD minivan. I like it as a vehicle, but it's transmission leaves everything to be desired. what gear you're in is purely a suggestion. Put it in L and floor it, and it still shifts into the next gear before redline. It has no "2" position, which means you have to put it in L above 25mph to get to 2nd gear, and then once you slow down below 25, it dumps into 1st.

You couldn't pay me enough to swap back to daily driving an automatic (well, OK, you could, but it'd be expensive).
My 5 speed MT swap was worth the headache. Now, the car shifts the way I want, when I want, and to what gear I want and when it doesn't, I can do something about the why.

 

[JakeR22]

Originally Posted By: caravanmike
Originally Posted By: JakeR22
Originally Posted By: deeter16317
One thing about the auto/manual deal...

- Manuals have a lot less moving parts, which means less things to break.

- And the clutch replacement on a manual is a lot less $$ than repairing an automatic.

As eluded to before, autos are easier to "control" via computer. And because of this, auto manufacturers can limit the "abuse" people do to the car and thereby limit the amount of warranty work they have. A lot of HD trucks have went to autos because of this...less driver error causing breakage.


You second point is valid, until multiple clutch replacements are needed.

i have owned 7 manual transmissions over the years and replaced one clutch! if you know how to drive a standard clutch replacement is far and few between. mike


Having 7 manual transmissions doesn't mean anything, it's how many miles are on a given vehicle between clutches.

Some AT can go your miles between clutches, and then some with nothing more then fluid changes.

Not trying to argue toward a AT, but there's no standard either way.

 

[caravanmike]

Originally Posted By: JakeR22
Originally Posted By: caravanmike
Originally Posted By: JakeR22
Originally Posted By: deeter16317
One thing about the auto/manual deal...

- Manuals have a lot less moving parts, which means less things to break.

- And the clutch replacement on a manual is a lot less $$ than repairing an automatic.

As eluded to before, autos are easier to "control" via computer. And because of this, auto manufacturers can limit the "abuse" people do to the car and thereby limit the amount of warranty work they have. A lot of HD trucks have went to autos because of this...less driver error causing breakage.


You second point is valid, until multiple clutch replacements are needed.

i have owned 7 manual transmissions over the years and replaced one clutch! if you know how to drive a standard clutch replacement is far and few between. mike


Having 7 manual transmissions doesn't mean anything, it's how many miles are on a given vehicle between clutches.

i just added up the miles on the 7 manual transmissions (i've owned) over the last 30 years. 863,000 miles, the most miles was on a 92 mazda 626 2.2 manual i sold it running with 272,000 miles original transmission and clutch! only upkeep was new fluid yearly. mike

 

[bryon]

I love my manual trans, it make my tercel commuter fun and downshifting into second on the mustang and breaking the tires loose will never get old.
as far as more distracting...i disagree, try doing anything other than drive (especially in stop and go) with a manual. it forces you to actually drive your car not just go for a ride.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: bryon
I love my manual trans, it make my tercel commuter fun and downshifting into second on the mustang and breaking the tires loose will never get old.
as far as more distracting...i disagree, try doing anything other than drive (especially in stop and go) with a manual. it forces you to actually drive your car not just go for a ride.


I don't understand this. How is removing one thing- shifting, essentially making you a "passenger" in the car? You still have to operate the gas pedal, brake, steer, and pay attention to what your doing.

 

[deeter16317]

Originally Posted By: JakeR22

You second point is valid, until multiple clutch replacements are needed.



Hmmm, I got 220,000 miles on my first clutch in my 99 and 180,000 miles (with some of that approaching 450HP/800TQ) on this 04.5 (and it proved to be a factory defective clutch, not worn out).

I have yet to have an auto make it much past 125k before having some sort of quirk; whether small nuisance in shift points or complete failure. I drive cross country, and being stranded doesn't sit well with me.

And don't get me wrong, there are some applications that I feel an auto is better...city traffic is one. My 97 Outback is my daily commuter, and its an auto...and much more comfortable to drive in the 50/50 mixed city/highway drive.

But for anything doing significant towing (and expecting longevity), a manual will typically last longer in my experience.

 

[dime]

i love manual transmissions,i learned how to drive with one. even took my driving test in it to get my license,the instructor was surprised i was using a manual. i've owned three automatics,my v8/700r4 s-10 that i went through 3 transmissions in 3 years before finally building it myself to never fail using B&M parts. then a 1992 olds cutlass ciera(college car) never had a problem other than pure boredom. 1988 gmc c2500 with the th400,no problem except the lack of overdrive(14mpg with a 305) my current truck has 294,000 with the clutch being replaced once at 210,000 when i swapped in an engine and wanted to put in a new clutch/pressure plate.

 

[sangyup81]

Originally Posted By: deeter16317

Hmmm, I got 220,000 miles on my first clutch in my 99 and 180,000 miles (with some of that approaching 450HP/800TQ) on this 04.5 (and it proved to be a factory defective clutch, not worn out).

I have yet to have an auto make it much past 125k before having some sort of quirk; whether small nuisance in shift points or complete failure. I drive cross country, and being stranded doesn't sit well with me.

And don't get me wrong, there are some applications that I feel an auto is better...city traffic is one. My 97 Outback is my daily commuter, and its an auto...and much more comfortable to drive in the 50/50 mixed city/highway drive.

But for anything doing significant towing (and expecting longevity), a manual will typically last longer in my experience.


I actually prefer manual for city and auto for highway since autos typically have lower rpms on highway speeds

 

[ClarkB]

Originally Posted By: rudolphna
You guys are funny. Uneeded? We don't NEED a modern transmission at all. Heck,we won't need V6s, V8s, 4 cylinders, etc. We don't NEED cars at all. We can walk. Automatic has been around since the very early 20th century. It's only been getting more popular recently. It isn't being "shoved down our throats" (for the majority, at least) they WANT it. Today, automatics are rated for higher MPGs than manuals, for the most part. Think about this, most people are ALREADY bad drivers, without the distraction of a MT. Would you really want to put these yahoos in a car where they have to do something more complicated than mash the go and stop pedals and turn?

Personally, I don't care if MT is offered or not. I probably won't ever own one, I like my automatics just fine. Maybe if I ever got a sports car, and even then, I imagine it would only be on an RX-8 so the engine lasts longer. But the truth is, autos and DCT autos are taking over. I very much doubt Standard will be available in the United states for very much longer. My mom, and grandfather testify that if they lived in the country, they might consider getting a Manual. But they said "city" driving, as well as stop and go on the highway I would imagine, would be extremely tiring on a manual car.


One of the better observations made on this site in a long time.

Originally Posted By: JHZR2

AT longevity? LOL. Don't HD trucks use MTs? I wonder if there is a reason behind that...

And all our MT cars have the fuel cutout too.


Originally Posted By: deeter16317
One thing about the auto/manual deal...

- Manuals have a lot less moving parts, which means less things to break.

- And the clutch replacement on a manual is a lot less $$ than repairing an automatic.

As eluded to before, autos are easier to "control" via computer. And because of this, auto manufacturers can limit the "abuse" people do to the car and thereby limit the amount of warranty work they have. A lot of HD trucks have went to autos because of this...less driver error causing breakage.


Apparently neither of you read or remembered this thread. If you care not to read the thread, let me boil it down: cost of ownership in manual vs. auto is negligible, especially when most people get rid of the vehicle with less than 150K miles.

Clark

 

[deeter16317]

Originally Posted By: ClarkB
Apparently neither of you read or remembered this thread. If you care not to read the thread, let me boil it down: cost of ownership in manual vs. auto is negligible, especially when most people get rid of the vehicle with less than 150K miles.

Clark



The economy is dictating people keep their cars longer...I don't know a single neighbor that has any intention on trading their car anytime soon (even with high miles). Mainly because of the uncertainty of the economy...and the fact that even a $2500 trans rebuild is cheaper than a few new car payments.

So that thread, while once fairly accurate, may not be completely true now.

 

[fdcg27]

Unfortunately, people are voting with their wallets, and the future of sticks looks grim.
I prefer driving a stick, and two out of four vehicles in the current daily driver fleet, including my daily driver, are sticks.
Our two garage queens (MGB, 733i) are also sticks (yes, there was at one time an auto trans MGB available).
Anyway, a stick is always more entertaining to drive, and is not really a pain in traffic.
Phone use is to be avoided in a stick, not a bad thing.
Real world fuel economy will almost always be better, if the driver is reasonably alert, as most manual trans drivers are.
I am sad to see the laziness and ignorance of American drivers bringing the end of the manual trans in mainstream cars.
They have no idea what they are missing.
Can't drive one?
Learn how, it isn't rocket science.

 

[BigJohn]

6 months ago, I purchased a Hyundai Accent, 2-door hatch with a manual tranny for the family "kid car". I purposely selected a manual so my kids would learn to drive one. Maybe that decision was for naught....if every car will be an automatic in 5-7 years.