Which is the better tranny?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: RamFan
Now that I have your attention.

It seems to me that a pivotal point may have been reached with transmissions. It seems like automatic transmissions have not only caught up with manual transmissions but in some cases have surpassed them in regards to shift times, acceleration, and also possibly reliability. From a performance aspect alone, most of the top performance cars out there are use paddle shifters, not a true manual, instead of a traditional stick. What are your opinions? Are automatic transmissions of today on par with, or "better" than their manual counterparts?


Depends on what you want to do with it. If you want to have fun driving... you can't beat a stick. Paddle shifters are just ridiculous IMO- its an automatic with a manual mode and toys to play with. And yes, that even applies to dual-clutch manumatics in my opinion. If you want a real manual transmission, it has to have a stick and a clutch pedal.

If you want the fastest possible 1/4 mile time- automatics have won that battle since the early 1960s, no question. Automatics have won most of the strictly performance numbers battle for 40 years now, except for things like autocrossing where fine control is more important. The new dual-clutch ones are no exception- most people just can't shift that fast manually.

Heavy towing? Not as clear-cut and depends a LOT on the specific transmission design. Automatics are generally a lower-cost way to go since clutches are expensive and generally have to be done at ~100k miles. Truck automatics on the other hand are generally 200k mile items if cared for at all. There are some heavy truck stick transmissions out there (the NVGs in Cummins/Dodge and GM trucks for example) that are really built for towing and possibly better than automatics, but you have to get to the HD/diesel truck lines to see that. In 1/2 and 3/4 ton trucks, automatic is generally better.

General driving in a passenger car- its pretty much a tossup. Modern automatics generally win the efficiency battle because the transmission controller works so closely with the engine controller to optimize shifting, but a good stick driver can still win overall.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: artificialist
. I see 200,000 mile automatic transmissions on many cars, except for Chryslers.


Outdated misinformation. Ram trucks with the 545RFE are seeing 200k without even fluid and filter changes now, as reported by people on this very site. Chrysler had ONE bad transmission design... and yes they stupidly stuck with it for almost 20 years (the 41TE, and I even own one). Back in the 50s-80s they made the BEST automatics in the world. With today's NAG-1 and 545RFE they appear to be back among the best automatics in the world.
 
In terms of reliability NEVER are automatics better.

I think its personal preference, they are vastly different in driving experience. Some people get joy of actually controlling a vehicle and its engine with a manual. Others despise manuals in traffic understandably.

If you drive vehicles past 150k it should not be a surprise to have an automatic replacement or rebuild so.
 
My Jeeps 545RFE has been flawless with 174k miles. I didn't change the fluid until 165k and oh my god it still works! Oh lordy my Chrysler vehicle is about to fall apart! Please...
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: artificialist
. I see 200,000 mile automatic transmissions on many cars, except for Chryslers.


Outdated misinformation. Ram trucks with the 545RFE are seeing 200k without even fluid and filter changes now, as reported by people on this very site. Chrysler had ONE bad transmission design... and yes they stupidly stuck with it for almost 20 years (the 41TE, and I even own one). Back in the 50s-80s they made the BEST automatics in the world. With today's NAG-1 and 545RFE they appear to be back among the best automatics in the world.


I've got one of Chryslers 80's autos in the Neon and I don't think even the fluid has been changed since new or atleast from 2004 when I got it. Its stood up to lots of autocross, a track day, lots of coasting in N on the highway and it works well if a bit crudely, but that matches the rest of the car. It gets it done.
 
Originally Posted By: rjundi
In terms of reliability NEVER are automatics better.

I think its personal preference, they are vastly different in driving experience. Some people get joy of actually controlling a vehicle and its engine with a manual. Others despise manuals in traffic understandably.

If you drive vehicles past 150k it should not be a surprise to have an automatic replacement or rebuild so.


This. ATs are gettin better, but still fall short of manuals imo. ATs are very popular these days, because it's hard to text and eat a sub and put on makeup when you have to shift.
 
All it takes is one bad transmission to ruin it. It will probably take 50 years for Chrysler to outlive the bad transmissions. That's the real cost of turning out crud, even if it's just an isolated incidence of crud. Consumers have a long memory and will remember their last experience.

If your FWD Chrysler product ate it's transmission before 100K miles, chances are it will be your last Chrysler experience and what you remember, what you tell your kids, your neighbors, etc.
 
I've got 331k+ miles (yes) on my '93 Mazda 5spd - changed the MTX fluid a couple times, but have stopped that. Original clutch. An auto transmission would be hard pressed to make it this far and would have required many more fluid replacements during that time.

My Mom's '92 Nissan 5spd has never been touched, orginal fluid, everything. I think she's at 295k or over 300k by now.

Since I don't buy new cars, manuals are simply more reliable and economical. Hard to find, though. On a new vehicle I would go auto unless I am buying it for driving enjoyment.
 
A poorly maintained manual transmission will general last longer than a well maintained automatic transmission.

I would never dream of buying a high-mileage car with an automatic transmission. If it has a manual transmission and it shifts fine after driving it long enough to heat the fluid up, I don't think twice. I just change the fluid.
 
in the early 60s chrysler used there new aluminum torquefilte trans in the max-wedge race car, and did very good. any other brand was laughed off the track if they brought a auto trans to the track. the plymouths, and dodges did good with the auto trans. what happened? did chrysler forget how to build a auto trans?
 
Originally Posted By: morris
in the early 60s chrysler used there new aluminum torquefilte trans in the max-wedge race car, and did very good. any other brand was laughed off the track if they brought a auto trans to the track. the plymouths, and dodges did good with the auto trans. what happened? did chrysler forget how to build a auto trans?


More complicated designs + tighter spaces are probably what did it. Later cars had more gears, overdrive, etc. and the transmissions had to be smaller to fit in FWDs and small vehicles. Getting all this to work reliably within the budget may have been kind of trial and error for the manufacturers.

One of the most notorious automatics is the AXOD in the fist gen Taurus. This was also Ford's first 4 speed OD automatic in a FWD V6 car...I don't think that's a coincidence. My parents had a 1990 Taurus that went through at least three AXODs in its life!
 
what i do to a trans to get it to last is drain 2-3 QTS of fluid. and refill with 90-140 rear end grease. dont tell me to not do so. cause it has worked so well i will keep doing this. how ever this is done on chrysler trans only, dont try this any other brand. NOTE: i am NOT a trans expert. i have dropped valve bodies, to install shift kits. that is all i have done.
 
I have had mot manuals than autos. Manual works great with small cars but heavy cars forget it. The lag time between gears, clutch replacement which actually is more than just clutch itself, bearing, fork, and even flywheel. If you are a commuter it is another plus for manual but for short trips in city auto is far better.
Reliabiliy varies but out of nearly 10 cars with auto have spent zero on auto repair(except fluid change) but $2500 for two manuals for clutch plate and clutch pump.
 
Originally Posted By: rjundi
In terms of reliability NEVER are automatics better.


Really? My Civic slowly lost about 1 ounce of fluid in the hydraulic clutch and guess what? It couldn't shift. I'd take losing an ounce out of an automatic transmission than a hydraulic clutch.

Clark
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom