Manual Transmission? Yea or Nay?

ricatic wrote:

I would like to clarify something though...I would not object to any of the manufacturer's offering a manual transmission in their HD pickup's...For those who still want one...so be it...but with the automatic being the defacto standard for transmissions, the manual needs to bear the cost of being an option...I do wonder how many die hard manual guy's would pay the freight to get that manual???

There is no reason for a manual to cost more. Automatics have always cost more, they are more complex and have way more moving parts. All those computers and sensors cost big bucks. Since the manual transmissions are used in the rest of the world the argument about R&D cost doesn't stand up either.

ricatic wrote:
The tired old argument about manuals getting better mileage needs to die...The modern computer controlled automatic does a better job of interfacing with the computer controlled engine. This maximizes the fuel economy by processing millions of bits of data and instantly adjusts fuel flow to meet the needs. Humans have no chance at matching that raw power for decision making...or the finesse that the computer controls have over throttle control...

Have not seen that play out in the real world. Yes on the computer controlled test dynamometers they do. But that is a very controlled setup, one that I'll bet influences the programming of the vehicle. But the best computer is reactive. Vehicle slows, computer increases fuel. But momentum is lost and truck down shifts. I see hill ahead, I increase fuel before vehicle slows, vehicle maintains speed, no downshift required, fuel saved. I also don't really like a computer having more control than I do. I don’t know why Toyota had acceleration problems, but I don't buy the floor mats. Oh and try to get all that HP to the ground. Ever heard of Torque Management? That’s your computers talking and cutting back on power, most times to keep that expensive automatic transmission from a early grave.