Manual Transmission? Yea or Nay?

cutty72 wrote:
Unless I was buying brand new, I choose a manual.
It allows me the ability to pick the gear I want to be in, and how long I am going to hold it.
Model year 12 and newer vehicles excluded, what auto trans will let you hold a higher gear and really lug the engine? Yes, you can set the max gear, and wind it up, buy try to keep it in that high gear while really pulling up a hill...

Oh, and another bonus to driving a manual, you have a built in anti-theft device! The ability to drive a manual is a dying art.

Ford does. When you put a Ford automatic transmission selector in one of the numbered positions, it shifts to that gear as long as it won't over rev the engine, then holds it. There have been times when I have put the 6R75 in my 07 Expedition EL in 2 or 3, come to a stop for some reason, and then wondered why it was so gutless leaving the stop. I am not sure exactly what gears the newer 6R140 will let you start/hold, but I can start and hold in 1, 2, or 3.

I do understand what you are getting at, when climbing a hill and cresting a small rise, or slowing slightly for a corner, I don't want my automatic to shift up, then down, then down again, then back, I would rather just modulate the throttle, or if I can see the top of the hill and know if I just keep my foot in it a bit longer I will be at the top and let off the throttle instead of the transmission downshifting and screaming the last 200ft.

I love manual transmissions, I learned to drive on my dad's 81 Dodge 250 with a cabover camper on the back. NP435 (granny 4spd) with non synchronous 1st and manual steering. You had to pay attention while driving that truck. My personal vehicles have all been sticks but had to compromise on the family vehicle. But DW can drive my 5spd focus, and does all the time when it is just her and I am home. I will also be sure all my kids can drive a manual.

As regards to the OP's questions, it is purely a question of personal preferance. Anything with the 5R110 or later and there is no real dissadvantage to either one, just depends on how much you enjoy or don't enjoy driving a manual.

mowermech wrote:
A stick bad in traffic? You haven't seen traffic until you have been in downtown Saigon in a 5 speed manual transmission deuce and a half, with a full load of 24 foot 2X6s on it! That was in 1966, I bet it is worse now!
I would love to have a 6 speed manual in the motorhome. I know, all it takes is money. It CAN be done! But, it will not happen.

I love the smell of napalm in the morning

The better fuel mileage argument supported by the manual drivers is specious. It is based on the theory that the manual operator is always at the perfect speed, in the perfect gear with the perfect throttle setting...not possible.

One can look at the current mileages of the newest diesels with the latest and greatest automatic transmissions for the answer. Reported fuel economy numbers are all over the place in the real world. Today's computer aided engines calculate fuel needs so accurately that there is no wasted fuel. But, driving techniques certainly factor into overall mileage results. Every operator is different so the fuel economy numbers vary from driver to driver. With my POS ford, I could get great fuel mileage by driving very carefully and monitoring the instant fuel consumption information screen. My fuel economy would drop noticeably if I changed driving manners at all.

This example results from driving a truck with a computer controlled engine and transmission that makes millions of calculations a second analyzing dozens of factors in the operation equation. The computer considers temperature, ambient and operating, humidity,air density,fuel/air ratio, engine load, engine speed,manifold pressure,altitude, transmission parameters, vehicle speed and dozens of other parameters to constantly provide optimum operating performance. All this computer power provides information to the automatic transmission at rates that no human could ever accomplish...even if he had the on board capability to monitor those parameters. Each one of those parameters affect fuel economy.

Of course, as mentioned by a manual fan, there are a few conditions that the computer can not foretell...like the momentum carry as you approach a hill with cruise control engaged. The operator of any vehicle with either transmission is responsible for making certain decisions. Why does driving a manual transmission preclude the operator of the automatic from realizing the upcoming hill and assuming throttle control to maintain momentum? I do this all the time when driving rolling country...and I drive an automatic...

Regards

The 6-auto still doesn't have the 6-manual beat when it comes to diesel fuel mileage. Not with the right driver. Some of us value lowest operating costs, and fuel economy is one measure of that (along with tire & brake life, etc).

Any links to back that up?

The 6-auto still doesn't have the 6-manual beat when it comes to diesel fuel mileage. Not with the right driver. Some of us value lowest operating costs, and fuel economy is one measure of that (along with tire & brake life, etc).

A clutch replacement won't cost me $4000. At 193k would the 4-auto (or later 6-auto) have even lasted this long? I'm still on the original clutch.

And a "detuned" engine behind the 6-manual? Then why is the "detuned" engine in the 4500/5500 series? The HP wars are for the dumb kids in the classroom.

That said, an 8-auto would probably be the end for the man trans in a Big Three HD diesel pickup. The 6-autos are close, but not yet ahead in all ways. By that time the software necessary to run a manual may not be do-able (as has been noted by the lately absent NewsW) so a manual with even more gears is unlikely at all.

In the meantime I'd sure love to have a second overdrive gear. One for solo, and another for towing. Mystery Seventh . . I've reached for it more than once.

.

Model year 12 and newer vehicles excluded, what auto trans will let you hold a higher gear and really lug the engine?

Why on earth would anybody want to do that? I mean really; lug an engine so bad that it is way outside the envelope of design limits? Why? You gain nothing by doing this. :S

Lets see: loose power, burn more fuel, and maybe even hurt the engine, ya; now that is an advantage. :R

BurbMan wrote:
Maybe we ought to change the topic to politics at this point and see if we can simmer down the debate....LOL...

More marketing metrics than anything....and the herd demands automatic

Yet another conformation of why I keep mine forever

Unless I was buying brand new, I choose a manual.
It allows me the ability to pick the gear I want to be in, and how long I am going to hold it.
Model year 12 and newer vehicles excluded, what auto trans will let you hold a higher gear and really lug the engine? Yes, you can set the max gear, and wind it up, buy try to keep it in that high gear while really pulling up a hill...

Oh, and another bonus to driving a manual, you have a built in anti-theft device! The ability to drive a manual is a dying art.

Maybe we ought to change the topic to politics at this point and see if we can simmer down the debate....LOL...

jaycocamprs wrote:

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.

jayco...

The point I was making is that in today's world, and for the last 10 to 20 years, the manual transmission has not been the choice of the majority of new HD truck purchasers...yet...the manual remained the de facto "no charge" transmission. It only worked because the manual transmissions were up to the task when dealing with the power levels of the period...

This all changed in 2011. Ford and GM threw down the gauntlet and raised power levels above the current manual transmissions design limits. Ram followed suit when they introduced the H.O. version of their ubiquitous Cummins. The manual transmission option for Ram was not available in the H.O. version...the explanation from all three sources was the same...the manuals were not able to reliably handle the extra power. All three manufacturers had already spent the development money to provide stout and reliable automatic transmission's for the 98.5% of the HD buyer's. What they were not going to do was invest ten's of millions of dollars to develop a heavy duty manual transmission for 1.5% of the HD market.

To whom would they pass the costs of this development? The cat was out of the bag. There was no viable market share for a manual transmission that could support these costs. The development costs would either have to be recovered by making the manual transmission an expensive option...or again saddle the majority of the market with a patently unfair burden...why anger 98.5% of your customers to satisfy 1.5% of your customers?

This very discussion took place on GM and Ford forums in the 2011 model years. Over at the Blue KoolAid site, a thread ran for months asking for the manual transmission fans to petition the manufacturers to reconsider the death of the manual transmission. I asked the same questions on those forums as I asked earlier today on this one. I will ask again:

How many manual transmission devotee's would order an optional manual transmission that added to the cost of the truck?

How much would the manual transmission devotee's be willing to pay for that transmission?

How many manual transmission devotee's would not spend the extra money and just buy the standard automatic transmission?

No manual transmission devotee has ever answered any of these questions. A yes answer to the third question would be especially telling. Why? Because every yes answer to that question further reduces the already miniscule 1.5% market share the manual transmission has now...

Long live the manual transmission...as long as the person buying it is actually paying for it...

Regards