Manual Transmission? Yea or Nay?

itguy08 wrote:
Still looking for the first truck in preparation for our first RV sometime next year and I've pretty much narrowed it down to an F2/350 with the V10. Not sure I want to roll the dice with a 6.0 Diesel and the poor fuel economy of the 6.4.

So I've found a few and one that gets my curiosity is a V10 and 6 speed stick. Driving stick is nothing new to me - owned a few along the way. I've even driven a few trucks with sticks (U-hauls, etc) and don't remember it being much different than a car (other than the 2MPH Low :) ). I love the simplicity of it and for Ford the tow rating is the same.

So, is there any downsides to a stick vs auto? Or would I be crazy to think stick for a tow vehicle?

Back to the regular programming...opinions to the OP's question

Bottom line on a choice between auto or manual is mainly personal preferences

Again, here are mine for a manual tranny:

• Added weight of any automatic over manual
• Added cost to buy over manual
• Added cost to maintain an automatic
• Added heating to the whole system by ATF
• Cost to rebuild an auto is more
• Touted controls of both the engine and tranny computers is a negative to me (one back ground is in computing...another is automation & systems controls)
• All computer controlled automatics algorithms are for the fat part of the herd bell curve...I've never been in that herd, so their attributes does NOT fit my driving style
• Engine braking is better with a manual

And just plain prefer a manual to an automatic for my trucks/SUV's

No one can convince me to change, nor do I expect to convince someone
else's preference...unless either I hear something that might make
sense to me, or someone else finds my opinions compelling...

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

I want the manual transmission, but I wont pay more for it. That is ridiculous considering the cost of an equivalent automatic is easily twice the manual, PLUS the additional computer needed to control the shifting.

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

I would say the option to NOT have the automatic should save me at least $1000 on a new vehicle purchase

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

I did, but not for money, for equipment. As I stated before, manual transmission have been in decline ever since the OEMs started bundling automatics in every option package above base. As a consumer, I was forced to decide which I wanted more; leather seats, moonroof and killer stereo, or manual transmission. My preference would have been to be able to get both, and in a perfect world it should have saved me money, not cost anything more.

Automatic transmissions are fluid pumps, and not 100% efficient ones. That is where the heat comes from, and heat is wasted power. This is simple physics. Do manual tranny make heat? Sure, any time metal rubs against metal heat will be generated. But nothing close to the heat loss an auto generates. Ever notice manual transmissions don't need tranny coolers?

And one more thing, the mileage figures everyone is relying on to make it seem as though automatics get equal or better mileage that manuals is fabricated marketing BS. They are designed to convince consumers "on the fence" that the automatic comes at no cost. It is just not true. Every manual transmission vehicle I have owned since the early 90's (earlier cars had no published stats) got 2-3mpg better than the EPA sticker said it would. My 04 Subaru Forester easily got 34-35mpg in typical highway driving, yet was only rated for 30. A close friend had the exact same car with automatic, and besides it being much slower off the line, it only averaged 25mpg instead of the EPA quote of 29.

In contrast, every automatic vehicle I have bought got slightly WORSE mileage that the EPA sticker. Of course, your mileage may vary.

Ricatic brings up a very good point.

Ram is the only game in town for row boat devotees. This being so, why do only far less than 5% buy them? Why arn't the row boat fans flocking to them and putting orders in for these things?

This is much like the big fanfare for the 200HP baby diesel. Everybody thinks they will love them and says they will buy one until they tow with a 200HP diesel; then the sell rate falls like a stone.

camping man wrote:
Heck, my wife can drive my manual truck like it's nobody's business. Too many nancyboys out there anymore.

somewhere, earlier in this thread, I mentioned the fact that the manual devotee's always had someone who would result to name calling and questions of manhood to attempt to defend their position...and a poster called me out...but , again, my point was validated...

Deb can drive a manual transmission vehicle as well as any one...including me...and I have over a million miles in manual transmission vehicles. Does my current preference to not own a manual transmission make me a nancyboy? :B:B:B...do I need to surrender my CDL "A" and DOT medical card???

With real world performance of either transmission being a draw, the manual devotee's should stop complaining, buy what they want, make sales numbers look to manufacturer's like there is really a bigger market out there than 1.5% and maybe the manual will return. Ram's sales of manual transmission trucks should be skyrocketing.

But herein rides the problem, the manual guy's had their chance for the last 20 years or so to drive sales numbers up. But instead,manual transmission sales continued to plummet as truck sales numbers rose. This happened even though automatic transmission buyers continued to subsidize their manual brethren. Now that the subsidy for the manual transmission has ended, there is that small issue about three still unanswered questions addressed to the manual devotee's. They are simple, non-inflammatory questions that require only an honest yes or no. Here they are 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...

Any takers today????

Regards

Heck, my wife can drive my manual truck like it's nobody's business. Too many nancyboys out there anymore.

jaycocamprs wrote:
snip....
Well you are right that the market share was not there. But I also believe that at least GM has not wanted to sell manuals since the mid 80's And made them hard to find and less attractive to buy. The auto was a near 1K option, money they wanted. When the auto was made the "standard transmission" the base price went up. Base went up when OnStar was made standard, another feature I don't want. But when you go to the dealer every vehicle on the lot is loaded with options, options increase profit margins.
The other thing that I feel did in the manual is what has been termed "envelope protection" Total computer control. The OEM's can only do this with the auto, and most of North America has bought the marketing. It’s also much harder to pass the emission standards with the stick and still maintain drivability.
Again there is NO reason that a manual transmission should cost more. They are less complex and cheaper to make. They are still used everywhere but the US and Canada.

Notice the where the shifter is in this Chevy 3500 C&C. You can buy this truck just the other side of the Rio Grande
I would be very happy with a detuned Duramax, I'm happy with the HP of the stock LLY. I just don't need 400hp and 800tq, give me more MPG. Anyway this is all just my opinion, and I know what that’s worth. I doubt that I will ever buy another "new" car or truck. Way over priced, for what I just don't want.

This image and comments of a flip in auto/manual outside of N America
telling of an egg/chicken scenario...






Is it 'really' personal preference or is because the young no longer
start life with a stick shift?

German buddy laughs at 'us' eating in their vehicles. No way would 'they'
over there, as driving is viewed in a different way

So is it marketing (that mention of higher cost/margin to the OEM
with the automatic) or is it really preference...

Another thing to noodle...all automatics generate more heat than
a manual (that I know of). Even when their big loss is locked out.
Takes energy to generate that heat and where does that energy come from?

The highest mpg average I know of is a CUMMINS engineer in his daily commute to work. Around 20k miles in 2012 at an average of 40.5 mpg in his 6-manual 2008 truck. Highs near 50.

Ok, you sort of had my attention until the above. Then it started to sound like the 100MPG carburator that the men in black came and bought out. Or HHO gives me 50% increase in mileage. :R

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

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?

My own experience driving oil field hotshot in 2010/11 1T and C&C trucks with goosenecks; a 6-auto and a 6-manual. And in discussion with others in the same game. Grossing over 30k day in and day out. Stop & go is where the difference is largest (for a given comparison). Loading at same customer to deliver to same consignee. Same route, etc. And seeing where things stand at fuel-up.

The 6-auto is easier, sure. Feathering the throttle works fairly well with an auto, to let it upshift with the least amount of throttle opening for a given road, load and traffic. But there are still places where when and how to shift still mean more. It adds up with a lot of miles. An auto isn't too good on the unpaved lease roads. One is on the brake too often. Not so with the man trans. Especially in slow maneuvering around a yard or at a rig. That's the auto penalty writ large.

Control matters when one is counting tenths. On the highway from one Interstate exit to another is probably is a wash. But these are trucks and they are expected to work. So not all roads are paved, much less smooth or with good traction.

The highest mpg average I know of is a CUMMINS engineer in his daily commute to work. Around 20k miles in 2012 at an average of 40.5 mpg in his 6-manual 2008 truck. Highs near 50.

The average on my 305/555 is only 21-mpg the past 40k (and I'm back to running Class 8 around the oilfield). But I can hit 23-mpg consistently inside the city limits when I push it. I settle for 19+/- as it is easier. On the highway I don't fall below 24, and have seen 27 any number of times (on a dead stock truck; now at 7,900-lbs & 191k miles).

I've averaged 15+ mpg while towing the travel trailer. I am aiming at high 16's / low 17's for the future with my 35' TT. Chasing down mechanical details on both vehicles is this years plan. 25-cpm fuel cost ($4/gl) is fine, but it's fun to try to get it lower (non-mountainous terrain and non-extreme climate assumed).

Folks think that high mpg is either some form of magic or just lying. But then, they've never tried to do it, or to learn from others, either. Ergo, it can't happen (must be the "thinking").

Who'd have believed a 4-ton pickup could run a 12-second quarter mile and still be streetable not so many years ago? Not me. In that same vein, with the right driver, truck spec and determination, very high fuel economy is also possible. The 6-manual is at the heart of that, for now (behind a Cummins, the other brands aren't competitive).

I "assume" an 8-auto and tighter programming will change this.

.

Ram has the market cornered on manual transmissions in HD pickups...I have to wonder what percentage of their HD pickups are ordered with the manual transmission? Has Ram's take rate increased above the 1.5% that was the number in 2011 when the other 2 manufacturers abandoned the manual market?

...and the questions asked of the manual transmission devotee's are still unanswered...I find the silence deafening...

Regards

ricatic wrote:

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

Well you are right that the market share was not there. But I also believe that at least GM has not wanted to sell manuals since the mid 80's And made them hard to find and less attractive to buy. The auto was a near 1K option, money they wanted. When the auto was made the "standard transmission" the base price went up. Base went up when OnStar was made standard, another feature I don't want. But when you go to the dealer every vehicle on the lot is loaded with options, options increase profit margins.
The other thing that I feel did in the manual is what has been termed "envelope protection" Total computer control. The OEM's can only do this with the auto, and most of North America has bought the marketing. It’s also much harder to pass the emission standards with the stick and still maintain drivability.
Again there is NO reason that a manual transmission should cost more. They are less complex and cheaper to make. They are still used everywhere but the US and Canada.

Notice the where the shifter is in this Chevy 3500 C&C. You can buy this truck just the other side of the Rio Grande
I would be very happy with a detuned Duramax, I'm happy with the HP of the stock LLY. I just don't need 400hp and 800tq, give me more MPG. Anyway this is all just my opinion, and I know what that’s worth. I doubt that I will ever buy another "new" car or truck. Way over priced, for what I just don't want.