Manual Transmission? Yea or Nay?

Good ones are as automatic as you want them to be but still give a lot of flexibility when it comes to how they operate. That's a major difference between newer transmissions and the autos of yore. They are getting ever closer to combining the best of both worlds.

xxxxxx wrote:
......
Also I'm reading the duramax supplement, my TT is 6000 to 7000lbs. When you are towing do you tow in drive or manual? Also do you us the tow mode no matter what selection? :h :S
...

It is questions like this that make me wonder if automatics, are really all that automatic???

BenK wrote:

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...

I couldn't agree more!

The biggest issue with high HP, High torque diesels and manual transmissions, is the clutch! Many complain the clutch doesn't hold up, well it is time for the big three to offer a manual with a multiple disk clutch! I currently run a double disk clutch in my 01 Cummins with Power Puck. Zero issues with slippage.
Then there of those who never learned how to drive a manual correctly in the 1st place.

You hear talk of it's hard to hold the clutch pedal down! Well that is one of the 1st things I learned. The only time the pedal is depressed, is starting out, and shifting, any other time the transmission is in neutral and the clutch pedal is up. If driving down the road my foot is on the floor. Same at a stop sign, until there is an opening, neutral and pedal up.
My feeling is with computer controlled transmissions, traction control, ABS brakes, while all great improvement is safety, they can't change the law of Physics!! People feel when they have these features, they can fly down a snow/ice covered road at 60 mph in complete control!! They do it in the commercials!!
If I can't buy one new i guess I will just keep my 01, it only has 258,000 miles should be good for at least another 250K!

Stefonius

Thanks for answering the questions...when did I suggest that manual transmission devotee's were Luddites? In fact, in multiple posts, I have supported the return of the manual transmission to the HD pickups. You absolutely misunderstood the difference between not wanting to have manual transmissions available and making sure those that want them are the ones actually paying for them...

Stefonius wrote:

ricatic wrote:
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????

Fine, I'll bite.
1) Yes, I would unquestionably select an optional manual transmission as an added-cost item. Congratulations...you are the first to ever say this. You at least recognize the need to pay your own way...

2) I would be willing to pay around $1,000.00 extra for the option of a nice, simple six speed manual gearbox.same as question one

3) I'm afraid that this question cannot be answered by any one person.
It can be answered one person at a time...and you would be in the "save the manual" group...so far it is a group of one...It is the manual devotee's that cave in and buy an automatic instead that will lower the percentage of manual transmission take rates

Now as for your repeated "1.5% market share" statistic... It's B.S. If EVERY SINGLE VEHICLE sold in the USA was available in EVERY SINGLE TRIM LEVEL with a no-charge choice of automatic or manual transmission, you could generate reliable statistics about whether the disproportionately large market share for the automatic was due to consumer preference rather than restricted availability.
Respectfully, how can the 1.5% of sales manual transmission take rate for HD pickups be BS. I did not make up that number...it is an industry accepted percentage provided by the truck manufacturer's. Certainly, the erosion of the number of manual takes has been over time...but...the manual transmission lover's let themselves down. If they would have provided sales opportunities to the manufacturers contingent on getting upgraded trucks with manual transmissions, the manufacturers would have provided them. This did not happen...manual sales plummeted and eventually 2 manufacturers withdrew the option.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Well over 90% of vehicles sold in the USA are simply not available with a stick at all. Those that are only offer it with specific engines or trim levels that may not be desired by the people who would ordinarily select a manual transmission.
We are talking about HD pickups...not cars...and you make my point...this demonstrates that the features included in these upgraded packages are ultimately more desirable than the manual transmission

Additionally, the days of ordering a vehicle a la carte from the factory are all but gone. Now the factory builds what they believe will sell and consumers pick from the selection already on the dealer's lot. In the 50s, 60s and 70s, it was a lot more common to 'build' a car with an option sheet and wait for delivery.
This does not jive with my experience...these $50,000 trucks are very likely to be customer ordered...My next new truck will be...My last truck was bought off the lot because I was 750 miles from home and needed a truck to get back in less than 2 weeks


Automakers can generate more profit if they offer fewer options because they don't have to have as many varieties of parts on hand. Instead of ordering your vehicle a la carte, you now have to choose from a small number of "packages" that contain groups of options chosen for you in advance by marketing professionals.

I still maintain that the prevalence of automatic transmissions in this country is less attributable to consumer demand than to manufacturer preference. They sell us what they want us to buy and what they feel like making.


Ricatic, you keep beating the automatic transmission drum like your way is the only way. I believe you are entitled to your opinion, but I hope you recognize that those of us who believe we have more control and a better driving experience with a manual are not misguided Luddites. We are, in fact, being driven to extinction by bean counters and marketing departments who have taken it upon themselves to decide that we no longer deserve a choice in what we drive.

I touched on this briefly in the first paragraph. Where have I said that it's my way or the highway? That is patently incorrect. I wholeheartedly agree that the manual transmission guy's should be able to "buy" that option...As long as you are paying for your choice, you can have whatever you want to purchase...I have no dog in the fight to save the manual transmission, the devotee's have the dogs and need to bring them to the buying table...I only introduced the factual reasons as to why the manual transmission has met it's demise. It can be twisted and turned in all directions by those incensed by it's loss...but it is really simple...not enough sales, or complaints about how the manual was offered, to impress the manufacturers enough to continue offering the manual option...you really can not blame the marketer's or the bean counters for the lack of interest, resulting in extremely low take rates,in the manual transmission. If the sales were there...somebody would be building manual transmission trucks other than Ram...if the manual devotee's were really correct in there theory, Ram would be selling manual transmission trucks by the trainload...

Regards

I too also like my manual transmission. when we bought it we were searching for the features we wanted,
It had to
be a F250/F350
have a powerful engine
be a Manual shift
be a super cab
be 4x4
have an 8ft bed
And of course be within our price range.which met it would be 2 or 3 yrs old.
We never considered an Automatic so I don't know the price difference
We had trouble finding one and then we found a Dually that fit our needs on a car lot.It was priced out of our range but they came down where we could buy it.
If it had been an automatic and priced lower we would not have bought it.
When we have bought new vehicles we have gotten the vehicle we wanted with the options we want.
So would we pay more for a stick shift? yes!
How much more would we pay? I don't have a clue because it doesn't seem rational to pay more for a simpler device,And no I'm not buying into your scenario of the manual transmissions haveing to be reinvented to handle the newer trucks HP and the millions of development $ to be passed on to a few truck buyers.
A few years ago when all 3 were still offering manual shifts we had a sales man tell us that we didn't want to get a manual because the Automatics were so much more effecient. You could order either one but they were pushing the Automatic.
An individual salesmans personal push or is that what they were told to push?

But most of all this talk has not helped the OP espeicially if he is looking at used trucks.
Both choices will work for him and if he prefers a stick shift it will get the job done it's just a matter if he can drive it and he has said he can, and even if he is new to driving a stick with a load he can learn.

ricatic wrote:
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????

Fine, I'll bite.
1) Yes, I would unquestionably select an optional manual transmission as an added-cost item.

2) I would be willing to pay around $1,000.00 extra for the option of a nice, simple six speed manual gearbox.

3) I'm afraid that this question cannot be answered by any one person.

Now as for your repeated "1.5% market share" statistic... It's B.S. If EVERY SINGLE VEHICLE sold in the USA was available in EVERY SINGLE TRIM LEVEL with a no-charge choice of automatic or manual transmission, you could generate reliable statistics about whether the disproportionately large market share for the automatic was due to consumer preference rather than restricted availability.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Well over 90% of vehicles sold in the USA are simply not available with a stick at all. Those that are only offer it with specific engines or trim levels that may not be desired by the people who would ordinarily select a manual transmission.

Additionally, the days of ordering a vehicle a la carte from the factory are all but gone. Now the factory builds what they believe will sell and consumers pick from the selection already on the dealer's lot. In the 50s, 60s and 70s, it was a lot more common to 'build' a car with an option sheet and wait for delivery.

Automakers can generate more profit if they offer fewer options because they don't have to have as many varieties of parts on hand. Instead of ordering your vehicle a la carte, you now have to choose from a small number of "packages" that contain groups of options chosen for you in advance by marketing professionals.

I still maintain that the prevalence of automatic transmissions in this country is less attributable to consumer demand than to manufacturer preference. They sell us what they want us to buy and what they feel like making.

Ricatic, you keep beating the automatic transmission drum like your way is the only way. I believe you are entitled to your opinion, but I hope you recognize that those of us who believe we have more control and a better driving experience with a manual are not misguided Luddites. We are, in fact, being driven to extinction by bean counters and marketing departments who have taken it upon themselves to decide that we no longer deserve a choice in what we drive.

The problem is the free lunch is over...and the attitude that prevails in this mind set explains exactly why the manual will not return...

jaycocamprs wrote:

ricatic wrote:

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?

Regards

1: I would not pay extra. I expect at least 1K less. The last year that GM offered the ZF-6 as the base transmission, the Allison was $2300 more if ordered by its self. I understand that point,..but what is the point...98.5% of the truck buyers that year paid the freight for the automatic transmission...virtually no one took the freebie manual...how do you justify keeping such an unpopular option in the mix at any cost to the manufacturer. Assembly line expenses alone cost the manufacturers big money to support what has become a non-entity.
2: There is no reason for the manual to cost more. There is no reason to design a new transmission, they are being built and used in other markets. Where...only in the derated Ram that I know of...you have said that your LLY makes plenty of power and GM acknowledges that the ZF6 manual could handle that power. GM states that the ZF6 would not hold up under the new power introduced in 2011. Fords position on a manual for their 400/800 engine was similar...not durable enough...Broken gear boxes would be something every owner would want warrantied...the manufacturer's know the limits...and cut their losses early...it would cost a small fortune to engineer a new manual for almost no market...who would be paying the bill?
3: Hard to say what one would do in the future. But in the past I told a GM dealer no. I bought a Ford, with a 4 speed. If I bought a new truck today it would be a 6 speed Dodge. But at some point soon there will be no choice. ...and I agree...the manual devotee's should be lining up at the local Ram watering hole to order their new manual transmission trucks...it is their final chance...if Ram bails out...it is over for the manual

And I doubt that the new mega HP trucks get anymore HP to the ground than the old ones. The OEM know how much torque they can handle, and that's all the computers let the engine make. Power on an engine dyno means nothing, power to the wheels counts.

I do not understand this comment...it sounds somewhat desperate.Since the original shootout in August of 2010, the performance numbers have only gotten better. So much so, that Ram made some desperate attempts to jack up the performance of their truck by offering the H.O. version...which by the way is only available with an automatic transmission...no offense to Ram, it was just down on power... Compared to the 2010 comparisons, all the 2011 trucks out performed the earlier models...or are all the testing services and dyno operators telling tall tales. To deny these new trucks put more power to the wheels is whistling past the cemetery...

Regards

I like my manual transmission.

That is all.

ricatic wrote:

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?

Regards

1: I would not pay extra. I expect at least 1K less. The last year that GM offered the ZF-6 as the base transmission, the Allison was $2300 more if ordered by its self.
2: There is no reason for the manual to cost more. There is no reason to design a new transmission, they are being built and used in other markets.
3: Hard to say what one would do in the future. But in the past I told a GM dealer no. I bought a Ford, with a 4 speed. If I bought a new truck today it would be a 6 speed Dodge. But at some point soon there will be no choice.

And I doubt that the new mega HP trucks get anymore HP to the ground than the old ones. The OEM know how much torque they can handle, and that's all the computers let the engine make. Power on an engine dyno means nothing, power to the wheels counts.

Caddywhompus wrote:

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.

Finally, someone has answered...I respect your right to your position...but some important parts of the equation were ignored...

Answer to question one: He wants a manual transmission but he wants someone else to pay for it.

His supposition that the manual should cost less so he should pay less does not take into account any of the huge development costs needed to design, test and manufacture a new HD manual transmission for today's powerful trucks. Also ignored are the additional production costs incurred on the assembly line. More stations with different procedures added to an already complicated assembly process.

These costs run into the tens of millions of dollars. Who should pay for these costs...the person that wishes for manual transmission availability or the 98.5% of the buyers who are happy with their automatics...The free lunch for manuals has expired...pay up or do without...

Answer to question two: The manual transmission should cost $1000 less.

How can that happen? We are back to who pays for the development costs...I would grant that after all the development costs were paid back, by the manual owners, the price of the manual option could shrink but it can never be zero...

Answer to question three: 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;...

So, by abandoning your principles for luxuries, you further lessened the number of manual transmissions purchased...again proving to the marketing people you despise that they are right...the market for the manual transmission is small.

Caddy,

I am not in disagreement with you on your love to shift...I have done it and can still do it. I agree that it would be nice if the manufacturers would reintroduce a manual in their HD pickups...I believe there is a place for them. Where we differ is in who pays? Until the manual transmission guy's get off their wallets,stand together and buy enough trucks to make the manufacturers cost to produce palatable, it is not going to happen. Asking the vast majority of truck purchasers who have decided that automatic's are their standard transmission to contribute even more money to subsidize a losing proposition is not going to happen...and neither is the return of the manual to GM and Ford HD pickups.

Regards