Death of manual transmissions?

[Nitronoise]

THe same trend is developing in the class 8 heavy duty truck market , most new equipment from ryder now is automatics and they have the " collision avoidance " equipment that accually interveines for the driver
was not comfortable with that in my truck last winter ,,, they say it's lower maint and better mpg , I didn't see it , but I have had a CDL for 35 years and i guess they have to teach an old dog new tricks now

 

[OneEyeJack]

I've talked with young drivers that have no idea what a manual transmission might be. The idea of a clutch pedal and shifting gears makes not sense to them. Such a setup might just get in their way and distract them form texting or other such tasks while they are driving.

 

[abycat]

I have had a mix of both but my vehicles now are both autos. With my truck I need the auto cause of the horsepower. It's sitting at 600hp/1100ftlb. the trans I have in it is a performance trans so I don't worry too much but I didn't want to be doing a clutch every year with a stick.

 

[Mr Nice]

I currently have a rental 2016 Accord with CVT, it's a smooth trans and I like it but if I had to buy a new car it would be a 6 speed Accord LX.

Lamborghini stopped making cars with manual transmission, folks who buy that car have little interest in shifting gears.

 

[stephen9666]

Originally Posted By: supton
Last summer I did a bit of test driving, and found a bunch of rubbery-feeling manuals in econoboxes. It was like they weren't even trying. My Camry has a lousy manual, vague clutch, long throws, and the DBW programming makes shifting smoothly more work than it ought to be.

Still prefer picking my own gear though. At least my truck allows easy downshifts, but it offers no user control over convertor lockup nor upshift.


This, all this.

One thing often missed in these threads is that a good number of the manuals being offered are not things you'd want to drive if you care about driving. For example, Hyundai has problems with clutch actuation and throttle programming on their manuals. The manual in my 2007 Sonata had a good shifter, but the clutch and throttle programming were terrible, taking any of the fun out of driving. I was sure they would have fixed it later, but the 2013 Elantra I drove has the exact same issues and wasn't good to drive.

The Toyotas and Kias I have test driven also had bad manuals.

Surprisingly to me, GM did a good job with the manual trans in the Cruze. It's quite enjoyable to drive and gets the basic driving dynamics right. It's not sports car, however.

VW also does a good job, as I'm sure some others do, as well.

I love manuals, but just because a car has a manual doesn't mean it's one you want to own.

 

[DoubleWasp]

When I went shopping for my 911, I had the choice of manual or PDK (automated manual transmission). The PDK is simply superior in every way, except for parallel parking.

The quality and design of manual transmissions has definitely been in a factor in deciding against manual on occasion. You have a lot of them out there that simply do not have that solid feel.

One of the best sticks I have ever laid my hands on is the Honda S2000. To me, it feels like its construction was subbed out to a gun or bank vault manufacturer. Shifts so short, so solid. Perfect match to that high-revving engine.

Plenty of other sticks out there that feel like they are mounted in foam rubber, and have throws a mile and a half long.

 

[andrewg]

My new Mazda MX-5 with the 6 speed manual is superb. I would have most likely not purchased the vehicle if all it has was the auto or those silly paddle shifters. There just isn't anything as satisfying as a great manual paired with an equally great vehicle.

Many sporty cars (lower and high end) have manuals because people want them. I suppose that is what drives the trend in transmission choices....as well as increasing mpg's. Most people want automatics. Nothing wrong with that. I prefer one in my daily commuter car due to excessive traffic. I don't want to be shifting up and down in traffic jams. My Honda Fit has a CVT...and I really don't care for it much. It works well....but it's just not my cup of tea. My Ridgeline has a beautifully smooth auto.

 

[Cujet]

Honda Accord Sport is avail with a 6 speed manual. It's a wonderful car so equipped.

Corvette, Camaro and others are still available with manual transmissions.

However, I do prefer the 8 speed automatic Corvette over the 7 speed manual. It's faster in the quarter, it's faster on the road race track and it shifts in 50 milliseconds. Something no manual will ever do. Furthermore, when shifted with the paddles it responds NOW, at the speed of light, not in 3 seconds like older units.

Today, a high end automatic is superior to a manual. And, to muddy the waters a bit more, some of these high end automatics are actually MORE FUN. Including the Corvette auto, which is a conventional auto, not an automated manual. VW's DSG is another excellent automatic. Wonderful to drive on a twisty road.

Ferrari sells no manuals anymore. But drive a high end Ferrari (yes, I've driven a La-Ferrari) and the performance is so perfect, you can't help but have a HUGE smile on your face. The instant response, the instant shifts, the connected feel, the zero mistakes, lap after lap.

 

[MCompact]

There are two manual and two automatic cars in my garage.

The Jeep has a manual and I love it; it suits the character of the vehicle to a T.

The 3er has what used to be called a "close ratio" five speed manual- fifth gear is 1:1 rather than being an overdrive ratio. The 1.8 liter DOHC I4 makes peak power at 6000 RPM and peak torque at 4500 rpm. I love to drive it because you have to keep the revs up to really have fun with it.

The X3 has the GM 5L40E automatic and it works well; in any event, I think a manual is essentially pointless in a crossover.

The 2er has the extraordinary 8HP45 eight speed automatic with what BMW calls the "sport" calibration. Compared to the six speed manual, the autobox is faster in a straight line and on a road course. It rev matches on downshifts and-unlike most every other automatic I have driven-it can be configured so that it operates like a full manual- it won't override the driver's commands(except to prevent a mechanical over-rev). In any event, since the N55 motor makes 330 lb-ft from 1300-4500 rpm, the 2er could almost get by with a GM Powerglide. When I bought my car there were only 26 2014 and 2015 CPO cars in the U.S.- and out of those only 4 were sticks. Even if a stick was available I think I would still have gone with the automatic.

 

[greenjp]

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: horse123
It's funny that all the people that are saying "manual transmissions are simple and cheap" are the same people obsessing over blind spot monitoring and other stupid nanny junk for incapable drivers.


There is nothing simple about a modern synchronized manual transmission. They've been dumbed down to the point that virtually anyone can drive them-there is nothing particularly difficult or engaging about them.

If you want to drive a real manual, then go find something that isn't synchronized and has both a main and auxiliary transmission. Maybe something with a 15 speed tri-plex or even a simple 18 speed Eaton.

I used to walk uphill both ways in the snow to school too.

Pops the context of the discussion here is modern automobiles, but you already knew that. Last I checked all manual transmission cars require the operator use a clutch and move a gear selector around, so I don't know what definition of "real" is but it's not the normal one. What's next, "real" cars require the operator to turn the crank in the front to start 'em? Electric starters are for weenies!

So yes, manual transmissions (the ones we're talking about here) are both mechanically simpler, less expensive to build, and more reliable than their automatic counterparts. They also require more operator interaction than those automatics. Are they hard to use? Of course not. But a lot of people enjoy using them and appreciate the benefits of the mechanical simplicity.

And FWIW I want no parts of blind spot and lane departure warning systems, so I don't know what horse123 is talking about.

jeff

 

[jeepman3071]

I've been looking at newer Jeep Wranglers. Some of the 6 speeds have been having issues with the throw out bearing, clutch issues (which aren't covered under warranty by the way), and the transmission not shifting into reverse. The auto on the other hand has been fairly problem-free.

Manual trans vehicles seem to be harder to find, and even harder to find on a completely stock vehicle.

 

[deoxy4]

I have had many Honda vehicles. They make good engines and manual transmissions. I have never had a problem with a Honda engine or a Honda manual transmission in the five examples I have had.

Current versions of Honda vehicles with automatic and CVT transmissions are fraught with problems. Honda has slipped to #8 in customer satisfaction. Many of these complaints are related to transmission issues. Honda admits they have automatic and CVT transmission issues and will notify customers when they have fix. They won't get my money for one of these models.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: andrewg
My new Mazda MX-5 with the 6 speed manual is superb. I would have most likely not purchased the vehicle if all it has was the auto or those silly paddle shifters. There just isn't anything as satisfying as a great manual paired with an equally great vehicle.

Many sporty cars (lower and high end) have manuals because people want them. I suppose that is what drives the trend in transmission choices....as well as increasing mpg's. Most people want automatics. Nothing wrong with that. I prefer one in my daily commuter car due to excessive traffic. I don't want to be shifting up and down in traffic jams. My Honda Fit has a CVT...and I really don't care for it much. It works well....but it's just not my cup of tea. My Ridgeline has a beautifully smooth auto.


Loved my VW. When the flywheel (of all things!) gave out, I opted for a clutch with more torque rating. Which was good, as the turbo went a couple months later--and then I could finally mod the car. That new clutch was lighter, and the trans was good, which made for a great driver. I'm not much of a redline guy but I did always like driving that car.

The automatic that I have is reasonably smooth; its worst shift is still non-jarring. It's just that it's never content in whatever gear its in. Adjust the throttle and it's just gotta do something in response. And usually it's the opposite of what I want.

I'm hoping to get another car this summer, but I'm not sure I want to buy a used manual. On a RWD a clutch isn't a bad job but on a FWD it looks like a lot of work that I'd have to farm out.

 

[hattaresguy]

They are going the way of the crank start, only old timers drive them.

I have zero interest in owning one unless its in a toy car...and it would have to be a vintage toy car because modern auto's are just better.

Most of the cheap cars on that list with a stick are incredibly bad, Chevy Spark? I'd rather ride a bike.

 

[Andrew1972]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
They are going the way of the crank start, only old timers drive them.



My wife is 35 and drives a 2005 5mt Legacy turbo wagon. Her close friends drive 535ix/Mazda Miata manuals and another a Mazda5 Wagon manual.

No just old timers and their are ladies interested in driving vehicles.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: horse123
It's funny that all the people that are saying "manual transmissions are simple and cheap" are the same people obsessing over blind spot monitoring and other stupid nanny junk for incapable drivers.
May not be the same people saying those things.
probably at least 2 camps there. The simplistic car fans that prefer manuals and minimal bells and whistles( i don't need Bluetooth , blindspot monitoring or autobraking) and the camp that wants all the gizmos.

I am belonging to this camp.

I don't know what is Bluetooth and what is the use of it. Blindspot monitoring is my correctly adjusted mirrors and Autobraking is my right foot when it is needed.

I like my S2000 because it has all the right ingredients: good engine, good manual transmission, good steering, good suspension ... for attacking mountain roads at rapid speed.

It does has few luxury items such as manual A/C, power window, power door lock, AM/FM with single CD player and HID headlight.

It doesn't have these extravagant: heated 100 way power seats with memory, infotainment, multi-mode auto climate control, rain sensing wiper, auto headlight, traction control, backup camera ...

My daughter 2014 Accord LX has some features that I ddid't know how to use, I was a little intimidated when I drove her car few months ago, and I hated it.

 

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
They are going the way of the crank start, only old timers drive them.

I have zero interest in owning one unless its in a toy car...and it would have to be a vintage toy car because modern auto's are just better.

Most of the cheap cars on that list with a stick are incredibly bad, Chevy Spark? I'd rather ride a bike.


I was in my mid-20's when I bought a brand-new car with a manual transmission. So was my brother when he bought his brand-new car with a manual. We're not planning on giving up either car until they're ready to be given up. So us younger folks are interested in manuals, too.

Most folks have junk commutes where a manual is a chore. Traffic bites, why make it more miserable than it has to be by having a dead-tired left leg when arriving at the office? A manual in an urban surface street environment needs to be a good one to make it any fun. Even then, in that environment it's yet another factor to attend to. Urban freeway is different. However, sitting in traffic not getting much past 4th is annoying. Steady-state driving is where manuals are good. Not many folks have that luxury these days.

 

[supton]

I find having to ride the brake in traffic makes for a tired right foot. Then again I'm rarely in traffic, so maybe my right foot is out of shape.

 

[xxch4osxx]

The girlfriend prefers a manual transmission and she is 45. She loves her Mazda 3 hatchback 5mt. Myself, I prefer an automatic transmission in my daily driver since I shift an 18 speed all day at work. For a performance vehicle, I would prefer a manual transmisson.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: horse123
It's funny that all the people that are saying "manual transmissions are simple and cheap" are the same people obsessing over blind spot monitoring and other stupid nanny junk for incapable drivers.


There is nothing simple about a modern synchronized manual transmission. They've been dumbed down to the point that virtually anyone can drive them-there is nothing particularly difficult or engaging about them.

If you want to drive a real manual, then go find something that isn't synchronized and has both a main and auxiliary transmission. Maybe something with a 15 speed tri-plex or even a simple 18 speed Eaton.


Hogwash. They're far simpler mechanically than any dual clutch or traditional automatic, and lighter as well.

CVTs may be quite simple due to the setup, but they still haven't fulfilled the full power range, and even when they do, chances are they won't offer the rapid response of MTs or DCTs.