death of the manual transmission

[nerobro]

Whoa, easy there. I never bothered looking that far back...and I will admit that I have no knowledge of the model T.

However, even the syncroless tranny's were good in their time. They still have applications today (crashbox / dogbox).

Thinking about this with a sane mind,
Doesn't it makes sense that the best transmission is one that is 1) Reliable and 2) made with the least amount of parts?

IMHO, that screams manual transmission.

Go look up the model t transmission. You'll be amused ;-)

I think a modern 4-5 speed auto-tragic might actually beat out a modern manual for parts count. Between syncros, shims, snap rings, dogs, etc...

"low parts count" isn't always the best thing to sort this sort of thing on. As the automatic has more bearing surfaces, and doesn't produce side load on the shafts. That side load is what causes manual transmissions to fail. And DSGs... Automatics balance forces and keep everything contained. That does mean "if" they fail, they just eat themselves. Automatics don't really eat themselves very often without something else critical failing first.

[Lohman446]

Whoa, easy there. I never bothered looking that far back...and I will admit that I have no knowledge of the model T.

However, even the syncroless tranny's were good in their time. They still have applications today (crashbox / dogbox).

Thinking about this with a sane mind,
Doesn't it makes sense that the best transmission is one that is 1) Reliable and 2) made with the least amount of parts?

IMHO, that screams manual transmission.

I think you are overstating the reliability of a stick and understating the same of most autos. Some of the Jeep manual transmission were disastors if I recall correctly, and as such they made me a lot of money.

Don't get me wrong, manual transmissions have a place, but to state they are unequivically the best option, and the logic resulting in the auto was skewed is not accurate.

With the odd exception most automatic transmissions in todays vehicle are as reliable as a manual, and don't use a routine replacement wear item (clutch). That being said, even today's manual clutches last.

Chosing to drive a manual is a choice. It certainly does not speak of a higher degree of enlightenment. This thread pretty much proves that (yes, that emoticon was appropriate there)

My personal opinion is if it doesn't have at least a high and low range its not a real manual anyways .

[nerobro]

WE spotted a trucker!

[cockerpunk]

jeremy clarkson managed 40mpg in an automatic, v8, a8. Obviously he wasn't going very fast, but he was going highway speeds most of his trip.

think about that.......

Now the benefit of a manual versus an automatic really doesn't come from selection of ratios. though it might, with a really piss poor set of ratios, and a poor torque converter match. the big benefits come from the computer between your ears. "YOU" know the amount of power you need available to you right now. "You" know that you don't need to downshift to get up the hill. And "You" know you can jump straight from the top of first gear, to 5th gear because you tore out of that stoplight and are doing 40mph already.

the corvettes had a 3-4 lockout for a long time, because using 3rd and 4th gear shot the fuel economy to Hades. that's definite evidence for "more ratios being better" falling apart. :-)

Be careful talking about DSG as automatics. They share none of the benefits of automatics, and all of the follies of a manual. and most of the benefits of a manual. But that's another hill of beans.

CVT's still suck. (my automatic.. has a cvt...)

at the same time, the benfeit of the auto over the manual is the computer that runs it acutally knows how to the run the engine better then you do. the problem most autos have performance wise is that that they are tuned for fuel economy, so the shift points are much to low for sporty driving. this has been rectified somewhat by "sport" modes and other sch tuning systems.

but the simple fact is, that a computer is better at running the engine then you are, provided your goal, and the goal of the computer program are the same

CVTs are a whole new world for cars. the abilty to run the engine at its max torque, max effienecy, and max power points through all the speeds the car will see makes them easily the best transmissions out there period.at least theoretically. it will take several generations of them in cars to deal with unique problems, but CVTs are here to stay my friends. yes, this will make driving even more boring, however it will make your car more effienect or faster.

[Lohman446]

I think the ball is in the air on CVTs. They are a fairly old concept that has not yet proven itself in the automotive world. We will see but I would not be surprised to see something better find its way in before they are "perfected" to the point of being accepted by the majority. I haven't seen them in anything but the lowest end of the automotive spectrum myself, and I wonder if there is a reason for that.

[nerobro]

CVT's just have torque handling problems now. But even when that is solved they'd still have the auto-tragic issue where the software has no idea what you need to have happen. And the belt ones can't handle back torque.

That's why you only find them in the "low end" cars. If a car has any sort of performance it will smoke a CVT . (That's a problem with my moped too.. if any water hits the belt it will spin the drive pully)

I don't see the manual transmission dieing for a while yet. :-)

[cockerpunk]

I think the ball is in the air on CVTs. They are a fairly old concept that has not yet proven itself in the automotive world. We will see but I would not be surprised to see something better find its way in before they are "perfected" to the point of being accepted by the majority. I haven't seen them in anything but the lowest end of the automotive spectrum myself, and I wonder if there is a reason for that.

CVTs will do just fine. the design is 50 years old on smaller engines, there isn't any reason why they wont solve the design issues they had 5 years ago (already for the most part solved). CVTs are really the solution to the whole problem of a transmission in the first place, no more power band, no more VVT to try to flatten the torque curve, just run at the efficiency point, and you will have the most efficient engine, run at the peak HP point, and you will have the highest performance point. solves the turbo problem, which means more efficient power.

CVTs are the future, make no mistake about it.

[Dark Side]

I lean more towards the manual transmission myself. I feel more a part of the machine than with an automatic. But the only manual vehicle that is in the household is my car which very few people will ever drive. Not for the fact that they can or can not but for the fact of what it is. You just don't come across 67 Mustang Fastbacks very often.

[Lohman446]

CVTs will do just fine. the design is 50 years old on smaller engines, there isn't any reason why they wont solve the design issues they had 5 years ago (already for the most part solved). CVTs are really the solution to the whole problem of a transmission in the first place, no more power band, no more VVT to try to flatten the torque curve, just run at the efficiency point, and you will have the most efficient engine, run at the peak HP point, and you will have the highest performance point. solves the turbo problem, which means more efficient power.

CVTs are the future, make no mistake about it.

See, I see other options that could result in the same goal. Hydrostatic ala large equipment. True hydraulic drive ala the old Case small system. I think that there are other options that might end up being more useable than the CVT system, or at least viable alternatives if CVT proves to have too many issues to overcome. Maybe on a CVT, I guess I am not as certain as you. Then again, when you say CVT I assume belt or chain driven CVT, you might mean any number of ways to get to CVT.

The other issue is time. Transmission drive (in most vehicles) is likely not going to be around forever. I beleive that we will see, before too long, "hybrid" gas engine with electric motors at the wheels become the preferred method of drive as efficiency is improved over time. This is what will shorten the "window" or improvement and acceptance of alternative transmission drive systems.

[FA22RaptorF22]

I think you are overstating the reliability of a stick and understating the same of most autos.

How does one overstate the reliability of a manual transmission? When used in the proper way, they are very reliable. Its when you abuse them that they are prone to failure. That is also why clutches get replaced often.

And don't use a routine replacement wear item (clutch).

Its not a routine item. Most people who have owned a manual from day one of purchase never changed the clutch to 200 - 250, 000 miles and some not even the tranny fluid.

My personal opinion is if it doesn't have at least a high and low range its not a real manual anyways .

Well yeah, you are right there

I don't know. To me, a clutch is a necessity. It gives you a sense of confidence because you know that you can get the car moving...one way or another. That is not necessarily true of autos.

With an auto, you have to hope that it will go into gear....and if its broken...it may very well leave you stranded....whereas with a clutch...you can get moving even on a dead battery...and even if the clutch is dead...you can still drive.

I do prefer one main dry clutch to many small wet clutches.

Go look up the model t transmission. You'll be amused ;-)

Dude I did...and that is so cool! Directly bolted to crankshaft....so awesome.

[nerobro]

I prefer one wet clutch. Ideally with eight or ten plates...............

[Lohman446]

I don't know. To me, a clutch is a necessity. It gives you a sense of confidence because you know that you can get the car moving...one way or another. That is not necessarily true of autos.

With an auto, you have to hope that it will go into gear....and if its broken...it may very well leave you stranded....whereas with a clutch...you can get moving even on a dead battery...and even if the clutch is dead...you can still drive.

I do prefer one main dry clutch to many small wet clutches.



Dude I did...and that is so cool! Directly bolted to crankshaft....so awesome.

Really? What about a broken mainshaft or countershaft, or bad bearings on the support (it happens)? Stranded. Manuals break, I rebuild a lot of them on the bench, granted they are easier than an automatic, but still. This concept that they will never leave you stranded is misinformed.

Choice. The right choice for you, probably. The choice of the "more enlightened" hardly. There is a reason the engineers of major performance companies are going to automatic style transmissions.

[Fred]

Audi offered a CVT transmission in the A4... I want to say the B6 years... never really followed it but the tuners had a hell of a time keeping them from going splode.

[Lohman446]

Audi offered a CVT transmission in the A4... I want to say the B6 years... never really followed it but the tuners had a hell of a time keeping them from going splode.

Ditto Honda in the mid 90's, though it really wasn't a true CVT from what I could tell (It had shift points). I never opened one up, they concerned me.