Quote:
Originally Posted by canyonchaser
On a related note, roughly the same number of manual transmissions fail as automatic transmissions, which is really interesting when you consider that only 7% of vehicles are manual.
|
Proportion-wise? Or overall? And what is your source for this information? On top of that, are we talking about the actual transmission failing? Or are we talking about the CLUTCH? --- that makes a HUGE difference. A complete automatic-transmission-ate-itself (typical failure) is a many-thousand-$$ repair/replacement. A worn out clutch is $200, a 6-pack, and a Saturday afternoon. Automatic transmissions are a total nightmare when they let go, and I've experienced it SEVERAL times. I've driven FAR FAR MORE total miles on Manual than Automatic, and NEVER had an actual transmission failure, nor have I ever been STRANDED with a manual, even with a worn clutch. I **HAVE** been stranded with Automatic transmissions.... THREE TIMES, three different vehicles, two different manufacturers.
Further, put a complete RETARD behind the wheel of a manual, and bad things may happen. Why? Because with great power comes blah blah blah. Don't force the thing into gear. Don't burn the clutch. Don't let out the clutch from a stop with the engine turning 6000 rpm. You **CAN** break it, if you're being an IMBECILE. Automatics *do* somewhat protect themselves by not giving so much control over to the potentially retarded driver, manual's assume that the driver will be competent. I *HAVE* seen someone blow out a manual transmission... by doing what I suggested above with the 6k rpm thing, trying to make smoke. Are things like this counted in your statistics? Because if they are, that falls under the "abuse" category and therefore isn't relevant. I suspect that wannabe street racers with cheap hondas could skew this statistic.
Quote:
|
So, this may be a sad thing for those who like standards (like me), but the modern automatic transmission is vastly more reliable. So if you are an auto-manufacturer wanting to have as high of reliability numbers as possible, what would you do?
|
No it isn't. An automatic is an automatic is an automatic. They haven't changed much. The only differences are electronic control over shifting vs. mechanical (centrifugal+throttle cable). The actual wearable/breakable parts are not improved. The reliability hasn't increased. The failure mode hasn't changed -- they still prefer total internal disintegration.
ALL:
The sad thing here is that having the manufacturers offering more or less of one kind of transmission vs another, has NOTHING to do with reliability, versatility, or any other characteristic that *makes sense*. It has to do with DEMAND. If nobody is insisting on MANUAL transmissions, the manufacturer isn't going to be OFFERING manual transmissions.
One thing to make a note of is the transmission choices that TOYOTA has offered for Tacoma. Until the 2011 model year (I think that's the right year...), Toyota did NOT offer AUTOMATIC with 4-cyl 4x4. It was MANUAL ONLY. Why? Because the characteristics of the vehicle and engine demanded the better performance offered by the manual transmission. The 2TR engine + automatic **IS A DOG**. 2TR with a MANUAL, though not a race car by any stretch, is an EXTREMELY capable and versatile WORKHORSE.
I forget where I read it, but there was someone who did test drives of the 2TR+Manual and 1GR+Automatic, and according to him, the difference was negligible.
So what is it then? The choice of 1GR+Automatic *must* be the willingness to take a MASSIVE hit in fuel economy to accomplish nothing besides the... convenience of automatic? Excepting, of course, those configurations where 2TR engine is not an option... such as DC4x4. I do, however, question why 2TR is not an option with DC's except for 5-lug.... and no, the weight difference is negligible, not a valid explanation.
From my own experience, a manual transmission is SAFER than an automatic. Take the scenario where you are passing someone on a slick surface, like icy or snowy.... You accelerate gently to pass (because if you accelerate hard, you'll slip), and the automatic transmission decides to shift, doubling the torque to your back wheels, causing them to slip, and spinning you out into the ditch, rolling over and making you dead. This random shift doesn't happen in a manual since it will only shift when YOU MAKE IT SO. Automatic will shift whenever it bloody well feels like it, with the possible side effect of killing you. I *have* experienced this 'shift of death', though was able to correct for it. Despite that, it was NOT a comforting experience.
I think that the REAL reason for fewer vehicles with manual transmission being available/sold, is that **PEOPLE ARE LAZY**. People can't be bothered these days to learn something that takes a little bit of skill. I'll grant that there are people who CAN'T drive a manual, maybe they're missing a leg... but I reject the RIGHT for a young(-ish), able-bodied person, to be unable to handle a manual transmission, and in fact, it should be a REQUIREMENT for obtaining a license. It would go a long way in weeding out the people who are mechanically inept (and therefore shouldn't drive ANYTHING).
The side-effect of the automatic transmission, is the oversized engine needed to compensate for it, and resulting increase in fuel consumption.
Linear Mode
