The Future Of The Manual Transmission

boaz47

I have a shot at a 2001 GMC 2500 Duramax. Not a manual however. Don't know that they come with one. I am also looking at a 2000 Dodge 2500 Cummings. Still no manual. Still looking however to see if I can get a bit newer truck. I can get a good deal on a 2004 Tahoe, but getting a SUV with a manual doesn't look like it will happen.

ateixeira

You can get a manual in a Jeep Liberty, Dodge Nitro, Suzuki Grand Vitara, Subaru Forester, etc.

There are still a few choices out there.

qbrozen

i believe he's looking for something with a great deal more towing capacity than any of those offer, however.

ateixeira

The Jeep can probably tow a decent amount. Not sure if they kept the manual for this re-do, but I think they did.

texases

I think we're talking 9000 lbs here, so the Jeep's probably out.

boaz47

You more than likely don't remember my task shift over the last three months. I started out thinking about a Forester, CR-V or a Rav4. Thought I would get a camping trailer and go see the sights of our great country. However at the trailer dealer my wife spotted a 19 foot travel trailer that I thought I could pull with a Tacoma. But the Tacoma isn't a good tow vehicle so I started looking at Tundras and F-150s. We then decided a 24 foot trailer would be even better and I ended up buying a GMC 2500 4X4 with a big V-8 and about 10,000 pounds of towing capacity. We still want a 24 or 25 foot trailer and maybe even one with a slider. If I got a toy hauler in the 30 foot range I could put one of the your suggested vehicles in for short trips once we got to the RV park. But thanks for your suggestions.

texases

Maybe you can get that Touareg VW showed towing an Airstream? :P

ateixeira

I follow so many threads that it's hard to keep track of which is which.

I remember now.

Yeah, pickins are slim for a manual, even more so for a diesel.

boaz47

I laugh every time I see something like that. VW don't hold up well without towing anything and they sure wouldn't hold up well to towing a vehicle that is heavier than they are. The 16 foot Air stream has a GVR of 4500 pounds. The 23 foot Air stream has a GVR between 7000 and 7500 pounds. The max towing rate for a V-10 VW touareg is 7716. For 68,000 bucks I think I could get a lot better tow vehicle than a VW and I should get a lot better tow rating. I think I could get a F-450 top of the line Dullie with 650 Pounds of torque and a tow rating of 16,000 pounds for 50k or less. It could be ordered with a manual and maybe I could get a splitter giving my 10 speeds for less than 68K. But then that isn't a cash deal for me anyway.

boaz47

Yes, and the confusion is part my fault. I was planning on getting a new car a few months ago and had asked you about the Forester and the Outback in the small car forum. It wasn't until my wife decided she wanted a travel trailer so we could take extended trips across the US that I moved away from a small 4x4.

ateixeira

One word: Unimog.

boaz47

I saw a test on a Unimog in one of my old 4x4 Magazines. Does anyone know what one of those beasts would cost? That would be like getting a Military 6x6.

ateixeira

$10,000 for the Unimog.

$20,000 to fuel it up per year.

boaz47

Not long ago one of the local car and truck dealers, a small mountain lot, had a few Polish military trucks with canvas tops and all. They had small diesel engines but i have no clue who made them. I have seen one or two on our roads. They would be great if I were pulling a 105 MM gun behind.

andys120

That sounds like a Steyr-Puch Haflinger (not Polish but Austrian)>



The Haflinger was suceeded by the larger Pinzgauer.

bumpy

Nippon my friend, I have to have a V-8 the 6 just will not get it.

You just need to get a bigger 6.

texases

That pipsqueak? Here's a BIG 6:

boaz47

It was bigger than what you have in the picture. Just looked it up and it was a Pinzgauer. Turns out it is manufactured in the UK.

user777

just one person's opinion, maybe you should wait and reflect on the wife's wants.

what does she really want?

with rising fuel costs, it could be cheaper to drive from here to there and everywhere cheap and stay in a hotel or motel or campground (you two know how to tent, right?). better yet, B+Bs and meet people.

seriously, the whole concept of a motor-home or large trailer for vacations. fuel, fueling, navigation, parking, storage, payments.

emm, no, what are you gonna use when you get there (where ever that is), the truck?

go small, cheap, nimble, etc.

boaz47

You make me smile. It was my wife that wanted the trailer. And tent camping is not a thing to even be mentioned anymore. We are planning on staying in one place for three or four weeks at a time. We have a place to come back to when we get tired of traveling. It is paid for. We have a place we are selling because it isn't paid for. I will be paying cash for the trailer. I hope to replace my truck that was just paid for and have it paid off as well. So from a cost position small isn't that big of an advantage. I agree a small car would be a lot less in fuel but you can't take much with you either. We like the idea of sleeping in our bed. Eating from our plates with our silverware. And yes, if we want to sight see the truck would work fine. We have been to B&Bs and we like them. We have checked into Motels and hotels and we liked that just fine. Unless you have a pit bull and they don't allow pets.

Storage fees for our trailer will be 60 bucks a year because our paid for place is in a retirement community and insurance is less than a small car.

But your opinion does have merit, if you aren't retired.

xwesx

I completely agree, boaz. RVs, in general, are not a practical option for most people who tend to vacation a month or so out of the year. But, when they become more than just a glorified tent, they are home. My father recently rented out his house and now lives from his motor home only. It does not see all that many miles every year (maybe 10,000 max) even though he is "on the road" 9 months of it. Weeks or months at a time are spent at single remote destinations with forays from the home base made with a toad. When he does "go home," it is merely a shop with RV hookup so he can park, service, and live out of his "RV." At 60, that is his house, not a "recreational" vehicle.

Me, on the other hand... I had a cab-over camper, original to my '69 Chevy pickup, that I recently sold to a friend for $200. Considering its year, it was in fairly good shape! But, I never used it because it was cumbersome to lug around and I was forced to drive my truck to haul it rather than taking the car. And, when only staying in a place for a day or maybe a weekend, a tent was a far more comfortable option. At 30, an RV makes no sense for me. It would be just another method of bleeding cash, and I am not given to excess (for the most part!).

stever

We tent camped twice over Thanksgiving road tripping - moteled twice. My wife keeps muttering about a conversion van or truck camper so maybe one of these years. I'm thinking I might be able to find a Westfalia with a stick. :shades:

boaz47

Yes, I realized it was a lifestyle choise. We are thinking seriously about being snow birds and once we start we will have no reason to get back on time like I might if I were still working. Still I have considered the travel light thing but living out of a suit case has never been one of my favorite vacations. We started taking cruises because you were in one room for 11 days and could completely unpack.

The insurance man looked at my truck yesterday an it looks like it was totalled. They still haven't figured how it caught fire and they may not ever figure it out. I do have a chance to get a F-250 Powerstroke from a friend but that isn't a sure thing just yet. I have seen a F-250 4x4 with a stick but only in gas so far. I will keep you posted.

plekto

Gas isn't a big really. I'd go for it.

Or you can get a classic like a mid 90s 4Runner all decked out to go off-roading. I'm a big fan of this as there's no plastic, it's indestructible, and $5K will get you a good example.

xwesx

Gas isn't a big really. I'd go for it.

It depends on how much you haul and how often you haul it, I think. Diesels really shine when hauling huge loads. Gas engines do not even come close when it comes to torque or fuel economy under heavy loads. The truck pictured below gave me about 11 mpg over 2500 miles, towing about 13, maybe 14 thousand pounds, and was rarely slowed by hills. Even the steepest hills we encountered could be pulled at ~45 mph. When it is not towing, the truck delivers 18.5 mpg. It's not a manual though... can't win them all! :P

boaz47

Thanks, I am still looking but manual diesel 3/4 tons seem pretty rare. I will know what the settlement is by tomorrow. The 2500 was totaled but at least I wasn't upside down. I might look into a V-10 F-250. They had a few manuals listed locally between 2001 and 2003. But the diesel would last a lot longer under load.

user777

well you more than justified the decision. i was thinking the wife was off on a whim, and for major lifestyle changes, sometimes waiting and reflecting works. someimes it isn't right though i understand.

glad i provided a smile at least. enjoy your adventures!

boaz47

Thank you as well. Your thoughts were pretty much where I started. That is why I smiled. But once we got started we have decided we would like to take about the next ten years and visit as many of our states as we can.

Once I got into anything bigger than a Forester my manual choices got fewer and fewer. I even considered a Mini Van. A TC had some advantages and some mini vans come in AWD. But they didn't come in a manual. Next week I will start hitting the lots and should have a new vehicle by the 16th or the 23rd.

ateixeira

Mazda5 comes in a manual, FWIW.

boaz47

I was just explaining how I got all the way to a Truck and had looked at Mini Vans for a while on my journey. But looking at the Mazda 5 I see more of a cross between a small suv and a mini van. Having seen one up close I am reminded of a fat Matrix. So many mini vans now come with a 6 I am surprised the Mazda 5 doesn't.

That is one problem with many manufacturers today however. If they load you up with a 6 and leather, and many other options they don't give you a shot at a manual. In the case of a road car the transmission just doesn't make up for the engine. HP and torque can often make up for a humdrum transmission but a good transmission can't save a weak engine.

lilengineerboy

HP and torque can often make up for a humdrum transmission but a good transmission can't save a weak engine.

Oh I totally disagree. The '84 Corolla I drove in HS with a stick was much safe than my friend's slushbox version of the same car. Both were totally gutless, but mine was considerably less frightening then his. I also remember a similar situation with the Neon, and how much nicer it was with 2 more gears than its automatic counterparts.

boaz47

The transmission didn't make your Corolla any better. A bigger engine might have. Much like a Accord 6 works better than a Accord 4 as a road car. Even with an automatic. Big torque monster cars can use either transmission like the early muscle cars. 440 wedges and 426 Hemis ran better with the automatic in a straight line. The manual didn't make them run any better. Little cars and or low HP cars benefit lots more from a manual. MB has decided manuals do not enhance the feel of their big touring sedans because they have big motors with reasonable torque.

Like Shifty says a manual is necessary for a light weight 100 HP sub compact. There is even some satisfaction to getting the most out of such a car. But add some weight and 300 HP and a Crossfire or MB if you like works well with a paddle shifter automatic. A manual can only give you the most a particular car has to offer. If that car is a old xB with 108 HP it will still be slow. You can't improve that car with the addition of a better transmission. But if that same car gets 158 HP and some extra torque it is a better car even with the same transmission. So HP and torque can turn a dud into a cruiser but if your vehicle is a dud anyway a manual will not improve it. That is all I was saying. An example might be the Lexus SC 430 has enough HP and Torque that they decided not to offer a manual.

lilengineerboy

I still disagree. I think having torque and horsepower are great things, and if you can actually control that torque and horsepower, it is even better. The transmission made the Corolla tolerable, ditto the Neon. The Neon did have like 150hp and it was much more fun and usable with a 5spd stick than a 3spd auto.
I so far haven't found the Accord 6 (even with the manual) to be any better or worse of a road car than the Accord 4. The suspension and drivability characteristics are similar enough. I think they are both big cushy cars that ride comfortably on the highway most of the time.

MB has decided manuals do not enhance the feel of their big touring sedans because they have big motors with reasonable torque.

I would say that also overlaps with the purchasing demographic. Big MBZ are purchased by CEOs, professional sports players, and music industry people. I think they could give a collective rats behind about a manual transmission. They are also for the most part older folks (although I do know quite a few late 60s/early 70s folks running around with 6 spd manual vehicles). I would lump MB as the Toyota of the German cars. As an early 30s professional, they don't make anything that holds my interest.

So HP and torque can turn a dud into a cruiser but if your vehicle is a dud anyway a manual will not improve it.

You could strap a rocket engine to a Camry and it would still be a dud. I am either missing your point, or just categorically disagree with it.

An example might be the Lexus SC 430 has enough HP and Torque that they decided not to offer a manual.

Again, since the car is marketed to older folks, I would think that impacted their decision more than anything else.

I don't think every car will or even should be offered with a manual transmission. Just the ones I buy :P If someone likes a car and is happy with the drivetrain, who am I to say anything about their choices? I just don't ever see myself getting excited about a vehicle that doesn't have a pedal for the gas, brake and clutch.

boaz47

Ok I will try again. As shifty said the origional xA had a 108 hp engine. Nothing you could do with the transmission would have made the car any better. In an earlier post he indicated all the xA needed was a bit more power. Now we have the xD as a replacement. The new motor is 158 HP and by shifty's own statement should be a better car. They made it better with HP and torque not with the transmission.

I am not saying anything about young people verses older people nor about their choices. I am saying HP and torque can cover a multitude of sins that a transmission simply can't. The complaint about the xB in the beginning, besides it being ugly, was it was light on HP. No one said a word about the transmission. The complaint about the PT cruiser when it first came out was, it was light on HP, once again no one said a word about the transmission. Even the Mini Cooper gets more HP than when it frst came out. The new and improved Mazda Miata has more HP than the origional, no one makes a comment about the transmission. Honda had the same transmission in the Prelude for years but every improvement given the Prelude added HP. They discontinued it because it became redundant. Disagree or not that is simply the way things seem to go. It is also how marketing seems to go.

jeffyscott

But looking at the Mazda 5 I see more of a cross between a small suv and a mini van.

I had one of those as a loaner, seemed like pretty much just a tall Mazda3 wagon (with sliding doors) to me. I'd consider it more it more comparable to the Focus wagon than to a minivan. Of course, I'd probably say about the same thing about any small "SUV" or "crossover".

lilengineerboy

If you are saying more is better when it comes to HP and torque, I can agree with that up to some limits. Where I disagree is when you say "nothing you could do with the transmission would have made the car any better." I think that a manual transmission at least gives you control over the power you do have. I don't think it would make a 5 into a 10, but I do feel it makes the situation more tolerable. When you said "they made it better with HP and torque, not the transmission," I think what you overlooked is they already had made it better with the transmission by offering the manual in the first place.

he new and improved Mazda Miata has more HP than the origional, no one makes a comment about the transmission.

That car is in a different category, both in marketing and pricing then when it first came out. It went from being an ultra-light 2 seater in the spirit of the MG and Triumph to a chubby MBZ SLK wanna-be. Its because the more stuff they can package in it, the higher the profit margin. Eventually it will cost the same as a Boxster and Mazda will kill it whining about how the market won't support an inexpensive 2 seater.

Honda had the same transmission in the Prelude for years but every improvement given the Prelude added HP. They discontinued it because it became redundant.

It got killed for the same reason the Miata will, and the Celica. and the Eclipse. They take a car that appeals to a sub-40 male demographic and make it too expensive and turn it into a fat secretary's car, and that demographic doesn't want to deal with a firm suspension or big tires and wheels, etc, and they just want their Camry again. Again you overlooked that in each of these cases, the transmission choices were already there. In a lot of these cars you had a choice between a 4 speed auto or a 5 or 6 speed manual depending on trim/engine choice.

Every car gets a little more horsepower year after year. Our Subaru was at 165 in '05, now its 170-something. The WRX, which no on really complained about lack of power is up as well.

I think the suggestion of "its nothing another 20hp and some duct tape can't fix" isn't really the case.

xwesx

You both have valid points. However, the ability of the driver to control the engine's power delivery with a manual transmission is very important. That is not to say that a manufacturer cannot overcompensate an engine to the point that the driver does not "miss" a manual, per se, but the driver still does not have any control over the power delivery. Those drivers must rely on the factory to decide the most effective way to deliver the power through the transmission's gearing and mapping.

Consider, for example, Subaru's SI drive system. It is an attempt by the manufacturer to cater to different driving styles in order to give the driver the perception of added control over power delivery. Obviously, such a system is not available (nor is needed) with a manual transmission. So why is it really offered? Just another scheme to help drivers miss a manual just a little bit less?

jeffyscott

When I bought a 4 cyl 125 HP contour, it needed the manual transmission to feel like power was adequate for me. The manual transmission also add an additional gear.

Now with about 160 HP in a car that weighs about 10% more than my contour did, there is adequate power to suit me with the automatic. In addition, I get a 5 speed with the automatic. Granted that others may feel it is still under powered, but I assume at some point 250 HP?, 300 HP? the manual would add less desirablity, even for those who want a manual for reasons other than that the engine power is inadequate with automatic.

I felt the same when we had a 99 HP minivan...that would really have been underpowered, if we had paid extra to get the 3 speed automatic. In our next minivan, this was not an issue as it came with 4 speed auto and 200 HP.

boaz47

You are correct. The driver is the hardest thing for the manufacturer to control and so they often have to offer you something to get you to give up that control. Starting in 2010 they will mandate Skid control so your car can assist you in cornering. So even with a manual the Subaru System may have to be offered.

But the point I was making is in a small car with just a little HP a automatic is very noticeable. Once you get to 250 Hp or more it becomes less important. Or so it seems.

john500

Your point is well taken regarding horsepower, however, the weight issue is a huge problem when horsepower increases. For the record, the 2008 Scion xD has the Corolla 128 hp 1.8 L engine and weighs 2668 lbs (according to Edmunds). The 2005 xA was listed at 108 hp and weighed 2340 lbs. When the ratio of hp/weight is compared, it is almost a zero sum gain. I would guess the xD accelerates from 0-60 mph in 8.7 s instead of 9.0 s with the manual transmission form of both cars. The 0.3 s gain pales in comparison to the 0-60 mph increase when going from the automatic transmission to the manual transmission (probably near 1.0 s). If the hp were actually 158, then it might be a different story.

cdnpinhead

"They take a car that appeals to a sub-40 male demographic and make it too expensive and turn it into a fat secretary's car. . ."

Line of the week.

Congratulations!

lilengineerboy

LOL Sorry I got all fired up...usually a statement like that at my house would be followed by something like "hey, how do you really feel about it?"

qbrozen

Every car gets a little more horsepower year after year. Our Subaru was at 165 in '05, now its 170-something.

Considering our '98 subaru had 165hp, I think subaru has lagged behind most other manufacturers in this regard.

p0926

I don't know. Does every model really have to keep getting more horse power? Not everyone wants and certainly doesn't need a dragster. Are these HP wars ever going to stop? My first car had all of 80 hp which, while not blowing off anyone's doors, was at least adequate. My 2nd car had 100 hp and I thought I was Richard Petty! Now there are V6 Accords and Camrys which have truly ridiculous amounts of HP for a "family sedan".

-Frank

qbrozen

Does every model really have to keep getting more horse power?

well, that's a different question entirely.

Does EVERY model HAVE to? IMHO, no.

Now, speaking of subaru in particular. What they did do was offer different engine options. So our '98 Forester could ONLY be had with the 165 hp engine. Now you have virtually the same engine 10 years later, but you can also choose a turbo model. So rather than just increase across the board, they offered a different choice. I kind of like that strategy. Somebody like Honda, on the other hand, has upped their Accord engines like 60-70 hp across the board in that same time. Of course, that car has grown considerably in that time, too, which has kind of necessitated more power.

ateixeira

Says the guy who replaced his Forester with an uber-quick, turbo charged Forester XT.

Apparenly, yes.

p0926

Hey now! I've always said that the normally aspirated Forester has sufficient oomph for the average joe but I just couldn't resist the stealth aspect of the XT (loved their marketing campaign about the family of 4 with a dog blowing the doors off a 350Z) :P

Of course I never would have thought to consider buying my first Subaru if it hadn't been for the fact that they offer manuals in most of their models. Now if they would just include the Tribeca...

-Frank

andys120

Now if they would just include the Tribeca...
:confuse: What would be the point of that? :confuse:

nippononly

Are you kidding?

andys120

No I'm not kidding, a Tribeca is basically a minivan with doors that don't slide, not the sort of car that cries out for DIY shifting.