The Future Of The Manual Transmission

ny540i6

The problem nowadays is that between having to drive in heavy traffic (which tends to wear out conventional manual clutch plates faster)

Why do you keep saying this???

bristol2

The problem nowadays is that between having to drive in heavy traffic (which tends to wear out conventional manual clutch plates faster)

Why do you keep saying this???

I guess faster could mean in 10 years rather than 15?

I am confused by the 'vague and rubbery' comment also.

Based on a sampling of what?

I just had the pleasure of driving my wifes auto 4-Runner around for the 4th July holiday and absolutely loathed the surging downshifts in cruise control and the 'vague and rubbery' passing acceleration.

Give me a stick anytime. It goes faster right when I want it to.

nippononly

I spent an hour in stop and go yesterday in my Echo, and was most grateful for the stick. It has such a light clutch, it was no problem at all. I wouldn't trade the stick even if I was in traffic EVERY day for an hour.

ateixeira

My 1993 Miata still has its original clutch, and I commute to the nation's capital, DC.

I did have to replace the clutch slave cylinder once, but that cost me $10.74 and a little bit of brake fluid.

Let's call is $12. I've had it for 8 years, so that's $1.50 per year. And I bought it as an 8 year old used car.

Experienced drivers don't wear their clutches much, if at all.

boaz47

On this issue for some time now and it is interesting to hear everyone’s opinions, fears, and desires. But in reality we have very little to do with the future of the manual or anything else in the technical world. I remember people saying they would never drive a car with ABS and now it is pretty standard on all but some entry-level cars. I remember someone asking years ago if ESC should be standard as well and some enthusiasts stomped their feet and swore they would never accept it. Sometime in 2010 ESC will be mandated by the government for all passenger cars. The voice of the automotive enthusiasts simply isn’t loud enough to affect much beyond the niche market.

I looked at the Edmunds survey with humor realizing that even most professing enthusiasts are not manual drivers. Nippon takes his manuals more seriously and sees no humor in that survey at all. But the odds are against manuals in the US even if enthusiasts love them. The next five or ten years will be interesting to watch as far as Automotive development goes. I expect a new movement towards alternative fuels and Evs even more than we saw in 1973, that all hinges on fuel prices not dropping and things becoming business as usual. I for one do not intend to even look at a new vehicle till they offer a good plug in hybrid or EV. That being said if things go in that direction, Hybrids and Evs manuals have a dim future. If fuel prices level off and people get used to them manuals have a chance on holding on as long as strictly ICE vehicles can remain competitive in the economy and sport market. If hybrids, Evs and fuel cells become the norm manuals are not going to be part of the wave of the future, at least if what we are seeing now is any representation. But like everything else even this is speculation.

boaz47

"Experienced drivers don't wear their clutches much, if at all."

Looking at the survey and the number of consumers that drive automatics how many experienced drivers are there? :P

Because I have teased you for some time now, how are Subaru's chances of finishing better than third in WRC this year? :surprise:

nippononly

The Echo is on its original clutch, with no signs of wear. It's at 100K now, I expect it to go to at least 150K and probably a lot more.

If they would just go back to gearing manuals for fuel economy, rather than making it the faster of the two transmissions for any given model, they would have a new life what with the gas prices now. I strongly suspect that figured heavily in the responses to that Edmunds survey: people who are car enthusiasts know that few if any models any more are rated for better fuel economy with the stick.

You've even got models like the Civic, where the stick is rated WORSE than the auto. Honda has decided the stick is solely for sport, and made the manual-shift cars faster than the automatics. Another nasty little side effect of that is I see almost no stick shift EX sedans being built. If you want a good selection of Civic EX manuals, it looks like you are stuck buying a two-door. You can get stripped DX manuals in either body style, of course...gotta keep that base price low low low to bring in the buyers on the weekend ads.

plekto

Sometime in 2010 ESC will be mandated by the government for all passenger cars.

Which means 0% manuals after that date, since I don't know of any ESC system that works with manual - well, maybe if it's full time 4x4 like the Subaru.(IIRC they get a pass since their system is considered equivalent to ESC)

Gotta love government idiots at work. Sigh.

kyfdx

All BMWs have stability control... .even the manuals...

I'm not sure why a manual transmission would exclude a car from having ESC... Most of it is done with the ABS system.. :confuse:

nippononly

Lexus IS250 manual has VSC: http://www.lexus.com/models/IS/detailed_specifications.html

Audi A3 6-speed: http://www.audiusa.com/audi/us/en2/new_cars/model_specifications.html?allCategor- ies=1&cat=Motorization&cat=DrvPerformance&cat=FuelConsumption&cat=PowerTransmiss- ion&cat=Steering&cat=Weight&cat=Volumes&cat=Insurance&cat=StdEquipments&carlineL- eft=&modelLeft=8he5x9_0&carlineRight=%2Fetc%2Fvehiclestore%2F50710_en%2Fa3%2Fa3&- modelRight=8pa59c_1

VW GTI: http://www.vw.com/gti/completespecs/en/us/#/show_all

Acura TSX: http://www.acura.com/index.aspx?initPath=TSX_Learn_Specifications!section:Safety- Features

If less expensive cars don't have VSC bundled with their manual transmissions, it is simply because automakers are cheaping out. Indeed, one of the big criticisms I have of automakers is that they treat their manual buyers as if they are just buying manual because they couldn't afford the automatic.

Once stability control is mandated, I am thinking that most models available today with manuals will still have manuals, bundled then with the ESC.

plekto

If you look at the ESC on the IS250 - it says "Electronically Controlled Transmission" - So that one is out.

The other three appear to have it. I don't like the idea of manufacturers leaving us with less than a dozen choices in a few years.

nippononly

Yes, but once you know it is technically possible and fairly common, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the only reason it is not bundled with less expensive cars is that the stick shift cars among cheaper models are usually the stripped ones that don't get ABS and the like. In fact a major obstacle is probably the fact that many cheaper cars (stick AND auto) don't get ABS either, except perhaps as a fictitious option that appears on paper but never on the cars that are actually built.

Once it is mandated, they will have to either stop selling cars under $20K, or they will have to pony up and include ABS and ESC on all the models they are offering today.

shipo

Not that I'm trying to defend Lexus or anything (clearly I'm not a fan of their cars), however, the Electronically Controlled Transmission has nothing to do with the ESC systems (called TRAC and VSC) that Lexus installs as standard equipment on all IS250 models.

Best Regards,
Shipo

razorasdf

ESC merely uses traction control to keep the drive wheels from spinning and keeps the car oriented in the proper direction by strategically applying brakes to prevent over/understeer. The system uses ABS and is independent of the transmission. Sure, it's easier to engage ESC in a manual car because of the direct connection, but one does not preclude one from the other.

I'm all for ESC being standard in all cars as long as there is a button to turn it completely off. I usually turn mine off in almost all situations except when the conditions are really bad or if I don't place a lot of faith in my driving skills at that particular moment. It's a very useful technology, and does improve safety quite a bit, especially for less experienced drivers.

boaz47

Wasn't about ESC being adaptable to manuals even if in 2001 the Focus ZTS was offered with ESC in automatic form only. The point was many enthusiasts didn't want ESC mandated and the government simply doesn't care. As far as having a switch to turn ESC off how long will that last? As I remember some cars had the ability to turn off ABS when it first came out. I wasn't offered that on any car I had since 1992.

The real issue is there are very few, percentage wise, people who seem to care if manuals are offered at all. EVs will not be offered in manuals because they don't have a need. Hybrids could be offered in manual as the Insight once was but it seems as if Hybrid drivers are even less interested in manuals than Luxury car drivers.

If as the survey taken by Edmunds is any indication of how enthusiasts feel and enthusiasts are a minority in themselves how bright of a future can manuals have unless it is in the sports car market?

We are closer to seeing the future of the manual than we have ever been. Within the next two years a direction should be clear. But I wouldn't be surprised if about half of the cars produced for sale in the US in five years are Hybrids and none of them will be offered with a manual.

lilengineerboy

I think now that CVT's can handle more powerful engines and dual-clutch transmissions are rapidly dropping in price, the need for a "true" manual transmission will become less necessary for even economy cars unless it's to cut production costs to as low as possible.

I think the CVT has nothing to do with the demand for the manual transmission, as it is effectively an automatic transmission.

The problem nowadays is that between having to drive in heavy traffic (which tends to wear out conventional manual clutch plates faster)

I guess as soon as I see anything resembling data on this, I will make a decison

and relatively few manufacturers know how to build manuals with decent shift quality (I know only BMW and Honda have any idea to build a manual shifter that selects gears smoothly and positively without the vague and rubbery "feel" that plagues many manufacturers),

I haven't had this experience, as while I do agree that the BMW and Honda are benchmarks, I have been impressed with the MTX75 and the Miata as well.

you'd be better off with a CVT or six-speed DCT for overall driving.

Sure, as long as you want an automatic.

s it small wonder why Ford intends to put its Powershift DCT on its Focus and Fiesta models over the next few years? (Ford already has it on the European Focus model now, and reviewers really like Powershift DCT for its fast, smooth shifts between gears.)

Actually, I think its a ridiculous waste of money. People who buy automatics really don't care about shifting, or they wouldn't buy automatics. People who buy sticks want a manual transmission, not an automatic transmission they can pretend to shift. How expensive is that European Focus relative to over here?

cdnpinhead

interesting, up to a point, but bring data. Manuals are in the toilet, & they'll be gone any day now. Fine. What are the percentages?

There are a few people (well, one, really) who seem to take more delight than I would have thought possible from the apparent demise of the manual transmission. There are others, like me, who will need to have their cold dead fingers pried from the shift lever -- that actually controls something.

Having enjoyed (endured?) this board for quite awhile, it appears that people who like manual transmissions. . .like manual transmissions. We'll trot out the stuff about "when & exactly how" the shift is made, plus the much less frequent/expensive maintenance.

Oh, then there's that mountain driving thing having to do with being able to put the car in a gear. . .and having it actually stay there. I'm confident 99% here don't know what I'm talking about, but the smell of burning brakes isn't pleasant & climbing isn't all that great either if you're not in control of the gear.

The alphabet-soup transmissions are supposed to be beyond excellent, but I wonder how many spares are available when they fail and/or how many "technicians" have a clue what to do at that point. I actually drive my vehicles long enough that this is a significant consideration. These days there aren't "technicians" able to fix transmissions at the dealer, besides which the factory needs to do the autopsy. Bring your lunch & probably a pup tent. Oh, but wait, there'll be a loaner. . .or not.

Some prefer to dance on the grave on the manual & others pick a vehicle based its availability -- go figure. I guess this is part of the "why they run horse races" discussion.

The future of the manual transmission will extend to (& beyond) my, well, let's say, time frame. I was very pleased to learn that my TSX had a manual among the best I've ever driven. It'll last quite awhile.

andys120

Oh, then there's that mountain driving thing having to do with being able to put the car in a gear. . and having it actually stay there.

My Steptronic handles this very nicely. I live in hilly country and often drop a gear or two to avoid having to ride the brake on hills. As a matter of fact just after I pull out of my driveway I must descend a steep grade so I'll flip the lever into "M" and downshift to Second to get compression braking.

I really detest riding the brake going downhill but there aren't many hills steep enough to burn up the brakes on a modern car. Whatever the merits of three pedal trannys, you do not need one to effect engine braking, a well designed A/T or DSG will do the job.

I sometimes downshift when climbing the same hill but again, most modern cars have enough torque to climb it in whatever gear they're in. :shades:

ny540i6

Hey Andy, don't know if you've had a chance to check the BMW board yet

andys120

Which BMW board are you talking about?

lemmer

People can make all the well thought out arguments they want about why we are better off with all the other options. But, there are people like me are only interested in a plain old stick with a plain old clutch. If I don't have that, I'd just as soon have a regular automatic. You can even keep the various manual shift options, and don't even think about putting some stupid paddles on the steering wheel of a slushbox.

circlew

Sorry! Ferrari went crazy!



Regards,
OW

ny540i6

Sorry, the 5 series maint board... question about cooling system.

nippononly

Me too. Plain old stick, plain old clutch. If I had to have an automatic, which would only happen if there were NO stick shifts left on the market at all (and even then I would seriously consider walking from then on), I would probably want a dual-clutch auto. No more slushboxes for me ever. There is nothing that ruins a car more than a slushy-auto, not even all the extra weight automakers are packing on the cars these days.

andys120

Yep, I saw your suggestion to replace the thermostat and Ill do it, thanks.

Interesting story about thermostats: our '86 Saab 900S had intermittent hard-starting problems. The dealer couldn't find any codes or reproduce the problem. It started getting worse. The car felt to me like it was too rich and I wondered if the ECU was getting a false signal from the sensor attached to the thermostat. It was cheap to replace them so I did and the problem went away!

Sometimes your brain is smarter than a computer, which is relevant to the topic at hand.

stever

This article is geared toward automatics but may be of interest. It brings up the mpg issue as well:

Now, too, "automatic transmissions no longer always get worse fuel economy than manual transmissions," and in some vehicles the two get identical mileages, says Williamson, whose Toyota Motors USA unit, in Torrance, Calif., trains all U.S. Toyota dealers on the inner workings of the company's vehicles.

A Little Knowledge of Transmissions Can Save You Big Bucks at the Pump

lemmer

I would think manual transmission still have a substantial advantage over automatics if geared for the same rate of acceleration. Manuals tend to be more performance oriented, so they are often geared for better acceleration. If all other factors are equal, it doesn't make sense that you can burn gas to create energy that is lost running a slushbox and come out with better fuel mileage than a manual.

nippononly

No, it's true that the reason most automatics and manuals have same-model identical EPA numbers now is that the manuals are geared to be much faster, and usually have a much shorter top gear especially. It's such a shame - with $4 gas, we could be saving a lot of gas money if the automakers would merely give both manuals and automatics the same acceleration...manuals would do 10-20% better on gas as they used to...

andys120

No, it's true that the reason most automatics and manuals have same-model identical EPA numbers now is that the manuals are geared to be much faster

Not so, there's little evidence that manuals are much faster, in most cases they're marginally faster. Can you cite any examples where the manual version of a car is more than 10% faster than the A/T w the same engine?

The reason modern Autoboxes are close to manuals in mileage and acceleration is mostly due to the development of sophisticated software, lockup torque converters and tighter manufacturing tolerances.

The main computer involved in determining your mileage with a manual is the one between your ears, it's software hasn't received any updates for a few millenia :shades:

nippononly

"Can you cite any examples where the manual version of a car is more than 10% faster than the A/T w the same engine? "

Both of my current cars for starters: the Echo and the Matrix. And my last car, the RSX, was the same. My remarks were referring to the kinds of cars I am most familiar with and prefer: 4-cylinder cars. Usually small-engined 4-cylinder cars, the kind where this whole debate over manual transmissions really matters.

In the Matrix, I am almost a full second faster to 60 mph according to the numbers mags published back when it came out, and save more than 10% in gas (this I know for sure because I had an automatic before the current manual).

In the Echo, the difference is even more extreme - 1.5 seconds or more faster in the run to 60 mph with the stick, and more than a 10% savings in gas as well.

In the RSX there was about 1 second in the difference between manual and automatic in the 60 mph run, and about a 7% difference in fuel consumption in favor of the manual. And that car had one of those ridiculous "sportshifts" for an automatic. Mine, of course, was a stick shift. :-)

lilengineerboy

The reason modern Autoboxes are close to manuals in mileage and acceleration is mostly due to the development of sophisticated software, lockup torque converters and tighter manufacturing tolerances.


Trans Description Cont. : Automatic
First Gear Ratio : 2.65:1
Second Gear Ratio : 1.52:1
Third Gear Ratio : 1.04:1
Fourth Gear Rato : 0.74:1
Fifth Gear Ratio : 0.57:1
Reverse Ratio : 2.00:1
Final Drive Axle Ratio : 4.44:1

Trans Description Cont. : Manual
First Gear Ratio : 3.27:1
Second Gear Ratio : 1.78:1
Third Gear Ratio : 1.15:1
Fourth Gear Rato : 0.87:1
Fifth Gear Ratio : 0.65:1
Reverse Ratio : 3.58:1
Final Drive Axle Ratio : 4.39:1


I am less positive about that.

boaz47

That is a lot of If the manufacturers would only. "manuals would do 10-20% better on gas as they used to" Did you also walk 10 miles to school in the snow?

If 90+ percent of your customers bought Automatics where would you put your R&D?

Same thing happened with Beta Max and VCR. Beta may have been the better system but the customer bought VCRs.

lilengineerboy

Same thing happened with Beta Max and VCR. Beta may have been the better system but the customer bought VCRs.

You mean VHS, both Beta and VHS recorders are VCRs. And try finding either one now.

boaz47

Yes, I meant VHS. I remember when they first came out every one told us how much better Beta was. But I noticed when I went to the Video store there were rows upon rows of VHS videos and only one small section of Beta movies. Pretty soon they were down to one wall. Looks like that is what might happen with high Definition videos. Blu-ray is making the move to capture the market and looking at the video stores it looks like they are winning over HD Video. Once one becomes a niche market it seems as if it is only a matter of time. Much like any other technology the consumer will drive the market. Look what happened to film cameras and digital.

andys120

Both of my current cars for starters: the Echo and the Matrix

The march of technology has caught up with both these cars, there is no real world difference between the A/T and manual in the '08 versions of these cars. Herewith are the Edmund's quotes for EPA mileages:

Matrix M/T : 26C/32H
Matrix A/T: 25C/31H

The manual is 4% better in the city, 3% better on the hiway.

Yaris M/T: 29C/36H
Yaris A/T: 29C/35H

Same mileage in City, Manual is 2/8% better on hiway.

Just to get another make in the mix.

Honda Fit M/T: 28C/34H
Honda Fit A/T: 27C/34H

Manual is 3.7% better in City, the same on highway.

Your right foot will make a bigger difference than the type of tranny
IMO.

nippononly

I would be interested in what fueleconomy.gov says about actual owner reports of mileage in these cars, as I suspect that the new EPA rating system masks the fact that the manual versions can actually get much better mileage than the autos. I will look it up later when I get a second.

shipo

The only car that I can think of in recent memory that consistently does better in the fuel economy department with an automatic (based on real world reports and at real world speeds that is) is the Honda Civic. That said, I'm thinking that the reason there is a difference is due to the fact that Honda has given the Automatic versions much longer legs (i.e. taller gearing). Furthermore, I suspect that Honda has done this because the engine has almost no guts on the low end, and with the slushbox cars, all they need to do is to decouple the torque converter when a little extra power is called for. Said another way, if such tall gearing was used in the 5-Speed models, the driver would have to downshift for all but the mildest of grades or most leisurely acceleration requirements.

Best Regards,
Shipo

qbrozen

what makes this tough is that we only have EPA numbers to judge. Personal real world experience is quite different, although inadmissable evidence. For instance, I've always exceeded EPA with manual tranny cars. With automatics, however, I can't seem to do it. Its not from a lack of trying, but from a lack of control. With my 6-speed Accord, I consistently achieve 28 mpg in mixed driving. According to the EPA, that's strictly highway mileage. In my G35X, I am having a hard time breaking 21 mpg ... in a car rated at 24 highway. Why? Because the damned auto transmission won't let me shift when I want to. I don't NEED to hit 3k rpms. There is plenty of torque to let me shift much sooner, but the trans won't allow it.

I have another example of this "intelligent" trans problem. My wife's XC90. We have discovered that, when left in D, the transmission will NOT shift into 5th gear if crusing at anything below 50 mph. So on all of our 40-45 mph backroads here in rural NJ, the truck is cruising in 4th. We are trying now to get in the habit of switching to manual control and forcing 5th on it.

So in these cases, we aren't talking about our right foot here. Its the lack of control and/or lack of intelligent programming. The only reason EPA numbers are so close is because they aren't trying to achieve better mileage. They will drive both cars to 4k RPM shifts, for instance. The difference in the REAL WORLD is that, in the manual trans car, you are allowed to shift at 2k rpms, but this is not permitted by the software in the auto trans.

plekto

Actually, the real reason that the manual models go so much faster - and it's easily 20% or more in most cases, is because the testers of almost all magazines rev the automatics to nearly redline and manually shift the automatic/keep it in 2nd gear to get those results.

In actual daily driving, nobody does that, so it's worlds slower. And if your torque converter is locked up at 35-40mph and you need to pass someone, well good luck with that happening quickly.

lilengineerboy

Actually, the real reason that the manual models go so much faster - and it's easily 20% or more in most cases, is because the testers of almost all magazines rev the automatics to nearly redline and manually shift the automatic/keep it in 2nd gear to get those results.

To be fair, they do that with the sticks too. They will bounce off the rev limiter before making the 2-3 upshift if they think they can get away with it.

circlew

Automatics shift faster than manuals, period. What else does everyone need to understand? Only a very few can perfect it each time for 100K miles. The masses will never be able to handle the precision in retrospect.

Efficiency is a moot point. Computers take over all other vital control during engine management where shifts are concerned and DCT is the next tech that will prove this out.

M/T's will always have their place which is 100% control for the capable.

Regards,
OW

lilengineerboy

Automatics shift faster than manuals, period. What else does everyone need to understand?

I would definitely challenge that on most passenger vehicles. Maybe on a few DSG/SMG/AlphabetSoups the solenoids can transfer that fast, but if you are saying a Honda Accord slushbox can deal with its torque converter, figure out what gear it should be in based on my foot on the floor, get in to that gear, and get power to the wheels faster than I can pull it from 4 to 3, I disagree.

Only a very few can perfect it each time for 100K miles. The masses will never be able to handle the precision in retrospect.

My household has yet to get 100k out of an automatic transmission, so personally, I don't know that it can do it perfect every time for 100k either.

Efficiency is a moot point. Computers take over all other vital control during engine management where shifts are concerned and DCT is the next tech that will prove this out.

I don't see how, its an automatic. That is inherently the opposite of manual. It shifts for you, that is an automatic. I really don't see any advantage they have over an automatic, actually, and I certainly don't see many people paying extra for it. Its the better mousetrap no one wanted.

nippononly

about a DSG is that if you are accelerating away from a light, get to say 4th gear, then let up a bit, the next gear it will have engaged is fifth. If you suddenly need to floor it and go back down a gear, it will have the wrong gear engaged, and you will just have to wait. In this and 1000 other situations just like it, the DSG will actually be even SLOWER to shift than a traditional crapbox AKA slushbox automatic.

PS Did I read rightly above that M/Ts are for the capable, implying that A/Ts are for the incapable?! :-P

boaz47

That the consumer can use the DCT or a SMT in manual mode or if the "need" arises it can be used in Automatic mode like for those times when your wife might be in heels and a tight dress and she wants to drive? For that 90+ percent it would seem like the best of both worlds.

The other 8 or 9 percent won't care if everyone else is being transported by a magnetic flying cars if they can't have a third pedal.

The only concern that might bother third pedal people is how many models they might have to pick from. Even Nippon has indicated he doesn't care if the new hybrids get 80 miles to the gallon he would stick to his manual. Or at least that is the indication.

shipo

"The only concern that might bother third pedal people is how many models they might have to pick from. Even Nippon has indicated he doesn't care if the new hybrids get 80 miles to the gallon he would stick to his manual. Or at least that is the indication."

Well, I don't know about Nippon, but if I'm given the choice between a hybrid that gets 80 mpg (probably a diesel) and say a 6-Speed manual diesel that gets only 60 mpg, I'll take the car with three pedals under the dash every day.

Best Regards,
Shipo

lilengineerboy

That the consumer can use the DCT or a SMT in manual mode or if the "need" arises it can be used in Automatic mode like for those times when your wife might be in heels and a tight dress and she wants to drive? For that 90+ percent it would seem like the best of both worlds.

I actually think its a pretty stupid idea. The people with an automatic don't care about the ability to pretend they are shifting, or they wouldn't buy an automatic. I don't think they would be excited enough about the toy to pay $1000 more than a regular automatic.

People who want a stick want a stick with a clutch, and they sure as heck aren't going to pay $2500 for it.

nippononly

Well he's right about me - give me the third pedal and much-reduced mileage if the only choice is an automatic hybrid.

And that's the reality isn't it? That's what disappoints me so much. Your choice won't be the 80 mpg hybrid or the 60 mpg manual shipo. It will be the huge variety of 80 mpg automatics, OR the 28 mpg sport-oriented manual, or the 45 mpg econocar manual which lacks some or many of the amenities that are deal-breakers for you in their absence (speaking of the figurative "you", not actually YOU shipo!) .

The best I can hope for in the future is the sport-oriented econocar (!!) with a manual and maybe 38 mpg. Honda is by far my best hope on this score, among the Big 6. :-(

boaz47

"People who want a stick want a stick with a clutch, and they sure as heck aren't going to pay $2500 for it"

Sure they would. More than one has already admitted they would pay more for a manual. People that want Automatics are willing to pay more for their choice and I doubt if third pedal people are less enthusiastic.

But the reason I was saying the point about the DCT an SMT is they give you manual mileage and acceleration with the option of putting it in auto mode if you want.

As far as what a third pedal person in willing to do it has been made perfectly clear that they are willing to change manufacturers if the one they have stops making a clutch pedal. They will forgo buying a hybrid and are not interested in EVs.

The people that are interested in DCTs and SMTs are interested in maximum performance. Having the fastest is more important than tradition. That is why F-1, WRC and ALMS have no third pedals in the winners circle. Every time real padel shifters are allowed into a racing class the third pedal is dropped in the first or second year. Do they cost more? Yes. But they preform better and that is all that matters in the sporting world.

The debate isn't "if" they day will come when they don't offer manuals in the US but rather "when". The Hybrid represents the direction we will go unless fuel prices drop and hybrids tend to be third pedal free. The Edmunds survey we were talking about earlier shows that even the majority of people subscribing to Edmunds forums are not interested in manuals. In fact the majority said they wouldn't even be interested in a manual.

I know Nippon will be a hold out longer than most. He even prefers hand cranked windows.

lilengineerboy

"People who want a stick want a stick with a clutch, and they sure as heck aren't going to pay $2500 for it"


Sure they would. More than one has already admitted they would pay more for a manual. People that want Automatics are willing to pay more for their choice and I doubt if third pedal people are less enthusiastic.

But the reason I was saying the point about the DCT an SMT is they give you manual mileage and acceleration with the option of putting it in auto mode if you want.

You took what I said out of context; people who want a manual aren't going to pay 2500 for an automatic. The Infiniti G35 was more expensive as a manual transmission vehicle, and for the previous version, it was worth every penny, but I don't see people who want a manual transmission paying extra for a DSG with no clutch. And, as I said before, I don't see people who want an automatic paying extra for it either, since they want an automatic anyway. Maybe I am wrong, who knows, but paying $2500 extra for something that gives me less of what I am looking for seems counter-intuitive.

Hybrids, for better or for worse, are a PR job. You take a car that gets pretty good mileage, add $2000-2500 worth of drivetrain and batteries, and it gets slightly better mileage. I don't see this as the future for cars. For heavy trucks (like a 3/4 ton pick-up through Class 8), where a hybrid drivetrain makes you go from 10 mpg to 15 or 18, I think there is some substantial opportunity there but that is a bit off topic. If someone loves batteries or wants to make a political statement, or "feel green" that is great, but that is not a business case for me personally to buy one.

shipo

"The best I can hope for in the future is the sport-oriented econocar (!!) with a manual and maybe 38 mpg. Honda is by far my best hope on this score, among the Big 6."

There's plenty of evidence showing up that the new Jetta TDI 6-Speed can be had with "sporty" trimmings, a 6-Speed manual and still be able to approach (or exceed based upon whom you listen to) 50 mpg on the highway. Now, if they'd only put the TDI in the Rabbit body I'd be hanging on for one of those.

Best Regards,
Shipo