Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I also used rotary-dial phone, hand-crank windows, and non-motorized push mowers.
However, I wouldn't want to go back to using any of those items.
Yes, those items operated as they were designed but they all had room for improvement.
Arguably, the automatic transmission was an improvement on the manual transmission because:
1) it is more reliable,
2) it reduces human labor (although it is minimal, shifting gears is still requires physical exertion), and
3) it allows for safer driving (even though you may be the exception, most people still take their eyes off the road to glance down when shifting gears and everyone takes a hand off the steering wheel or keeps a hand off the wheel for gear shifting, which is less safe than two-handed steering).
The original version of an item is not always its best iteration.
Is it more reliable? I think auto transmissions tend to be more expensive to fix when they go wrong, and being more complex they have more things to go wrong with them in the first place.
Is there any significant difference in numbers of road deaths in countries where manuals are the norm compared with countries where autos are the norm? Manuals are the norm in Europe and most European countries have lower rates of auto accident deaths than the US does so having autos everywhere doesn't seem to lead to a safer driving environment.
The McLaren 720 stock pulled an 8.9 with tire blankets under optimum conditions, on a strip.
If you'd said 9s it would be more credible. But you can't put an 8s car on the road and drive to a street meet without risking getting impounded before you get there, you need to run full drag tires or slicks, not street drags, and that's illegal in all 50 states.
McLaren 720..beautiful car, but I can guarantee you there are more legit 8 second cars on the streets then there are McLaren's built.
Most people that are willing to drive and race an 8 second car on the street could care less about slicks and parachutes hanging off the back. Even back in the 90's when 10 seconds was fast, I drove my 10 second Mustang in full race trim (slicks, front runners, non syncro, straight cut gear 5 spd) all over...for 4 years.
A friend of mine uses his E85 powered ,single turbo 8.80 Mustang to take his kids to get ice cream in the summer months.
And here is a cute little station wagon that runs bottom 8's and gets 14mpg. https://youtu.be/TP__bNSgZyU
Technology has made this possible. Now , small tired , drag radial cars are the fastest things out there.
You need to check out an event put on by Hot Rod Magazine, called Drag Week. Many will argue that these aren't street cars, but if one can get it legally registered, and can make the 1000 plus mile journey , it's a street car.
The current record holder, not too often you see a 3000hp 200plus mph car pulling a trailer. https://youtu.be/3GQxXT0BpB4
Sorry I got carried away, I just love this stuff. Also, to keep it on topic, none of these cars run manual transmissions.
Im waiting on the 2020 Ford Bronco to come out. It is rumored to have a 7 speed Manual transmission built from the same company that builds the Porsche 7 speed manual.
Started with a 3 speed column shift, moved on to the 4 speed floor, and then the 5 speed. At 18 I was driving a 10 speed with a split shifter. That was a big boy truck.
Back in 2000 I tried out the restyled Hyundai Accent. It was the first car they offered with 100,000 miles or 10 years bumper to bumper. Had a 5 speed and turns out it was a lot of fun to drive. Sadly, after 14 years I sold that car and have been in automatics ever since. That is why I am excited for the new Bronco to come out. If it looks like it should look we might have one in my driveway.
...to keep it on topic, none of these cars run manual transmissions.
In a maximum-level acceleration-run, as power levels rise, there is more time lost between shifts, than in suboptimal decision for when to shift. Automatics, being able to shift faster than humans, come to have more advantage. Compare your experiences above, with attempts to drag-race with a low-powered car, which would struggle to post even 17-seconds in the quarter mile. Such a car would almost certainly do better with a manual transmission than an automatic one. Quadruple the hp, and the advantages reverse.
Also, for a high-level competition-car, it is more important to be consistent during competition, than to have daily reliability or efficiency. The competition-cars are meticulously maintained, by people who know what they’re doing. That being so, complex and specialized systems can still be dependable. In a more conventional situation, maintenance is skipped, and when it is performed, it’s by half-tutored amateurs. In that case, the emphasis is on simplicity, even at the price of crudeness. For example, if you’re in Cuba, still keeping on the road a vehicle built in the 1950s, it is easier to contend with a manual, than an automatic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phlinak
I drove cars with manual transmissions.
I also used rotary-dial phone, hand-crank windows, and non-motorized push mowers.
However, I wouldn't want to go back to using any of those items.
Yes, those items operated as they were designed but they all had room for improvement.
...
The original version of an item is not always its best iteration.
In many cases one might credibly argue that the original version was preferable. A raft of examples is software from the 1990s, vs. what we have today. Consider computer-aided drafting software, word-processing, spreadsheets. So many of the modern features are sheer bloat. The older versions can't address 64-bit hardware, and thus can't be used. But their user-interface is often superior.
Brand-new products require an evolutionary period, where designers study outcomes in the field, eventually getting it right, from practical experience. But as this process unfolds, remaining field-lessons dwindle, and the call for innovation becomes more innovation for innovation's sake, than for general improvement. Mechanical hardiness and robustness tend to suffer, as new iterations become more feature-laden. To your lawnmower example, there are good reasons to prefer machines from the 1960s or 1970s, by which time internal combustion engines were sufficiently developed to offer good power, but frames were still sturdy and stiff, plastic parts not yet widely used, and systems such as drivebelts for the mower-blades were simpler. Likewise with hand-crank windows; I still prefer them.
There is of course tradeoff between ossified reluctance to accept anything new, from fear of innovation or having to re-learn something... and respect for well-engineered older products that have been supplanted with the shoddy and the bloated. Not every older product is a veritable classic, worthy of praise above its modern version. But consider the role of mass diffusion and commodification. When a technology is relatively new, it is exclusive, available only to early-adopters and the well-heeled. It is costly, and for that reason, can be built well, with the manufacturer still making a profit. As the technology diffuses, it goes down-market. Sometimes quality can improve and costs fall simultaneously; an example is televisions. But other times, quality falls, in which case the older items are to be preferred.
Is it more reliable? I think auto transmissions tend to be more expensive to fix when they go wrong, and being more complex they have more things to go wrong with them in the first place.
Is there any significant difference in numbers of road deaths in countries where manuals are the norm compared with countries where autos are the norm? Manuals are the norm in Europe and most European countries have lower rates of auto accident deaths than the US does so having autos everywhere doesn't seem to lead to a safer driving environment.
When is the last time you experienced or heard about a properly maintained automatic transmission failing in the last 10 years?
Who told you a manual transmission was more reliable?
Personally, I have driven well over 750,000 miles in 30+ years of driving, in several different vehicles in various climates and conditions.
I have never experienced an automatic transmission fail.
I'm not saying automatic transmissions never fail but I've never had one fail on me.
However, I've known a few people who had to replace clutches but not one who had to rebuild or replace an automatic transmission.
That tells me everything I need to know regarding transmissions.
Well, if one is to be precise, the clutch is not part of the standard transmission, but we'll let that go because it is inextricably linked to it.
Clutches are wear parts, just like brake pads. You don't say your brake pads failed when you have to replace them, you say they wore out. Eventually a clutch will wear out too.
I believe the manual transmission is still more reliable than the automatic. However, the reliability of both is now so high that one need never consider the differences. If the manual trans/clutch combination has 1/1000 failure per 200,000 miles, and the automatic trans has 2/1000 failures per 200,000 miles, do you really care - when water pumps run about 0.5 failures per 200,000 miles, ECUs probably about the same, turbochargers about the same, and up North the body only lasts 200k or so before you start to have serious rust, and down South the plastic parts all start to get UV embrittled at 200k or so?
When is the last time you experienced or heard about a properly maintained automatic transmission failing in the last 10 years?
dude, Honda's(one of the most reliable brands ever) had many issues with the automatics they paired with V6's in the mid 00's IIRC. Dodge had many issues with the automatics they put in on their 2500's on gas and diesel in the early to mid 00's. There's other brands that have had issues with their auto's(I'm a subaru guy and luckily Subaru has actually had good track records with their autos). But above all, manuals are more reliable than autos simply because they are a simpler setup. And you mentioning clutches as being a reason why manuals are less reliable doesnt make much sense. That's like saying having to change out a timing belt on a car makes it less reliable. It's simply one of those things that will have to be replaced due to age and use, simple as that. Depending on the transmission setup and how efficient someone is with driving a manual, a clutch can last a really long time. Ive got right at 200k on my WRX wagon and I'm still on the stock clutch and shows no signs of needing changed anytime soon. My dad's 01 Dodge 2500 diesel has 419k miles on it and is only on it's second clutch. There would be a really good chance that if his truck had been paired with the auto that it would have had to been replaced or rebuilt.
With their feet and hands that’s how you drive a manual transmission.
How in the heck are you gonna text and do all that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
