The Decline of the Manual... But a Glimmer of Hope?

[pete c]

Excellent thread. A lot of good observations.

I am a long time manual fan. Like many here, I actually enjoy the art of shifting. And yes, good manual driving is an art. I am reminded of this when I drive somewhere with the OL driving my MT Sonata. My wife is perfectly capable of driving a manual, but, to her, it is not an art. After a few minutes, I usually ask her to pull over and let me drive!

As for today's autos, they really are light years ahead of the slushboxes of yore. I rented one yesterday. A lowly Hyundai accent. 6 speed with an eco button that short shifted the hell outta that thing! I really would think about buying one, but, in the end, I still like being in control.

I do have one question? Why in the hell do manufacturers continue to put such short ODs in the top gears of MTs? That accent has a much taller top gear than my '09 MT Sonata. Some new cars have a higher mpg number for the autos and I am certain it is because the autos top cog is much higher than the manual. Give me a proper OD for 75 mph cruising. I am perfectly capable of downshifting on hills.

[pete c]

The thing I really don't get is the takeover of the auto in the sports car market.

Yes, it is undeniable that a modern high performance manual will get you around a track quicker, but, for those of us not actually on a racetrack, it is not about that. It is about the challenge of smoothly driving such a car quickly. Any moron can click a paddle, but a proper heel and toe downshift is a learned skill. I had an argument with an on line friend who used to peddle BMWs about how buying an M3 with an auto was heresy. Shifting a BMW is like sex. Why would I want to let someone else do it?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by pete c

Why in the hell do manufacturers continue to put such short ODs in the top gears of MTs? That accent has a much taller top gear than my '09 MT Sonata. Some new cars have a higher mpg number for the autos and I am certain it is because the autos top cog is much higher than the manual. Give me a proper OD for 75 mph cruising. I am perfectly capable of downshifting on hills.

That's my biggest gripe. I've said it before, but my TSX has a close-ratio gearbox. It's a fabulous gearbox, except 6th gear is pointless. In a racing scenario, I would never find a straight long enough to use 6th. The track would have to have a 3 mile long straight for me to top out 5th gear, and finally require me to shift to 6th. In normal driving situations, I can climb very steep grades that most every car would downshift to maintain speed, but I can leave the TSX in 6th and exceed the speed limit. So, the gear isn't good for racing, and it isn't good for cruising (fuel economy).

Originally Posted by pete c

Yes, it is undeniable that a modern high performance manual auto will get you around a track quicker, but, for those of us not actually on a racetrack, it is not about that. It is about the challenge of smoothly driving such a car quickly. Any moron can click a paddle, but a proper heel and toe downshift is a learned skill.

This is why Formula 1 has banned so many technologies. They had to balance the art of driving fast with the science of technology to make the sport interesting to people. Driver skill can easily be overshadowed by implementing technology such as computer controlled suspension, traction control, active steering, etc.

Ayrton Senna was finding much faster ways to go around the racetrack than his competitors, but when F1 briefly had computer controlled suspension, his massive lead fell, and everyone was finding the fast way to get around the track.

Ultimately, technology will get so good that a driver cannot come close to matching an autonomous vehicle. I would be fascinated to see a race involving driver-less cars that implemented the best technology has to offer, but I'm in the minority here. People love a champion, and they need a hero to cheer on. It's difficult to have the same excitement for a computer program as you would have for a person.

[pete c]

I think F1 lost something when they went to semi-auto trannies. I think taking away shifting/clutching was bigger than active suspension or traction control.

And yes, Senna was a freak of nature. I watched a program about him awhile back. He really stood out when the rain started. He was so much faster than anyone else in the wet.

And, I guess the geek in me would be interested in fully autonomous road racing, but, it will never be the same as manned racing.

Getting back to trannies, I do think the current gear count battles are kind of silly. A 9 speed tranny? Maybe on an older small 4 cylinder, but with todays engines and their variable cam wizardry, they make power everywhere. I think 6 or 7 gears on a smaller engine is about all that will add performance. And the 7 speed on the new vette? That monster of an engine pulls like a freight train pretty much through its revs. As you say, give it 5 close ratios for hauling ass up to very illegal speeds and a 6th for putting along on the freeway.

[jcp123]

Well, autos have gotten good enough that most average buyers are effectively getting the best of both worlds. Heck, even that ZF 8-speed auto can be and has been programmed to execute shifts almost as quickly as, say, a PDK or similar automated manual. FE most buyers, the ease of automatic and the availability of "manual" control is good enough and they see no reason to choose a manual transmission over one of these new-fangled automatics.

If there's a glimmer of hope, it's in the small but relatively vociferous minority of drivers who prefer a manual for its own sake. It's a dim hope, though, as most are forced into the secondary market to get what they want. Manufacturers don't look much at that's rely to drive their decisions. Hence it sets up a self-fulfilling prophecy that nobody buys new with MT, so we won't build 'em.

[PaulB2]

Why in the hell do manufacturers continue to put such short ODs in the top gears of MTs?

My Passat is not that way. 6th gear is quite tall, in fact I don't like to drive lower than 52mph with it although theoretically it is capable of going lower. My older Passat really needed the taller tires to get the gearing up, but this one sure doesn't.

There is always a haven for Manual transmission fans in the motorcycle market. Autos have gone nowhere there. :-)

I have the Pentastar with the ZF 8-speed auto in my Ram 1500. It is a very nice combination, and for the way I use a pickup (just for chores, not as a daily driver) it's just what I like. It's a pickup! It is not going to be fun to drive no matter what. I want to haul stuff with it, not go around corners fast. I don't know if 8 speeds are needed but I can really get good mileage with this truck, so maybe it's a good thing.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by pete c

I think 6 or 7 gears on a smaller engine is about all that will add performance. And the 7 speed on the new vette? That monster of an engine pulls like a freight train pretty much through its revs. As you say, give it 5 close ratios for hauling ass up to very illegal speeds and a 6th for putting along on the freeway.

Your reasoning is a bit flawed IMO. A smaller engine needs less gears, because it has less power and lower top speed. A bigger engine needs more gears to be efficient. The Corvette's truck-like powerband doesn't benefit as much from super close gears when revving out to the limiter, but having 30% gaps between gears will definitely make a car slower, and it will also make you stay in low gears longer when driving at low speeds, which is inefficient.

7 speed gearboxes are more work to shift through, but it's worth it if it means being able to fully exploit a performance engine AND cruise on the freeway at low rpm. You don't even need Corvette level power to see the benefits; Porsche's 6 speed 3.4L cars will reach their top speed of ~180mph in 6th gear, and 6 gears to get to 180 makes for super tall gearing around town already; they will do 80mph in 2nd gear and 50 in 1st.

I would say that having 7 speeds available would be nice for a lot of cars, but 6 does fine most of the time. If you are always doing eco style driving, then a wide ratio 6 speed works just fine, but closer ratios are fun and an extra gear lets you have that as well as a nice tall cruise gear.

[pete c]

My reasoning, regarding small engines is that they tend to be rather gutless at lower RPM, so keeping them "on the cam" is advantageous. Another factor to consider is that when the engine is shifting, there is a moment there, where you are burning gas, but not putting down power. This is inefficient. There is also the weight penalty.

I would guess that for most cars, the optimum number of gears is 6, maybe 7. Anything beyond that is just showing off. In the case of manuals, I just don't see going to the 7th gear. It has to make shifting somewhat more difficult.

What do todays racers use in vettes/911s? I wouldn't be surprised if the use 5 speed race trannies, maybe 6. I doubt either use the 7 speeds unless it is some sort of showroom stock series.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by pete c

What do todays racers use in vettes/911s? I wouldn't be surprised if the use 5 speed race trannies, maybe 6. I doubt either use the 7 speeds unless it is some sort of showroom stock series.

6 speeds has been the standard for a while, I doubt you'll be able to find a 5 speed racecar these days unless it's a race prepped dinosaur. It's hard to get above 150mph on most tracks so they make the ratios tighter than the street car boxes.

What they did on the 991 GT3 was make a 7 speed close ratio box so that you could have way more power in low speed turns thanks to the revs not dropping off, but that's not a manual shift car.

With these cars you actually have enough power to get to those speeds though. When you start looking at 4 cylinder performance drivetrains like the K20 or 2ZZ-GE, they have 6th gears that can be used in theory but you'll never get fast enough to actually hit 6th because there's just not much power to keep accelerating, and the first 5 gears have pretty close spacing already, comparable to say a factory 911 GT3. You can get even closer ratios but since it's a manual transmission you lose a few tenths of a second per shift and it's not that useful.

[ECONORAM]

Originally Posted by jcp123

I ran my Mustang manual steering for a bit. No big deal.

I tried that in my RAM for about a day. Probably could have done it longer if I didn't have golfer's elbow in both elbows...

Originally Posted by pete c

I do have one question? Why in the hell do manufacturers continue to put such short ODs in the top gears of MTs? That accent has a much taller top gear than my '09 MT Sonata. Some new cars have a higher mpg number for the autos and I am certain it is because the autos top cog is much higher than the manual. Give me a proper OD for 75 mph cruising. I am perfectly capable of downshifting on hills.

I agree. Some good info here. For the 07 RAMs, the stick had a 1:1 5th, and a .78 6th gear, where the auto has a .75 4th and a .67 5th. I figured it was a racket to push better looking mileage figures for autos so the OEM could quit offering stick shifts... Yet they have now offered a 7sp in the new Challenger.

I too was thinking a small engine needs more gears, as you'd want to keep it in the power band more often. That thinking might come from owning a VW GLI...with a close ratio 5sp.