2018 was the last year you could buy a full-sized pickup truck with a manual transmission

[MetroMPG]

The dumbing down of the automobile continues! And it has efficiency implications, too.

Not only are some full size pick-up trucks now getting worse MPG than their predecessors (reversing a long trend), the EPA-beating ability of choosing your own gear has disappeared for the 2019 model year.

The last manual transmission truck you could get is the 2018 Ram 2500.

Even with the eleventy-billion-speed automatics now commonly available, remember that the EPA ratings of manual transmission vehicles are handicapped by the test methodology. It's always easier to beat the EPA with a manual than with an automatic, simply by using the most basic eco-driving technique of up-shifting to the highest usable gear after accelerating.

I've never driven a full-size pickup with a stick, though there's a nice 70's F150 in a nearby town that has a 3-on-the-tree. I can dream.

Source: https://jalopnik.com/this-is-the-las...ick-1831744609

[JSH]

Considering in 2018 only 3 percent of vehicles sold in the USA had a manual transmission this isn't surprising. There is no reason to add cost to a vehicle by offering a manual transmission when so few customers buy it.

[MetroMPG]

Noted more for it being the end of an era than an actual rally cry to...

Save the Manuels!

[Hersbird]

Part of the problem was the epa test itself. It basically was punishing the manuals. Like you pointed out the EPA test is easy to beat with a manual, or another way of looking at it, the epa test was unfair to manuals. So then put them side by side on a new car lot and the sticker tells the buyer there is no fuel savings to be had. In reality you get a cost upfront savings, a long term maintenance savings, and a fuel savings. All that did t kill it, what killed trucks not having a manual option is cars not having a manual option first. A truck is usually a 2nd or 3rd vehicle and if you don't ever learn on a car you won't buy a truck with one.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Noted more for it being the end of an era than an actual rally cry to...

Save the Manuels!

Don't worry; there are more than enough Manuels and they're busy making even more all the time.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by JSH

Considering in 2018 only 3 percent of vehicles sold in the USA had a manual transmission this isn't surprising. There is no reason to add cost to a vehicle by offering a manual transmission when so few customers buy it.

Offering a manual costs the manufacturer around 10 million in government testing.

Remove the testing and it costs absolutely nothing to offer an already designed manual from another market

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

In reality you get a cost upfront savings, a long term maintenance savings, and a fuel savings.

For the average driver? Not sure about the fuel savings.

There are a couple of manuals in my neighbourhood, and I swear they never get out of 2nd gear on my street, 50 km/h = 30 mph limit.


But for any driver interested even in basic eco-techniques, the manual is a no-brainer for savings.

[slowmover]

I have the man trans in a CTD Dodge (signature). 5+1 forward versus the 3+1 of the 2004 auto.

Once the 4+2 auto became available (2006?), the “advantage” of a manual dropped way off. (It’s big selling point had always been higher reliability; like that engine, rated for 35k gross vehicles; thus greater tow rating).

The mating of a CTD and a manual is a marriage made-in-heaven: massive TQ (1400-rpm peak) off the line with fuel delivery that keeps engine from stalling. Never really have to rev the engine (2900-rpm redline & HP peak) unless loaded AND on a grade.

But,

1). The man trans is slower to speed. Always.

2). The auto features TWO overdrive gears, thus is at a lower engine rpm for a given set of light-load conditions on highway.

3). The auto trucks have final drive gear-ratio advantages. The engine displacement and power have been increased sustantially since mine, thus the current configuration turns fewer RPMs at 70 than I do at 58.


For several years now Dodge has ALSO offered an XHD automatic.


It may be “easier” to get higher MPG with a manual, but one is thoroughly out-of-sync with other traffic while so doing.

That last is the tipping point. It is my God-given American right to phone text at any moment and under any circumstances. . Dodge caved to the latest USSC rulings, essentially admitting itself wrong in believing a tee-nine-cy amount of IQ was required in order to safely operate a motor vehicle.

OTOH, having a manual means effective anti-theft is built-in. And the vehicle is without a VERY complex hydraulic system with potential heat-related problems.

.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by slowmover

I have the man trans

It may be “easier” to get higher MPG with a manual, but one is thoroughly out-of-sync with other traffic while so doing.

.

I thought that was the only reason to own a truck?

And It’s not like my fathers motorhome or a semi are in sync with traffic either

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by slowmover

It may be “easier” to get higher MPG with a manual, but one is thoroughly out-of-sync with other traffic while so doing.
.

Is this a HD truck-specific comment? Because it's demonstrably false in a car.

Manual vs. automatic transmission MPG showdown: Nissan Micra 1.6L