Manual Transmissions

[PureWater]

Manual Transmissions

Where is a question I have been wondering for along time, and its come time to find a TRUE answers for it.
Auto vs. Manual
I’m looking into buy a NEW Ranger, more then likely a V6, 3.0L and I personally have always had an automatic, why I’m not sure.
Now I know that this is a relatively open ended question. But I have read in a number of different posts (not necessarily here) that Manuals are cheaper to maintain is this true and how does someone come to this conclusion?? Seems a little asinine to me.
I question that because any web forums I visit seem to be loaded with people having problems with manual transmission and yet they still seem to preach about how wonderful manuals are.

So what’s the deal????

[Simple_serf]

Well, I have always had good luck with manuals, and very poor luck with automatics. manuals are generally simpler, and if you take care of them, the wearing parts seem to last a long time. Most RBV autos suck (The good ones haven't been in a ranger for over 20 years). The newer ones are all based on the a4ld, which is a POS.

Yes, it is going to be cheaper to maintain a manual vs an auto. Why? Because a few quarts of fluid is all you have to use to maintain it. an auto usually requires alot more fluid as well as a filter and sometimes a gasket kit. (Yes I know I am making some generalizations here).

Most people's experiences seem to be that where you kill a clutch with a manual, you kill the whole trans with an auto.

Can you tell I prefer manual transmissions?

(btw...many people will say that a 3.0 is better with a manual, as the auto has a tendency to shift too low for that motor)

[PureWater]

Thanks for the Reply Simple_Serf.

Even with that being said, My old man has an 1996 F150 with over 300Km Mom has an 1998 Explorer with over 200Km, I have a 1986 Tempo with over 200Km. All them have never had any transmissions problems at all, and all are Auto. Now I'm not comparing them to the Ranger but again I'm just trying to understand what the big deal is with Manual. A lot of people just say it comes down to a personal choice and that’s it but does it?
I have seen some people go from Manual then buy an Auto but I have never seem to many go the other way.

Lets put it this way. I'm not one to lay on my back under my truck trying to work on a clutch, I have to much going on and I need my vehicle to get me around. So if something goes wrong its more then likely going to the shop.
I don't know any more... hmmm.... its an added $1400 for the auto, but I don't want to find myself sitting here on the computer reading posts trying to figure out whats going and why I don't have Rev. or my 1st gear is slipping.

[TireIron]

well think about it this way, if your clutch goes its about 400 or so american to have it replaced, if your auto dies, its about 2000 to have it replaced... also if you happen to break something actually in the manual tranmission they can be had in junk yards for 300 bucks in perfect condition.

All it really comes down to though is personal preference. If you tend to feel lazy and just want to drive it then go for an auto. If you really enjoy driving and have fun controlling the vehicle then go for a manual. Just know that if you get a manual you will HAVE to shift it yourself no matter how tired or lazy you are feeling.

[rickcdewitt]

my cousin had a 99 ranger on 31's with a 3.0l and 4 speed auto.he went through 2 overdrive trannies while it was under warranty and got rid of it before it broke down when the warranty was up.i've been easily twice as hard on my 5 speed ranger without it quitting on me.if you get an auto truck gear it real low to take stress off it or be very easy on it and change the fluid/filter every 50,000.

[MAKG]

You speak about 200,000 km like it's a lot. It's not.

My Prizm has 265,000 miles. That's about 325,000 km.

There is no really good RBV automatic transmission. There never has been (honestly, the fully mechanical C4 is very overrated, and every last one of them is painfully old). There is one pretty good RBV manual transmission, used in everything after 1990, and some models after 1987.

Does that make your decision for you?

[Jspafford]

I have to agree... I bought my fiancee a 1999 Ranger with the 3.0L and it has the auto. I can put the pedal to the pavement and the truck will still not go about 3500 rpm before it shifts. It is barely breathing heavy and it's in 4th already. Seems sluggish once it leaves first.

I have never driven a 3.0L with a stick, but I imagine it would be much more... well.. fun.

My 1989 B2 came with a FM-146. What a POS, I bought a remanufactured M5OD from AllanD and he delivered it to me. What a difference. I have towed way more than I should and it is still quiet as a new truck. It is sometimes notchy going into 2nd, but from what I hear it's normal.

When you kill an auto it costs thousands for a new one, rebuilt ones usually suck!

The only way to kill a manual is to run it dry on fluid, or if you just flat out don't know how to drive it.

I can change a clutch in 5 hours and only cost me $120 bucks. I wouldn't dare touch an automatic.

I only wish my F-250 was a 6-speed.

[PureWater]

ok so then why are web forums full of people having problems with their Manual Transmissions??
I'm not asking to be rude in any way, I just don't get it?

[MARK96SVT]

I bought mine with a manual for better MPG's and more control over the vehicle. Manuals are generally more reliable, simple fluid changes. The only problem i've had with a manual trans is a squeaky throwout bearing, and that is a common problem on my 96 cobra.

You say there are forums full of people with manual trans problems, there are just as many if not more that are full of automatic problems. :icon_thumby:

[Jspafford]

ok so then why are web forums full of people having problems with their Manual Transmissions??
I'm not asking to be rude in any way, I just don't get it?

Most people who search online for a forum or message board is because they need help. Hence the reason why when you go to most message boards all the people are complaining about problems and asking for help.

Just think of how many thousands of these same transmissions 'the whole forum is complaining about' are still out in use everyday without a single issue.

That is like going to the Better Business Bureau and assuming since a couple thousand businesses are shady, that EVERY businesss is shady.

[BDAB]

yep. I am a truck driver and have seen 13spd transmissions with 2 million miles on them with out an overhaul. as with any part on a 4wd that gets road hard and put away wet will break parts. the clutch on a manual is like a fuse. and Automatic has no fuse. If you are abusing the clutch and burn it up then you just replace the clutch. If you abuse an automatic and burn it up.... you replace the tranny and torque converter. I have a Suburban waiting on a $3000 dollar transmission. my landCruiser needs a $260 dollar Clutch ....... which do you think will get fixed first?

[4x4RangerGuy]

I just completed a manual transmission swap on my 98 3.0 4x4, and I can't believe I ever put up with the automatic to begin with.

I have had nothing but bad luck with my auto (4R44E), it's gone through 1 rebuild, and was slipping when I removed it. They shift WAY too early on the 3.0, and they can't decide what gear they want to be in.

The M5OD I swapped in this summer has opened up my 3.0 like you wouldn't believe. It's faster, way more fun, and I feel in control of my truck. If you're gonna get the 3.0, get the manual. You won't regret it.

[HAPPY_RANGER_GUY]

Look at it this way...the majority of people having trouble with Auto transmissions are going to go to the shop for a fix, or simply dump the vehicle. Many people with Manual transmission problems are going to go after the repair on their own and thus posting for help / advice on the forums. This could explain some of what you observed. Yeah, given the cost difference up front and potential cost savings in the long haul, I stick with manuals.

T.

[philS]

There are very few benefits to an auto, other than ease of operability (depending on the driver) and ease of re-sale (depending on the vehicle).

Manuals are cheaper to buy, cheaper to repair, lighter, quicker, more fun to drive, get better gas mileage, etc.

[philS]

And towing is another bennie for autos.

[Natedog]

And towing is another bennie for autos.

Not if you know how to drive.

[MAKG]

All of the earlier manual transmissions (made by Mitsubishi and Mazda in their TK form) have design flaws, and there are a number of people finding them.

The later Mazda M5ODs have essentially one catastrophic failure mode -- driver error. The driver lets them leak for years until they run out of lubricant. There are a few minor failure modes (e.g., the 2nd gear "notchy" shift in earlier M5ODs).

[arrabil]

In many newer vehicles the auto is rated at a higher MPG than the manual.

If you do get a 3.0 with an auto, make use of the OD button. Mine tends to shift into OD right when I don't want it to. I just turn it off until I'm going fast enough on flat ground.

[Rulebreaker]

In many newer vehicles the auto is rated at a higher MPG than the manual.



I find this hard to believe, but lets say your right. If it get's 1 or 2 MPG better how long would you have to drive it to pay for the additional cost of the auto? Not to mention the probability that operating an auto will cost more than operating the manual. RB

[MAKG]

Also, if you believe OD is always good, would you like to buy a bridge in New York?

There is no reason to EVER have OD on ANY vehicle. Why does it exist? EPA mileage factors it in, with a weird assumption (that had some meaning when carburetors ruled the day) that mileage is proportional to RPM. Within the powerband, it is ACTUALLY proportional to power produced, for virtually every engine (at the rate of about 0.5 lb/hr/HP).

In reality, if you are in the powerband on a streetable vehicle, highway mileage changes very little as function of RPM. Except quite a lot of OD vehicles drop too low and leave the powerband, leading to LOWER mileage with the OD on.

OD is also a good way to burn up a transmission under heavy load conditions. Especially if it forces the torque converter to unlock.

That automatic transmissions require a cooler and manual transmissions don't should be your first hint that some of the fuel is generating extra heat instead of torque....

[arrabil]

I find this hard to believe
Go look it up then. It seems to be particularly true of CVT trannys but a couple new BMWs are rated higher MPG with the auto and I don't believe BMW has a CVT. Either way, I wasn't advocating it, I was just saying that the general thinking that you get better mileage with a manual is no longer universally true.

Also, if you believe OD is always good, would you like to buy a bridge in New York?
Are you selling this to me?

[MAKG]

The "rating" doesn't mean someone went out and measured mileage.

Until the current model year, it contained "corrections," some of which were flaming BS.

This model year, it means five very specific sets of driving conditions approximated on a dynamometer, none of which are like YOU drive.

In an interesting check, Edmunds tested five vehicles for a year (and about 20,000 miles) in 2004, with a set of "real" drivers, and got about 25% lower fuel economy than the EPA estimates, in every case below the EPA lower bounds.

[arrabil]

Whats you're point? We're not discussing whether or not the EPA numbers are accurate, we're discussing whether a manual gets a higher MPG than an auto. Does the Edmund's test make that distiction?

All I said was that many newer vehicles are rated differently than what we're all used to seeing. No more, no less.

And again, are you selling that bridge to me?

[beyonder]

Heres my 2 cents...

Whats the deal..lol. 90% of the time a lota people driving wrong for the equipment that they have ( e.g. wheeling heavy on an auto or trying to pull something like an RV with a standard { and not knowing what they're doing } ),, and then whinning when something breaks. ITs rather simple to decide...ask yourself :

1. Whats the terrain like where you live ( Prarie/mountain,etc )
2. What do you plan on using the truck for? (city/highway or offroad)
3. Can you drive a standard or rather do you know how to properly?
4. How long do you really plan on keeping the truck?
5. How many kilometers/Miles will you put on it per year?

Your answers for those should help you decide.

The differences between repairs are almost the same. Clutch,etc is around 400 in parts if I remember correctly. so thats 400 if you do the work add labor from a shop into that and you'll be up around 1000. A used auto runs around 8 or 900 from a wrecker, 1700 new. Plus installation. The auto I'm driving at the moment was made in june of 90, its 17 years old. Nothings been done to the tranny other than fluid changes,etc. ( part of this may be because it's only got 254 000 km on it ) I have a vacuum modulator for it, 50 or so dollars from ford. Now how many clutches will a person go through in 17 years? Id guarentee at least 2 or 3....it adds up the almost the exact same, more if you have a shop do the work. I've also had autos that lasted less than a year. It all depends on what YOU want it for. Your needs are totally different than everyone elses on here.

[Rulebreaker]

Go look it up then. It seems to be particularly true of CVT trannys but a couple new BMWs are rated higher MPG with the auto and I don't believe BMW has a CVT. Either way, I wasn't advocating it, I was just saying that the general thinking that you get better mileage with a manual is no longer universally true.




I didn't make myself clear. I don't doubt the EPA #'s I doubt that you can actually get better fuel economy with the auto.. Also I don't consider a CVT an auto. I know it shifts automatically but is in a category all by it's self and I will never buy one as I've been riding snowmobiles my whole life and the CVT on my sled is a maintenance nightmare. Primary's on a sled are only good for about 5000 miles and if it fails at high rpm the engine usually suffers damage. I'm sure the car setup is built different but I'll pass on the setup. RB

[arrabil]

I'm sure the car setup is built different but I'll pass on the setup.
Yeah I agree with that. I was saying the same to my wife... "Great another really expensive car part to fail."

But the EPA numbers are higher on regular non-CVT autos in some BMWs, Hondas, and I think, Toyotas. I can see why its true though, autos keep the RPMs down and I certainly get more MPG with cruise control than my own foot since its smoother, so if they can make the computer smart enough and the tranny efficient enough, there shouldn't be any reason it isn't the case. Then again, what do I know?

[Totalled]

I feel the 3.0 requires a manual trans... I drove a 04 3.0 4x4 Ranger at work for a day and found myself manually shifting the auto since ford, like with most of it's autos... programed it to shift too early and to lug the crap out of the engine. The 3.0s really don't start to make power till 3,000 rpm... much like the older 2.8L.

[racsan]

about a year ago i did a test where for a week i drove my 5 speed without using overdrive, the truck was only driven to work and back (a round trip of about 24 miles) my milage was only 17 doing so, with o/d being used the next week i got 17.5 weather conditions were the same, shift points the same ect. on a long hiway trip on flat ground o/d may be worth using but id say for the most part its not. i cant use o/d when i pull my trailer anyhow. watching the vaccum guage i can only imagine the lack of fuel effeicency thats happening.

[koldcustoms]

Purewater- where are you reading about these bad experiences with manuals? If you're going to the ricer forums, pay no attention. They're having tranny problems because they shift gears at 4500+ rpm. They're driving an economy car, not a Ferrari.

Understand this: there's more moving parts in an auto. More moving parts means more wear and tear, which leads to greater chances of a break down.

There's no argument. Manuals are easier and cheaper to maintain. Autos usually have a fully enclosed case design. So if there's a problem, it almost always results in removing the tranny from the vehicle for inspection. There's more labour involved.

A manual will let you know if there's a problem (ie; hard to shift, clutch is slipping, master needs bleeding, etc...). You'll have time to repair it before it fails completely. An auto will suddenly quit working, leaving you stranded.

But I would agree: if you're lazy, buy an auto. Because manual sucks when you're tired and stuck in rush hour traffic.

[blackwidow67]

wow newb opening mad old thread