Manual Transmissions

[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.
________
essential vaaapp vaporizer

 

[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.

 

[RangerFabWorks]

wow newb opening mad old thread