Not very long ago it may have seemed like manuals were here to stay. Their competition, the automatic transmission, had been absolute garbage since the dawn of the automobile—how so many people put up with them for so long is beyond me. Their delayed responses to input were intolerable, and they were so inefficient they could rob your engine of 5% more power over a standard trans, not to mention several MPGs. Pair one with an early drive-by-wire throttle system and the response was so slow and cumbersome you'd feel like you were driving the Curiousity rover. They were, and still are, a terrible curse bestowed upon untold scores of automobiles.
But those days are over, and the classic slushbox is finally being phased out. Every manufacturer from Ferrari to Ford is cramming the latest 13-speed quadruple clutch 'automated manual' into their newest models. They shift as fast as you can blink, and they know what gear you want before you do. They rev-match perfectly, and should you find yourself stuck in traffic you won't develop a case of tennis elbow in your knee—nevertheless, the enthusiast crowd isn't impressed.
 |
| The Buick Reatta — Only available with a 4-speed automatic. |
 |
| Unfortunately, it wasn't just oddball 80s Buicks that lost their clutch pedals. |
Dual-clutchs are too expensive! — Remember what a flat screen TV cost 10 years ago? New technologies always start expensive until enough well-off people pay for them. Once they do, the R&D can be done that enables manufacturers to bring the price down. Arguing that a car like the GT-R is undesirable because its transmission can be expensive to repair would be like telling a McLaren engineer that the MP4-12C is cool, but you'd rather it have a solid rear axle with leaf springs and a carburetor . . . Cars like the McLaren and GT-R pave the way for the technologies that later become available in cars we can actually, maybe, someday afford.
Manuals promote driver attentiveness! — Many seem to be arguing that we should keep stick around because you can't text, shave, read, or put on make-up while trying to operate one. Not only can you do all those things while driving stick (don't ask me how I know), but even if you couldn't, it wouldn't do anything to lessen the number of distracted drivers on the road. The majority of people who succumb to these distractions would never buy a stick car in the first place. To them, driving isn't driving, it's commuting. It's taking a bus or a train except they're in control—though they wish they didn't have to be.
Automatics require no skill! — Does your car have ABS? Power steering? Power brakes? Synchros? Radial tires? A locking diff? Yes? Then you may want to step back and reevaluate your argument. If it's skill you're after, perhaps Ford's Model T is the car for you. No ECU to steal your prestige here! You'll have to manually control the ignition timing as you drive—you may want to start doing some bicep curls though, hand-crank starters are a bitch.
Automatics mean no control! — An older automatic or semi-automatic transmission would change gears based on RPM or throttle position regardless of your selected preference, but today's automated manuals typically have manual modes that put you back in true control.
Automatics aren't fun! — I could not agree more—but, did people not say the same thing about AWD? A new, expensive technology that, arguably, takes less skill to drive? And now we revere cars like the Audi Sport Quattro and Porsche's 959 as some of the greatest cars in automotive history. Cars that—even with the added weight of their AWD systems as a handicap—proved not only to be fast as hell, but damn fun too.
 |
| Believe it or not, Karl Benz's 1886 Patent-Motorwagen got 25 mpg, but its puny 1.5L fuel tank meant for very short trips between fill ups. |
Whether or not the manual transmission is one of those technologies that's so good we keep it around long after its performance has been surpassed by new technologies is a hard question to answer. But, for the same reasons that people still drive rear- and front-wheel drive cars—not to mention ride horses and fixed-gear bicycles—I don't think we have to worry too much about losing our beloved transmissions.
We'll just have to pay more for them . . .
Photoshops created by Auto Reverie with photos used from:
Stamfordhistory.org
4wheelnews.com
Air-and-space.com
Media.salon.com
Naflaskodum.blog.is
Biography.com
Mplsrealtor.com
Web.educastur.princast.es
Latenightwithjimmyfallon.com
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe most promising "automatics" are DSG systems, aka robotic manual transmissions.
ReplyDeleteI've driven two. One was a VW DSG, and I thought it was great. It was basically like having an automatic clutch. Sport mode even kept revs nice and high, right in the torque sweet spot for when I wanted to put my foot down. It even had some decent engine braking in that mode. That's a DSG done right.
Second DSG was in a Ford Focus. Terrible. The DSG was slow. The shift points were weird. Worst of all the thing kept slipping its clutch all the time, even between upshifts. I heard that these things glaze their clutches early in life, and the slipping tells me why. When the second or third owner needs to replace the clutches for $3000, it might total the car. Now the MPG money savings are completely reversed.
Finally, even the VW DSG wasn't as fun as a true manual. When you are driving a manual, it feels like the engine's torque comes directly out of your right foot. It's getting to be cliche, but with a DSG, you just are not as involved in the driving experience.