End of the road for manual shifters?

[05XR8]

I'd actually be happy to delete the clutch from the equation completely, I want to be able to select the gear myself but if it can be done by purely moving the stick I'm all in for the idea. There are H patterns that can do it, just a bit harsh for road use though, but that's what I'd call my preferred type of gearbox. Naturally a clutch would still be necessary for starts and stops but those are few and far between when compared to shifts.

I remember some Beetles had that. When you go to shift, the clutch engages without a 3rd pedal.

 

[homeforsummer]

I remember some Beetles had that. When you go to shift, the clutch engages without a 3rd pedal.

Several others too. Saab 'Sensonic' and Renault 'Easy' in the 1990s both used a similar system. A microswitch activates the clutch as soon as the gearlever is moved. Actually, as soon as it's touched, as they tended to be quite sensitive. No driving along with your hand on the shifter as it'd just keep the car in neutral.

Never really caught on, I suspect mostly because they were an unhappy middle ground between the outright control of a regular manual and the ease of an auto. And back then the tech wasn't really sophisticated to make it properly smooth. If anyone could be bothered today, I expect it'd work much better. Still kinda pointless though when proper manuals and proper automatics exist.

 

[Greycap]

I actually thought along the lines of really removing the clutch from the shifting process altogether. More like "lift a bit, crash the next gear in with a determined move, throttle again" as some racing gearboxes function. But as said, they might be just a bit harsh for road use.

 

[Tornado]

Isn't that just describing a pre-war preselector gearbox?

 

[Aerocoupe]

I know Hurst tried something like that with their "Dual Gate" shifters, allowing you to override the automatic or let it shift itself.

 

[revhead_1000]

Bah, personally I can't stand automatics. Not that I've ever used either, but I hate how they shift so silently. I want to hear every change, but that's just me.

I would have thought Toyota were chopping the manuals because most of their sales are either to pensioners in Britain or to Americans who buy the Camry because they want to sit back and cruise. There's a few exceptions to my theory, of course. Nobody wants an automatic Celica, surely.

I just hate them cause they make you feel so detached from the car.

 

[Clark]

I think I would definitely go for an auto (even though I've never driven one) if I had more than one car, but my one car is my daily. I use it for fun and commuting etc. and it's not much of a hardship and would not want to take the joy of changing gear myself out of my driving.

 

[MCFerocious]

Auto cars use much more fuel (generally) than manuals. And you cannot play 'tricks' with an auto to save fuel.

Manuals are definitely more fun too. For me there is only one option.

 

[homeforsummer]

Auto cars use much more fuel (generally) than manuals.

That's not been the case for well over a decade. And probably much longer in effect, as I suspect most fairly unskilled drivers don't use manual gearboxes to best effect anyway. An automatic with higher transmission losses than a manual still has the potential to be more efficient if the driver of the manual vehicle is frequently in the wrong gear.

And you cannot play 'tricks' with an auto to save fuel.

Not strictly true - it's quite possible to trick an auto into shifting when you want even if it has no manual mode, for instance. You can't experiment as much as with a manual certainly, but again we're talking hypotheticals anyway - how many manual drivers a) drive deliberately for economy or b) would know how even if they wanted to?

 

[alonsof1fan91]

Not every auto uses less or same fuel

Ford Focus 1.0 Ecoboost 92kw
AT: 7,4 l/100km
MT:5,8 l/100km

Seems to be an outliner tough

 

[homeforsummer]

True, though as you note it's one of a decreasing number where the manual is still more efficient. And that 1-litre Ecoboost is pretty poor for economy whether auto or manual...

 

[Legro]

Naturally a clutch would still be necessary for starts and stops but those are few and far between when compared to shifts.

I don't know. My 10 km daily commute includes 6 traffic lights, two busy roundabouts, one stop sing, and at least two other points where having to yield for another vehicle or a pedestrian is likely. Yes, you still need to shift more often than you need to stop completely but especially in the more urban areas stopping and launching again is not quite what I'd call uncommon.

 

[super_gt]

The manual gearbox is much more cheaper and lighter.

 

[MCFerocious]

Let me tell you something gents, I have a 2006 VW Golf 1.9 diesel, PD engine, and from 57 litres of fuel I can get 850 miles regularly from one tank of fuel. Yes, this is mainly motorway driving, and once I achieved 95 miles per gallon on one 200 mile trip. This is without taking the mick either by going ridiculously slow on the motorway, but rather by using the gradients of the road, i.e gravity and the laws of physics to aid the energy efficiency for the journey.

Once, I got 925 miles from one tank of fuel. That's 925 miles from 57 litres of fuel. I have not heard of anyone else even getting close to these figures.

My point is - with a manual gearbox you can get up to useful tricks to use the laws of physics and the gradients of the road to ones advantage. You cannot do this with an auto box.

 

[Northstar]

Plenty of people hypermile with automatics...

 

[Obelisk]

To be fair, I'm averaging 36-42 miles per gallon in urban driving on my Mazda3 automatic, which yields a range of about 475-554 miles per tank. So practically speaking, there shouldn't be much difference in autos and manuals. There are plenty of cases where autos are more efficient and plenty of cases where manuals are more efficient, but it all comes down to the driver.

 

[McLaren]

Manual gearboxes in supercars will be no more. It's almost impossible to enjoy the car reasonably now. Sure you could bring up "BUT THE DODGE VIPER HAS A MANUAL AND THATS FAST UGHHHHHHHH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH CORVETTE", but there is not a single owner that I've talked to that has said they like it. They're manuals because it's cheaper to produce, rather than putting money into R&D like Porsche or McLaren for a DCT or KDD like Koenigsegg. People buying manuals make up for just barely 10% of the current market share now and it'll eventually go away anyways because electric is the way of the future.

And I have friend who has put 4,000 miles on his 2-month old ACR who drove it home straight from the factory.

Conclusion? Your underlined sentence is irrelevant and reeks of a preconceived opinion. Much like the 2nd sentence of your post.

 

[super_gt]

Manual gearbox

 

[chengman]

And I have friend who has put 4,000 miles on his 2-month old ACR who drove it home straight from the factory.

Conclusion? Your underlined sentence is irrelevant and reeks of a preconceived opinion. Much like the 2nd sentence of your post.

A friend. Your friend out of how many viper owners? Must be why the Viper isn't ceasing production next year /s

 

[niky]

If anyone could be bothered today, I expect it'd work much better. Still kinda pointless though when proper manuals and proper automatics exist.

Aren't Automated Manuals basically the same thing, except with sequential rather than H-pattern shifters? Even the newest ones are a bit slow and clunky in traffic.
The Chinese love them, as it's cheaper than developing a completely separate automatic gearbox.

Auto cars use much more fuel (generally) than manuals. And you cannot play 'tricks' with an auto to save fuel.

My point is - with a manual gearbox you can get up to useful tricks to use the laws of physics and the gradients of the road to ones advantage. You cannot do this with an auto box.

You can use both pulse-and-glide and driving-with-load techniques with automatics. The techniques you describe can be performed with a good auto or CVT with a manual over-ride.

-

The one advanced technique you cannot replicate, yet, with an auto, is engine-off coasting, as keying it back on after killing the engine wastes fuel compared to bump-starting in top-gear.

-

Not saying that manual isn't better... a skilled driver with a good manual can often beat a traditional automatic, especially in traffic... but some of these new transmissions are great. I've seen Honda's CVTs get similar economy (with gas!) thanks to spectacularly low drivetrain losses and their ability to keep the engine in the sweet spot under acceleration

 

[McLaren]

A friend. Your friend out of how many viper owners? Must be why the Viper isn't ceasing production next year /s

Doesn't matter; it's a meaningless claim to throw out there. You know Viper owners who don't like it, I know some who do.

Unless you have the entire Viper owner base saying the same thing, nobody here cares who you've talked to.

 

[homeforsummer]

Once, I got 925 miles from one tank of fuel. That's 925 miles from 57 litres of fuel. I have not heard of anyone else even getting close to these figures.

You haven't heard of anyone else getting close to 73 miles per imperial gallon? (Which is what 16.2 miles per litre translates as - also, 61 MPG US, 3.8L/100km)

I've lost count of the number of times I've achieved that in several different cars. Suspect @niky has too...

My old Honda Insight managed to average more than that over its lifetime - which was 125k miles by the time I sold it. Best I managed on a tank was about 81mpg, though one of my colleagues, who now owns it, has done about 84mpg. On a single journey I managed 110mpg, and I know people with those cars who've beaten that on an entire tank...

Aren't Automated Manuals basically the same thing, except with sequential rather than H-pattern shifters? Even the newest ones are a bit slow and clunky in traffic.
The Chinese love them, as it's cheaper than developing a completely separate automatic gearbox.

Pretty much, though in some ways automated manual is probably more frustrating. With a paddleshift you expect quick changes, whereas if you're physically moving a lever you only expect the change as fast as your arm can move.

That said, I've never been that bothered about the slow speed of automated manuals. Most of the time you can work around it and if you're not driving in a hurry it's much less of a problem. The bigger problem is whether someone buying an "automatic" vehicle should have to drive to work around a poor gearshift - surely, not making that effort is the point...

 

[Kuusi]

Instead of zoning out in an automatic, I'm actually more distracted by it when it makes an undesired gear change or I need to play charades with the computer to request a downshift. I drove my in-laws' Ford Freestar on a trip to Minneapolis last month, and by the end of our return trip I was sick of digging deep in the throttle pedal and fiddling around to "find" a downshift without getting a full-sail-ahead double downshift. And the slip of the torque converter made it distracting to maintain a speed.

Driving a manual is so reflexive that it doesn't draw my attention away from anything else.

Just two days ago I had a drive in my fathers automatic 2010 Volkswagen Golf TSI, with the DSG gearbox. Personally I found myself zoning out. A lot. Quite a few times I pulled away from the lights with the handbrake still on!

Despite not being my cup of tea in terms of driving involvement though, I found it very impressive technically. Even though it only has a 1.4L engine under the bonnet, foot to the floor, it went like stabbed rat; in no small part down to the turbocharger. Also the gear changes were completely seamless. My only gripe was that from time to time, when I accelerated, there'd be a noticeable delay in engine response, whilst the gearbox was selecting the right gear. Mind you, it was never slow enough to cause problems, when it did happen.

 

[05XR8]

Just two days ago I had a drive in my fathers automatic 2010 Volkswagen Golf TSI, with the DSG gearbox. Personally I found myself zoning out. A lot. Quite a few times I pulled away from the lights with the handbrake still on!

Despite not being my cup of tea in terms of driving involvement though, I found it very impressive technically. Even though it only has a 1.4L engine under the bonnet, foot to the floor, it went like stabbed rat; in no small part down to the turbocharger. Also the gear changes were completely seamless. My only gripe was that from time to time, when I accelerated, there'd be a noticeable delay in engine response, whilst the gearbox was selecting the right gear. Mind you, it was never slow enough to cause problems, when it did happen.

I second that Golf Bluemotion. I didn't have a problem with it. Pretty quick shifts and enough grunt.

I just brought home a 2016 auto Amarok. Comparing it with a 2016 Mitsubishi Triton, the Amarok is so smooth.

One car that surprised me is the Suzuki Vitara Turbo. Good punch with that auto. As well as the Swift Sport(I'd still have the manual though).

When I look back at my past cars, my 9000 Turbo was fantastic with the auto. I didn't care for a manual, as it was a jet everywhere but from a standing start. My '92 Passat GL had Sport and Eco modes. Sport would shift at redline from 1st-3rd. I would have preferred a manual like my Jettas that followed.

 

[LM7325]

Sadly I have need driven a road vehicle with an auxiliary gear box, I always fancied the idea of changing gears in reverse.

You could sort of do it by changing up to high range with the trucks I drove, high range reverse was insanity though. 3-4 shifts in low range would have been entertaining, and actually useful imo.

 

[Kuusi]

I second that Golf Bluemotion. I didn't have a problem with it. Pretty quick shifts and enough grunt.

I just brought home a 2016 auto Amarok. Comparing it with a 2016 Mitsubishi Triton, the Amarok is so smooth.

One car that surprised me is the Suzuki Vitara Turbo. Good punch with that auto. As well as the Swift Sport(I'd still have the manual though).

When I look back at my past cars, my 9000 Turbo was fantastic with the auto. I didn't care for a manual, as it was a jet everywhere but from a standing start. My '92 Passat GL had Sport and Eco modes. Sport would shift at redline from 1st-3rd. I would have preferred a manual like my Jettas that followed.

I'm surprised to hear that the Saab 9000 had a decent automatic transmission, as my Nan had a 95' Vaxuhall Vectra, and the auto in that was pretty mediocre. Whilst it had plentiful grunt, you certainly knew about it when it changed gear. And of course, with Vauxhall/Opel and Saab being part of General Motors, they often shared parts; so I assumed they'd share gearboxes too. But then again, Saab did have quite the reputation for chucking out any GM parts, that didn't make the grade!

 

[Danoff]

Pretty much, though in some ways automated manual is probably more frustrating. With a paddleshift you expect quick changes, whereas if you're physically moving a lever you only expect the change as fast as your arm can move.

It makes me so happy to read that.

People have absurd expectations for automatic shift speeds. In manumatic mode (on a regular automatic) people expect lightning fast shifts - far faster than they would achieve in a manual rowing it by hand. The only difference is that they're doing something (moving a lever) when it's a manual and when it's an automatic they just wait. Somehow that makes all the difference in the world.

 

[MisterWaffles]

I wonder if it's possible to manually shift an electric car? If you had an electric motor hooked up to a conventional gearbox, maybe it would work? I dunno.

Torque is probably too much for a regular gearbox to handle an electric motor, and it would add weight onto all of the batteries as well.

 

[Wolfe]

@Danoff -- It does make a difference. With a mechanical shifter (sequential or H-pattern), you determine exactly when the shift is complete and it happens exactly when you expect it or need it, even if it takes longer from the moment you act on it. You can shift "early" with a manumatic or electronic sequential to try to achieve the same thing, but it can still be unsatisfying at best and frustrating at worst.

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff -- It does make a difference. With a mechanical shifter (sequential or H-pattern), you determine exactly when the shift is complete and it happens exactly when you expect it or need it, even if it takes longer from the moment you act on it. You can shift "early" with a manumatic or electronic sequential to try to achieve the same thing, but it can still be unsatisfying at best and frustrating at worst.

Granted you can't control the moment of engagement of the next gear to the same degree of timing, but the manumatic shift timing is pretty predictable in most cars - to the point that I'd say you really only care about the distinction at the track.

Edit:

I dunno, I think I might have to take that back. I don't usually care about the precise moment of the engagement of the gear ever - even at the track. At the track you just care that you've completed the downshift prior to the engagement of the gas. You're threshold braking on approach, you heel-toe to the appropriate gear, and engage the clutch entirely while threshold braking, then taper the braking as you turn in and taper on acceleration as you unwind the wheel. It's not exactly the same for every turn, but I can't remember a time at the track where I wanted the clutch to engage at a precise moment - and I'm not a slow-poke around the track.