When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I am quite new to this website and wonder why they always say that auto transmissions are better than towing than Manuals. Everywhere I look including Rv websites comes to this conclusion. Does this only apply to gasoline pickups or what. Aren't most semis manual trannies?
Usually 'cause Manuel complains and wants to get paid
Last I read-up on the topic, it was simple economics: manual transmissions cost more to produce and automatics commanded more in sales price. Factor in boardroom pressure to maximize profits and it is no big surprise that there is pressure to offer weak manual transmissions so that the marketplace starts to reject them in favor of the automatic, which in turn gives a good reason to find excuses to drop manuals from the product line-up.
Originally Posted by senix
Also emissions has a play in there too. it is easier to meet emissions with an auto.
Not so sold this is the the case with computerized systems as a good set of data curves should have the ability to account for the manual transmission. But then again, paying staff to develop multiple data curves and test them is another economic reason to focus on simplifying the product line (read: drop the manual transmission).
Big rigs are starting to go with automatics as the technology is advancing to where the parasitic loss is dropping which is making the automatic a better competitor for fuel economy. Couple that in with it less physically draining on the driver, and it is easy to see why some drivers prefer the automatic as they are not wiped-out by the end of the duty day.
In terms of automatics in motor coaches (RV's), just cannot see that community jamming gears, so the slushbox has strong market appeal.
Automatics are the norm only because NO ONE wants to learn how to drive a stick anymore. Their hands are full of phones and food and none left to actually move a shifter.
Big trucks are going to automatics due to the same thing. No one can drive a stick and if they do they tear it up. Thus autoshifts are the top choice in fleets.
Automatics are the norm only because NO ONE wants to learn how to drive a stick anymore. Their hands are full of phones and food and none left to actually move a shifter.
AMEN!
God forbid somebody miss that text while trying to shift . . . Or have to scan the road for that deer while playing with the music selection while avoiding lugging / overrevving . . . Or actually listen to the sound of the motor to hear when it is wanting to shift . . .
By the way, love that cab I would have added a splitter except the only one left on the market needs fluid replacement every 5K miles and only does direct / over *or* under / direct. Sadly the heavy duty ones with over, direct, *and* under are no longer in business (at least for the light duty class of vehicle)
Today's autos are better for the person who doesn't want (or can't) learn to use a clutch.
Perhaps more importantly, today's autos are better because they protect the entire truck. By keeping the engine in its power band, the auto tranny guards against over revving and excessive lugging.
Also, when speaking of today's massively powerful diesels, the auto is programmed to "de-tune" the motor in low gear so that the engine doesn't tear up the rest of the truck. Ford's last manual in pickups, the ZF 6, had a first gear ratio of 5.79. Multiply that times the 925 lb ft of torque made by today's 6.7 diesel and you have well over 5000 lb ft of torque. Try launching a fully loaded F350 on dry pavement with heavy throttle and I tend to think stuff would break with a manual tranny. The freeway on ramps leaving RV campgrounds would look like county fair truck pulls with snapped drive shafts and axle shafts.
Today's mentality for driving pickup trucks is to have excessive power and pull crazy heavy loads. IMO, manufacturers have to design trucks to protect themselves while still satisfying customers.
And this is all possible because today's autos have been improved to the point where they are durable enough and smooth enough to make them desirable over manuals.
And this is all possible because today's autos have been improved to the point where they are durable enough and smooth enough to make them desirable over manuals.
...my opinion...
I can't call them "desirable". Easier? Yes. That is the reason everyone wants one. It doesn't take ANY skill to drive one and that covers a LOT more people in today's world. Just like in the trucking world. They don't call them "Steering wheel holders" for nothing.
The average person gets in my truck and sees three sticks and they get pale in the face.
I can't call them "desirable". Easier? Yes. That is the reason everyone wants one. It doesn't take ANY skill to drive one and that covers a LOT more people in today's world. Just like in the trucking world. They don't call them "Steering wheel holders" for nothing.
The average person gets in my truck and sees three sticks and they get pale in the face.
Yeah, "desirable" may not be the best word choice. I enjoy rowing gears on my mustang and even in my '65 F250. But then when I get to drive a modern truck...even say an early 2000 Chevy with the Allison 1000. It shifts up and down right where I would if it were manual, holds the truck back on hills like a manual, and smoothly eases into trailer hitches even in mud or rough surfaces like you can with a manual. Makes it hard for me to want a manual any more.
Autos do have one weakness and I don't know if there's a good work around. If the engine dies for any reason, you will no longer have power assist brakes. With a manual tranny, if the engine dies it will continue to produce vacuum (or hydroboost) so long as you leave the clutch engaged so the engine is forced to rotate. Hopefully this scenario never comes into play, but it could.
Also, when speaking of today's massively powerful diesels, the auto is programmed to "de-tune" the motor in low gear so that the engine doesn't tear up the rest of the truck.
That wasn't true when I was at Ford. If it had happened, I would have been the person that programmed it for the 6.0L. I did not do that.
Originally Posted by '65Ford
Ford's last manual in pickups, the ZF 6, had a first gear ratio of 5.79. Multiply that times the 925 lb ft of torque made by today's 6.7 diesel and you have well over 5000 lb ft of torque. Try launching a fully loaded F350 on dry pavement with heavy throttle and I tend to think stuff would break with a manual tranny. The freeway on ramps leaving RV campgrounds would look like county fair truck pulls with snapped drive shafts and axle shafts.
The 6R140 has a 3.974:1 first gear. Plus the torque converter multiplies engine torque by 1.9:1. So the effective first gear ratio is 7.5506:1. That's quite a bit more multiplication than the ZF6 was capable of providing. That multiplies out to 6,984 lb-ft in the driveshaft.
Friend had a 2014 4dr F150 that pulled an open trailer with mustang on it. He didn't care for the "constant" shifting of the automatic(8 or 9 spd whatever it was?). In slightly hilly traffic is shifts, shifts, shifts. It'd bug the hell out of me too.
His previous truck(2002 F250 SD V10) would just roll along. With the newer transmissions it hunts too much with the 5.4. It was not short on power for what he was pulling.
That wasn't true when I was at Ford. If it had happened, I would have been the person that programmed it for the 6.0L. I did not do that.
The 6R140 has a 3.974:1 first gear. Plus the torque converter multiplies engine torque by 1.9:1. So the effective first gear ratio is 7.5506:1. That's quite a bit more multiplication than the ZF6 was capable of providing. That multiplies out to 6,984 lb-ft in the driveshaft.
The 6.0 had arount 570 lb ft. Today's 6.7 is around 920 lb ft. I think you helped my point about today's powerstrokes having massive amounts more power compared to the last time manual trannies were used.
Are you saying the driveline downstream from the tranny can handle almost 7000 lb ft? I ask because that sounds like a lot. Race cars can spin tires to relieve stress. Fully loaded pickups have a lot more stress.
. . . I would have been the person that programmed . . . for the 6.0L.
Glad to see input from a former 'insider'
Question from the perspective of wanting to learn . . . How much of the push to automatics is truly to deliver power within driveline tolerance (ex: the tranny as the noted limiting factor) as opposed to making the driveline just another 'background' item (like the radio or cruise control)? Naturally the question is ignoring the effects on profit by reducing the number of components. And granted, an automatic is ideal when looking to fully integrate vehicle systems as it puts the greatest amount of control within the computing systems and least with the driver.
Part of the reason for the question is that given the advances in computing and sensory inputs within the vehicle, it is a challenge to imagine that the logic cannot account for controlling power output (ex: launching from a stand-still) even with a manual.
01-12-2017, 01:29 AM
