Talk:Manual transmission/Archive 1

Vandalism
67.176.34.173 keeps vandalizing this page to try to trick people that automatic transmissions are "better". Kolbasz 14:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he now has a couple of accomplices. I tried to get an admin involved, but they didn't seem all that interested. Since this is becoming an editing war, I'll try again tonight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.8 (talk) 09:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked the page history but I guess this "vandalism" problem has something to do with the non-encyclopedic, argumentative style of the comparison between automatic and manual transmissions in this article. As long as people don't agree on what's better (and this is obviously the case), please stick to giving facts, and move the debate to the pub. I find the section that compares automatic and manual transmission rather biased, using a lot of words to defend manual transmissions. A Wikipedia page is not the place to put them. Otherwise we could go on forever. (For example, here is what I would add: I find that I have a more relaxed driving style when I drive an automatic, not feeling provoked to show off my manual transmission skills; on the other hand, when driving in the mountains I want full control and I find that experience with manual transmissions is a very useful thing to have, even when driving an automatic.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.86.232.240 (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

misc
I added a bunch of "citations needed." This topic is as fiery as religious topics, and if I'm to win an argument to convince my friends why manual transmission is better, I'd like some hard stats from reputable sources to fall back on. Please don't view this as a smear campaign--I want hard info to put the nail in the coffin.--JECompton 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a References section and the first citation, using footnotes. --KazKylheku 20:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked on Consumer Reports' site, but since I don't have a subscription, I can only view the free articles. Still, they did say at the bottom of this link that manuals "provide better performance and fuel economy than automatics", but this is more of a feature article than some hard data. One can easily compare standard vs. automatics of the same model and see the better mileages for standards across the board. But the automatic camp argues you have to have the skill of a NASCAR driver to see these averages. I'll keep looking... --JECompton 21:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That was a good idea, this topic to me sounds a little biased in a few places (such as advantages), i'm not saying those advantages are incorrect its just the way they are presented to the reader that slightly sounds biased (though I noticed through the revisions this has gotten better). Robert Maupin 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any info on semi/tractor-trailer gearboxes? I've heard they can have many, many more gears like 20 or something, and also that the position of the stick can correspond to multiple gears e.g. epending on upshifting or downshifting? Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 09:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest that we revert to the non-Unicode diagrams? The Unicode versions don't work on some browsers (I can see all the right characters, but their widths are not constant so the columns in the diagrams don't line up). --Heron 19:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Tractors can have up to a quamillion gears. Heavy duty transmissions can have HI and LOW ranges on the transaxle, which means you can effectively select 2 gears from any shifter position (HI/LOW selection is usually located on the shifter via a lever).

Why does downshifting cause any unusual clutch wear? Is this information verifiable? What kind of downshifting? The clutch doesn't seem ot be doing any unusual job during a downshift. It slips, using friction to spin the engine up to faster rotation. Intuitively, this task is nothing compared to slipping to start the entire vehicle moving! And of course, the driver can learn to "match the revs".


 * Because the clutch friction is occurring in the opposite direction during a downshift. When you rub two friction surfaces together, small particles are knocked off, usually as dust -- this is why clutches wear. Hitting these particles from multiple directions makes them easier to be ripped apart from each other, much the same way as cleaning a dirty surface works best of you scrub in a circular motion. A clutch disc that is only rubbed one way (upshifting) will last longer than one rubbed both ways (up- and down-shifting). That said, the effect is probably small. I'd be more worried about synchro wear from downshifting than clutch wear... the clutch is a lot easier to replace than the synchros! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.235.137.72 (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The advantages section considers manuals only against conventional automatic transmissions. CVT's should be considered too, since they fix some of the problems that automatics have and also have advantages of their own. CVT's use clutches rather than a torque converter, and so do away with the disadvantages of that device. Once the car is moving, there is no need to disengage the clutch unless it slows to a near-stalling speed, so these clutches should last a long time! Moreover, regardless of vehicle speed, engine can be run at the optimal RPM. So a CVT should get better fuel economy, and, in principle, better acceleration too. During hard acceleration, the CVT can slowly increase the gear ratio, while the engine stays fixed at its maximum power point.


 * That is the theory. However, CVT's do not quite deliver on their promise, at least the ones based on a metal V-belt spanning two pulleys. In spite of being in the ideal gear ratio, they have losses which compensate for that gain. See this paper: http://staff.bath.ac.uk/enssa/thesis.pdf   Turns out that the belt has some surprising losses. For instance, as the belt goes around the pulley, it has to bend. This makes the V-shaped pieces move closer together on the inside and spread apart on the outside, which causes micro-slip against the pulley, generating heat. So that the belt doesn't actually slip as a whole, there has to be considerable friction on it. The force required to achieve that friction actually distorts the shape of the pulleys. This distortion of the pulley generates heat and represents a loss. Because of that distortion, the belt does not travel in a perfect semi-circular path around the pulleys, which results in more slip.   So, a manual transmission is still your best bet for fuel economy. It matters more to have an efficient transmission than to be at some ideally perfect RPM.


 * Funny, because the Honda Jazz CVT has at worst 2% less fuel economy than the Honda Jazz w/manual transmission. (I heard that in many cases you get better economy with the CVT but I don't have any figures for that right now.) In fact, my 1983 BMW 520i manual lists the automatic transmission as having better fuel economy than the manual gearbox in city driving! That is presumably due to the gear selections in the automatic being better for low-speed acceleration, as well as the "slip" of the torque converter allowing the engine to sit in a more efficient RPM band for longer during acceleration. Therefore I think the claims that manual gearboxes are always more efficient than automatic are wrong. Instead of "5 to 15%" efficiency gain listed, I think "-1 to 15%" would be more correct, to represent that there are cases where automatic transmissions can do better.


 * The manufacturer's manual is at least as biased as this Wikipedia page. Think about it. If you bought the automatic version of the car, spending more money on it, it will give you comfort to believe that you're getting better fuel economy at least in some kinds of driving. If you bought the manual version of the car, you chuckle, because you just know better. Thus, reading their manual makes everyone happy.--KazKylheku 19:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In a paragraph of the advantages section, I used feminine pronouns "she" and "her" to refer to a driver. This was deliberate. Some idiot edited that to "he" and "his".

I am not opposed to merging my page close-ratio transmission into this one. I did not find your page before I set mine up. I went to the transmission page to look for the info before submitting it. I think there should be a more prominent link to your page from the transmission page, or at least more of our info included in the transmission page. Your thoughts?


 * I worked on the close-ratio transmission article some and I think there's enough to be said about it to keep it separate, especially since this article is pretty long already. I removed the merge notices.  To get to this page from the transmission page, click on transmission (mechanics), and manual transmission is easy enough to find from there. TomTheHand 18:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the controversial text about possible catalytic converter damage from push-starting, and the b.s. about elecronic engine management components not getting enough power from the alternator. If the fuel pump can pump, and the ignition coil can fire, surely some computers and whatnot can be powered up.

About that catalytic converter damage, it's nonsense. Let's look at this point by point:


 * Suppose everything is working: ignition, fuel delivery. The alternator is generating current, so the coil can build up its field, which happens rapidly. Can the fuel injectors really spring into action before the ignition? Consider that the fuel pump, a mechanical device, has to spin up and build pressure. The ignition coil can energize very quickly: it has to, for high RPM operation.


 * Suppose ignition isn't working at all (no plugs are firing) but fuel is delivered. Uburned fuel-air mixture is dumped into the exhaust. But what will ignite it? The machine is cold! And how is push starting different in this regard from cranking the starter motor?


 * Suppose some plugs are not firing. Unburned fuel-air can be dumped into the exhaust and ignite, because the other cylinders are blowing out heat. This is the damaging situation for the catalytic converter. It's not attributed specifically to the push start; a regular start will do it.

So there is a good case to be made that this push-start-cat-damage is an urban myth, and as such, not suitable for an encyclopedic article. Manual drivers should not be afraid of push-starting their cars, especially when there is clear evidence that it's due to a drained battery that the car, which had been in working condition previously, isn't starting.

i dont know how true it is but my owners manual says that you shouldnt push start if you have the model with a converter, says somthing about inefficient opperation dumping fuel into exhaust which eventally ignites. Grinchsmate (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-manual Inaccuracy
In the Semi-manual subsection we have "Some very new transmissions (BMW's Sequential Manual Gearbox (SMG) and Audi's Direct-Shift Gearbox (DSG), for example) are conventional manual transmissions with a computerized control mechanism." There are two issues. Audi is a part of VAG, and the DSG is used by several car companies owned by VAG. The second issue is while the SMG is basically a computer controlled manual, the DSG or more accurately BorgWarner's DualTronic transmission is not "conventional". With two clutches DSG does't act like a normal manual transmission so it should definately be removed. --Pedantic79 05:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk Cleanup
Can we cleanup this talk page? Many of the older conversations are difficult to follow with many people not signing their comments. And without subsections it's difficult to see what topics are being discussed. --Pedantic79 05:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Really?
"It is sometimes possible to move a vehicle with a manual transmission just by putting it in gear and cranking the starter. This is useful in an emergency situation where the vehicle will not start, but must be immediately moved (from an intersection or railroad crossing, for example)."

I've heard this before but I cannot imagine that it would actually work, and if it did I imagine it would completely destroy the starter. Can anyone vouch for the truth of this statement? Mrestko 00:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Totally. Try it if you don't believe it. I was using it to shift my out-of-fuel car a bit further up the motorway to a safer bit of hard shoulder from the iffy spot it originally rolled to only last week (there's a tip, kids - don't try driving faster to make up time when you've previously reckoned on just having enough left in the tank to make it to the next service area... you'll lose a load instead and have to do some walking). Typically though you can't move it a particularly great distance - the ~60Ah x 12v starter/accessory battery in a normal car doesn't have that much energy in it compared to a dedicated EV pack, even the lacklustre setup in a 1st-gen Prius. You can successfully get it moving to walking pace in 1st gear (or more slowly to jogging pace in 2nd, if you're starting to get whiplash), from which point the ICE will soon fire and run if you HAVE got fuel, several times over a trip (I've also suffered the "broken clutch cable" problem), and it can sometimes do so quicker than the nerd in front can get into 2nd gear giving you a bit of a fright... Or it can drag you off a rail crossing a touch quicker than pushing the car yourself... but don't count on making more than 100 metres or so on the flat before it completely dies - it's got not only the weight of the car to carry, but all the internal resistance of the engine to deal with, which at low speeds is even worse. When playing around with a car whose engine I was overhauling, I found the starter & normal battery would push the car a lot faster and further with the cylinder head and pistons removed than in conventional form :-) BTW I should think this still applies in most Euro cars, which don't have the cotton-wool-for-adults that are american-style interlocks, though the ones I've tried it in were 1991 (the overhaul & the busted cable) and 1998 (the run-dry) vintage... 82.46.180.56 (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure is. In the OOOOllllllldddddd days, before the neutral and/or clutch interlocks, you could. No doubt extended use would fry the starter but.... I had a Corvair which used a clutch cable, which snapped at one point. For a few days, until the new cable came in, I just left it in first gear all the time and shut off the engine at every red light, then started it up again in gear when the light turned green. Worked fine. Gzuckier 13:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thus, would you say you have a legitimate reason to feel smug about having operated one of the first hybrid cars? KazKylheku 15:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, I never thought of it that way..... Boy, I'm a pioneer! Gzuckier 17:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There's ample proof of this technique in the film Ice-Cold in Alex Ian Dunster 10:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It can work but it's certainly not good for the starter motor or the battery. I have accidentally started my Nissan Sunny while it's in gear and it does move a fair distance, while a friend of mine destroyed the starter motor on her Land Rover by trying to start it while in gear. I wouldn't recommend it unless you have no other choice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.92.243.251 (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

I've driven a manual car with a broken clutch before like this - stop in neutral (it's easy to change gear without a clutch when running) and when you want to set off, stop the engine, select first and then start the engine. Car will move while cranking uphil quite happily until the engine fires and then you are off.


 * I remember being on a Trailways bus when the driver told the passengers that the clutch had gone out and passengers would need to remain seated until the bus had come to a complete stop at the next station. We were on a freeway at the time, but had to deal with a few stoplights before the bus reached the station. Coming to the end of the exit, the bus had to make a right turn at a stop sign, but the driver was able to "slow and roll" through it. Fortunately, all the lights were green and the driver was able to get the bus into the parking lane at the station before killing the motor. Someone at the station tried to tell him he had to move the bus forward, but he told them he couldn't.


 * Are there still intercity buses with stick shifts around? There might be some in Canada and other countries, and charter companies might use them, but I don't think Greyhound or Trailways or any of the other bus companies use them very much in the U.S.71.131.206.40 00:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's perfectly possible to use the starter motor to pull away. This is the common (only?) way of driving with a broken clutch cable. Last year I drove 300 miles like this in a diesel Fiat family car having to stop numerous times at traffic lights. When the car went into the garage the next day to have the clutch repaired, the mechanic said that starter motors on diesels are better equipped to handle this due to being heavier duty (higher compression engine). But even most petrol engine cars should be able to handle judicious use of the starter motor in an emergency. AJKGordon 18:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Second that. I sold my Volvo 245 (5-speed manual) as spare parts car. It did not have any fuel tank mounted, but it did manage to start anyway. Some fuel left in the filter I guess. That fuel was gone pretty quickly. So we drowe it up the buyers trailer with the help of the starter motor, without any problems. Limpan 21:30, 3 Mars 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I got my Saab to a service center with a blown clutch slave cylinder that way once. Just a matter of getting it started in first, then being able to shift without a clutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.185.148 (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

One disadvantage is questionable
I'm from Brazil and I can say that people here hate automatic transmission. Automatic transmissions are found only in expensive and luxury cars. A person without special needs using a car with automatic transmission may be called lazy.

Manual transmissions require more driver interaction than automatic transmissions. In Brazil, people want interaction and this is considered an advantage. They call it feel the car... :200.218.226.26 19:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but why is the ability to engage in distracting activities an "advantage" of auto-boxes? Distracting activities cause road accidents.


 * Since when has something directly related to the operation of the car (i.e. driving) been distracting activity? :) Although I don't even think about shifting when driving, I would assume it makes the driver more aware of the fact he/she's not only listening to tunes in a metal box moving at 100 kph. Also, driving an automatic is hell during the winter when you try to get moving with minimal tyre wear (you simply have more feel with stick and clutch, possibly with a really expensive automatic as well). 84.231.109.82 11:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm from Romania, and people here hate automatic transmissions too ( I guess this happens because the majority of automatic-transmission models are luxury ones, and ordinary people don't have acces to them.. the "grapes are sour" complex). That doesn't stop everybody from talking on cell phones while driving, and lots of accidents happen because of that. I think that being able to talk on the phone is definitely an advantage, as here, most freeways are jammed and you just spend hours in traffic, with nothing else to do. On the productivity side, just standing idly behind the wheel is a no-go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.155.218 (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Advantages (revisited)
I would like to petition to have the "discourages unsafe driving practices" argument removed. I drive stick, and I can tell you that, while I don't do it often, it is most certainly possible to do, and not much more difficult than with an automatic. The reason being is that the shifting, after a while, becomes an almost autonomic process that you don't even have to think about. And really, unless you're turning, or have a car with crappy steering, you can take your hands off the wheel for a few seconds. I do it all the time. Johnny Wishbone 17:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a mistake in the "Advantages" section. It reads:
 * Driver control. Certain fuel-saving modes of operation simply do not occur in an automatic transmission vehicle, but are accessible to the manual transmission driver. For example, the manual-transmission vehicle can be accelerated gently, yet with a fully open throttle (accelerator pedal to the floor), by means of shifting early to a higher gear, keeping the engine RPM in a low power band.

As far as I understand, fuel consumption depends on the pressure given to the gas pedal and not on the engine revolutions (RPM). If you shift to a higher gear too early and press the pedal to the floor, the car will use more fuel than speeding the engine and then shifting gears. The feeling of shifting too early is discomforting: if you shift early you'll feel the engine doesn't have the "power" to speed up the car and you'll have to press the pedal to the floor. However, when you take the revolutions to the correct point and then shift, the engine will respond differently and you won't have to press the gas pedal too much.

I do agree with the fact that some fuel-saving "modes" are accessible to the manual transmission driver. But the problem is these modes are mostly incompatible with driving in the city: semaphores, traffic jams (your left foot gets tired of pressing the clutch), big changes in driving speeds and so on.

Congratulations, this is an excellent article.

--Hlasso 22:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The gas pedal controls the restriction of air flow to the engine, not the amount of fuel delivered. The air flow is a function of the demand for air, which is very RPM dependent, and of throttling. The metering of fuel is a function of air flow. Fuel efficiency depends on how thoroughly fuel is combusted and how little of the resulting energy is wasted as heat. Engines operate most efficiently with unrestricted air flow (wide open throttle).

--KazKylheku 07:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, but does it mean that when you press the gas pedal to the floor (thus completely opening the throttle) then the engine works more efficiently even when in the low rpms band? Hlasso 00:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A Spark Ignition (gas engine) is most efficient, ideally, at WOT. Less restriction in the intake, operating at peak efficiency in that sense.  A car is most efficient, from a different perspective, at exactly the right RPM, unless it has variable valve timing.  That's because the CAM is optimized for exactly one speed and the rest are tradeoffs.  SO, WOT at the perfect RPM is the most efficient an engine can be, ideally.  I say ideally because most cars are designed with the thought, if you're at WOT, it's becuse you want as much power as possible.  Thus the ECM forces the car to run rich at WOT, and this is less efficient.  Thermodynamic analysis of an engine's cycle indicates that engines are more efficient if they run lean.  Note: not more effective or powerful, but more efficient.  Any gain from trying run your car at WOT would most likely be negated by the fact that the car runs very rich at WOT to give more power.  If you could tweak your fuel delivery to make sure the engine runs at say, stoich, then WOT would be good.  What I am saying in a nutshell, is that removing the restriction in the intake by going WOT is good, but doing so in an actual automobile causes the engine to effectively spray fuel it doesn't need.  Dachande 19:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Right-of-Way in Europe
"Much more awareness of right-of-way is required, and a greater emphasis is placed on yielding right of way by slowing down rather than being required to come to an unconditional full stop regardless of whether an intersection is busy.

"Many intersections identify a right-of-way path through the crossing by a special diagram, and often legally require cars arriving by the non-right-of-way paths only to yield rather than come to a full stop. In some countries a yellow diamond indicates that this is a right-of-way road, and a gray diamond (or a yellow one with a black forward-slash across it) indicates the termination of right-of-way. In the UK and Ireland the termination of a right of way is indicated by 'Give Way' and 'Yield' respectively."


 * What does this discussion have to do with the advantages, real or imagined, of manual transmissions, or the preference for using them in Europe?


 * Perhaps nothing. So it's a good thing that the above text appears in the "Applications and Popularity" section, rather than in the "Advantages" section. :) --KazKylheku 07:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. Suggestion: remove it. --LimoWreck 23:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Spelling Question
In the "Advantages" section, the word "manoeuver" is used several times. I'm not really sure about which way is the correct way to spell it. I'm pretty sure "maneuver" is standard American English and "manoeuvre" is standard British English, but I'm not sure if the spelling in the article is right. Could someone who knows change it? 67.55.199.6 23:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Standard American English? Who cares. You spell it "maneuver" and the rest of the English speaking world spells it "manoeuver"


 * Ah jeez, can we stop arguing over how America bastardized the English language? (Aimed at above unsigned user.)  That's inappropriate for the MANUAL TRANSMISSION TALK PAGE!  Whether England likes it or not, America spells certain words differently.  And whether America likes it or not, they got the language from England.  I don't care which flavor of English is used, but misspelled in both is incorrect and I appreciate the user 67.55.199.6 for making sure there wasn't a third flavor.  Dachande 19:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Informative article
Thanks i've always wondered how transmissions worked. Now I know. --Frantik 07:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Automatic licence
As stated in the article, in the UK (and other countries such as Germany and Japan), drivers can take their driving test in an automatic, but the resulting licence will only entitle them to drive automatics in the future. If they want to drive a manual, they must re-take their test in a manual. Drivers who pass their driving test in a manual can obviously drive both.

My question: is this the case in the U.S.? Are drivers given the "choice" of an auto or manual license, and do they have to re-take a test in a manual in order to qualify to drive one? Also, would it be considered "odd" for someone in the U.S. wanting to learn to drive to want to learn in a manual car from the very beginning? --Tim1988 talk 14:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the answers are No, No, and not necessarily. Gzuckier 16:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm here in Canada, which nowadays in terms of cars in roads is basically the U.S. with a few differences here and there. There's no seperation of licenses, and the reaction from my friends and other people when they find out I'm driving a standard (I'm 17) is usually one of awe; "Whoa!  How did you ever learn how to do that?  I tried, but I gave up because I couldn't learn the clutch", etc.  There's certainly a cultural difference, I'm sure, when comparing North America to Europe. Green451 01:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the U.S. and I can tell you that children typically learn how to drive an Automatic Transmission and take the driving test with an automatic, mainly because it's so hard to pass the driving test because once you have your license you can drive either an automatic or manual, regardless of what you took your driving test in. So no, there are not 2 separate licenses in the U.S., nor does it matter what transmission the test is taken with. --NBLG (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm also from the U.S. and to answer your last question, no it's not "odd" some people prefer a manual (myself included), but might have an automatic as their first car, it's not super hard to pick up it just takes a little bit of practice. Also unlike in Europe, our tests are done your personal vehicle (I know some countries have you use a standard car or so on), so it's totally dependant on which one you bring to the exam.

In the U.S. licences are issued by the individual states. I know that Massachusetts used to restrict those who took their test on an automatic to automatics, but the restriction was removed by 1970. I'm guessing that the same goes for other states.

Auto v Manual
I think everybody should try driving a manual!! it is so much fun and so much more rewarding that after you drive for a while you will simply get bored driving an auto., and you will WANT to drive a manual!! great feeling, this manual tranny.. and make sure you drive on a twisty, curvy road.. it's great to downshift right before a big curve.. altough i'm only 15, i have driven manually quite a bit (shh.. not supposed to get my license till i'm 16:)) and it is great fun..

We have only manuals here. When I first drove an automatic, I fell in love, it feels great. I agree, manuals give you more control, but when you just want to "get there", automatics are kings.

Sliding mesh gearbox are still usual in trucks?
I think that a constant mesh geabox - with or without syncronizer - is common for a recent trucks. Sliding mesh gearbox are still usual in trucks?

"the rotation of all the sets of gears at once results in higher frictional losses" These sentences discribe disadvantages of the constant mesh gearbox to the sliding mesh gearbox, so these sentences are not suitable IMHO.

three on the tree,confusing
I thought that, reverse was... back,up. which matches the diagram, but not the text. which is it? CorvetteZ51 14:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the text says (or may have said, and I'm not going to look through all the previous versions of the article to find out), but reverse in a three-speed is to the left of neutral on a floor shift, or up and toward the driver on a "three-on-the-tree" arrangement.


 * Were gear-shift pattern diagrams ever placed on the dash on three speeds, or was the arrangement so universal that doing so was unnecessary? My first vehicle was a '63 Chevrolet $3⁄4$-ton pickup with a three-on-the-tree. Not only was there no shift diagram on the dash, but there weren't even any labels for the various knobs there (lights, wipers, choke, etc.)&mdash;not that it was too difficult to figure out what they were for. :) 66.234.222.96 (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

taxis
Contrary to what the article says, Taxis are pretty much universally equipped with automatic gearboxes here in Germany, and I bet it's the same in other European countries. Same with Police cars. About the "religious" aspects, these don't really make sense because both kinds of transmission are better in certain different situations. Busy city traffic with an AT is great, more concentration to read signs etc., stop & go is easier to handle too (and wears down a manual), while for a car that's primarily driven on the Autobahn, I'd take an MT version. Have driven both for a while.

Here in Sweden manual transmission is the norm outside cities (countryside, rural areas) in taxis. In cities like Stockholm most taxis have automatic transmissions. I don't have any figures how many taxis that have manual or automatics. I'll guess that there are more automatic taxis than manual because there are more taxis in cities than on the countryside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.238.109 (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm from England, and I don't recall ever being in an automatic taxi... they tend to just be everyday cars, of which the overwhelming majority are manual. Here, anyway. 83.100.175.160 (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverse gear
Hey, I'm just looking for some clarification as the article itself (text) is quite confusing/hard to visualize without a diagram or illustration of certain points. I have a 2007 VW Golf/Rabbit with a 5 speed manual. This is the my first car with a stick, so I can't really draw on experience from other cars. Quite often, the following will occur: I will start the car from a standstill, depress the clutch to the floor, and move the gearshift into reverse. I'd say about 50-75% of the time, I observe a slight "grinding" of the gears as I engage reverse. It appears that if I exaggerate the amount of time it takes to move the gearshift fully into its reverse position, I can avoid this grinding.

Now my best guess is that this is normal and is not an alignment issue. I'm guessing that even after depressing the clutch, the transmission is retaining inertia from when the clutch was released and the transmission in neutral. Then, since the reverse gear is unsynched, the transmission "grinds" as it slows to a stop to match the nonmoving speed of the driveshaft/wheels. Hopefully that makes sense as a description, as I think that's what the article is trying to say as well. It would logically follow that if I simply hold the clutch depressed and wait a bit longer before moving the gearshift to reverse, there won't be any grinding as the transmission will have stopped by itself...which seems to be what happens. However, sometimes I have noticed that the gearshift does not move fully into reverse (about 10-20% "out" of the fully engaged position) until I begin to release the clutch. My best explanation for this is that the gears are in a position where they will not mesh and therefore don't until the clutch begins to be released and one gear moves slightly so that both gears mesh.

Am I correct with this description? And if so, is this grinding anything to worry about - should I take care to not grind, and shift into reverse slower? Any response is greatly appreciated. --smileyborg 08:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it like that with any other gears? It sounds like you aren't fully depressing your clutch or it isn't engaging all the way... that would explain the grinding because it would still be slightly touching.--NBLG (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly normal, the cogs just aren't perfectly aligned, and they scratch as they go through one-another. Some older cars do so at each gear-change, not just the reverse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.155.218 (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What in the world are you talking about? Gearboxes haven't worked like that since the death of the Ford Model A in the 1930s... This is either an alignment issue, or someone just not being used to the rather idiosyncratic way VW manuals work (i've owned one and suffered both problems, first getting used to it, then after the alignment adjust screw worked a little loose)


 * Also a point seems to be missing in the article text - as well as cost/needlessness, manufacturers have probably left reverse as a primitive straight-cut sliding gear BECAUSE of the difficulty of engagement and grinding noise it makes if the car and the 'box input shaft aren't both stopped/moving very slowly... it's a safety feature that stops you accidentally (or maliciously) jamming it into "R" instead of "1" (downshifting on a left-hand-reverse box), or "4" or an imaginary "6" (RHR ones)! 82.46.180.56 (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to reverse gear
This is because reverse is not synchronized usually. You should not ever hear a grinding sound. If it is hard to push into reverse, it is because the gears aren't lined up. Put the transmission into neutral, and let the clutch out a little bit to spin the gears. Push the clutch pedal back down, and try to put it in reverse again. Repeat until it goes into gear.

Changed Wording
Changed the wording in the introduction from Semis to Semi-Trailers. Could be confusing for people who are not aware of that abbreviation for trucks. Tom

Virage87 23:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

changed wording to tracion unit, a semi is a traction unit with one trailer, just as a road train is a traction unit with three trailersGrinchsmate (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Synchromesh
Please note that referring to the gear synchronizing mechanism of a manual transmissing as "Synchromesh" is technically incorrect, as the latter is a trademark of General Motors that was first used in the 1930's.

Also, the cone type synchronizing mechanisim was not invented by Porsche. That basic mechanism existed in most GM and Ford manual transmissions from the 1930's onward. Bigdumbdinosaur 05:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

non-synchronous transmissions
This topic was created separately to emphasize not the mechanical aspects, but the operator aspects.StationNT5Bmedia 03:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have suggested in that article that it be merged here. Any info on different operation methods would fit here. Kevin 03:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

TO REVERSE GEAR...
TO REVERSE GEAR...

If you are driving a manual and don't like the grinding, go into first, or 5th(depending whichever side your R is on) before shifting to reverse, to line up the gears... it works trust me, because my 1st gear is starting to wear out so when i shift directly to first it grinds. So i go 2nd then directly 1st, and it works.

Image for Column Shifter
This article needs an image of a column shifter in some car from the 90s. --PJ Pete

Ratio Manual/Automatic?
Does anyone have any info on the ratio of manual/automatic for cars in the US? This interests me as a lifetime manual driver, wondering what the potential sales market is for my manual car if I try to sell it!

Also, has the decline of manual stabilized here? Thanks! 207.13.211.199 22:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * According to this article, written in 2001, "only 17 percent of U.S. adults own a car equipped with a standard transmission, and automakers increasingly regard the fans of stick shifts as a niche market - hard-core driving enthusiasts," in the words of Art Garner, public relations manager for Honda". 89.210.143.122 17:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 17% is quite a hefty niche, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KazKylheku (talk • contribs) 19:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Large truck transmissions
I added some information about large truck transmissions but I dont know how to add this to the section about shift patterns. Most companies with fleets of large trucks use 10 speed non-synchronized manual transmissions, because their shift patterns are simpler to learn than the super-10 and 13 speed transmissions. The shift pattern for a standard 10-speed transmission on a truck, such as the Eaton-Fuller RoadRanger 10 speed, is the same as a 5 speed standard in a passenger car. There is a high-low selector switch on the gear shift itself, and after going through 5th gear, which is aproximately 15 MPH though it may be geared differently, the switch is flipped up, and the shifter moved back to the first gear position, which is now 6th gear. This causes Reverse to have a HIGH reverse also, which will allow the vehicle to move at speeds up to 25 MPH in reverse, and is definitely not recommended.

Also, to start moving a large truck, with the engine started and the transmission in neutral, the clutch pedal must be pressed all the way to the floor to engage the clutch brake. The service brakes should also be applied. Once the clutch brake is engaged, the shifter is moved to the low/1st gear, and the clutch and brakes can be released. It is VERY important to note that a heavy-duty truck engine is capable of producing over 1500 foot-pounds of torque and can destroy a clutch fairly easily, so the throttle should not be touched until the clutch pedal is completely released. Giving the vehicle throttle while the clutch is not fully engaged will do nothing more than make the clutch slip, and wont actually help move the vehicle at all, while at the same time overheating the clutch.

If someone can word that into coherrent english and add it, I think it would be useful.
 * Actually, i added it in almost verbatim, as it's at least as good as most of the entries. Let the Wikigang whack at it for a while. Gzuckier 20:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

WOT Fuel economy
The comparisons section has a questionable 'advantage' that includes the ability to drive at WOT, yet still accelerate at a normal pace by short-shifting a manual transmission. The fact that you can do so is not the question; however, the article claims that doing so results in better fuel economy, and cited BSFC as justification. There's one critical flaw in that assumption, though - the second you hit WOT or anything close to it, whether you're in a carbeureted vehicle or a fuel-injected one, the engine will go into power enrichment mode, with an air-fuel ratio closer to 12:1 than 14:1. Carbs do this courtesy of the accelerator pump, fuel inejction will go into open loop. Both are modes you absolutely never want to engage if your goal is to reduce fuel consumption. I removed the BSFC source and tagged it with a fact tag until someone can find a reputable source that actually proves that WOT short-shifting is ideal for fuel economy, rather than pointing at a wikilink for a vaguely related principle. Ayocee 15:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not, really, as you make a valid point about enrichment (though I have a feeling some early SPi / CFi systems didn't do this, having seen the existence of a "full throttle switch" only installed on the sport models of such a car I owned) --- but it does mean you can accelerate at a more efficient ~80% throttle whilst shifting such to keep the engine in the most efficient range (around peak torque - for simplicity's sake let's say the 2000 - 3500rpm range) AND effectively having it in "lock up" the entire time, rather than once you've eased off at >45mph. 82.46.180.56 (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please add France in "Applications and popularity" about automatic licence
Hi everybody. I'm a French wikipedia user and I haven't any english wikipedia account. I red this article and I saw that you missed France in the list of countries witch requires a special driving licence for manual transmission cars (in the topic Applications and popularity). Perhaps, you can add that in France, the manual driving licence is usful also for automatic cars (named "B" licence) wheras the automatic driving licence don't allowed to drive an manual car (named "BA", means "B" automatic) ; most of French people have the "B" licence, the "BA" is more for people who had matters with a manual one. Sorry for the english errors...thanks for adding theses informations. Bye bye


 * Done. Chenel324 21:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I must say that I am not aware of any uniform "manual" or "automatic" drivers licence in Australia. You pass the test, in either a manual or auto, and then you are allowed to drive any car you like, no matter what care you sat your test in. JayKeaton (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I know for sure in Western Australia (but I am unaware of the other states requirements and licensing) that driving an automatic during the pratical test gives you a C-A licence where A refers to Automatic, and the C Car. If you drive a manual you get a C licence which allows you to drive both types of cars. This is because I converted my licence from another country which has no seperation on manuals or automatics and was told this by the clerk managing my conversion. Stkhoo (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * When were you told that? I can't see a C-A licence or any mention of an automatic licence or manual licence on the government webpage [] JayKeaton (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Evidently you didn't search one more link in.. [] Stkhoo (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * After some searching it turns out Victoria, South Australia , Queensland , Northern Territory , Tasmania all have the same restriction.. however I was unable to find anything on NSW  or ACT  Stkhoo (talk) 05:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You must have misread the SA page, because I know for a fact that there are no "automatic/manual" restrictions here having just got my licence myself. I believe Qld and Tasmania do, or did, and I know for certain SA does not. All it takes is one anyway, to have to reword the list to "some parts of Australia" instead of "Australia" JayKeaton (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

In NSW (at age 17) you can sit the test for your Red P plates in either an Auto or a Manual. You then have the Red P (provisional) license for that particular transmission car. One year later (min. age 18.0) you can take the (very simple computer touch screen) test for Green P plates. Once you have your Green P's you can drive either Auto or Manny transmission, regardless of which trans. you got your Red P's on. Hope that clears it up for NSW. Gresszilla (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago should be added to the list of countries where "when a driver takes the licensing road test using an automatic transmission, the resulting license is restricted to the use of automatic transmissions" in the "Applications and popularity" section.

Vague phrasing

 * Increased fuel economy with a properly operated manual transmission vehicle versus an equivalent automatic transmission vehicle can range from 5% to about 15% depending on driving conditions and style of driving -- extra urban or urban (highway or city).

Could someone clarify this? It might be me, but it doesn't seem to make much sense. Thanks! -René van Buuren 03:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Honda gear oil
Some manufacturers, however, such as Honda, do not use this additive in their gear lube, specifying regular motor oil until recently, and now their own brand of gear lube which seems to be an enhanced version of motor oil.

Does anyone have any hard information about this assertion, or is it simply speculation? I have tagged it with 'citation needed' for the moment. Chenel324 21:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)