Talk:Manual transmission/Archive 2

NPOV issues with comparison section
The entire advantage/disadvantage section reads more or less like it was written by a 17-year-old who just learned to drive stick. I'm all for manual transmissions, but large stretches of the 'advantages' section in particular are rife with weasel words and questionable original research (WOT with early shifts for fuel economy? Please.). Ayocee 22:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd very much like to second this. Anonymous users can't edit this article right now, so I can't clean it up myself, but honestly, for instance, going on at length in the advantages section about how much concentration it takes to drive manual being a great thing, then going on about it some more in the disadvantage section just screams the agenda of whoever wrote it, and really detracts from the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.58.187 (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You could always sign up for an account, you know :) Ayocee 15:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree this section is not neutral. Many of the advantages seem forced or trivial, and the disadvantages are being excused and dismissed. Also, the two main advantages of automatic transmission, while vaguely present, are greatly muffled to the point of being downright missing: Automatic transmission for the average driver is safer and more convenient than manual transmission. 217.132.2.164 (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have any reliable, evidentiary support for your assertion that automatic transmissions are safer? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're clueless. Early shifting (i.e. during acceleration, switching to a higher gear at a lower RPM) is better for fuel economy. Late shifting is for more power. Automatic transmissions work this way too. If you accelerate more agressively, they delay shifting to a higher RPM. Some automatic transmissions have a switch for this: performance mode versus economy mode. In economy mode, shifts are made earlier, at a lower RPM. The manual driver has independent control of throttle position and gear. He can floor the accelerator, to open the throttle as wide as possible, without having the transmission second-guess this action by changing to a lower gear. For instance, climbing a hill with a wide-open throttle, in a higher gear, is more fuel-efficient than gearing down. Trouble is, the car doesn't perform nicely in this mode; there is no power headroom left for nimble acceleration. It just does the job of climbing the hill at constant speed. The gear choices that are built into automatics are compromised to favor performance in situations in which there is broad conflict between performance and economy, because poorly performing cars do not sell. The manual driver can always resolve the conflict in favor of maximum economy (or performance) as he sees fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.122.66 (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"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)." besides the point that this is a very good way to ruin your car I would strongly suggest to get out and run when stuck on a railroad crossing ("in an emergency situation").

Frankly, it's a dumb section. Most cars in the United States are automatic transmissions, and there is a reason why most people prefer them. There isn't even that great a superiority in gas mileage with stick shift cars anymore. Europe is still a bit behind the times in this regard. Automatics are superior in every way to stick shift cars.--18 August 2008 Susan Nunes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.61.61 (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your assertion that automatics are superior is nothing more or less than your own opinion, and as such, has no bearing on the content of this or any other article. Your assertion regarding fuel economy is quite incorrect, as well shown by the reliable references cited in the article. But your objection to the section as a whole has merit. I've gone through and done a pretty major cleanup, removing OR and POV essay and redundant list entries and applying the relevant template. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Synchro types
As an additional point of comparison, almost all manual transmissions in production as of 5 July 2008 are the constant-mesh type. Most road-going models use synchronizers, excepting the heavy-duty models from Eaton-Fuller, Spicer/TTC, Mack, &c. for applications above 50,000# (22,500 kg) gross combined weight, which use dog clutches of on or around 25 teeth, and the Jerico family of racing gearboxes ("Not to be confused with Jericho") for light-duty applications, which use mostly ten-tooth dog clutches (some models use six-tooth). Dog clutches and synchros have advantages and drawbacks for their respective applications, and, as I understand things, which is better for a given application depends on the application itself. As a personal note, I'd probably put a Jerico five-speed into my 1994 Ford Ranger (down as of 00:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC) due to multiple failure of the stock Matsuda M5OD-R1 gearbox), had the Jerico short enough gears for a light truck (~4.5:1 needed, and Jerico supports ~2.5:1 at shortest as of this post); synchros tend to cause trouble at the end of their design service lives (exacerbated in my case by failed countershaft bearings and subsequent damage to mainshaft gears, shift rings, &c. consequent to longitudinal movement of the countergear).

This Article could use a more thorough, as well as more POV-neutral, comparison of synchros (user-friendlier) vs. dog clutches (longer-lasting if handled correctly), as noted in prior posts this Section. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

better immages
reqdiagram

Manual transmission

please can i put these in the article ?

Stef--World arm lamp (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Are these drawings a little confusing - it appears that in different images the same gears are meshed? In may just be the angle of the view but would it be clearer to exaggerate the separation or label which gears are connected? Labeling the input and output shaft would help.

Suggest adding the lifetime of a clutch
In the disadvantages section, I would suggest adding the conventional lifetime of a clutch to the last enrty. That being 150,000 to 200,000 miles; for normal driving style. In race or off-road vehicles this is likely to be around 100,000 miles. My car has 208,400 miles and the original clutch, and still drives pretty good. I have seen other cars with clutches so worn down by 180,000 that they are no longer driveable. My friend and I did his clutch ourselves at 201,000, was only $160, but took 3 weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brock1912 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll argue against this - first, the average automatic transmission's service life is often quite shorter than the mileage you're getting out of clutches. On top of that, it's not uncommon for clutches to fail in far shorter intervals - quite a few Mitsubishi Evo owners are replacing clutches well before 100k or even 50k miles have passed by. Ayocee (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no "conventional lifetime" of a clutch. There is no reason why you can't get 200k+ miles out of a clutch, but you can also wear out a clutch in a few thousand miles if you are reckless or ignorant. Powerful and "grippy" AWD cars like the EVO and WRX are often sold with somewhat weak clutches, the reason being a slipping clutch is preferable to a damaged gearbox, which will cost at least 10x as much to replace. Karldoh (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with User:karldoh&mdash;the service life of a clutch can vary dramatically depending on how it's used. Drag racers in Top Fuel and Funny Car expect to burn out an entire clutch per run, due to the horsepower and torque requirements of their applications, and budget accordingly; a roadgoing truck clutch could last up to 100,000 miles (163,840 km) under ideal conditions which rarely occur.  B. C. Schmerker (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed rubbish about bump starting being discouraged.
As has been done previously, I've removed this sentence from the advantages of manual cars: "However, this practice is strongly discouraged by most manufacturers, citing possible damage to emissions control devices such as the catalytic converter." This is a ridiculous concept. First of all, it makes no sense; the theory is that fuel left in the engine will be damaging to a catalytic converter if it's not accompanied by normal car-starting procedures - why? Secondly, it's irrelevant; given the choice of unlikely engine damage, or being stranded/in danger due to nothing more than a flat battery, few people would pick the latter. Furthermore, the simple act of driving a car damages the thing, does it not? e.g. wheels get eroded, clutch eventually wears out etc. etc. Randomwellwisher (talk) 09:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering the fact that almost every (if not every) manufacturer slaps a warning in the owner's manual stating not to do so for the reasons cited in the article, I hardly see how it's irrelevant? Take a look through the owner's manual of any car built in the past twenty years, or call the manufacturer's customer service hotline, and ask what their view on bump-starting is.  I'm not saying it's actually some great car-destroying evil, but it seems rather shortsighted to mention a practice and yet not mention the fact that it is, at the very least, strongly discouraged by the vast majority of automakers. Ayocee (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're both right. Most all automakers say not to push-start, and many issue technically baseless warnings of vehicular damage if a push-start is attempted. In fact, what they're doing is avoiding liability. The only real reason not to push-start a car is to avoid the risk of losing control of the car in the process. No power steering or brakes before the engine starts, sudden lurch of power as soon as the engine starts. No real danger exists if the driver knows what s/he's doing and is paying attention; nevertheless, there are a lot of stupid, unskilled, and oblivious people out there, and therefore a push start has "crash and lawsuit" written all over it from the automaker's perspective.


 * The difficulty is, if the automaker would warn against push-starting to avoid having a crash, the sort of person who has no business trying to push-start a car would just dismiss the warning: accidents happen to other people! By warning against vehicular damage instead, the automaker appeals to the owner's sense of protectiveness of his precious automobile, and thus the goal of discouraging push-starts is more effectively achieved. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Death of the manual transmission
While I do agree that the days of the manual transmission are numbered, this is not likely to happen anytime soon, and no reliable sources are claiming explicitly that fact. The two sources that were referenced for that section only indicated that their respective hybrids came with automatics, but made no claims about the death of the stick. Honda's Insight already proved that a hybrid with a manual transmission is still a viable option, though one many consumers will likely ignore.

Since no sources are explicitly predicting the death of the stick, using sources like that to do so qualifies as original research. Ayocee (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm willing to agree with you on that; thanks for clarifying. I wanted to point out some sources (some non-authoritative), to stimulate the discussion:
 * hybridcars.com
 * cars.com
 * Seattle PI


 * Thanks! --Inetpup:o3  ⌈〒⌋▰⌈♎⌋ 16:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's also all please keep in mind that the USA does not equal the world. I just returned from a trip to India, where automatic transmissions are almost unknown. And manual transmissions remain quite popular in Japan, Europe, South America, Australia, and other markets. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)