[XutvJet]

Some of today's automatics are really good (ZF 8AT, Lexus ISF/RCF/ISF auto, DCT, PDK), but many still suck based on most rentals I drive. They remind me why I hate torque converter-based automatics (i.e., slow to react, spongy TC feel, erratic shifting). Don't get me started by CVTs. You need a healthy, torquey motor to make an automatic feel right.

The biggest drivers for automakers to really push automatics are these:

1) Control. Automakers have TOTAL control over what you can and can't do in terms of shifting and driving with an automatic. It saves them from warranty work and debates with manual owners who made a shifting mistake and wrecked the clutch, trans, and/or motor as a result.

2) MPGs. Today's autos get better mpgs (usually 10%+) than a manual in the regulatory-based driving cycles. In the real world though, it's all about the driver when it comes to mpgs.

3) Performance. There's no denying a solid automatic backing a good motor will be quicker/faster than it's manual counterpart.

4) Reliability. Overall, automatics tend to be more reliable and cheaper to maintain. They're usually easier on other drivetrain parts too because they have a lot less shock load on launch and shifts. Manuals are far more simple in design and can last too, but most drivers of sporty cars with manuals tend to drive them pretty hard. Manuals don't take kindly to hard launches on stick tires or hard shifting over the long term. Autos are far better at this type of driving.

5) Cost to the automaker. Making one tranny rather than offering two is a HUGE cost savings. Far less R&D, less parts, etc. etc. etc. Also, read bullet 1. They protect themselves on the warranty side of things by only offering an automatic that they can control. Out of the five bullets listed, this is probably the most important one to an automaker.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

Some of today's automatics are really good (ZF 8AT, Lexus ISF/RCF/ISF auto, DCT, PDK), but many still suck based on most rentals I drive. They remind me why I hate torque converter-based automatics (i.e., slow to react, spongy TC feel, erratic shifting). Don't get me started by CVTs. You need a healthy, torquey motor to make an automatic feel right.

The biggest drivers for automakers to really push automatics are these:

1) Control. Automakers have TOTAL control over what you can and can't do in terms of shifting and driving with an automatic. It saves them from warranty work and debates with manual owners who made a shifting mistake and wrecked the clutch, trans, and/or motor as a result.

2) MPGs. Today's autos get better mpgs (usually 10%+) than a manual in the regulatory-based driving cycles. In the real world though, it's all about the driver when it comes to mpgs.

3) Performance. There's no denying a solid automatic backing a good motor will be quicker/faster than it's manual counterpart.

4) Reliability. Overall, automatics tend to be more reliable and cheaper to maintain. They're usually easier on other drivetrain parts too because they have a lot less shock load on launch and shifts. Manuals are far more simple in design and can last too, but most drivers of sporty cars with manuals tend to drive them pretty hard. Manuals don't take kindly to hard launches on stick tires or hard shifting over the long term. Autos are far better at this type of driving.

5) Cost to the automaker. Making one tranny rather than offering two is a HUGE cost savings. Far less R&D, less parts, etc. etc. etc. Also, read bullet 1. They protect themselves on the warranty side of things by only offering an automatic that they can control. Out of the five bullets listed, this is probably the most important one to an automaker.

I've never broken a manual transmission in 1.4M miles. My first automatic... blew it up in 74,000 miles.

[joooiiiiii]

Most newer cars in the US are auto, which would contribute to less and less people knowing how to drive a manual. The population keeps rising which contributes to more drivers and where more drivers are there are more cars; where more cars are there are more traffic. It ain't getting any better and people just prefer auto. I lived in LA and I hated driving manual around all that traffic.

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I've never broken a manual transmission in 1.4M miles. My first automatic... blew it up in 74,000 miles.

I've been driving since the late 1980s and have modified, drag raced (on a real strip), and auto-xed many of my cars. I've never destroyed a manual or auto. However, I've been around the car scene long enough to know manuals are tend to be far more fragile when it comes to hard driving/shifting and launching, especially on sticky rubber and grippy surfaces. It's just the nature of the design to extract the most performance (high rpm, lots of clutch slip and throttle modulation) and excessive drivetrain shock loads compared to an automatic which can preload the drivetrain, doesn't shock the system nearly as hard, can build boost on launch, loses no acceleration or boost on shifts, etc.

If I raced my M235 competitively, or any late model performance car for that matter, I'd be a complete idiot to choose the manual. It's slower, more expensive to maintain, and it would likely not handle the abuse over the long term and would likely loose the 1-2 and 2-3 syncros over time. HOWEVER, I don't race the car for time or money. I just enjoy driving and the engagement, thus, I have a 6MT. Some days it annoys the living hell out of me as I do not find it to be the easiest manual to drive smoothly when starting out or on the 1-2 shift, but in all other cases, it's stellar. Drive this car hard and the 6MT really becomes amazing.

I'm also always amused when you park the car at something like a cars and coffee and people go nuts because they had no idea the car is available in a 6MT.

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by joooiiiiii

Most newer cars in the US are auto, which would contribute to less and less people knowing how to drive a manual. The population keeps rising which contributes to more drivers and where more drivers are there are more cars; where more cars are there are more traffic. It ain't getting any better and people just prefer auto. I lived in LA and I hated driving manual around all that traffic.

I'll always have a manual and my kids (10 and 14 right now), will know how to drive one.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

I've been driving since the late 1980s and have modified, drag raced (on a real strip), and auto-xed many of my cars. I've never destroyed a manual or auto. However, I've been around the car scene long enough to know manuals are tend to be far more fragile when it comes to hard driving/shifting and launching, especially on sticky rubber and grippy surfaces. It's just the nature of the design to extract the most performance (high rpm, lots of clutch slip and throttle modulation) and excessive drivetrain shock loads compared to an automatic which can preload the drivetrain, doesn't shock the system nearly as hard, can build boost on launch, loses no acceleration or boost on shifts, etc.

If I raced my M235 competitively, or any late model performance car for that matter, I'd be a complete idiot to choose the manual. It's slower, more expensive to maintain, and it would likely not handle the abuse over the long term and would likely loose the 1-2 and 2-3 syncros over time. HOWEVER, I don't race the car for time or money. I just enjoy driving and the engagement, thus, I have a 6MT. Some days it annoys the living hell out of me as I do not find it to be the easiest manual to drive smoothly when starting out or on the 1-2 shift, but in all other cases, it's stellar. Drive this car hard and the 6MT really becomes amazing.

I'm also always amused when you park the car at something like a cars and coffee and people go nuts because they had no idea the car is available in a 6MT.

I've never broken a manual transmission in 1.4M miles. My first automatic... blew it up in 74,000 miles.

[10"]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

Some of today's automatics are really good (ZF 8AT, Lexus ISF/RCF/ISF auto, DCT, PDK), but many still suck based on most rentals I drive. They remind me why I hate torque converter-based automatics (i.e., slow to react, spongy TC feel, erratic shifting).

ZF 8 speed automatics ARE torque converted automatics. They're terrible.

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by 10"

ZF 8 speed automatics ARE torque converted automatics. They're terrible.

Yeah I know. The ZF and Lexus F series autos are great because they lock the TC once you're out of 1st. It greatly reduces the annoyances of a planatary TC automatic. All automatics should be based on the ZF. It's that good when in the right application.

[hybris]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I've never broken a manual transmission in 1.4M miles. My first automatic... blew it up in 74,000 miles.

My 6MT on my old E90 broke at 24,000 miles, my current ZF automatic is happily taking a pounding with a setup running 600nm (almost 100nm over rated spec).

We all have anecdotal evidence one way or another.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by hybris

My 6MT on my old E90 broke at 24,000 miles, my current ZF automatic is happily taking a pounding with a setup running 600nm (almost 100nm over rated spec).

We all have anecdotal evidence one way or another.

10+ cars and 1.4M miles is not anecdotal evidence.

[10"]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

Yeah I know. The ZF and Lexus F series autos are great because they lock the TC once you're out of 1st. It greatly reduces the annoyances of a planatary TC automatic. All automatics should be based on the ZF. It's that good when in the right application.

Still drives like an ordinary automatic to me. Fancy software doesn't change the feel of it...which is pretty terrible to me.

[10"]

Originally Posted by hybris

My 6MT on my old E90 broke at 24,000 miles, my current ZF automatic is happily taking a pounding with a setup running 600nm (almost 100nm over rated spec).

We all have anecdotal evidence one way or another.

Can you expand on what broke? It's very rare for a manual gearbox to break. If it does it's usually driver error, sorry to say.

[hybris]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

10+ cars and 1.4M miles is not anecdotal evidence.

It indicates that manuals are probably reliable, you're one broken down auto is anecdotal. I have the opposite experience with BMW - several autos that didn't break and one manual that did break.. So I'm just saying the one that broke down doesn't necessarily "prove" that one is more reliable than the other.

Originally Posted by 10"

Can you expand on what broke? It's very rare for a manual gearbox to break. If it does it's usually driver error, sorry to say.

Syncro problems / worn down syncro rings, they had to rebuild the transmission. I've had a bunch of manual cars (I live in Norway where up until recently manual has been the norm, not the other way around), so I'm reasonably confident that I didn't break it - may have been the previous owner for all I know, or some kind of problem from the factory / lemon.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by hybris

It indicates that manuals are probably reliable, you're one broken down auto is anecdotal. I have the opposite experience with BMW - several autos that didn't break and one manual that did break.. So I'm just saying the one that broke down doesn't necessarily "prove" that one is more reliable than the other.



Syncro problems / worn down syncro rings, they had to rebuild the transmission. I've had a bunch of manual cars (I live in Norway where up until recently manual has been the norm, not the other way around), so I'm reasonably confident that I didn't break it - may have been the previous owner for all I know, or some kind of problem from the factory / lemon.

The auto was not anecdotal. Google GM 4L60...

Not "probably"... "are reliable". 378,000 on the box in my E90. 3 lube changes. The car sees very fast back road driving every day and crap traffic in DC suburbs every day (constant torque shock - what you are alluding to as a design issue with manuals).

So your manual blows up at 24,000 miles and you infer it means manuals are of weak design as a general principle. Yet you failed to mention it was a used car that you don't know the prior ownership use. Of the 10+ cars in my data source, 3 were used and without known history. Talk about anecedotal...

[hybris]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The auto was not anecdotal. Google GM 4L60...

I was only discussing transmissions in BMWs, not in general. So for autos I'm mainly referring to the ZFs currently being used by BMW.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Not "probably"... "are reliable". 378,000 on the box in my E90. 3 lube changes. The car sees very fast back road driving every day and crap traffic in DC suburbs every day (constant torque shock - what you are alluding to as a design issue with manuals).

So your manual blows up at 24,000 miles and you infer it means manuals are of weak design as a general principle. Yet you failed to mention it was a used car that you don't know the prior ownership use. Of the 10+ cars in my data source, 3 were used and without known history. Talk about anecedotal...

Either you're not reading my posts or my writing may be bad. I said that your one blown auto was equally anecdotal as my one blown manual. So they are both anecdotal. I'm not claiming my one blown manual proves anything.

I also have said nothing about manuals being weak as a general principle.

[10"]

Originally Posted by hybris

It indicates that manuals are probably reliable, you're one broken down auto is anecdotal. I have the opposite experience with BMW - several autos that didn't break and one manual that did break.. So I'm just saying the one that broke down doesn't necessarily "prove" that one is more reliable than the other.

Syncro problems / worn down syncro rings, they had to rebuild the transmission. I've had a bunch of manual cars (I live in Norway where up until recently manual has been the norm, not the other way around), so I'm reasonably confident that I didn't break it - may have been the previous owner for all I know, or some kind of problem from the factory / lemon.

Worn down syncro at 24k miles??

Sounds like the previous owner had no clue how to drive a manual gearbox. 100% user error at play here.

Manual gearboxes, in general, are far far more reliable than automatic ones.

[hybris]

Originally Posted by 10"

Worn down syncro at 24k miles??

Sounds like the previous owner had no clue how to drive a manual gearbox. 100% user error at play here.

Manual gearboxes, in general, are far far more reliable than automatic ones.

Yes, I'm aware that such a thing is not the norm.

[JJR4884]

One day auto manufactures are going to offer a DCT transmission where instead of paddles, it will be a mock stick shift. As it is our MT's already know which gear we are in.

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

there is simply one reason I buy manual.

Because I want to.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by hybris

I was only discussing transmissions in BMWs, not in general. So for autos I'm mainly referring to the ZFs currently being used by BMW.




Either you're not reading my posts or my writing may be bad. I said that your one blown auto was equally anecdotal as my one blown manual. So they are both anecdotal. I'm not claiming my one blown manual proves anything.

I also have said nothing about manuals being weak as a general principle.

I was sticking with the thread topic, which was transmissions in general, not BMW in the specific.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by JJR4884

One day auto manufactures are going to offer a DCT transmission where instead of paddles, it will be a mock stick shift. As it is our MT's already know which gear we are in.

And in general, DCT architecture and construction follow closer to a traditional manual transmission than torque converter automatic. So I guess we can infer DCT are weaker than a traditional automatic

[10"]

Originally Posted by JJR4884

One day auto manufactures are going to offer a DCT transmission where instead of paddles, it will be a mock stick shift. As it is our MT's already know which gear we are in.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/t...like-a-manual/