Bad news: Manual gearboxes are now technologically inferior. All of them.

H-pattern and robotized alike:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2017/04/bmw-rather-phase-manuals-borrow-u-s-gearbox/

So the only thing manuals have going for them now is fun and a slight control advantage. Transmissions in general will be a niche item a decade or two from now anyway, so we won't have to suffer with a world of nothing but slushboxes in new cars for long. Supercars will still have them for a while because beefy expensive parts and gear noise are no problem there. I don't think it'll be too unusual to add some kind of manual gearbox to an EV to improve performance.

Bonus comment from the article:

deanst wrote: As I tell all my friends, it is not polite to call it “the three-pedal lifestyle” – I was born this way.

LOL

Perhaps BMW is benchmarking the wrong gearboxes. The shift quality and clutch feel of the Tremec in my Viper is excellent despite needing to hold more torque than any road going BMW has ever shipped with. Sounds like more unfounded euro snobbery from a company that can’t or won’t engineer a world class manual transmission

That reminds me of when the E34 530i and 540i came out and only the 530i was available with a stick because BMW was seemingly unable to find a manual tranny strong enough for the 540i. Of course, we know they had no problem doing so later for that engine (and for more powerful ones later). Seems to me they're just making excuses.

They probably don't want the expense of having to EPA certify two different drivetrains, with one variety having such a low portion of the total.

In reply to Shawn_D:

The other problem is the manual version tests dirtier than the autobox. The throttle release between shifts creates a momentary overrich condition that has to be dealt with by the computer. The autobox shifts faster and with more consistency due to lack of human intervention.

I will mourn the loss of the manual trans. I've only owned a couple of autobox cars. Electric motors don't require a trans because they reach peak torque output in 1/10th of a second. The only reason for a trans at all is torque multiplication under certain conditions like heavy hauling.

The ghost of Ronnie Sox weeps.

Jerry From LA wrote: The only reason for a trans at all is torque multiplication under certain conditions like heavy hauling.

Or increasing the top speed. A Tesla S only goes up to ~200kph because if it went any faster, the motor would overrev. It goes beyond its optimal rpm range at less than 100kph.

Jerry From LA wrote: In reply to Shawn_D: The other problem is the manual version tests dirtier than the autobox. The throttle release between shifts creates a momentary overrich condition that has to be dealt with by the computer. The autobox shifts faster and with more consistency due to lack of human intervention.

That over-rich condition could be mitigated by programming, just as programming can be used to blip the throttle between shifts. Agreed about the shift speed and consistency.

Shawn_D wrote:

Jerry From LA wrote: In reply to Shawn_D: The other problem is the manual version tests dirtier than the autobox. The throttle release between shifts creates a momentary overrich condition that has to be dealt with by the computer. The autobox shifts faster and with more consistency due to lack of human intervention.

That over-rich condition could be mitigated by programming, just as programming can be used to blip the throttle between shifts. Agreed about the shift speed and consistency.

And it typically is. That's why most modern cars feel like they have a bit of a throttle hang when you let off the throttle. It's the computer slowly closing the throttle the last bit rather than slamming it closed.

Technologically Superior does not mean better. BMW forgot that a long time ago.

Shawn_D wrote: That reminds me of when the E34 530i and 540i came out and only the 530i was available with a stick because BMW was seemingly unable to find a manual tranny strong enough for the 540i. Of course, we know they had no problem doing so later for that engine (and for more powerful ones later). Seems to me they're just making excuses.

BMW builds cars as a business and there needs to be a business case for it. There wasn't a manual transmission available that met their needs, and they didn't think they'd sell enough extra cars to make it worth spending the money to design & manufacture one for that purpose.

I'm a fan of the manual transmission. I'd venture that 80-85% of the cars I've owned had them. The other 15-20% were bargains that were too good to pass up.

Having said that, my '13 Sonic is quite likely the last manual transmission car I will own. It took me a while to find it - there simply aren't that many manual-transmission cars to choose from when shopping.

On top of that, resale value is abysmal, unless you're willing to wait for another person from the 10% of Americans who not only CAN drive a stick, but WANT to. I'm not that patient anymore.

I wish it didn't have to be that way; I enjoy driving a manual. But for my life the way it is right now, it's really not worth the effort to buy and sell them.

The real reason they all want to eliminate the manual transmission is that the next step in automated control cannot deal with the gap in it's ability to control everything and unlike electronic throttle and brake - there is nothing that can be done to compensate when a human physically disconnects the drive line from the engine.

The CPU must tightly control all of it, end to end in order to provide the levels of automation, emissions and safety for "market demand" (read that: over-regulation).

The only real world application for a manual gearbox in today's cars is premium entertainment on niche vehicles. Expect to pay handsomely for it very soon if you can find one at all.

I'm very much afraid that my RS will also be the last manual car I'll own, because by the time I loose it from my clutching grasp, there won't be any more manuals.

Cue sarcastic question about whether we also lament the loss of manually adjusted spark advance.

Meh. I like shifting, but have realized over the past couple years that it's really not that important to me. Steering feel, throttle response, and lateral g's make the difference between an applicance and not.

That said, automated vehicles scare the bejeezus out of me not only secondary to the very really threat of unmitigated AI (if you don't believe me talk to Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, or Bill Gates), but also the threat of constant monitoring by regulatory agencies and corporations.

I'll wear my tin foil hat in the corner, thanks.

jstein77 wrote: I'm very much afraid that my RS will also be the last manual car I'll own, because by the time I loose it from my clutching grasp, there won't be any more manuals.

Other than all the ones that have been made in the last 100+ years, you mean?

I'm on record as a convert to the modern automatic transmission. I think they are fantastic, and I won't buy another DD without an auto. Having said that, it's sad that the option is going away. For a pure fun toy, give me a manual any time. There was no way on God's green earth I was buying a 944 with an auto, for example. Fortunately, there have been many millions of them made, and more are still being made, at least for the moment, so the option will always be out there.

penultimeta wrote: That said, automated vehicles scare the bejeezus out of me not only secondary to the very really threat of unmitigated AI (if you don't believe me talk to Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, or Bill Gates), but also the threat of constant monitoring by regulatory agencies and corporations. I'll wear my tin foil hat in the corner, thanks.

And the idea that human driving may be pretty much banned at some point. See the movie "I, Robot" for that one...

Shawn_D wrote:

Jerry From LA wrote: In reply to Shawn_D: The other problem is the manual version tests dirtier than the autobox. The throttle release between shifts creates a momentary overrich condition that has to be dealt with by the computer. The autobox shifts faster and with more consistency due to lack of human intervention.

That over-rich condition could be mitigated by programming, just as programming can be used to blip the throttle between shifts. Agreed about the shift speed and consistency.

Absolutely, but you can amortize the cost of writing the autobox code over a lot more cars.

Except when I am in some form of sports car, manually shifting is not important at all to me.

Huckleberry wrote: The real reason they all want to eliminate the manual transmission is that the next step in automated control cannot deal with the gap in it's ability to control everything and unlike electronic throttle and brake - there is nothing that can be done to compensate when a human physically disconnects the drive line from the engine.

That will definitely become a problem soon, but I don't think it's a problem right now for most cars. On a BMW M-series I'm sure buyers would be happy to lose the increased automation for an H-pattern or robo-manual.

Yep, I also fear that the Cruze may be my last DD with a proper gearbox. The missus is pretty insistent on our DDs being bough new - factory warranty and dependability and blah blah blah. I think I made a mistake though. I bought the Cruze because it was cheap and I wanted good fuel economy. But, knowing now that I was potentially making a decision with a 10 year purchase cycle (5 years of payments on this car, and then 5 more when the Cruze is paid off, and SWMBO gets a new DD), I wouldve thought harder about what I was getting.

Ive been really liking the idea of a V8 Charger right now. I know that a Cargers fuel economy is not what the Cruze gets (but I bet it could be better than what you might think), but a V8, RWD, 6 speed, 4door mid size sedan actually sounds like a lot of fun every day. Hiundight being 20:20 and all...

Shawn_D wrote:

Jerry From LA wrote: In reply to Shawn_D: The other problem is the manual version tests dirtier than the autobox. The throttle release between shifts creates a momentary overrich condition that has to be dealt with by the computer. The autobox shifts faster and with more consistency due to lack of human intervention.

That over-rich condition could be mitigated by programming, just as programming can be used to blip the throttle between shifts. Agreed about the shift speed and consistency.

The answer of course is the no lift shift

I honestly prefer a manual, even for non-sporting cars, and have driven one almost every day for my entire driving life. I'm not going to get militant about the loss of manuals though. It's a moot argument when everything is going electric and fully automated.

My next newer car might be an automatic simply because I am running out of choices. I bought a new car (with a manual) in 2016, but I feel like I got lucky in finding a good match for what I wanted.

In reply to 4cylndrfury:

Only one problem with your Charger idea... The Charger doesn't come with a manual. It's auto-only for the Charger, have to get a Challenger if you want a manual. Mind you, there are conversion kits...

rslifkin wrote: In reply to 4cylndrfury: Only one problem with your Charger idea... The Charger doesn't come with a manual. It's auto-only for the Charger, have to get a Challenger if you want a manual. Mind you, there are conversion kits...

True. But they do make the Chevy SS in a manual. I think this is it's last year, though.

lol...guess that shows how little I looked into it