# Where have all the manual transmissions gone?



## Ashful

As my Dodge 1500 approaches the decade mark, it's time to start looking and thinking about what I'm going to replace it with.  It's a pretty basic Quad Cab 4x4 1500 SLT... with one less common feature:  manual 6-speed transmission.

I hate, (hate, (hate())) driving automatic transmission vehicles, particularly in any kind of bad weather.  I've acquiesced on this a few times, and have regretted every moment of owning each of my automatic transmission vehicles.  This hatred of the automatic transmission (possible bane of our society!) is actually what forced me to switch to Dodge in 2005, when I was trading in my '95 Chevy 1500 4x4 Laramie, also with manual transmission.  Chevy had stopped offering manual transmission in 4x4 1500's years earlier.

Unfortunately, I see that none of the American pickup truck manufacturers offer a manual transmission in a 1/2 ton these days.  I figured it was finally time to switch over to Toyota, based on this, but I see they've stopped offering manual as well!  Seems the only real option left for manual transmission is a Dodge 2500 or a Ford 250 both in diesel.

I'm forever up against the weight limit on my 1/2 ton trucks, so I could argue myself into justifying a 3/4 ton chassis, but driving barely 5000 miles per year... I cannot really justify the added cost of going diesel ($8000 on the Dodge).  I priced the Dodge SLT with manual at $47,000 MSRP.    I paid $26k for my current Dodge, and less for the Chevy.

I have an office job, so I don't use it for work, but I spend my evenings and weekends playing carpenter / logger / mason / plumber / electrician.  I use my 1/2 ton trucks pretty hard, hauling heavy loads of wood and construction materials in the bed, and often pulling various trailers.  I have considered going the SUV + trailer route, but it just seems so much less... convenient.  Also, you get no respect at the building supply places when you show up in an SUV.    Also, I like to rent a heavier tandem axle for hauling wood, and take the trailer off-road into the wood lot... no good with a 3500 lb. SUV.

Options?  I had really planned to keep the next truck purchase closer to $30k, and I just don't see a manual transmission option out there in that price range.  If I try to justify the added cost of the 2500 based on wood hauling (the activity where I hit the weight limit most frequently), I'm bound to be reminded that we're doing all this work of heating with wood to save money, "right?"


----------



## pen

How much do you like your current truck? How much $$$ would it take to make it near new again?

In the late 90's I pulled into our town's NAPA and there was the most perfect early 80's chevy pick-up sitting in the lot. I walked to the door at the same time as it's owner did. I asked him if he had turned that into a stock/show truck. His response "F-no, that's a working SOB and since I can't find a new one to do what I want any better than this, the 9k I spent making it new was a no-brainer."

I caught a glimpse of that truck time to time as it worked daily and gained work bruises for another 10 years or maybe more of service. I think he made a good investment.

I'm at the point where in the next year or so, I'll have to decide if I want to do this with my beloved '96 f-150 (manual trans)



pen


----------



## MasterMech

While a manual trans is fun and I grew up driving lots of manual trans work trucks, there is good reason they've gone auto.  (cost of ownership/repair, frequency of service, etc.) Even in the 3/4 ton+ camp, the autos have gotten MUCH beefier and more versatile.  Even the old 3 speed auto in my C3500 is a fantastic "working" transmission.  The Allison transmissions that sit behind GM's big engine options (3/4 ton+) pretty much sqashed any claims of superior durability of the 6 speed.

If you haven't tried a pickup with an auto trans since '95, I say take a second look.  The new 6 and 7 speed transmissions are just as versatile/strong as your manual box and nearly as obediant.


----------



## Augie

Why not spend 30k on a project, you could build one hell of a truck for 30k. If that is an option...


----------



## mithesaint

Does it have to be new?  If you're only putting 5K a year on something, why not a diesel that's a few years old with a few miles on it.  You'll save 20-30K up front, still get the truck you need, and it should last plenty long, especially if you only drive 5K per year.


----------



## mikefrommaine

If you want a manual don't cave and get an auto. I did on my last truck and have regretted it ever since. 

The original transmission let go at 36,500 miles. The free replacement (I paid labor) made it to 80k when it caught on fire (make sure you have a fire extinguisher in the back seat.)  Had it rebuilt and at 100k the 'electronic control pack' went bad. It kept thinking the transmission was overheating 2 minutes after I started the truck. I'm at 120k now and am waiting for it to fail again...


----------



## HittinSteel

I understand where your coming from. I'd love to have a manual transmission truck. My current '02 Ram 1500 hunts all over the place when towing my camper/boat through the hills.

I was either going to get a tuner (good idea?) and set a tow tune or start looking for a good used 3/4 ton diesel.


----------



## clemsonfor

I was gonna say keep it too!  Heck its just the age were I'd buy it. My newest truck is 23 my old one is 33.  Get the seats redone. Fix the annoyingbroken things. Drive it till something happens and just replace motor and trans. You prolly want to redo the front end but just keep it
 U only drive 5k a year it will last forever. If u want new get a commuter car.


----------



## lukem

As much as I like manual transmissions, I'm not sure I'd give up the 6-speed auto in my F-150.  It always seems to be in the right gear.  When loaded/towing the tow/haul mode works great.  It holds gears longer, downshifts on descents when you tap the brake, and pretty much stays out of 6th unless I'm running 65+ MPH.

Some of the very new half-tons have shiftable auto's (let you electronically shift gears).  

They aren't the old slush boxes they used to be.


----------



## jlightning

Make the switch to a lightly used 2500 diesel that has a stick.  I made the switch to diesel and am not going back any time soon.  As far as the need for stick goes it sounds like a preference but I say give a newer auto diesel a test drive and use the manuel gear selector that the new Chevy auto trucks have.  You can choose your top gear while in the manual mode.  In tow mode the truck will automtically down shift if you are hitting the brakes which I find to be a great feature while towing my fifth wheel.


----------



## velvetfoot

Not a truck owner here, but have driven stick all my life.  It's a lot easier driving an auto with a banged up appendage or two, like a knee, or foot, or arm.  The situation has come up lately for me, and both are cars are stick.


----------



## Ashful

pen said:


> How much do you like your current truck? How much $$$ would it take to make it near new again?


 

Truck still looks and drives like new, with only 60k miles. Never a breakdown, and I have no complaints for it, yet. However, I've owned enough restored old vehicles to know an old truck will never have the near-100% reliability of a new truck, despite any and all work you put into it.



MasterMech said:


> While a manual trans is fun and I grew up driving lots of manual trans work trucks, there is good reason they've gone auto... The new 6 and 7 speed transmissions are just as versatile/strong as your manual box and nearly as obediant.


 

I can't argue anything you said, MasterMech. However, you're ignoring two factors:

1. I enjoy driving manual, and I don't like driving auto. This is amplified in bad weather, and even applies to the well-behaved 7G-Tronic automatic in the Mercedes. I just don't like it.

2. I usually save $2000 by going manual. Every car I've ever purchased has been $1800 - $2400 more for automatic.



Augie said:


> Why not spend 30k on a project, you could build one hell of a truck for 30k. If that is an option...


 

Reliability and dealer support more important than cost, to a point. I am looking for a truck that never requires an unscheduled trip to the shop.



jlightning said:


> Make the switch to a lightly used 2500 diesel that has a stick.


 
Not a bad idea, assuming there is such a thing! I imagine most 2500 diesels see professional use.




velvetfoot said:


> Not a truck owner here, but have driven stick all my life. It's a lot easier driving an auto with a banged up appendage or two, like a knee, or foot, or arm. The situation has come up lately for me, and both are cars are stick.


 

Yeah, it's been a problem a few times here, as well. Luckily, parents on both sides of our family have multiple automatic vehicles, so we're usually able to make a temporary trade. That's how I get to drive things like Mercedes 7G-Tronic's... way out of my own price range.


----------



## MrWhoopee

Stick shift for me! If something goes wrong, which it doesn't, I can fix it where I am. Purchase price $1500, upgrades/repairs after purchase $1000, registration $185 (3/4 ton weight fees), insurance $80/yr, Smog $0. If it has to go to the shop, which it hasn't, the savings have already paid for the repairs. It's not my daily driver/commuter or work truck, so the potential inconvenience if it needs to go to the shop is just that, an inconvenience. I know it's not for everybody, but I burn wood to SAVE MONEY. Even $20k for a hauler is out of the question, especially if there is a monthly payment attached.


----------



## gzecc

There are also very few sticks in SUV's. My wife wanted one, and really could only get a subaru forester. Not really an SUV. Nobody wants them any more.


----------



## peakbagger

Sticks are usually more difficult to certify for emissions than autos plus the manufacturer has to certify both versions.


----------



## Giles

Joful said:


> As my Dodge 1500 approaches the decade mark, it's time to start looking and thinking about what I'm going to replace it with. It's a pretty basic Quad Cab 4x4 1500 SLT... with one less common feature: manual 6-speed transmission.
> 
> I hate, (hate, (hate())) driving automatic transmission vehicles, particularly in any kind of bad weather. I've acquiesced on this a few times, and have regretted every moment of owning each of my automatic transmission vehicles. This hatred of the automatic transmission (possible bane of our society!) is actually what forced me to switch to Dodge in 2005, when I was trading in my '95 Chevy 1500 4x4 Laramie, also with manual transmission. Chevy had stopped offering manual transmission in 4x4 1500's years earlier.
> 
> Unfortunately, I see that none of the American pickup truck manufacturers offer a manual transmission in a 1/2 ton these days. I figured it was finally time to switch over to Toyota, based on this, but I see they've stopped offering manual as well! Seems the only real option left for manual transmission is a Dodge 2500 or a Ford 250 both in diesel.
> 
> I'm forever up against the weight limit on my 1/2 ton trucks, so I could argue myself into justifying a 3/4 ton chassis, but driving barely 5000 miles per year... I cannot really justify the added cost of going diesel ($8000 on the Dodge). I priced the Dodge SLT with manual at $47,000 MSRP.  I paid $26k for my current Dodge, and less for the Chevy.
> 
> I have an office job, so I don't use it for work, but I spend my evenings and weekends playing carpenter / logger / mason / plumber / electrician. I use my 1/2 ton trucks pretty hard, hauling heavy loads of wood and construction materials in the bed, and often pulling various trailers. I have considered going the SUV + trailer route, but it just seems so much less... convenient. Also, you get no respect at the building supply places when you show up in an SUV.  Also, I like to rent a heavier tandem axle for hauling wood, and take the trailer off-road into the wood lot... no good with a 3500 lb. SUV.
> 
> Options? I had really planned to keep the next truck purchase closer to $30k, and I just don't see a manual transmission option out there in that price range. If I try to justify the added cost of the 2500 based on wood hauling (the activity where I hit the weight limit most frequently), I'm bound to be reminded that we're doing all this work of heating with wood to save money, "right?"


 
As a mechanic, years ago, I repaired Automatic transmissions. What really Pi++ed me off is that, back then, you had to pay extra---$600?- for an automatic transmission. This was evidently because more manual transmissions were called for and an automatic was "special order" or whatever.
This was in the late 50s and I was in repair business in the 60s and 70s. At that time, many vehicles had automatics but the cost was still there!
Not many years ago, a truck came with a standard shift trans.---soooooooooo---you give them back the standard, along with the other components, and paid extra for the automatic.
Now here is my opinion and reply to your post------I think it is more profit for the manufacturers in an automatic because *a six speed cluster gear will probably cost more then a complete automatic transmission!*


----------



## Ashful

gzecc said:


> There are also very few sticks in SUV's. My wife wanted one, and really could only get a subaru forester. Not really an SUV. *Nobody wants them any more.*


 

It seems that is not the case, whenever I bring up the subject. Perhaps the dealers don't want to deal with them anymore, but there are many fans of the manual transmission.  I don't believe it's a manufacturer issue, except perhaps with regard to USA emissions laws, as most cars available with manual trans in other countries are only available with auto trans in this country.



pen said:


> ... my beloved '96 f-150 (manual trans)


 


mikefrommaine said:


> If you want a manual don't cave and get an auto. I did on my last truck and have regretted it ever since.


 


HittinSteel said:


> I understand where your coming from. I'd love to have a manual transmission truck. My current '02 Ram 1500 hunts all over the place when towing my camper/boat through the hills.


 


velvetfoot said:


> Not a truck owner here, but have driven stick all my life.


 
Yep... seems there are plenty of people who prefer to buy manual!


----------



## Highbeam

Diesel 2500 or 3500 are not mostly commercial owners. They are bozos like me that need a truck that is up to the task of hauling/towing but want the high mpg of a diesel.

I would have preferred a manual but I found a good truck with an auto, the auto trans as Ford built it was a pain. I added a performance tune and what I noticed even more than the added power was the much much better way that the transmission shifted and acted. The tune that I added is actually selectable between tow/daily driver/performance and each setting has very different shifting strategies.

A properly programmed modern automatic trans is lots of fun to drive. I no longer miss the manual. Now in a car or motorcycle, it is totally different. I like to choose gears in those lighter vehicles.

So yeah, truck transmissions will be auto from now on. It's about time. Soon will be OTR trucks and dump trucks. They are out there, just gaining acceptance.


----------



## BoilerMan

MasterMech said:


> While a manual trans is fun and I grew up driving lots of manual trans work trucks, there is good reason they've gone auto. (cost of ownership/repair, frequency of service, etc.) Even in the 3/4 ton+ camp, the autos have gotten MUCH beefier and more versatile. Even the old 3 speed auto in my C3500 is a fantastic "working" transmission. The Allison transmissions that sit behind GM's big engine options (3/4 ton+) pretty much sqashed any claims of superior durability of the 6 speed.
> 
> If you haven't tried a pickup with an auto trans since '95, I say take a second look. The new 6 and 7 speed transmissions are just as versatile/strong as your manual box and nearly as obediant.


 
As a fellow master mechanic I respectifully disagree. I've seen _*plenty*_ of Allison (just another GM company) come apart. Granted most were used for plowing, but a manual is still hard to beat as the clutch takes most of the abuse. A properly driven, and _few people know how to properly shift and drive_manual is so simple and for the most part very robust is a small package. That few manuals I've seen fail were from driver abuse, like keeping your hand on the shifter while crusing in 5th, hopping the clutch on a regular basis, or the teenage girl who can't keep her foot off the clutch and the discolored flywheel/pressure plate to show it.
The newer 6+ speeds do work well for HD applicationas, but the planatary gearsets are multiple and the overall transmission is far more complicated making them (from past expierence) more prone to failure and misdiagnosis from ill equiped mechanics. Don't get me wrong, I love EFI (more complex) and other complex systems, but a direct mechanical drive _will always _be superior from an overall efficiency and reliability stsndpoint, at least in my book.


peakbagger said:


> Sticks are usually more difficult to certify for emissions than autos plus the manufacturer has to certify both versions.


 
You hit the nail on the head here. Manual trans equipped vehicles can be lugged and clean conbustion doesn't happen at low RPM and high load situations. Plus people are lazy and want to eat their BigMack while driving w/o getting that special sacue all over everything.  Why do you think we have electronic throttle bodies?  The more direct control the ECU (computer) has over the whole car and now you are a secondary input, the better the emmissions can be made under different torque and HP requirements.   

There is a reason we still call them slushboxes!

TS


----------



## Todd 2

Got my new subaru in late 2011 had been on the lot for close to 9 months cause it was a stick. The deal was so good I I bought it, sorta fun to drive and pulls light boats and my small trailer around alot better than the auto subaru I traded in. I also like the control in the winter time better than the auto, Carroll County, Ohio is like part of northern WV for hill terrain.


----------



## bioman

I really miss my 57 GMC with the 4 speed  3/4 ton, they built some heavy duty trucks back then.


----------



## velvetfoot

Again, not a truck owner, but I put bigger injectors and revised programming in my 2000 VW TDI Beetle and the clutch started slipping.  Had to put in a heavier duty clutch from a VR6.  Just saying the clutch could be a problem when modifying.


----------



## jeff_t

The biggest plus I see is that my wife won't drive it 

The only reason my car has a manual is because that is the deal I found. I spend waaay too much time shifting gears, doing a lot of city driving in a truck. 

I never thought about the EPA aspect of it. I thought people were just getting lazier.


----------



## jharkin

I know what you mean Joful... Sadly manuals never where as popular here as the rest of the world.  The push for better fuel economy is probably going to kill them off altogether in everything but niche sports cars eventually. CVTs is where the future is most likely. 

Its a sign of the time when BMW sells more automatic 3 series than manuals, Infinity retired its last manual (bye bye G37) and even Porsche's can be bought with slushboxes.

My entire family pretty much drove nothing but manuals all my life. I learned to drive on a manual. but now Im the last one still driving one, holding on to my acura coupe as long as I can.  Probably going to be gone by next year, we need a usable backseat for the kids and my wife cant drive a stick 




BoilerMan said:


> Why do you think we have electronic throttle bodies?


 
Electronic throttle by wire became universal when the the safety regs mandated electronic stability control in all vehicles. I suspect they discovered softening the throttle response for economy as a happy  side effect.


----------



## Ashful

jharkin said:


> Its a sign of the time when BMW sells more automatic 3 series than manuals, Infinity retired its last manual (bye bye G37) and even Porsche's can be bought with slushboxes.



Yep... went to look at 328i's before we bought our 2010 Volvo, and all the dealer stocked was auto or paddle shift manual valve body (can't remember BMWs clever name for it... "Tiptronic"?)

My mom owned a Porsche 944 with auto trans in the 1980's, so nothing new there.



jharkin said:


> ... and my wife cant drive a stick



I was in the same situation a few years ago, trying to convince my wife to learn, for about six years, without success.  Two of her girlfriends, who had both recently learned by just buying a manual and thus forcing themselves, finally convinced her to consider it.  Before she had a chance to change her mind, I sold her car with auto, and bought her an Audi 3 2.0T with manual.  She hated me for the first two weeks, but then she caught onto it.  By week 4 she was in love with it, and had made up her mind that she will never buy another auto.



jharkin said:


> I suspect they discovered softening the throttle response for economy as a happy  side effect.



Yikes... never thought of that!


----------



## jharkin

Joful said:


> I was in the same situation a few years ago, trying to convince my wife to learn, for about six years, without success. Two of her girlfriends, who had both recently learned by just buying a manual and thus forcing themselves, finally convinced her to consider it. Before she had a chance to change her mind, I sold her car with auto, and bought her an Audi 3 2.0T with manual. She hated me for the first two weeks, but then she caught onto it. By week 4 she was in love with it, and had made up her mind that she will never buy another auto.


 
I've tried, even took her out to a parking lot to learn a couple times before the kids where born. She actually did ok, but just doesnt like it.  What we are probabyl going to do is get the new Accord V6.  280hp has a way of softening the blow of loosing the manual, and damn that thing is comfy.  It would make a great reliable road trip car.

When the kids are a bit older and my wife goes back to work I'll pick up a "dad's weekend car".... always wanted a roadster. Maybe the 2.2 S2k or a NB/early NC  Miata.  Something cheap, light, well balanced and stick shift.


----------



## charly

Funny, I bought my Dodge cummins diesel in at 100,000 miles to have the valves adjusted at a friends diesel shop... When I called to pick it up he wanted top know if I wanted to sell the truck as he had someone who wanted it... He said I had bought a special ordered vehicle when I purchased it used.. 1 ton, 5 speed standard , and single wheels in the rear.. Well I have to say it took me about a year to find a standard Diesel locally... This is a late model 2004... At one point we had 3 standard vehicles,  97 dodge pickup, my diesel dodge, and a 98 VW beetle diesel... The wife could drive them all.. Now she drives an Automatic 03 Subaru..   She use to drive an old boyfriends standard 66 Chevelle big block.. I love the standards,, I've never had to put a clutch in anything I ever owned...97 dodge and 98 beetle both had over 150,000 miles..when we got rid of them...Dodge Cummins is getting some cancer under the door on the cab, but for what a new truck costs, I think I'll have new metal put in...


----------



## simple.serf

I had to do some digging for my truck. I traded a 01 f150 (manual, but kept blowing up the front axle when I really needed it) for another ranger (my 3rd) with a manual and 4.10 gearing.  Damn ranger can tow more than my 150.

Anyhow, in my search, I was only able to find 3 manual trucks at all. I will only drive a manual in a personal vehicle. First of all, Ford autos suck. Period. Especially if you use the truck as a truck. My personal experience has been that  I need a clutch after 70-100K miles. I will need an auto at 40, 80, and 120 k miles. Clutch kit is cheap, whole new auto trans isn't.

I spoke with 3 dealers for new trucks, and was told that you can't get a manual in a Ford (truck) anymore. From a F150 to a F550. About the only one that is still offering them Is Dodge (IMHO, the ONLY good thing about their trucks is the Cummins...2 year old Dodge trucks are rotting out from road salt around here).

I made up my mind that when this truck is gone, I'm just going to replace it with something from Government Liquidation.  Bobbed deuce as a daily driver anyone?


----------



## Bigg_Redd

Must you buy a new truck?  If it's not a primary vehicle and racking up less than 5000 miles per year, just buy used.


----------



## higginscl

Joful said:


> As my Dodge 1500 approaches the decade mark, it's time to start looking and thinking about what I'm going to replace it with. It's a pretty basic Quad Cab 4x4 1500 SLT... with one less common feature: manual 6-speed transmission.
> 
> I hate, (hate, (hate())) driving automatic transmission vehicles, particularly in any kind of bad weather. I've acquiesced on this a few times, and have regretted every moment of owning each of my automatic transmission vehicles. This hatred of the automatic transmission (possible bane of our society!) is actually what forced me to switch to Dodge in 2005, when I was trading in my '95 Chevy 1500 4x4 Laramie, also with manual transmission. Chevy had stopped offering manual transmission in 4x4 1500's years earlier.
> 
> Unfortunately, I see that none of the American pickup truck manufacturers offer a manual transmission in a 1/2 ton these days. I figured it was finally time to switch over to Toyota, based on this, but I see they've stopped offering manual as well! Seems the only real option left for manual transmission is a Dodge 2500 or a Ford 250 both in diesel.
> 
> I'm forever up against the weight limit on my 1/2 ton trucks, so I could argue myself into justifying a 3/4 ton chassis, but driving barely 5000 miles per year... I cannot really justify the added cost of going diesel ($8000 on the Dodge). I priced the Dodge SLT with manual at $47,000 MSRP.  I paid $26k for my current Dodge, and less for the Chevy.
> 
> I have an office job, so I don't use it for work, but I spend my evenings and weekends playing carpenter / logger / mason / plumber / electrician. I use my 1/2 ton trucks pretty hard, hauling heavy loads of wood and construction materials in the bed, and often pulling various trailers. I have considered going the SUV + trailer route, but it just seems so much less... convenient. Also, you get no respect at the building supply places when you show up in an SUV.  Also, I like to rent a heavier tandem axle for hauling wood, and take the trailer off-road into the wood lot... no good with a 3500 lb. SUV.
> 
> Options? I had really planned to keep the next truck purchase closer to $30k, and I just don't see a manual transmission option out there in that price range. If I try to justify the added cost of the 2500 based on wood hauling (the activity where I hit the weight limit most frequently), I'm bound to be reminded that we're doing all this work of heating with wood to save money, "right?"


 
I am with you on this one. I just went to the Chevy website to try to build one and they dont even offer the manual trans on half tons. My thought is that people are getting lazy and want the car or truck to drive for them.


----------



## Ashful

Bigg_Redd said:


> Must you buy a new truck? If it's not a primary vehicle and racking up less than 5000 miles per year, just buy used.


 

It's my primary vehicle, but I work very close to home. My current truck probably has more miles on it hauling firewood and construction materials, than hauling my ass to work and back.

After seeing the price for what I want, I may indeed go used. Or, just keep my truck for hauling stuff, and buy a new sedan for my daily driver. I don't really like having another vehicle to insure / inspect / maintain, though. Also, these Dodge's don't have a great record of holding up well, sitting outside. Most of my vintage are rusted out at the fenders and door corners.


----------



## Grisu

Joful said:


> It's my primary vehicle, but I work very close to home...  and buy a new sedan for my daily driver.


 
Why not buy a bike?


----------



## Ashful

Grisu said:


> Why not buy a bike?



Brilliant response to a thread about replacing a truck.  If you must know, a bike is no good for dropping two kids off at school each morning.  Aside from that, most of the roads from here to there are narrow windy roads with no shoulders or obeyed speed limits.  I feel sorry for the few idiots I encounter on bikes, when I'm tailing some maniac in a pickup truck doing 50 mph around a blind curve.  

We have a name for cyclists around here:  "future paraplegics."

That, and I can't show up at work sweaty, dirty, or late.


----------



## mikefrommaine

Joful said:


> Brilliant response to a thread about replacing a truck. If you must know, a bike is no good for dropping two kids off at school each morning. Aside from that, most of the roads from here to there are narrow windy roads with no shoulders or obeyed speed limits. I feel sorry for the few idiots I encounter on bikes, when I'm tailing some maniac in a pickup truck doing 50 mph around a blind curve.
> 
> We have a name for cyclists around here: "future paraplegics."
> 
> That, and I can't show up at work sweaty, dirty, or late.


Kids should fit fine. And you could probably haul home some wood while you are at it.


----------



## KarlP

Joful said:


> I hate, (hate, (hate())) driving automatic transmission vehicles, particularly in any kind of bad weather.


 
I suspect this part is what you are used to more than anything else.  I learned to drive in a small front wheel drive automatic without antilock brakes, so that is the kind of vehicle I was most comfortable driving in the snow.  I eventually adjusted. 

Is it possible you just need to learn how to drive an auto instead of ignoring it.    If you take it easy on the gas it isn't going to surprise you with a downshift. If you want to downshift floor it.  You do know you aren't going to hurt an automatic by shifting it on the fly, right?  I've been shifting my autos for drag downhill, more control in the snow, more power before passing, more power on entrance ramps when towing, etc for decades.  I've once encountered a manual driving passenger who don't know you can shift an auto to anything but D and freak out when I did it.  

If you put it in L, it is stuck in first.  If you put it in 2, it is stuck in 2.  If you put it in 3, then 4, 5, and 6 are locked out.  If you put it in 4 then 5 and 6 are locked out.  It doesn't give you quite as much flexibility as a manual, but its good enough IMO. 

If you can't find the manual you want, you might  also want to try different brand autos.  You might find some less offensive than others.  I don't like Honda automatics.  The shift points are all wrong and the lockout to keep it from upshifting when going uphill is far to aggressive for me. Lots of people love them.


----------



## MasterMech

Joful said:


> I can't argue anything you said, MasterMech. However, you're ignoring two factors:
> 
> 1. I enjoy driving manual, and I don't like driving auto. This is amplified in bad weather, and even applies to the well-behaved 7G-Tronic automatic in the Mercedes. I just don't like it.
> 
> 2. I usually save $2000 by going manual. Every car I've ever purchased has been $1800 - $2400 more for automatic.


I'm not ignoring your enjoyment of driving a stick.  I'm the same way.  However, Until they figure out how to get a wet clutch in a pickup, I will prefer the auto options for late model 1/2 thru 1 tons. Especially if that truck will do any heavy towing. Your primary objection to an auto was drivability. My point was that pickup autos have come a LONG way in that department in 10 years.  As far as the money goes..... You'd save more by keeping your current truck. 

You guys that love the stick in your car, I'm with you.  They are fun, enhance power, and are pretty dang reliable with a skilled driver.  But we're talking about 6000lb vehicles that tow/haul twice their weight or more. That's pretty rough on something like a clutch.



> Reliability and dealer support more important than cost, to a point. I am looking for a truck that never requires an unscheduled trip to the shop.



When you find it, let me know.


----------



## MasterMech

Highbeam said:


> A properly programmed modern automatic trans is lots of fun to drive. I no longer miss the manual. Now in a car or motorcycle, it is totally different. I like to choose gears in those lighter vehicles. So yeah, truck transmissions will be auto from now on. It's about time. Soon will be OTR trucks and dump trucks. They are out there, just gaining acceptance.


 
There is the key.  Transmissions seem setup to maximize MPG in a controlled test environment , optimized to one specific test rather than real world efficiency.

My Canyon is case in point of manufacturer stupidity when programming/gearing an automatic transmission in a truck.

It has the same 4L60E that GM put in every other RWD truck or SUV of with 1/2 ton capability.  Fine, they already buy/manufacture the damn things by the thousands and it's a proven reliable unit.  But they forgot one important detail.  It usually has a small V8 (5.0 to 5.7L) or at least a big torquey V6 (4.3L) in front of it.  When they put the 3.5L inline five in front of it, they left the V8 program!  It continuously tries to run the motor at 1500 rpm (torque peak is 2400)  and it refuses to downshift unless I pin it on the rug.  It will unlock the converter quite readily but that's not the same thing.  You have to exceed 70 MPH on the highway in THIRD gear (direct 1:1 output) to get it cruising anywhere near the torque peak.  So long as I leave it in 3rd, it tows/hauls or drives through the twisties/hills just fine.  Put it in 4th and it's mushy, unresponsive and just plain weak.  Cruise is worse, set the CC and leave it in 4th, (D), and it will lug until it's losing speed quite rapidy, downshift to 2ND () and race back to the set speed, settling into 4th again. WTH? The truck is screaming for a 5 or 6 speed auto gearbox (manual trans reduces the tow rating, )  or at the very least, intelligent programming.


----------



## BoilerMan

jharkin said:


> I know what you mean Joful... Sadly manuals never where as popular here as the rest of the world. The push for better fuel economy is probably going to kill them off altogether in everything but niche sports cars eventually. CVTs is where the future is most likely.
> 
> Its a sign of the time when BMW sells more automatic 3 series than manuals, Infinity retired its last manual (bye bye G37) and even Porsche's can be bought with slushboxes.


 
It is still my observation that an automatic can NEVER reach the real economy of a manual. Case in point, an automatic or CVT for that matter is hydraulically controlled (electronically valved) so there is an oil pump which needs to genarate pressure for things to work. A manual needs no parasitic oil pump and is strictly mechanical in nature, engine......clutch......greasets......axle/diff......wheels.

Now with that said, there are Autos which get the same or better fuel economy as manuals. This is due to the higher gearing of the top gear in autos. I believe this is due to the general public's stupidity.

Two identically engined trucks, one auto, one manual, both 5 speed for our illistration. Auto truck in 5th with torque converter locked up tachs 2,000 RPM at 65mph. Manual truck tachs 2,300 RPM in 5th at 65. Why? People say while towing a 10,000 lb. trailer "this dang truck won't take a good hill in 5th" in thir manual so the manufacturer makes 5th with a little lower overall gear ratio (engine: wheel overall). The auto equiped truch can simple downshift effortlessly while taking the same hill with the same trailer and the torque multiplication of the converter adds to the hill climb.

Basically the majority of people who drive a manual get it up in 5th (or top gear) and leave it there as long as they can matt it and it will climb a hill. This is DUMB! If we all drove correctly and had gearing that was matched for the conditions and were not too lazy to downshift when we needed to a manual, we'd have manuals with higher top gears and we'd get better mileage than autos with the same gearing.

Most of my friends have manual trucks and lug the heck out of them, 4th or 5th in town and leave it taching 1,200 RPM up a hill to get a nice note out of the exhaust . Oh and they take off in 2nd most of the time in their 3/4 and 1ton trucks " 'cause 1st is too low". It is made to tow and 1st won't slip the clutch as much from starting out. But alas, I drive "my way" and they theirs....

TS


----------



## Ashful

BoilerMan said:


> It is still my observation that an automatic can NEVER reach the real economy of a manual.


 
Operative word being "real".  An auto can be programmed with better habits than the average driver.

When I got into drag racing for a period, and was building Camaro's and Mustang's with my buddies, I started getting into the habit of having cars tuned up on the dyno.  It always amazed me how much power an automatic transmission consumes, versus a manual.  However, as MasterMech already stated, it was hard to put a manual trans with a clutch behind most big blocks turning 500+ hp and torque.


----------



## Blazin

With only 60k miles on your current truck, I'd suggest keeping it and repairing anything that's wrong with it.

The Chevy 1 Ton van I drive for work has a 6.0L engine with a 4L60 auto trans.  The van has over 400k miles, with a new engine at 250k and trans at 245k miles.  I typically have the GVW right up to the 10k limit and my average on road speed is 75mph.  It also just recently required the entire steering setup to be rebuilt, at almost 400k miles!    Other than that and normal wear and tear nothing else major has had to be replaced.

If you absolutely want a new truck, from what I've read here, you probably need a 3/4 ton.  The only one I have experience with is a 2002 Chevy Duramax with the Allison trans.  There was an issue with the injectors needing replaced, but the Allison never failed to perform.  It's nicest feature, IMHO, is the trans brake to control your speed on downhill grades.  Just tap the brake when you reach the speed you want to descend at, and it stays there until you either brake or accelerate.


----------



## Ashful

Blazin said:


> It's nicest feature, IMHO, is the trans brake to control your speed on downhill grades. Just tap the brake when you reach the speed you want to descend at, and it stays there until you either brake or accelerate.


 

Wow... didn't know any auto trucks had such features.  That's one of the things I'd miss most about losing the manual, as I'm always using it to control my speed when descending hills in bad weather.  Actually, come to think of it, I pretty much use the manual gear selection to control my speed _all _of the time, selecting my top gear based on the speed limit (or my interpretation thereof...).

Yes, I know you can manually shift an auto.  I used to race manual valve body transmission cars, which are automatic transmissions with the valve body re-arranged to not shift automatically.  The trouble is the user interface, a stick control without proper gating, such that it's too easy to over-shoot your desired gear setting.  This is why KarlP's passenger freaked out, not because someone isn't aware that you can manually shift an auto trans.  When I drove manual valve bodies, I always had a Pro Stick or Quarter Stick with reverse lock-out, or at least a ratchet shifter.

The manual valve body cars were fun to drive on the road, but not as fun as having a clutch.  They could be scary in bad weather, but that had more to do with how they were set up (felt like a swift kick in the a$$ each time you'd grab the next gear), than anything else.


----------



## lukem

Joful said:


> The trouble is the user interface, a stick control without proper gating


 
The new fords have a rocker switch on the gear selector + and - to change gears.  Pretty sweet for towing.


----------



## Ashful

Okay, guys... I'm coming around a bit on the auto trans. I won't be taking the plunge until 2015, when my truck officially hits 10 years old, but I like to do a little research and shopping around each time. I have been getting into the idea of stepping up to 3/4 ton. I am so frequently limited by the 1/2 ton limit on my truck.

For those who know the biz better than me... when's the best time of year to buy? I purchased the current truck in October, since they were running some pretty aggressive sales to clear out the prior model year. It seemed like a good time to get the lowest quoted price, but then I think they just offer less on your trade-in at that time of year, to compensate for the lower prices.

Current truck is 8 years old at 61k miles. At time of trade will be 10 years old with 71k miles. Edmunds puts an '03 Dodge 1500 SLT 4x4 with 71k miles at $9.5k trade-in, and I usually pay cash for my new vehicles, unless there's some huge incentive to finance part of it.

Yep... I could just keep the current truck longer, but ten years is long enough to rely on one vehicle, IMO...


----------



## Highbeam

lukem said:


> The new fords have a rocker switch on the gear selector + and - to change gears. Pretty sweet for towing.


 
The allison autos in the chevys have had this for several years as well. The +/- gear selector might be on the steering wheel, can't remember.


----------



## lukem

Highbeam said:


> The allison autos in the chevys have had this for several years as well. The +/- gear selector might be on the steering wheel, can't remember.


 

Yes, the GM's have had this for a while, but Ford is the only one, to my knowledge, that has this in a half-ton package.


----------



## mikefrommaine

Joful said:


> Okay, guys... I'm coming around a bit on the auto trans.


 

Don't do it!   When you go around a corner and push the gas and nothing happens because something just let go in your auto you can kiss 1500 goodbye.

Personally I would never give up the simplicity and reliability of a 60k manual truck. People can claim the new automatic trucks are reliable but until they have a proven history of going 150k+  mile of being used as a truck and not a fancy station wagon I won't believe any of the claims. 

My 1 ton truck is proof they aren't reliable. I've yet to go 60k miles without a major failure.  The only reason I keep it is everything else has been bullet proof.  When it caught on fire (from trans fluid spraying onto the cat) my first thought was to get the kid out of the back seat. Then I was thinking well at least I'll be able to get a new truck.  And then the guy in the tractor at the land fill came running with the biggest  fire extinguisher I ever saw.  Took the whole can to put the fire out.


----------



## MasterMech

Joful said:


> Wow... didn't know any auto trucks had such features. That's one of the things I'd miss most about losing the manual, as I'm always using it to control my speed when descending hills in bad weather.


 
It's absolutely amazing the first few times you go to decelerate for say, a freeway exit and the truck starts downshifting and engine braking all by itself. And it's a much more firm braking than what you'd expect from an auto. Got any buddies with a 3/4 ton diesel? Load it up or hook it up and go for a ride.

If you do whip out the birthday money and spring for diesel power, an exhaust brake will just be one more toy that makes you smile. Usually it's an aftermarket item but some 1 ton duallys were offering them from the factory not too long ago.

My first exposure to diesel capability was a reg cab '97 F350 4x4 SRW 7.3L (edit: Yes, it was a stick!) with a Gale Banks kit and an exhaust brake. Those of you that know, ..... know.


----------



## NE WOOD BURNER

You are not alone in this quest. I believe the market is what is dictating the the disappearance of the manual transmission. That and computer controls taking over for driver input.

I have always bought my trucks used. standard 3/4 tons and up are easily fixed used and then flipped for cash. now its hard to find most are automatics with bad transmissions or lack of records to verify the use. Mileage has never been a factor for me as long as frame and cab where solid.
If you pay to have your work performed economics of your trade value is a critical concern. Your truck will go many more miles but what will it be worth at the end? It is my understanding that a standard transmission can be special ordered from Ford but with a price tag. sort of like trying to get a truck with crank up windows. you pay more for less convenience now.
Im with Mike on this one though I would hold tight to the one you have and drive it till it cant be driven any more. Im at 230,000 on an expedition auto trans@200,000 , 250000 on a chevy original 5.3l an 4l60e,220,000 on a firebird original engine and transmission700r4. but sure would rather have my 4 gear 79 chevy or my 75 f250 4 gear back.

I also figure in my insurance savings in my own economics. save bundles with older cars and trucks.


----------



## gzecc

I would venture to say that 95% of drivers under the age of 40 can not, and have no interest in learning to drive a clutch.


----------



## Highbeam

gzecc said:


> I would venture to say that 95% of drivers under the age of 40 can not, and have no interest in learning to drive a clutch.


 
I am under 40 and pretty much agree, at least the trend is strong enough to recognize and be sure that you know it is less likely that your manual trans truck will be stolen by some punk kids. Also, those same kids won't be buying your used truck so resale value is lower.

Parking brakes are important on a manual trans truck. When I'm towing heavy and I need to stop, I like to know that the "park" setting will keep my truck from rolling away instead of depending on an often non-functional parking brake.


----------



## begreen

Prolly true though my son is now learning to drive and wants to learn stick.


----------



## mikefrommaine

gzecc said:


> I would venture to say that 95% of drivers under the age of 40 can not, and have no interest in learning to drive a clutch.


 
Their is a few of us left 

Good luck finding someone under 40 that knows the shift pattern of a 3 speed on the column.  It would be funny trying to see some punk steal one of those though.


----------



## mikefrommaine

I wouldn't think there is much that would go wrong on a 60k mile truck that would leave you stranded that couldn't also happen to a newer vehicle, if that is the concern. Aside from maybe the fuel pump or starter there are very few things that leave you stranded without a warning sign. You could replace those things and have new tires for a fraction of the cost  of a new truck.

I fully expect to drive my truck to 200k miles or more. When it is completely rusted I will send it back to china. (And be looking for a truck like Joful is thinking about selling)

I actually thought about selling my truck a few years ago but for what new or nearly new trucks were going for it made no sense financially.


----------



## lukem

gzecc said:


> I would venture to say that 95% of drivers under the age of 40 can not, and have no interest in learning to drive a clutch.


 

I guess I'm a 5 percenter...

I think that varies a lot by geography.  Farm kids vs. suburb kids.


----------



## simple.serf

lukem said:


> I guess I'm a 5 percenter...
> 
> I think that varies a lot by geography. Farm kids vs. suburb kids.


 

Bingo.

And can I just say that the manuals hold up better to abuse than the autos do. So long as you get the clutch up quick and match RPMs, they seem to hold up. The autos start to smoke and puke trans fluid from the dipstick half way home. I'd be willing to bet that the wiring harnesses on the new autos wouldn't hold up so well to some of the logging roads I find myself on.


----------



## MasterMech

gzecc said:


> I would venture to say that 95% of drivers under the age of 40 can not, and have no interest in learning to drive a clutch.


I'm 30 and can drive anything with wheels and most things without.  I learned on vehicles that did not have synchros or the letter D in the shift pattern.  Split rears and sliding gears every day.  Every summer kid we get on the golf course gets a free education on stick shifts since we have a couple utility vehicles that have three pedals.

If you are looking for kids that drive stick, there are whole bunch of them running around in front wheel drive four bangers making a bunch of noise.


----------



## Ashful

lukem said:


> I think that varies a lot by geography. Farm kids vs. suburb kids.


 

Suburb kids around here, and I cannot think of too many who cannot drive stick. Whether you owned a crappy Honda Civic, or an old CJ Jeep, they were all manual.

I've met several girls who somehow avoided driving stick, but not too many guys.


----------



## Ashful

mikefrommaine said:


> I fully expect to drive my truck to 200k miles or more. When it is completely rusted I will send it back to china. (And be looking for a truck like Joful is thinking about selling).



Not if I end up keeping it!


----------



## NE WOOD BURNER

I would keep it!
The devil you know is always better.
The cummins power with with the 6spd is a sweet truck. but wow what a price.
Look this fall at the new 1/2 ton dodge with the smaller diesel suppose to be nice and early talks say they where going to have a standard available. Fall 2013 was the target date. But only time will tell.
http://blog.bushwacker.com/5228/news/2014-dodge-ram-1500-diesel/


----------



## Ashful

Cool!  For me, diesel would actually be a detriment, but one I'd deal with for the sake of getting a manual trans.  Diesel is great if you want to put more than 100k miles on a truck, and drive enough per year to make the mileage gains pay off the initial cost.  For someone who's truck sits out in the cold, driving less than 5000 miles per year, who likes to trade in vehicles long before they hit 100k miles, and doesn't want to be forced to the one gas station in town that actually carries diesel, paying the ~$8k up-charge for diesel is not exactly a great investment!  Then again... no new vehicle is a good investment.


----------



## clemsonfor

MasterMech said:


> I'm 30 and can drive anything with wheels and most things without. I learned on vehicles that did not have synchros or the letter D in the shift pattern. Split rears and sliding gears every day. Every summer kid we get on the golf course gets a free education on stick shifts since we have a couple utility vehicles that have three pedals.
> 
> If you are looking for kids that drive stick, there are whole bunch of them running around in front wheel drive four bangers making a bunch of noise.


 I thought that was the thing to do in the 90s and early 00s? Been a long time since i lived in a city with "those" kind of folks but i too am 31 (your age) and i remember that was the thing when i was in Highschool and college but dont see it amymore?  I just see the "box chevies" and now the more curvy chevy caprices from the late 90s that are jacked up and on  26"s.

I can drive a stick as well and like driving one.

Would i buy a new truck if i were to buy new... in one, probably not. DO i like having an old truck in one...yes.  Sticks are a pain more so in traffic, i dont live in an area with it but do go to one sometimes in mine. There more of a pain to get rolling on a hill, like at a boat ramp. And yes i can move from brake to gas without rolling all the way into the water, and i also know the park brake trick etc. My daily drive truck for years was a 4cy ranger, and i still have that truck and load it up crazy with wood and haul it loaded and a loaded 4x8 trailer with wood as well, and thats all that motor can handle. I dont think i would load it as heavy with wood as old as it is if it were an autothough.


----------



## NE WOOD BURNER

yes, diesel upgrade is expensive. Hard to justify for situation. But a cummins 2500 with a 6spd manual I bet you would keep for a long time. Cummins will start in the cold. and resale with your mileage would be close to new price. they are getting crazy money for used cummins.

the post on the 1/2 ton diesel was just a fyi. They will most likely not offer in a standard like they always do to us. 8spd auto transmission is what that article spoke of. who knows.

My buddy is welding his f150 frame just to keep his standard. I told him to run it and find a clean used truck even if only an auto. then we could swap his standard into his newer truck.


----------



## clemsonfor

GET a new car and keep your truck problem solved. You will be driving that truck 20 years from now with probably little trouble.  My ranger has just a few thousand miles shy of 300,000 and is 23 years old this year. I will get in it and drive it on a 6 hour round trip, i have AC and dont worry about it. Knock on my firewood pile i dont think it has left me once in 11+ years or so of owining it, never failed to start once.

Now i have put work into it, but nothing major.  List of things i can think of since i owned it in the last 11 years or145Kmiles or so.
-new radiator (old plastic tanks leaked)
-new alternator
-battery (2)
-water pump (2x with each timing belt)
-timing belt (twice..Maintence it did not break)
-spark plugs ( at least 3 sets)
-starter
-radius arm bushings
-muffer (2x)
-tailpipe(2x)
-brakes (front 2x, rotors once and shoes once)
-wheel cyls
-one caliper
-exhaust manifold
-all new AC system
-fan and clutch (cooling)
-ac condensor
- a pile of oil and changes
-heater hoses
-water hoses
-spark plug wires
-bypassed the rear abs solonoid as it was stopped up with junk
-some brake line for above fix
-think i put a new master cyl on it but not sure (brake)
-new U-joints
-several sets of tires


I think that is an inclusive list  I did all the work myself and buy the parts with online deals or coupons as good as i can get them. AC work yes was done by me including freon work ( i own a machine.. which i know few folks even would).

May seem long but keep in mind the truck was over 10 years when i got it and have had it for over 11 years and all of it was not done at once. I bet i spent less on this repair list that you did in 1 year of truck payments...oh yea i know i did.


----------



## joecool85

KarlP said:


> I suspect this part is what you are used to more than anything else. I learned to drive in a small front wheel drive automatic without antilock brakes, so that is the kind of vehicle I was most comfortable driving in the snow. I eventually adjusted.
> 
> Is it possible you just need to learn how to drive an auto instead of ignoring it.  If you take it easy on the gas it isn't going to surprise you with a downshift. If you want to downshift floor it. You do know you aren't going to hurt an automatic by shifting it on the fly, right? I've been shifting my autos for drag downhill, more control in the snow, more power before passing, more power on entrance ramps when towing, etc for decades. I've once encountered a manual driving passenger who don't know you can shift an auto to anything but D and freak out when I did it.
> 
> If you put it in L, it is stuck in first. If you put it in 2, it is stuck in 2. If you put it in 3, then 4, 5, and 6 are locked out. If you put it in 4 then 5 and 6 are locked out. It doesn't give you quite as much flexibility as a manual, but its good enough IMO.
> 
> If you can't find the manual you want, you might also want to try different brand autos. You might find some less offensive than others. I don't like Honda automatics. The shift points are all wrong and the lockout to keep it from upshifting when going uphill is far to aggressive for me. Lots of people love them.


 
It's not the shifting for me so much as lack of clutch. I like being able to instantly cut power to the wheels, or when being in a sticky situation being able to control exactly how much torque is going to the wheels. I also like that when I'm going down a steep snow covered driveway and need to stop I can keep the clutch engaged until I am only rolling 1-2mph then put the clutch in and come to a complete stop. This keeps the wheels from locking since they are still engaged to the engine. In an automatic it will lock the wheels because there is very little traction and the transmission slips thinking you are coming to a stop. I need a manual clutch more than the shifter.

**EDIT**
I should note that I'm 28 and have never owned an automatic. I've had my license since I was 16, so 12 years. I've had in order:

1994 Mercury Tracer (2001-2003)
1994 Jeep Cherokee (2003-2005)
2001 Ford ZX2 (2005-2009) - only sold because I needed a truck
2000 Ford Ranger (2009 - current)

All were 5spd manual transmissions. The Ranger gets loaded regularly. A couple weeks ago I moved 2 cords of wood, moving 1/2 cord at a time. 1/4 cord in the bed, 1/4 cord in a small trailer. Wood was mostly fresh cut birch and maple. I'd estimate 2,000lbs per load or so including trailer weight and it was fine. Hill starts and all. If you can't keep your rig from rolling on a hill start, you probably should have an automatic. My truck never rolls more than 1/2" on most hills, 1" if I'm not paying attention. I've had someone measure 

I've also towed a 1968 Chevy 3/4 pickup on a dolly 5 miles with my Ranger.  In low range, down a sketchy dirt road in the snow no less.  That was interesting, but the manual trans really gave me the control I needed.


----------



## Ashful

clemsonfor said:


> ... I did all the work myself and buy the parts with online deals or coupons as good as i can get them.
> 
> May seem long but keep in mind the truck was over 10 years when i got it and have had it for over 11 years and all of it was not done at once. I bet i spent less on this repair list that you did in 1 year of truck payments...oh yea i know i did.


 

Well, I pay cash for my vehicles, so no car payment. I think too many people fail to understand that when they finance a vehicle, they're paying almost 50% more for the same car, than simply doing the saving BEFORE you buy. 

The flip side to that is, by sitting on cash right now, we're losing money! Banks are paying 0.7% on savings, while inflation is at 2.9%. Considering current inflation, and where it's expected to head (gotta pay off that national debt!), it might be an ideal time for buying a vehicle.

On doing all that maintenance, I used to do the same and more (building custom hotrods), when:

1. I was younger
2. Didn't have kids
3. Didn't have a large house / property to deal with

No time for repairing / playing with cars, these days.  I go from my job, to working on the house each evening, right now.  When that's done, it's time to spend an hour or two with my son or helping my wife with something.  Maybe when the son is older, repairing the truck is something we'll do together, but not at age 3.



joecool85 said:


> It's not the shifting for me so much as lack of clutch...


 

Amen, brother! Very well stated.


----------



## clemsonfor

The kid will come soon and thus necessitate more repairs and personal maintenance. He is due in the fall. But I am younger 30 and own a pretty big house but don't have money to do much updates etc to it. I have to cut wood mow lawn help with dinner
 Excersize a few times per week and I have a farm property too. I understand bout interest and latter remember u said u pay cash. I do as well too. But I don't have the money to pay for a newer vehicle nor pay someone to do my work.

Just what I do I guess it does not work for all.;


----------



## UMainah

lukem said:


> The new fords have a rocker switch on the gear selector + and - to change gears.  Pretty sweet for towing.





Highbeam said:


> The allison autos in the chevys have had this for several years as well. The +/- gear selector might be on the steering wheel, can't remember.





lukem said:


> Yes, the GM's have had this for a while, but Ford is the only one, to my knowledge, that has this in a half-ton package.


My 2010 Silverado 1500 with a 6speed auto has the rocker switch on the gear selector.


----------



## UMainah

lukem said:


> I guess I'm a 5 percenter...
> 
> I think that varies a lot by geography.  Farm kids vs. suburb kids.


I think it's more related to income level of a family, then geography.

I'm 26. I learned to drive and took my driver's test in a 96 Nissan Pathfinder manual trans. I saved up and bought my first car while in high school, an 89 Chevy s10 4 banger manual. While in college I bought a 97 Nissan Pickup manual. Then I got a 98 Land Rover Discovery, my first auto. After that I got my Silverado, my first vehicle that isn't a beater.


----------



## Ashful

clemsonfor said:


> The kid will come soon and thus necessitate more repairs and personal maintenance... Just what I do I guess it does not work for all.;


 

Congratulations!  I know I'm wasting my breath here, as much as all those who told me 4 years ago, but you have no idea the changes that are in store for you!  I used to get more done per week than I do per month, now!  If your wife works (mine does), your free time is about to evaporate.  You sound a lot like I was, always with a dozen projects going, and doing everything yourself.  I told myself it wouldn't change, but when you have a 3-year old saying, "Daddy, can you play with me?," your priorities will go out the window!



UMainah said:


> I think it's more related to income level of a family, then geography.


 

How so?  Poor = old Japanese cars with manual trans.  Rich = Porsche and BMW with manual trans.  Perhaps only the middle class are missing out?


----------



## blacktail

mikefrommaine said:


> Their is a few of us left.
> Good luck finding someone under 40 that knows the shift pattern of a 3 speed on the column.  It would be funny trying to see some punk steal one of those though.


 
I'm 34. When I was 16 I drove my uncle's late 60's ford across the pass. Straight six and a three speed on the column. I drove it over so he could keep it at his vacation cabin. It didn't go fast, but it made it. 
My commuter is a manual 4-speed and my truck's a 5-speed.


----------



## NE WOOD BURNER

I think most kids learn on whats available to them.
a yard full of cars growing up is the best. society only likes two now.
3spds on the tree. 4spds in trucks. 5and 2 in the bigger trucks. road ranger in the even bigger trucks.
If i wanted to go anywhere or not shovel snow learning standard was a neccessity.
I think it is the market that is demanding the automatic in the half ton market. It is a utilitarion vehicle that once replaced the station wagon. drive it to work. drive it at work. drive it in the woods. very useful for the homeowner. but now the speeds on the highways are very excessive try towing a trailer @ 55mph on any highway. the power in most engines are much more useful at any rpm now. the only real limiting factor in a half ton is Brakes. they are light for hauling. so we put brakes on the trailer and electronic automatics. problem solved.
if you drive 65-85 and drink coffee, smoke and talk on the cell phone. the automatic makes steering with the knees much easier-LOL


----------



## Ashful

NE WOOD BURNER said:


> if you drive 65-85 and drink coffee, smoke and talk on the cell phone. the automatic makes steering with the knees much easier-LOL


 
Hence this comment in the OP:



Joful said:


> ... automatic transmission (possible bane of our society!)...


----------



## NE WOOD BURNER

So out of curiosity I went to edmunds.com and search truck with manual. They all(even automatics) come up but the radio button on the selection says there are 15 available. shame even edmunds has falling for the marketing tactics of the internet.


----------



## joecool85

NE WOOD BURNER said:


> So out of curiosity I went to edmunds.com and search truck with manual. They all(even automatics) come up but the radio button on the selection says there are 15 available. shame even edmunds has falling for the marketing tactics of the internet.


 
Yeah there really aren't that many manuals left.  It does look like Jeep may release a small pickup based on the Wrangler.  It'll probably have a 5' or 6' bed, decent sized tires, tow rating in the 3,500-5,000 lb range and come with a manual.  If all those things are met, it may be my next truck.  Last I heard they were to be release in 2014 or 2015.


----------



## Ashful

joecool85 said:


> Yeah there really aren't that many manuals left. It does look like Jeep may release a small pickup based on the Wrangler. It'll probably have a 5' or 6' bed, decent sized tires, tow rating in the 3,500-5,000 lb range and come with a manual. If all those things are met, it may be my next truck. Last I heard they were to be release in 2014 or 2015.


 

Similar to the old CJ-8 Scrambler?  Owing to the OP... remember when all Jeeps had manual transmission?  I read they started offering 3-speed auto in the CJ-7, but I honestly never saw an automatic Jeep until the 1990's.


----------



## joecool85

Joful said:


> Similar to the old CJ-8 Scrambler? Owing to the OP... remember when all Jeeps had manual transmission? I read they started offering 3-speed auto in the CJ-7, but I honestly never saw an automatic Jeep until the 1990's.



Sounds like it will be very similar to the Scrambler.  I hope so, those were neat.  They also might be coming out with a smaller version of the Wrangler, more similar in size to the old Willys from the war days.

I hadn't seen an automatic Jeep (outside of a Grand Cherokee) until around 2000.  I know they existing before that, just not much around here in Maine.  I also hadn't seen (or even heard of) 2wd jeeps until a few years after that.  Not sure if it was just Cherokees but apparently they did make those in 2wd.  Why I'm not sure since mine was horrible in snow until 4wd was engaged.  Way too light for just rwd.


----------



## clemsonfor

probably similar to the jeep truck that looked like the cherokee up front and a truck in the back, isnt that what they looked like?  I do see and know what a scrambler was too.


----------



## joecool85

clemsonfor said:


> probably similar to the jeep truck that looked like the cherokee up front and a truck in the back, isnt that what they looked like? I do see and know what a scrambler was too.


 
That was a Comanche and was totally different from the Scrambler.  The Scrambler is basically a CJ (Wrangler) with a pickup bed.  The Comanche was a Cherokee with a bed.  The CJ/Wrangler is a body on frame and the Comanche/Cherokee are unibody construction.  I'd be willing to be they will stick with the Wrangler Unlimited as the base for this new rig so it will be body on frame like the ol' CJ-8 Scrambler.


----------



## clemsonfor

I know a cherokee is a unibody and that a cj/scrambler and the newer version of the wrangler TJ and Rj or whatever they call them are both frame on.  I wrote it all screwed up when i said it but did not feel like editing it. I said something like i "do know and have seen a scrambler and what they look like".

I guess they will use a jeep front, they no longer make a cherokee or grand do thye so they cant use those.


----------



## NE WOOD BURNER

http://www.quadratec.com/showcases/aev/brute/

Is this what you guys maybe thinking of?


----------



## joecool85

NE WOOD BURNER said:


> http://www.quadratec.com/showcases/aev/brute/
> 
> Is this what you guys maybe thinking of?


 
Nope, but those kits are sweet.  There are a few others floating around including one from Jeep called the JK-8.  What I am referencing will probably end up pretty similar to that kit, but be an OEM vehicle from Jeep rather than a kit.


----------



## NE WOOD BURNER

ah yes the jk8 is a mopar product that conveniently takes hold after the brute year 2006. interestingly enough the jk8 still is covered under warranty.

vehicles just cant keep up with our intense need for instant gratification. the mahindra diesel pickup I dont think ever made it to US soil. had a three year lead time.


----------



## joecool85

NE WOOD BURNER said:


> ah yes the jk8 is a mopar product that conveniently takes hold after the brute year 2006. interestingly enough the jk8 still is covered under warranty.
> 
> vehicles just cant keep up with our intense need for instant gratification. the mahindra diesel pickup I dont think ever made it to US soil. had a three year lead time.


 
Sure they could, if only they had kept making the Ford Ranger or brougtht the "New Ranger" over here I'd be happy.  Hell, if they just put a stick in the F150 I'd consider it even though it's way larger than I need.  Too bad about the Mahindra pickup btw, I was excited about that even though I'm normally a "buy American" kind of guy.


----------



## Highbeam

joecool85 said:


> That was a Comanche and was totally different from the Scrambler. The Scrambler is basically a CJ (Wrangler) with a pickup bed. The Comanche was a Cherokee with a bed. The CJ/Wrangler is a body on frame and the Comanche/Cherokee are unibody construction. I'd be willing to be they will stick with the Wrangler Unlimited as the base for this new rig so it will be body on frame like the ol' CJ-8 Scrambler.


 
Oh no, you're forgetting the full size cherokee and the full size j10, j20 and maybe even J30 trucks that Jeep and AMC made. Once upon a time, the cherokee was larger than the suburban. Pretty sure the jeep trucks were not unibody. I swapped an engine in one with a relative. It was a huge engine, maybe a 401?, but with a tiny two barrel motorcraft carburetor.


----------



## joecool85

Highbeam said:


> Oh no, you're forgetting the full size cherokee and the full size j10, j20 and maybe even J30 trucks that Jeep and AMC made. Once upon a time, the cherokee was larger than the suburban. Pretty sure the jeep trucks were not unibody. I swapped an engine in one with a relative. It was a huge engine, maybe a 401?, but with a tiny two barrel motorcraft carburetor.


 
Those cherokees were from 1974 to 1983, I was referencing the ones most people recognize now that were built from 1984 to 2001.


----------



## jharkin

mikefrommaine said:


> Their is a few of us left
> 
> Good luck finding someone under 40 that knows the shift pattern of a 3 speed on the column. It would be funny trying to see some punk steal one of those though.


 
Make that 3 of us. '55 Chevy 210, my friends Dad owned one (probably still does) when we where in High School. I got to drive it when I was 17 or 18. Looking back I'm suprised he let me, I got the hang of the shift pattern and double clutching it without too much trouble...

... but the 4 wheel drums almost got us all killed the first time I approached a stop sign 


EDIT, now that I think about it, the 210 had a synchro trans... I think it was the old truck they had I had to double clutch.


----------



## Ashful

Now... what I was really hoping to get from this thread was, "oh, here's where you can still buy a new pickup truck with a manual transmission for under $40k."


----------



## NE WOOD BURNER

Joful said:


> Now... what I was really hoping to get from this thread was, "oh, here's where you can still buy a new pickup truck with a manual transmission for under $40k."


 

yep! looks like you maybe SOL for a bit.

the wranglers are up at the price of a pickup. but they resell quick.

If one is not offered I think the aftermarket will fill the void. Chevys are easy to convert and many guys are familiar with the wiring. just not as easy as buying from factory.


----------



## joecool85

NE WOOD BURNER said:


> yep! looks like you maybe SOL for a bit.
> 
> the wranglers are up at the price of a pickup. but they resell quick.
> 
> If one is not offered I think the aftermarket will fill the void. Chevys are easy to convert and many guys are familiar with the wiring. just not as easy as buying from factory.


 
Are you saying Chevys are easy to convert to a stick?  If so, do you mean the half ton trucks like the Silverado?


----------



## NE WOOD BURNER

The chevy LS engine has a great following. Hot rodders love them.

the wiring I am sure has already been thought of at jegs or summit. As you can buy stand alone controllers for the engine or the auto transmissions. the nuts and bolts of the conversion would be simple.

1.flywheel
2.clutch- i would think along the lines of hydraulic for easier pedal placement.
3.transmission
4. cut hole in floor and build dog house.

If you can think it! You can build it! If you can build it most likely you can buy it from some where.

My main thought with a chevy was that a chevy W/T is cheapest. Chevy parts are generally cheaper than others.

I will look into a bit more and see what kind of a price it would be for the parts going all new. obviously a doner vehicle would make things cheaper but then you have used parts not new.


----------



## Ashful

For the record, last time I checked, if you order a Chevy W/T with the V6, _and_ standard cab, _and_ short bed, _and _vinyl seats_... _you can still get the manual trans.  Trouble is, I need a crew cab for the kiddos, and a v8 for hauling.


----------



## NE WOOD BURNER

https://www.drivetrain.com/parts_catalog/manual_transmission/nv4500_conversion_transmission.html

Here is the costly part!

yes Jotul for you it would be cost prohibitive. Off the dealer I believe you would have to jump up to a diesel dodge 3/4 ton. which brings you out of your 30,000 range.

I bet in time there will be companies doing a conversion if people are willing to buy into it. all new parts and labor I think the cost would push me to the cummins dodge upgrade to get the manual.

Its a fun discussion and I bet we will see some conversions happening in the future when folks have a bit more $$ to throw around.


----------



## Stelcom66

Interesting my search on manual transmissions in pickup trucks brought me to this site, where I'm a member. Don't know if the topic can still be active since it's almost 2 years old. I'd love to be able to find a full size 4x4 pickup truck with an 8' bed and manual transmission, a V6 would be fine. It would be great to find a pre '97 Ford F150 with the 5 speed manual and 300cid straight 6. Not sure why, I just like the direct feeling of a manual. My 2002 Subaru Forester is manual, and I always enjoy driving it. I thought Subaru would hold out - but they dropped the manual transmission option on the U.S. 2015 Outbacks. Although the CVTs provide higher mpg results when tested, I wonder if that's the case with the average driver. I had a couple of rear wheel drive manual pickups, a 4 speed Ford Econoline Club Wagon and 5 speed Aerostar - and even an '85 Dodge Caravan with a 2.2L 4 and 5 speed manual. That was a rare one, but averaged around 20mpg. Especially now 4 wheel drive is a must - a few times this winter I picked up firewood on someone's property with snow on the ground. Probably RWD would be ok with the wood in the bed, but one place I had to go up a slight hill empty, my Dodge Dakota or long ago '80 Dodge Ram (both manual RWD) certainly would have trouble. Every once in a while I search for the full size 4x4 with a manual transmission, the results are few and far between. I have an older automatic 4x4 Chevy Silverado. I love the truck though, it runs so well at 178k miles I'd probably be crazy to trade it in.


----------



## Wildo

I was just thinking about this.  Who still offers a standard?   I am looking but it seems like I will be looking for a long time.  My wife is dead set on an automatic and insists that she can't drive an automatic, yet can do do a hill start on the second try when I put her behind the wheel. I

This is a good thread for those of us that are lovers of clutching.

A manual just makes ya smile.


----------



## Oldman47

I didn't realize they were an endangered species. My Civic, wife's Corolla, my S-10 and my bike are all manual shift. I haven't owned an automatic in over 30 years.
Maybe why I didn't know is that I haven't gone shopping for a car or truck in quite a while.

Update: I just did a quick Google search and there are quite a few new pickups with 5 or 6 speed manuals. Anything else would really have surprised me because I know it is near impossible to find an auto anything in Europe and the same folks make vehicles for that market as make them for here.


----------



## peakbagger

The emissions are more difficult to deal with on a standard., that in combination with a far lower demand means standards are endangered.


----------



## ToltingColtAcres

mikefrommaine said:
			
		

> Good luck finding someone under 40 that knows the shift pattern of a 3 speed on the column. It would be funny trying to see some punk steal one of those though.



Well, I'm 10 years above 40, and my first car was a Chevy Concours with a 3-speed on the column. Used to drive that 30 miles r/t daily when I went to college.



Oldman47 said:


> I didn't realize they were an endangered species. My Civic, wife's Corolla, my S-10 and my bike are all manual shift. I haven't owned an automatic in over 30 years.



I wasn't able to find a manual truck when I was looking for one a few years ago. I ended up buying a 2008 Tundra Limited w/ the tow package, so I can haul upwards of 10k (I routinely haul my JD 1050 tractor on a beavertail with it, no problem). Only other option was to "upgrade" into a diesel, which not only costs more on the front end, but also each time you visit the gas station.


----------



## jharkin

They are endangered. Even Ferrari has stopped selling manuals.  Porsche models and BMWs now even mostly offer an auto or paddle shift automated manual as standard, with a manual option that has to be ordered.

If you want a manual:

Japanses
Honda -  Civic, Accord
Toyota... I *think* the Corolla has one.  Tacoma truck offers it on 4 cylinder trims.  Maybe 4 runner? Scion FR-S [corrected typo]
Nissan... Their sports cars like the 370z Possibly the Sentra?
Subaru- a bunch of them do

Korean
I have no idea about Kia or Hyundai

German
BMW - its an option on the 2,3 and most M cars. 
Audi - option on most
VW - option on some like the Golf, GTi, etc
Merc - option on a couple models


US
Ford - option on Mustang, and I beleive hte Focus sport, etc.  No idea if any of the F series trucks or larger sendans offer.
Chevy - I think a couple models offer option?
Dodge - no idea
Jeep - I think Wrangler


----------



## Bigg_Redd

ToltingColtAcres said:


> Only other option was to "upgrade" into a diesel, which not only costs more on the front end, but also each time you visit the gas station.



So they cost more to buy and cost more to fuel?  Why would anyone buy one?


----------



## begreen

Allegedly less service and better longevity. They produce more torque and usually get better mileage. This makes them good for load hauling and towing. FWIW, recently coming up from CA I frequently saw diesel fuel at or less than regular gas prices. Lowest was $2.08.


----------



## Stelcom66

Oldman47 said:


> Update: I just did a quick Google search and there are quite a few new pickups with 5 or 6 speed manuals. Anything else would really have surprised me because I know it is near impossible to find an auto anything in Europe and the same folks make vehicles for that market as make them for here.



As far as I know the only new full size 4x4 pickup available with a manual transmission is the Dodge Ram 2500 with the 5.9L Cummins diesel. It's said that CVTs get better mpg than manuals, maybe that's true but I've yet to see a truck with a CVT. Maybe the 6 - 8 speed automatics in new trucks would do a bit better today than a manual, but it's hard to say since except for the Dodge straight 6 diesel they're aren't any to compare. I guess I like manuals similar to a reason of owning a wood stove - there's more work involved - but the end result is more satisfying, even if the net savings isn't that significant.


----------



## billb3

Oldman47 said:


> I didn't realize they were an endangered species. My Civic, wife's Corolla, my S-10 and my bike are all manual shift. I haven't owned an automatic in over 30 years.
> Maybe why I didn't know is that I haven't gone shopping for a car or truck in quite a while.
> 
> Update: I just did a quick Google search and there are quite a few new pickups with 5 or 6 speed manuals. Anything else would really have surprised me because I know it is near impossible to find an auto anything in Europe and the same folks make vehicles for that market as make them for here.




Europeans are shifting fast into the past. Volkswagon is pushing their DSG Borg-Warner automatic gearboxes and Audi is hawking the similar somewhat S-tronic.
I haven't seen a manual shift Mercedes cab in ages.

Torque-converters on small engines extracted a higher percentage loss of power and fuel efficiencies  than on larger V-6 and V-8 engines that are popular in the states. those larger engines mate with larger cars and heavier crumple zone mandate vehicles. Plus driving habits and  out road system . Given the ratio of large engine vs small engine vehicles  between the U.S. and  many Euro countries it isn't hard to understand the ratio  of popularity  given fuel costs. And in some cases a luxury tax on auto transmissions.
With the advent of torque converter-less auto transmissions  and improvements on drivetrains the manual advantage is drying up and so is their prevalence.


----------



## jharkin

Oldman47 said:


> Update: I just did a quick Google search and there are quite a few new pickups with 5 or 6 speed manuals. Anything else would really have surprised me because I know it is near impossible to find an auto anything in Europe and the same folks make vehicles for that market as make them for here.



None of our pickups sell in Europe, so that's no reason for them to equip with manuals specifically.  Similarly every German lux sedan sold in Germany, even up to the S clss and 7 series has a manual - but over here they sell them auto only. Not even a manual option.  

Just because the manuals sell in the home market doesnt mean we get them here.  They import what they know will sell.




peakbagger said:


> The emissions are more difficult to deal with on a standard., that in combination with a far lower demand means standards are endangered.




Its not emmisions so much as CAFE.  Put an auto in the car and they can use a lot of gears and program a shift pattern that deliberately lugs the engine to keep revs low - making the fuel economy numbers look good.  My Tacoma is that way, I have to step on it to get it to downshift and hold revs over 2k. really annoying at times.


----------



## billb3

jharkin said:


> None of our pickups sell in Europe.




define "our" and "pickups".
http://www.ford.co.uk/Cars/Ranger
course they've had to replace the Sport trac with something.


----------



## Ashful

jharkin said:


> German
> BMW - its an option on the 2,3 and most M cars.
> Audi - option on most
> VW - option on some like the Golf, GTi, etc
> Merc - option on a couple models


Not an option on as many Audi's as you would think.  This is why, for the first time in 13 years, we do not have an Audi in the garage, today.  In most cases, the selection of any desirable option (eg. upgraded engine) eliminates the availability of the manual 6-speed.

Also on Mercedes.  You can get it on a few of the cheaper and sportier models, but not on M-class or S-class.  I suspect they have also dropped it on E-class as well, but have not personally checked.


----------



## jharkin

billb3 said:


> define "our" and "pickups".
> http://www.ford.co.uk/Cars/Ranger
> course they've had to replace the Sport trac with something.




Our meaning American manufacturer pickups - Ram, Silverado, F-Series, etc.     The US market Ranger was discontinued in 2011. the international version that is still sold worldwide is slightly different than the us spec model and is designed by Ford Australia (sold as both Ranger and Mazda B).  Kind of like how Toyota only sells the Tacoma in the US and everywhere else its the Hilux, similar platform but different in a lot of details.

I would imagine now that HCevy has brought back the Colorado Ford may consider bringing back the Ranger also, but so far no announcement.


----------



## jharkin

Ashful said:


> Not an option on as many Audi's as you would think.  This is why, for the first time in 13 years, we do not have an Audi in the garage, today.  In most cases, the selection of any desirable option (eg. upgraded engine) eliminates the availability of the manual 6-speed.
> 
> Also on Mercedes.  You can get it on a few of the cheaper and sportier models, but not on M-class or S-class.  I suspect they have also dropped it on E-class as well, but have not personally checked.



Hmm.. Doesn't surprise me.  Infinity dropped it on all heir models as well recently.

for the first time in my life I now own an automatic as my DD.  [hangs head in shame]


----------



## Ashful

What I have always been surprised to see, is Dodge Ram 1500 pickups in Germany.  Quite popular for young men, there.  I see at least one a day there, usually more.  I have never seen an American 3/4 or 1-ton pickup in Europe, tho.


----------



## Wildo

What is a CVT?


----------



## BrotherBart

Continuously variable transmission.


----------



## Wildo

BrotherBart said:


> Continuously variable transmission.


That's what I thought thanks.


----------



## ToltingColtAcres

begreen said:


> Allegedly less service and better longevity. [...] FWIW, recently coming up from CA I frequently saw diesel fuel at or less than regular gas prices. Lowest was $2.08.



Up here in New England I do not think I've ever seen diesel anywhere near the cost of regular gas. Usually its about the same price as premium.

In terms of gas mileage, I once asked the owner of an F350 diesel what he got for mileage... he said "about 9". Now, granted, there are a lot of variables there, such as the gearing, etc.... but all that extra tow capacity is meaningless when my Tundra gets 15-16mpg average and tows everything I need it to.

If I could have bought a manual diesel that gets the same gas mileage (assuming I could have found one) it would have still cost me more $$$ overall given the price difference between fuel (reg vs premium), the up-front price-premium, and then the added cost of maintenance of the engine itself.

At least my daily commuter, a 2010 corolla S, is a stick


----------



## CountryBoy19

ToltingColtAcres said:


> my Tundra gets 15-16mpg average and tows everything I need it to.


What does your tundra get when towing a heavy load? Thats where diesel really starts to make it's large gains over gas. It maintains fuel efficiency when the engine is heavily loaded; gas loses that efficiency because the AFR has to be richened when heavily loaded.

That being said, that guy certainly wasn't giving you an accurate representation of the mileage of the diesel. My brother drives a full-size Dodge 3500 with the Cummins diesel and gets 24+ on the highway. Towing big loads the mileage doesn't drop too far from the 24 figure unless the load has a great deal of wind resistance (can't do much about that).


----------



## joecool85

Back from the dead, great thread though!


----------



## joecool85

FWIW, I drive a Subaru Forester now, mainly because it was the only thing in AWD or 4wd that could tow 2,000+ lbs and had a stick. I bought it used, wasn't looking at the new market.


----------



## Stelcom66

joecool85 said:


> FWIW, I drive a Subaru Forester now, mainly because it was the only thing in AWD or 4wd that could tow 2,000+ lbs and had a stick. I bought it used, wasn't looking at the new market.



Also bought my '02 stick Forester used, runs great. It's a great winter SUV with the heated seats that are part of the winter weather package. Before getting the Silverado I had towed firewood with a trailer a few times, and loaded up in back. I don't get to drive it much since I have a company car. That's a CVT, and for a small SUV admittedly gets very good mpg, but it's FWD. At 65 mph the engine in only at 2000 rpm, low for a 2.4 4 cylinder. Up until 2009 Subaru geared manual Outbacks low (high numerically) in 5th gear, at 65 mph my Outback turned around 3200 rpm. I didn't like that - the engine was certainly capable of sustaining that speed, even on a slight incline. I've always wondered why Subaru geared that era of Outbacks accordingly. My Forester is geared a bit higher.


----------



## clemsonfor

Wildo said:


> What is a CVT?





Ashful said:


> What I have always been surprised to see, is Dodge Ram 1500 pickups in Germany.  Quite popular for young men, there.  I see at least one a day there, usually more.  I have never seen an American 3/4 or 1-ton pickup in Europe, tho.


So your ashfull now? Why the name change?

And like others said they may get a totally different truck in other countries.

I wish I could buy a bare bones Hilux here!!

They still make the sebtra in mexico that looks like it did here 17 years ago here!

As far as I know ford F series dont have a manual and I know chevy and f150 there is not even an option.


----------



## jharkin

CountryBoy19 said:


> What does your tundra get when towing a heavy load? Thats where diesel really starts to make it's large gains over gas. It maintains fuel efficiency when the engine is heavily loaded; gas loses that efficiency because the AFR has to be richened when heavily loaded.



Yes and no. 

There area few reasons for the fuel efficiency advantage of diesel over gas.


#1 is that to generate the high compression needed for ignition, diesel engines have long stroke to bore ratios and run at lower RPMs giving time to extract more usable energy each stroke.

#2 is that the diesel throttles by varying fuel charge, so its almost always running over lean.  However, have you ever seen a diesel under high load "rolling coal" ?    Whats happening is that the fuel charge is actually over rich and some of its going right out the exhaust as soot.

Conversely, a lot of gasoline cars stay in the closed loop map at the 14.7:1 optimum lean ratio unless you either floor it to WOT or it detects detonation/high EGT then it will switch to the open loop map and go over rich to like 8:1


#3 And this is the big advantage - because diesels throttle by fuel there is no throttle valve and the intake is always wide open eliminating most pumping losses.  This is an advantage to diesel at light load, but under heavy load when the gas cars throttle is open the advantage is gone.


So i think ??  the diesel overall might actually have more advantage at light load.


----------



## Stelcom66

What is WOT? Volkswagen's new Passat (or is it called Sportswagen) has a diesel option along with a manual transmission. Sounds nice, don't think AWD is an option though.

I went online and 'built' a 2015 Dodge 2500 Tradesman 4x4. Since the 6 speed manual requires the Cummins diesel, the price increased by about $8k. The Tradesman is the base model, the price without any other options was about $41k. That would be a great truck to have - I'd consider it if I won the lottery.

For now (probably for good) my 2001 Chevy 1500 that I got for $5k is fine, it's a weekend truck. The Chevy is decent for an automatic, it's not overly sensitive - what I mean is it will hold a gear up a slight incline and won't downshift unnecessarily. Before that I had a Dodge Dakota 2WD with a 5 speed manual. I really liked that truck - and the size of it. Although the bed wasn't 4' between the wheel wells, it was 6.5' long. I would have been in trouble with it though if I used it this winter to get firewood from a couple places. Also my son was staying off campus on a hilly road, he also has an older AWD Subaru that does great in snow but it's up there in miles, if it needed repairs I'd want him to borrow something with 4WD, another reason I got the Chevy.


----------



## Ashful

Stelcom66 said:


> What is WOT?


Wide Open Throttle.  Please punch one hole in your man card.



clemsonfor said:


> So your ashfull now? Why the name change?


Joful = Jotul Fool
Ashful =... Ashford Fool?


----------



## Bigg_Redd

ToltingColtAcres said:


> In terms of gas mileage, I once asked the owner of an F350 diesel what he got for mileage... he said "about 9". Now, granted, there are a lot of variables there, such as the gearing, etc.... but all that extra tow capacity is meaningless when my Tundra gets 15-16mpg average and tows everything I need it to.



Something is horribly wrong with his engine or he is towing at or near capacity all the time if he is really getting 9mpg.  Your Tundra is a fine vehicle but keep in mind it's a 1/2 ton truck getting worse mileage than my 1 ton 4x4.



begreen said:


> Allegedly less service and better longevity. They produce more torque and usually get better mileage. This makes them good for load hauling and towing. FWIW, recently coming up from CA I frequently saw diesel fuel at or less than regular gas prices. Lowest was $2.08.



That was a Socratic inquiry on my part - I've owned a 1999 Dodge 3500 with a diesel engine since 2007 and my experience is as follows

- I get about 18-19MGP combined mileage and 24+ on the freeway.  The same vehicle (1ton 4x4)with a gas powered v8 or v10 will get about half that mileage

- Upfront cost is more, but resale is also more, so that's a wash

- Diesel fuel prices vary in relation to gasoline but for most of the last 8 years it has hovered between regular and premium.  With nearly double the mileage diesel would have to be nearly double the price to compete.

- The cost of maintenance is not a cut-and-dried issue.  For example, my truck holds 12 quarts of oil, so oil changes are more expensive.  But since my truck holds 12 quarts of oil they are also less frequent.  Oil filters, fuel filters, air filters are all about the same price vs gasoline.  IMO the only advantage for gasoline is the matter of catastrophic failure or repair: replacing a diesel engine could put you out $10000 and an injector pump $3000+


----------



## Ashful

No recent experience with diesel trucks, so I refrained from arguing, but my experience with gas v diesel tractors agrees with Redd.  I get more than double the hours per gallon in the Diesel tractor, than I ever did on the gas tractor, and the diesel is bigger/heavier.


----------



## velvetfoot

I might have said this, but you could have one leg and an arm out of commission and still drive an automatic.


----------



## firefighterjake

jharkin said:


> They are endangered. Even Ferrari has stopped selling manuals.  Porsche models and BMWs now even mostly offer an auto or paddle shift automated manual as standard, with a manual option that has to be ordered.
> 
> If you want a manual:
> 
> Japanses
> Honda -  Civic, Accord
> Toyota... I *think* the Corolla has one.  Tacoma truck offers it on 4 cylinder trims.  Maybe 4 runner?
> Nissan... Their sports cars like the 370z and Scion FR-S.  Possibly the Sentra?
> Subaru- a bunch of them do
> 
> Korean
> I have no idea about Kia or Hyundai
> 
> German
> BMW - its an option on the 2,3 and most M cars.
> Audi - option on most
> VW - option on some like the Golf, GTi, etc
> Merc - option on a couple models
> 
> 
> US
> Ford - option on Mustang, and I beleive hte Focus sport, etc.  No idea if any of the F series trucks or larger sendans offer.
> Chevy - I think a couple models offer option?
> Dodge - no idea
> Jeep - I think Wrangler



Minor point . . . the Scion FR-S is in fact a Scion . . . a sister division if you would to Toyota. That said, the FR-S and Subaru BR-Zs are also known as "Toybarus" since both the FR-S and BR-Z share parts from Toyota and Subaru. Supposedly the design of this car was by Toyota and a lot of the power train and other components came from Subaru. Both the FR-S and less commonly seen BR-Z can be found with either manual or automatic options.

Subaru: Outback and Legacy are no longer offered with stick shift. Forester, Impreza, Crosstrek, BRZ and WRX however can be optioned with or without automatic.


----------



## CountryBoy19

jharkin said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> There area few reasons for the fuel efficiency advantage of diesel over gas.
> 
> 
> #1 is that to generate the high compression needed for ignition, diesel engines have long stroke to bore ratios and run at lower RPMs giving time to extract more usable energy each stroke.
> 
> #2 is that the diesel throttles by varying fuel charge, so its almost always running over lean.  However, have you ever seen a diesel under high load "rolling coal" ?    Whats happening is that the fuel charge is actually over rich and some of its going right out the exhaust as soot.
> 
> Conversely, a lot of gasoline cars stay in the closed loop map at the 14.7:1 optimum lean ratio unless you either floor it to WOT or it detects detonation/high EGT then it will switch to the open loop map and go over rich to like 8:1
> 
> 
> #3 And this is the big advantage - because diesels throttle by fuel there is no throttle valve and the intake is always wide open eliminating most pumping losses.  This is an advantage to diesel at light load, but under heavy load when the gas cars throttle is open the advantage is gone.
> 
> 
> So i think ??  the diesel overall might actually have more advantage at light load.


First of all, yes, I'm familiar with diesel engines, and gas engines, both in the engine/dyno lab and on the street (and off-road). I understand the primary differences between them. Your theory's are a bit flawed, primarily because they are just theory and don't actually take into account all the variables.

#2, "rolling coal" has nothing to do with this. If some punk young kid wants to chip his truck and pour tons of fuel into the cylinder to produce soot it has nothing at all to do with fuel efficiency. We're talking about reasonable use of a truck. Yes, there are occasions where even a factory truck can produce some soot, but the turbo charger does a pretty good job of taking care of that issue. Within normal operation the diesel engine, even heavily loaded, won't produce soot, and will run very efficiently. Why? Because it has a turbo. The turbo pumps additional air into the cylinder to make up for the additional fuel being supplied and you get tremendous torque rise. You won't get that in a gas engine, to compensate you must go larger engine. Of course, you can turbo-charge a gas engine too, but at high boost pressure in a gas engine you have to richen the AFR quite a bit to keep combustion smooth and prevent overheating of engine parts. It's just the nature of the beast.

#3 First of all, I think you have a mis-understanding of pumping losses and how they effect an engine. The more air available, the more air the engine ingests the greater the pumping loss. That being said, pumping losses are mostly negligible in the grand scheme of things. We're talking about towing a heavy load, pumping losses only make a noticeable difference to the engine (gas or diesel) at light load. You stated that the diesel loses it's advantage when the gas is at WOT, but remember the point you made in item #2, at WOT the gas is going over-rich, and efficiency drops off a ton. Whereas at WOT, the diesel is still running at/near optimum AFR and the only downside you highlighted was that it loses it's advantage on pumping losses. Even if there were an advantage is it really a downside that the diesel "lost it's advantage" on a negligible point? The real magic is happening with the AFR and the torque rise due to the longer stroke of the diesel, not the pumping losses.

 Throw out theory and "what should happen" all you want, but hook up a gas truck to a the same trailer/load as a diesel truck, run the same course of driving, then do the same with no trailer and compare the results. Diesels have an enormous torque rise when they are loaded down and can still maintain an optimum AFR, gas engines just can't match it. You will see less fuel economy drop on the diesel engine when it's towing a load than on the gas...


----------



## Highbeam

Bigg_Redd said:


> That was a Socratic inquiry on my part - I've owned a 1999 Dodge 3500 with a diesel engine since 2007 and my experience is as follows
> - I get about 18-19MGP combined mileage and 24+ on the freeway.  The same vehicle (1ton 4x4)with a gas powered v8 or v10 will get about half that mileage
> - Upfront cost is more, but resale is also more, so that's a wash
> - Diesel fuel prices vary in relation to gasoline but for most of the last 8 years it has hovered between regular and premium.  With nearly double the mileage diesel would have to be nearly double the price to compete.
> - The cost of maintenance is not a cut-and-dried issue.  For example, my truck holds 12 quarts of oil, so oil changes are more expensive.  But since my truck holds 12 quarts of oil they are also less frequent.  Oil filters, fuel filters, air filters are all about the same price vs gasoline.  IMO the only advantage for gasoline is the matter of catastrophic failure or repair: replacing a diesel engine coul



I have also been driving my 2000 Ford F350 4x4 with the international 7.3 diesel for about 7 years and 50,000 miles now and I record mpg on every single fillup in a book. I tow heavy, haul heavy, and also commute with it. Automatic trans, yuk, but manuals are rare. This truck weighs 7500# empty. 

-My experience with maintenance is the same, no more expensive than gas.
- mpg when running not towing is very good, 15-20+ depending on distance traveled. 8 mile commute = 15 mpg.
- mpg when towing is much lower. You have to feed an engine to make it work. I return 11-12 mpg when towing 8000# of RV. This is reality on all diesels, look at the RV forums, when you work a diesel you need to burn fuel. Like a cat stove, there is no magic, btus must be burnt to do work.
- The gas version of my truck gets half the mpg and is much weaker.
- The only reason gas is better is that if something inside the engine breaks, it can be extremely expensive if you must use a mechanic to repair it. I replaced the water pump on Saturday and it was in stock for 135$ from autozone.
- I would love a manual trans on mine. 



Stelcom66 said:


> As far as I know the only new full size 4x4 pickup available with a manual transmission is the Dodge Ram 2500 with the 5.9L Cummins diesel.



They haven't made the 5.9 in a ram pickup for almost 10 years. They replaced it around 2007 with the 6.7 cummins.



jharkin said:


> So i think ??  the diesel overall might actually have more advantage at light load.



The biggest advantage is at light load. The advantage is still there at all times but especially when running empty for long cruises. We're talking a huge engine/truck returning the same mpg as a freaking 4 cylinder minitruck.

Another reason for high mpg is the very high compression ratio. High CR means a more efficient cycle. No throttle plate ever means low pumping losses. The diesel has more energy per gallon than gasoline. Low rpm operation means less friction.


----------



## Ashful

velvetfoot said:


> I might have said this, but you could have one leg and an arm out of commission and still drive an automatic.


One doesn't "drive" an automatic.  That's just "steering."


----------



## joecool85

Ashful said:


> One doesn't "drive" an automatic.  That's just "steering."


It's true!


----------



## bpirger

2002 Honda CRV with 340,000 miles is my daily  driver.  5 speed.  Replaced original clutch at about 230,000.  Also put in a used tranny as the bearing on the input shaft became very noisy.   I sometimes think it might be time to look for another vehicle, then this thing keeps running and running.  I go about 35K a year (lengthy commute) and will be in high miles very soon.   I'm keeping my eye out for another CRV, 2004, last year they had the 5 speed.  Nothing like a manual when driving in snow.


----------



## Snagdaddy

The CVT transmissions look good on paper, but they are weak.  I feel sorry for the people that have bought vehicles with this transmission.

I'm just another firewood gatherer who is lamenting the demise of manual transmissions.  Perhaps they won't ever go away?  Maybe the CVT transmission owners will be so pissed off about having to get a new transmission installed every 5 years or less?  The CVT is cheaper to make than the conventional transmissions and it's problems are becoming apparent.

My 99 ford ranger has never had a clutch job.  It is not the perfect pickup truck by any measure, but  It has 169000 potholed firewood gathering miles on it and I have learned to like it.  I am staring down a clutch job and whatever else this vehicle might need in lieu of purchasing a new or newer truck with all the spyware, useless bells and whistles (over complicated systems and tech), and remote engine shutdown capability garbage that comes in the new vehicles.

The perfect firewood gathering pickup truck would have a manual transmission, the clutch being directly actuated by a rod or cable or some combination of the two.  It would have a diesel engine and manual rack and pinion steering.  No air conditioning would be available.  Payload options would start at 2000 pounds.    Computer actuated engine management systems would be easily replaced similar to changing an Atari video game cartridge.  Wiring in the vehicle would be straightforward and the heater core could be popped out and replaced in ten minutes by my wife.


----------



## dougand3

Ashful said:


> One doesn't "drive" an automatic.  That's just "steering."


In Germany (at least in the 1980s)...big, luxury Mercedes Benz had 5 sp manuals. Lots of American over there with the military and would ship over mostly automatics. The Germans had a saying..."Americans operate their motor cars, Germans DRIVE THEM."


----------



## Stelcom66

bpirger said:


> 2002 Honda CRV with 340,000 miles is my daily driver. 5 speed. Replaced original clutch at about 230,000.



Wow - that's great! I always liked CRVs, if I had to retire the Forester a manual CRV would definitely be a choice. That's amazing you got that much out of the original clutch.
Mine went at about 105,000 miles, but I bought it at 98k, so who knows how it was driven before. Nice thing about Hondas - you typically don't need to worry about headgaskets, unlike Subarus.

I saw someone's post about I believe a Ford 1 ton 4x4 - averaging mpgs in the mid to upper teens, 24 on the highway. That's very impressive considering what I get with my
Chevy 1/2 ton. That diesel Ford could also potentially reach 300+k miles, making the initial up front extra cost for the diesel well worth it. I drove a Ford F250 diesel around the
block that my son was borrowing - I loved the pull and sound of that 7.3L diesel.


----------



## clemsonfor

Snagdaddy said:


> The CVT transmissions look good on paper, but they are weak.  I feel sorry for the people that have bought vehicles with this transmission.
> 
> I'm just another firewood gatherer who is lamenting the demise of manual transmissions.  Perhaps they won't ever go away?  Maybe the CVT transmission owners will be so pissed off about having to get a new transmission installed every 5 years or less?  The CVT is cheaper to make than the conventional transmissions and it's problems are becoming apparent.
> 
> My 99 ford ranger has never had a clutch job.  It is not the perfect pickup truck by any measure, but  It has 169000 potholed firewood gathering miles on it and I have learned to like it.  I am staring down a clutch job and whatever else this vehicle might need in lieu of purchasing a new or newer truck with all the spyware, useless bells and whistles (over complicated systems and tech), and remote engine shutdown capability garbage that comes in the new vehicles.
> 
> The perfect firewood gathering pickup truck would have a manual transmission, the clutch being directly actuated by a rod or cable or some combination of the two.  It would have a diesel engine and manual rack and pinion steering.  No air conditioning would be available.  Payload options would start at 2000 pounds.    Computer actuated engine management systems would be easily replaced similar to changing an Atari video game cartridge.  Wiring in the vehicle would be straightforward and the heater core could be popped out and replaced in ten minutes by my wife.


I believe the transmission is my 1997 saturn is a cvt. I am about 90% sure. But anyways. It has 255,000 trouble free miles on it. If it died tomorrow I would be happy. I get 32mpg as a commuter car now. I too have a manual 5sp ranger with the 2.3L it is the original trans and had the clutch replaces one that I know of. It has 305,000 miles on it. I load that baby down but once you hook a small loaded trailer to it mileage puts you into full size territory and not enough lower to keep up on smaller hills.  It will get 25mpg id I baby it empty and fully loaded pulling a 4x8 trailer full of wood and a loaded bed (almost 3/4 cord) I think I might get 17mpg?

Now I like your thinking but I do like my AC I live in SC and you can sweat through a shirt just driving in the summer here. Up till about 23 years old I never had it and did not miss it. Now a days I dont use it all the time but I sure want shure want whatever I buy to have it!


I also have to say I like my power steering. Never had much trouble out of them in life.


----------



## Stelcom66

Snagdaddy said:


> The CVT transmissions look good on paper, but they are weak. I feel sorry for the people that have bought vehicles with this transmission


I recently had trouble with my lawn tractor. I ended up fixing it. I saw many new riding mowers are automatic, I assume CVTs. I do wonder how they would hold out.



Snagdaddy said:


> The perfect firewood gathering pickup truck would have a manual transmission, the clutch being directly actuated by a rod or cable or some combination of the two. It would have a diesel engine and manual rack and pinion steering. No air conditioning would be available.



Somewhat like my 1st pickup truck, a 1979 Dodge Ram, but RWD and a 225 slant 6. Manual windows, no a/c, did have power streering. My 1980 Ford Club Wagon did _not _have power steering - but did have a very rare (for that model) 4 speed manual on the floor behind the 300cid 6. With the seats removed (they usually were) I used it many times like a pickup truck. With a lot of weight and decent tires, it may have been ok in snow. But damn, parking was a bit of a chore.

I heard rumors Ford may bring back the Ranger, a very good truck (as noted with the year and miles you have) - and it was offered with a manual transmission. I've heard that and the Dodge Dakota (I think even later years could be had with a manual) weren't profitable enough to sustain production - which is surprising based on how many I see out there.


----------



## clemsonfor

Stelcom66 said:


> Wow - that's great! I always liked CRVs, if I had to retire the Forester a manual CRV would definitely be a choice. That's amazing you got that much out of the original clutch.
> Mine went at about 105,000 miles, but I bought it at 98k, so who knows how it was driven before. Nice thing about Hondas - you typically don't need to worry about headgaskets, unlike Subarus.
> 
> I saw someone's post about I believe a Ford 1 ton 4x4 - averaging mpgs in the mid to upper teens, 24 on the highway. That's very impressive considering what I get with my
> Chevy 1/2 ton. That diesel Ford could also potentially reach 300+k miles, making the initial up front extra cost for the diesel well worth it. I drove a Ford F250 diesel around the
> block that my son was borrowing - I loved the pull and sound of that 7.3L diesel.


Any truck now a days should reach 300k miles thats not that many really?? I know many 1/2 ton fords and chevies I run into with other foresters (the profession not the subaru) that have that many. I personally know lots of loggers that have the old 7.3s and have easily 400-700k on them.

Many foresters put 50-80,000 miles on a truck in a year so these mileages are not hard to get very fast. Many of those guys trade trucks every 1-3 years.


----------



## clemsonfor

Stelcom66 said:


> I recently had trouble with my lawn tractor. I ended up fixing it. I saw many new riding mowers are automatic, I assume CVTs. I do wonder how they would hold out.
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhat like my 1st pickup truck, a 1979 Dodge Ram, but RWD and a 225 slant 6. Manual windows, no a/c, did have power streering. My 1980 Ford Club Wagon did _not _have power steering - but did have a very rare (for that model) 4 speed manual on the floor behind the 300cid 6. With the seats removed (they usually were) I used it many times like a pickup truck. With a lot of weight and decent tires, it may have been ok in snow. But damn, parking was a bit of a chore.
> 
> I heard rumors Ford may bring back the Ranger, a very good truck (as noted with the year and miles you have) - and it was offered with a manual transmission. I've heard that and the Dodge Dakota (I think even later years could be had with a manual) weren't profitable enough to sustain production - which is surprising based on how many I see out there.


My last work truck was an 07 dakota automatic with the v8. If I had any urge, (which I dont )to own one, that truck cured me of it.  That thing was a piece of junk. Uncomfortable and at best got 17mpg and usually 14-15mpg which were mostly highway miles


----------



## joecool85

Stelcom66 said:


> I recently had trouble with my lawn tractor. I ended up fixing it. I saw many new riding mowers are automatic, I assume CVTs. I do wonder how they would hold out.
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhat like my 1st pickup truck, a 1979 Dodge Ram, but RWD and a 225 slant 6. Manual windows, no a/c, did have power streering. My 1980 Ford Club Wagon did _not _have power steering - but did have a very rare (for that model) 4 speed manual on the floor behind the 300cid 6. With the seats removed (they usually were) I used it many times like a pickup truck. With a lot of weight and decent tires, it may have been ok in snow. But damn, parking was a bit of a chore.
> 
> I heard rumors Ford may bring back the Ranger, a very good truck (as noted with the year and miles you have) - and it was offered with a manual transmission. I've heard that and the Dodge Dakota (I think even later years could be had with a manual) weren't profitable enough to sustain production - which is surprising based on how many I see out there.


 Lawn mowers use hydrostatic transmissions, totally different.


----------



## jharkin

Snagdaddy said:


> The CVT transmissions look good on paper, but they are weak.  I feel sorry for the people that have bought vehicles with this transmission.
> 
> I'm just another firewood gatherer who is lamenting the demise of manual transmissions.  Perhaps they won't ever go away?  Maybe the CVT transmission owners will be so pissed off about having to get a new transmission installed every 5 years or less?  The CVT is cheaper to make than the conventional transmissions and it's problems are becoming apparent.



I'm not a fan of the driving experience of CVTs, but I have never seen any reference to this rash of CVT reliability problems you are alluding to. Care to provide detail?


----------



## jharkin

joecool85 said:


> Lawn mowers use hydrostatic transmissions, totally different.



They use lots of different transmissions.  I think some of the  mowers labelled as automatic are actually split pulley belt CVTs. the speed selector just operates the split pulley to vary the reduction.

Mowers with "manual" transmissions may have either a real gearbox with ratios, or again my be a split pulley CVT that just has detents in the selector level to simulate fixed ratios.  My cheap Troy Built pushmower has this kind of transmission for the drive wheels.

Hydrostatic transmissions are a different animal altogether - though I could image them being labelled as automatic to consumers.  the speed lever is hooked up to the hydraulic valve between the engine driven pump and the drive unit on the axle.  When I was a kid we had an old Case 444 "Hydraulic Drive"  that used this system.  That thing was a beast


----------



## CountryBoy19

jharkin said:


> Hydrostatic transmissions are a different animal altogether - though I could image them being labelled as automatic to consumers.  the speed lever is hooked up to the hydraulic valve between the engine driven pump and the drive unit on the axle.  When I was a kid we had an old Case 444 "Hydraulic Drive"  that used this system.  That thing was a beast


 I think most hydrostatic drives have a variable pitch wobble plate on the driven pump instead of a valve as you allude to.

That being said, I've never seen a movable shiv belt-drive CVT on a lawn-tractor, but then again, I don't deal with cheapo lawn-tractors either. I wouldn't put it past some of the cheapo brands to do that.

The use of the system on a lawn-tractor or push-mower is still entirely different from use on an automobile. Lawn-tractors and push-mowers don't see extremely high miles, the owner expects to have to replace drive-belts etc every once in a while, and they don't typically tow heavy loads. Car OTOH, do see high miles and shouldn't require frequent tranny removal to replace worn parts in a CVT.


----------



## joecool85

My brother has an old MTD that has the variable belt pulley with detents system. But most lawn tractor around here use hydrostatic, even cheaply made craftsman models.


----------



## Jags

jharkin said:


> Case 444 "Hydraulic Drive" that used this system



The Case was a true hydraulic drive.  Pump to motor.  Hydrostatic is yet another type of system.

Edit: as an example of the difference...with the case at full throttle and full speed ahead, you could pull the lever to neutral and the tractor would free wheel (coast) a few more feet forwards.  With the hydrostatic, there is a more positive displacement (because of the design) that would simply lock up the drive and slide the wheels if the same were done.  Essentially a hydraulic "lock".


----------



## Highbeam

Stelcom66 said:


> I saw someone's post about I believe a Ford 1 ton 4x4 - averaging mpgs in the mid to upper teens, 24 on the highway. That's very impressive considering what I get with my
> Chevy 1/2 ton. That diesel Ford could also potentially reach 300+k miles, making the initial up front extra cost for the diesel well worth it. I drove a Ford F250 diesel around the
> block that my son was borrowing - I loved the pull and sound of that 7.3L diesel.



Perhaps it was my earlier posts in this thread. I record 15-20mpg, a couple of 21s but never 24, that's the cummins guys with their tiny 5.9 liter 6 banger and light weight trucks. Anybody with a 4x4 ford powerstroke that says they get over 21 is either lying, is bad at math, or is doing some sort of estimating. I suppose you could do a hot engine fillup and then drive 300 miles at 60mph and then fillup again to eliminate the less efficient warm up period an perhaps get up into the lower 20s but my 15-20 is whole tank average.

The truck will usually rot out before you get 300k. People that are affluent enough to buy a newish diesel truck are not going to tolerate hanging onto it that long. Instead you will see them resell (recouping the diesel premium) and kids will buy them well used and keep driving them until something breaks that is more expensive to fix than the truck is worth. That's the real danger with diesels like mine, one head gasket job is worth more than the whole truck.


----------



## jharkin

firefighterjake said:


> Minor point . . . the Scion FR-S is in fact a Scion . . . a sister division if you would to Toyota. That said, the FR-S and Subaru BR-Zs are also known as "Toybarus" since both the FR-S and BR-Z share parts from Toyota and Subaru. Supposedly the design of this car was by Toyota and a lot of the power train and other components came from Subaru. Both the FR-S and less commonly seen BR-Z can be found with either manual or automatic options.




Yes I new that, just a typo on my part putting it on the wrong line. Corrected.


----------



## Ashful

Lawnmowers... meh.  I wasn't done complaining about the demise of the manual gearbox and clutch, just yet.


----------



## JRHAWK9

I prefer to drive my vehicle and not just be along for the ride........therefore I drive manual gearboxes.


----------



## TMonter

JRHAWK9 said:


> I prefer to drive my vehicle and not just be along for the ride........therefore I drive manual gearboxes.



I would agree but finding a manual these days is tough mainly because the automatic has been more in demand and they have gotten to the point where they are very close to the same efficiency as a manual without the need for a clutch replacement.

The lockup torque converters have all but eliminated the friction losses from an auto compared to a manual these days and you can easily get 250k+ on an automatic with just a few fluid changes over the life of the transmission.


----------



## iamlucky13

jharkin said:


> I'm not a fan of the driving experience of CVTs, but I have never seen any reference to this rash of CVT reliability problems you are alluding to. Care to provide detail?



I'd be curious about more details, too. I spent a fair amount of time trying to find information about consistent reliability problems before we bought an Outback with a CVT two years ago. There were a few scattered issues, but not notably more than I was finding in similar years from conventional automatics. I've still got some long term apprehension based on the relatively small number of them in the wild and limited number of miles accrued, but I know a substantial number of Subaru CVT's are in the 100,000+ mile range now and apparently holding up.

As for driving experience, I find the Outback comparable to most other automatics. Not as predictable, consistent, or tactile as a manual, but acceptable, and the lack of shifts is a minor advantage.

In contrast, I recently rented a Nissan Versa with a CVT that gave me the worst driving experience I can remember. I think it was just really badly programmed. There were times I'd press down on the gas and sometimes it would lag while at others the car would actually slow down for a second or two as the transmission lowered the ratio faster than the engine revved up, and then would scream the engine up over 5000 RPM for a moderate acceleration. At other times, I'd be driving on consistently flat ground and it would change the ratio for now reason at all.



jharkin said:


> They use lots of different transmissions. I think some of the mowers labelled as automatic are actually split pulley belt CVTs. the speed selector just operates the split pulley to vary the reduction.



My Craftsman "automatic" transmission mower is definitely a hydrostatic. I've confirmed this from the transmission-supplier. I get the sense that the trend is to label foot pedal controlled hydrostatics as hydrostatics, but label hand-lever controlled hydrostatics as automatics.

I'm not sure what my Husqvarna walk-behind mower has. I'm honestly a bit curious, but haven't been able to find an answer.



Highbeam said:


> The truck will usually rot out before you get 300k.



My in-laws have an early 2000's F-350 that hit 300,000 several years ago, most of those miles pulling a custom stock trailer they run their equine vet practice out of. I don't know the actual trailer weight, but based on how I've seen it compact the ground despite fairly large tires, I'm guessing it's over 10,000 lbs. I do know they've had the transmission (automatic...I have no idea why) rebuilt once at very significant cost, and it's reaching the end of its life now. However, given the relatively heavy use it's seen and the significantly higher cost for a heavier duty truck, I think its performance has been reasonable.


----------



## TMonter

Highbeam said:


> Perhaps it was my earlier posts in this thread. I record 15-20mpg, a couple of 21s but never 24, that's the cummins guys with their tiny 5.9 liter 6 banger and light weight trucks. Anybody with a 4x4 ford powerstroke that says they get over 21 is either lying, is bad at math, or is doing some sort of estimating. I suppose you could do a hot engine fillup and then drive 300 miles at 60mph and then fillup again to eliminate the less efficient warm up period an perhaps get up into the lower 20s but my 15-20 is whole tank average.
> 
> The truck will usually rot out before you get 300k. People that are affluent enough to buy a newish diesel truck are not going to tolerate hanging onto it that long. Instead you will see them resell (recouping the diesel premium) and kids will buy them well used and keep driving them until something breaks that is more expensive to fix than the truck is worth. That's the real danger with diesels like mine, one head gasket job is worth more than the whole truck.



The truck rotting depends on location. My 86' F250 is rust free since we don't use salt on the roads here.


----------



## clemsonfor

My 1980 k10 is pretty much rust free. Some rot on rockers and floor pans bit thats from leaky seals and rain. A tiny amount on back of wheels in fenders where mud is sandwiched between the layers of metal. And some on the seams in the bed from where dirt and crud had packed over the years. Everything else is minor surface rust and nothing major. Brakes and hardware come off not break off.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Cant do manual trannys anymore, knees just wont have it. As far a selling a truck cuz its 10 years old ,my silverado K2500 4x4  is 20  years old and i wont part with it. Just too darn dependable. No rust either.


----------



## Mike Fromme

TMonter said:


> The lockup torque converters have all but eliminated the friction losses from an auto compared to a manual these days and you can easily get 250k+ on an automatic with just a few fluid changes over the life of the transmission.


I've yet to get to a scheduled transmission service interval without a catastrophic failure on my v10 350... 250k; I wish. I'd be happy to go 60k.


----------



## clemsonfor

Mike, You keep putting transmissions in your 350? Are you buying heavy dutu built ones? Why not get another truck all those transmissions can't be cheap. Maybe they can't stand up to the v10?

You must always be towi g 8-12,000 pounds with it or something.


----------



## Snagdaddy

clemsonfor said:


> I believe the transmission is my 1997 saturn is a cvt. I am about 90% sure.



Clemsonfor, your 1997 Saturn has a 4 speed automatic transmission.  CVT transmissions are a relatively new product.




jharkin said:


> I'm not a fan of the driving experience of CVTs, but I have never seen any reference to this rash of CVT reliability problems you are alluding to. Care to provide detail?



jharkin, you should do your own research.  The company called Jatco is the supplier for Nissan's transmissions.  My neighbor's Nissan Altima had catastrophic transmission failure within one year.  The pathfinder line of vehicles is under a class action lawsuit for transmission failures.  Jatco supplies something like 45 percent of CVT's installed in new vehicles in the U.S.  

We vote with our dollars for what we want to see in this world.  I would like to discourage people from buying vehicles with transmissions that don't last.


----------



## clemsonfor

Yea I have heard that about path finders. I know at least three that needed transmissions plus all the other stuff wrong with them. I would never buy one!


----------



## Highbeam

TMonter said:


> The truck rotting depends on location. My 86' F250 is rust free since we don't use salt on the roads here.



I should have been more general with my proposal that trucks rot away before you benefit from the supposed 300k mile life of the diesels. In addition to rot, the 300k mile truck will have experienced significant aging such as dings, dents, paint fade, loose door hinges, stained carpet, expensive front end repairs, etc. that the buyers and owners of 70,000$ trucks will not tolerate.

Put another way, the rich SOB that buys a 70k$ truck will almost never be the same guy that is driving it at 300k miles when it finally bursts into flames and dies. Those rich guys won't tolerate the decline in looks, dependability, and status symbolism.

I bought the high dollar diesel truck after that rich guy wore out all the pretty and the depreciation hit had occurred. Ill be driving it when it bursts into flames or leaves me stranded once too many times.


----------



## clemsonfor

Highbeam said:


> I should have been more general with my proposal that trucks rot away before you benefit from the supposed 300k mile life of the diesels. In addition to rot, the 300k mile truck will have experienced significant aging such as dings, dents, paint fade, loose door hinges, stained carpet, expensive front end repairs, etc. that the buyers and owners of 70,000$ trucks will not tolerate.
> 
> Put another way, the rich SOB that buys a 70k$ truck will almost never be the same guy that is driving it at 300k miles when it finally bursts into flames and dies. Those rich guys won't tolerate the decline in looks, dependability, and status symbolism.
> 
> I bought the high dollar diesel truck after that rich guy wore out all the pretty and the depreciation hit had occurred. Ill be driving it when it bursts into flames or leaves me stranded once too many times.


For the rich city grocery getter guy in a suit that drives 10 miles round trip a day that may be true.

These are not diesels I am about to talk about but only cause they dont need them.  I know of a 2014 silverado right now with 80,000 miles on it , one owner and a 2014 f150 4x4 with over 50,000 on it. Thats just two off the top of my head.

There are plenty of people that get high miles in less than 15 years.


----------



## Highbeam

Lets see who owns those trucks when they have 300,000 miles on them. They probably still smell new.


----------



## Mike Fromme

clemsonfor said:


> Mike, You keep putting transmissions in your 350? Are you buying heavy dutu built ones? Why not get another truck all those transmissions can't be cheap. Maybe they can't stand up to the v10?
> 
> You must always be towi g 8-12,000 pounds with it or something.


First one went right after the factory warranty expired... Ford gave me a brand new transmission. I only had to pay install labor. $500

That transmission caught on fire about 45k later. I had it taken out/inspected and had all the updates done $1200..
Another 25k and the electronics pack in the transmission went bad... another $400.

Overall besides starters going bad it's been the only trouble I've had with the truck. So I can't complain too much.

The truck has been worked but not abused for a one ton. I've been told it's the same basic transmission in all F series trucks from the 150 up to the motorhome chassis.


----------



## TMonter

Mike Fromme said:


> I've yet to get to a scheduled transmission service interval without a catastrophic failure on my v10 350... 250k; I wish. I'd be happy to go 60k.



Really sounds like one of the problem transmissions out there. If you are going with heavy use you should be changing fluid every 25k and definitely have an extra cooler on it.

My wife's Honda Odyssey is one of the models with a problem transmission caused by using non-synthetic fluid and no extra cooler. The transmissions in in 99 to 04 odysseys were notorious for failures but if you put the extra cooler on them and switched to synthetic fluid the problem didn't appear.


----------



## Ashful

clemsonfor said:


> My 1980 k10 is pretty much rust free. Some rot on rockers and floor pans bit thats from leaky seals and rain. A tiny amount on back of wheels in fenders where mud is sandwiched between the layers of metal. And some on the seams in the bed from where dirt and crud had packed over the years. Everything else is minor surface rust and nothing major.


Your definition of "pretty much rust free" does not agree with mine.  [emoji12]


----------



## clemsonfor

Haha! I am comparing it to some of the stuff I see down here that came from Penn, Ct, NY,NJ, VT,ME etc. I see stuff from the early 00s that has almost no fender well left. Late 90s with holes into the cabs of pickups and cars with just paint holding the rust chips together for the outer skin.

Yea mine is a southern rust bucket but compared to some northern stuff would be called a "survivor"


----------



## Stelcom66

iamlucky13 said:


> we bought an Outback with a CVT two years ago.



I've heard Subaru has one of the better CVTs out there, and if I were to buy a 2010 or newer Outback I would consider the CVT even though I prefer a manual. The fuel economy is significantly better, at least according to ratings. At 65 mph the Outback with the CVT is around 1800 rpm (from what I've read) - that must make for a much quieter ride and probably somewhat better mpgs than the previous Outback generation with a manual. Those would be around 3,000-3,200 rpm. Although the engine displacement was 2.5L with the previous generation, the 2010 + 2.5s are now 'undersquare', the stroke is longer than the bore, maybe the net result is more torque, but the older engine would still be capable of less rpm at highway speeds and still be able to accelerate. I never understood why Subaru geared the manual transmission Outbacks so low (high numerically) in top gear.

I don't find the CVT in the company Jeep I drive objectionable at all. Different, yes - floor it to merge on the highway and the rpms shoot up near 4k and stay there as the speed increases, let off the accelerator at 65mph and it's down to about 2k. I see the 2015s Jeep Patriots are now 6 speed automatics - I wonder if that's because of trouble or feedback re: the CVT.


----------



## firefighterjake

Stelcom66 said:


> I've heard Subaru has one of the better CVTs out there, and if I were to buy a 2010 or newer Outback I would consider the CVT even though I prefer a manual. The fuel economy is significantly better, at least according to ratings. At 65 mph the Outback with the CVT is around 1800 rpm (from what I've read) - that must make for a much quieter ride and probably somewhat better mpgs than the previous Outback generation with a manual. Those would be around 3,000-3,200 rpm. Although the engine displacement was 2.5L with the previous generation, the 2010 + 2.5s are now 'undersquare', the stroke is longer than the bore, maybe the net result is more torque, but the older engine
> would still be capable of less rpm at highway speeds and still be able to accelerate. I never understood why Subaru geared the manual transmission Outbacks so low (high numerically) in top gear.
> 
> I don't find the CVT in the company Jeep I drive objectionable at all. Different, yes - floor it to merge on the highway and the rpms shoot up near 4k and stay there as the speed increases, let off the accelerator at 65mph and it's down to about 2k. I see the 2015s Jeep Patriots are now 6 speed automatics - I wonder if that's because of trouble or feedback re: the CVT.



The 2015 Legacys' and Outbacks' CVT also has simulated shift points . . . in other words it acts very similar to a conventional automatic as it seems as though it's shifting at certain speeds/rpms vs. having that linear increase in speed. I actually find my wife's Legacy's CVT to be quite nice and as mentioned in doing the research it seemed as though there weren't all that many issues with the CVT with Subarus . . . now head gaskets in older models . . . that's a whole other story.  The only time the CVT acts as a "traditional" CVT with no shift points is when it's cold outside and the transmission has not had a chance to warm up.


----------



## jharkin

Snagdaddy said:


> Clemsonfor, your 1997 Saturn has a 4 speed automatic transmission.  CVT transmissions are a relatively new product.
> 
> 
> jharkin, you *should do your own research.*  The company called Jatco is the supplier for Nissan's transmissions.  My neighbor's Nissan Altima had catastrophic transmission failure within one year.  The pathfinder line of vehicles is under a class action lawsuit for transmission failures.  Jatco supplies something like 45 percent of CVT's installed in new vehicles in the U.S.
> 
> We vote with our dollars for what we want to see in this world.  I would like to discourage people from buying vehicles with transmissions that don't last.




What makes you think I have not?

CVTs are not new at all. The concept predates the automobile, and they have been experimented with in cars as early as the original Benz.   (feel free to look that up) The first mass produced one I think was the dutch model in the 50s that used rubber belts and a lot of the bad rep comes from those.

Nissan had a lot of very public issues partly because they where the first automaker to use CVTs across their lineup.  Some of the issues where quality, but a lot of its perception... People (me included) just don't like how CVTs sound and feel....  If they are setup to operate optimally for efficiency and power  the engine will just drone at a constant speed which to people conditioned by decades of driving conventional transmissions our gut tells us something is horribly wrong.

I'm not trying to downplay your neighbors issue with his Altima, as I have heard similar stories... but often these things get blown out of proportion.  For example Honda had a rash of problems with  automatics in the accords, pilot's and miniavns in the early 200s that they eventually solved mostly by changing ATF formulations... You would hear horror stories on forums but if you look in CR or truedelta it was never really widespread.  I own an '08 Honda and have never had an issue. 

Same thing with German cars and electronics. I have a friend who is an Audi buff and has been stranded on the road by 3 A6's in a row, all with blown injectors... but I know there are many here who have trouble free Audi's.


From what Ive read statistically - now that the Nissan early issues are being resolved, the current crop of CVTs apparently are no better or worse than conventional autos for reliability - according to Consumer Reports and JDPower 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/cars/...abd984-e5b4-11e3-a70e-ea1863229397_story.html

Again, it seems the biggest issue now is consumer acceptance of the different feel of a CVT, which a lot of them are addressing through software to make them mimic traditional autos with faster response,  simulated shift points, and less constant speed droning. (actually limiting their potential but making them more palatable to drivers)



Having said all that, I dont think Id buy a CVT myself as I'd miss the driving feel. I feel bad enough I had to sell my manual for an auto (for family reasons as nobody else in my household knew how to drive it).


----------



## firefighterjake

Snowmobiles have also used a type of CVT since . . . well . . . almost since they became mainstream and were sold to the masses.


----------



## jharkin

The Williams race team even developed a CVT for a Formula One car in 93. Once word of the tests got out the FIA banned CVTs immediately so that the car never even was allowed on the starting grid for a race, as it would have made the team practically unbeatable.


----------



## iamlucky13

firefighterjake said:


> The 2015 Legacys' and Outbacks' CVT also has simulated shift points



Is this new, or are you sure you're not putting the lever in "M"? Our 2013 varies continuously when in Auto, unless I hit the shift paddles, in which case it switches to a simulated shift point (not my preferred behavior in that scenario, but not a big issue).

I can't think of a reason to program a CVT to always jump through simulated shift points. That's just throwing one of the pros of CVT's out the window.



jharkin said:


> but often these things get blown out of proportion. For example Honda had a rash of problems with automatics in the accords, pilot's and miniavns in the early 200s that they eventually solved mostly by changing ATF formulations.



Civics, too, from what I've heard. In contrast, my manual transmission 2002 Civic has never had an issue in nearly 200,000 miles.

Ford also had spate of automatic transmission issues they eventually solved. I knew very few late 90's Taurus owners who made it 100,000 miles without a major issue. However, the 2001 Taurus my wife had lasted 230,000 miles before we got rid of it for the Outback, and as far as she told me, never had anything other regular fluid changes done to the transmission.


----------



## moey

TMonter said:


> My wife's Honda Odyssey is one of the models with a problem transmission caused by using non-synthetic fluid and no extra cooler. The transmissions in in 99 to 04 odysseys were notorious for failures but if you put the extra cooler on them and switched to synthetic fluid the problem didn't appear.



The only honda auto tech I have ever talked with always said to change your transmission fluid ( 2.5 qts ) every 10-15k. Much much more often then the manual states. Fortunately its very simple to change. One bolt no filter. Always use the Honda fluid as well. 

They did make some sh*t transmissions for quite a few years. Seemed like a roll of the dice as to whether it was a good generation or bad generation transmission.


----------



## Stelcom66

moey said:


> They did make some sh*t transmissions for quite a few years.



Like my first car's transmission - my '67 Chevy Caprice had a Powerglide, always felt like it was starting in second gear, but that was normal. After the speeds (both of them) started to slip big time I had Aamco put in a used transmission for - as the Rainman would say...about a hundred dollars.


----------



## jharkin

moey said:


> The only honda auto tech I have ever talked with always said to change your transmission fluid ( 2.5 qts ) every 10-15k. Much much more often then the manual states. Fortunately its very simple to change. One bolt no filter. Always use the Honda fluid as well.
> 
> They did make some sh*t transmissions for quite a few years. Seemed like a roll of the dice as to whether it was a good generation or bad generation transmission.



Every 10K?   Thats every oil change and sounds just a bit excessive?   the manual for my wife's Pilot says a full change  every 60 or 90 with the older conventional Honda fluid.  Since it is one of the years that has issues I do a  drain/fill (partial change) every 30k with redline synthetic.

I dont yet trust these factory intervals going close to 100k and more, but OTOH a tech calling for 10k trans  sounds like the quick lube guy trying to sell you a 3000 mile oil change when the factory says 15k is ok.


Honda has always had automatic problems.  Part of the issue I think is that their autos are such a unique design, rather than use a planetary gearset like everyone else they basicaly have a manual style box with shift actuators added to it. Its especially odd they never get it right,  as their manual boxes are some of the best in the industry.


----------



## lindnova

I had an 88 Honda Accord automatic.  It would grind into reverse when cold and loudly click into when hot, but work great otherwise.  Took it in to the dealer - need new reverse shift fork for $1500.00.  I chose to change the fluid every 20k and drive through or back into parking spots to minimize cold reverse shifts.  90k later still working the same when I sold it at close to 200k.  I dodged a bullet there.

I like manuals better.  My work Silverado 6 speed is always hunting and never quick enough to downshift or in the right gear.  It is programmed for effieciency and always running to high a gear.  When I need it to go it pauses and hunts for the gear so long that by the time it downshifts I am in traffic and letting up on the gas.  Lots of power, but the computer won't give it when I want it.  Should get a programmer.


----------



## moey

jharkin said:


> Every 10K?   Thats every oil change and sounds just a bit excessive?   the manual for my wife's Pilot says a full change  every 60 or 90 with the older conventional Honda fluid.  Since it is one of the years that has issues I do a  drain/fill (partial change) every 30k with redline synthetic.
> 
> I dont yet trust these factory intervals going close to 100k and more, but OTOH a tech calling for 10k trans  sounds like the quick lube guy trying to sell you a 3000 mile oil change when the factory says 15k is ok.
> 
> 
> Honda has always had automatic problems.  Part of the issue I think is that their autos are such a unique design, rather than use a planetary gearset like everyone else they basicaly have a manual style box with shift actuators added to it. Its especially odd they never get it right,  as their manual boxes are some of the best in the industry.



I do mine about every 15k. We had a 96 accord though that had close to 300k on it that I only did at 100k intervals if that. Those were bullet proof though. Id be hesitant to put in redline synthetic but I admittedly know nothing about it. I swapped a transmission in a 2007 accord about a year ago. Took me about 20 hours spread out over a month. After that work I err on the side of caution perhaps analness. The Honda DW1 which is all you can buy now for ATF for a honda is synthetic the older Honda Z-1 is not. I have read though some folks swear by the redline synthetic. You probably would be better served by adding a better transmission filter to the car they sell some aftermarket ones that are pretty good search for magnefine (http://magnefinefilters.com/)  on ebay that is what I have on both our hondas.

Honda has had recalls on transmissions but there are thousands of folks who have gotten 200-300k out of them with little maintenance you always read about the bad not the good. At some point they will fail just like a clutch will need rebuilding.


----------



## Ashful

jharkin said:


> ...sounds like the quick lube guy trying to sell you a 3000 mile oil change when the factory says 15k is ok.


My factory manual still calls out 3000 mile oil changes, for towing use profile, which is what I do.  Wife's last three cars have all been spec'd at 10k changes on full synthetic, but always needed topping off at 5k, lest a low oil level sensor light comes on and scares the hell out of you.

Dino fluid is cheap, engines are spendy.


----------



## firefighterjake

iamlucky13 said:


> Is this new, or are you sure you're not putting the lever in "M"? Our 2013 varies continuously when in Auto, unless I hit the shift paddles, in which case it switches to a simulated shift point (not my preferred behavior in that scenario, but not a big issue).
> 
> I can't think of a reason to program a CVT to always jump through simulated shift points. That's just throwing one of the pros of CVT's out the window.
> 
> . . ..



Nope . . . not in the "manual" mode (I hate flappy shifters and never use them . . . if I'm going to shift a car I want to do it the real way with a real manual.)

Don't quote me on it . . . but I think the simulated points were added in the 2015 line up. From what I understand it's more of a simulated deal done through the computer programming in an effort to make the feel of the CVT more like a conventional automatic. I also understand that it still retains most of the benefits of the CVT . . . there may be a slight decrease in fuel economy . . . but honestly my wife is getting low to mid 30s for gas mpg which is pretty good in my opinion for an AWD vehicle.


----------



## jharkin

moey said:


> I do mine about every 15k. We had a 96 accord though that had close to 300k on it that I only did at 100k intervals if that. Those were bullet proof though. Id be hesitant to put in redline synthetic but I admittedly know nothing about it. I swapped a transmission in a 2007 accord about a year ago. Took me about 20 hours spread out over a month. After that work I err on the side of caution perhaps analness. The Honda DW1 which is all you can buy now for ATF for a honda is synthetic the older Honda Z-1 is not. I have read though some folks swear by the redline synthetic. You probably would be better served by adding a better transmission filter to the car they sell some aftermarket ones that are pretty good search for magnefine (http://magnefinefilters.com/)  on ebay that is what I have on both our hondas.
> 
> Honda has had recalls on transmissions but there are thousands of folks who have gotten 200-300k out of them with little maintenance you always read about the bad not the good. At some point they will fail just like a clutch will need rebuilding.



Our Pilot called for the old Z1 with a first change at 90 and then every 60.  At the time I got it (used) I did a lot of research and many BITOG users reported having better success with Redline D4 (I dont know if DW1 was out yet). Redline tells me D4 is compatible with Honda fluid.  the tyranny holds 12qt but a drain fill only changes half. So rather than wait for 90 to do a full flush I did the first drain fill at 60 and then a drain fill every 30 after that.  Figure Im changing half the fluid more often so it averages out. And less danger of causing problems that flushing an old auto can do. and much easier to do.

I like redline oils.  I also had an Acura manual box with sticky second gear synchros.  Redline MTL fixed that like magic 

My truck OTOH will get Toyota WS and nothing else. Nobody, not even the BITOG guys knows if there is any synthetic compatible with it.  They say lifetime fill... I'm thinking a change every 30-60 




Ashful said:


> My factory manual still calls out 3000 mile oil changes, for towing use profile, which is what I do.  Wife's last three cars have all been spec'd at 10k changes on full synthetic, but always needed topping off at 5k, lest a low oil level sensor light comes on and scares the hell out of you.
> 
> Dino fluid is cheap, engines are spendy.



I agree oil changes are cheap vs engine changes.  What I think is funny is techs who try to sell you a 3k change on a car for which the manual says 15k.  Ive learned a lot reading stuff in BITOG (http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/motor-oil-101/) .  I thought I even saw some article about more recent research actually finding some benefits from longer change intervals.... 

The Pilot oil life monitor always comes on around 6k... Tacoma still says 5k in the book.  So I do 5k on both of them. synthetic.

My MIL civic says 15k but she drives so little miles I change hers once a year based on time.  then you have big commercial diesels with ridiculous intervals like 50k.  its all over the map.


----------



## moey

jharkin said:


> Our Pilot called for the old Z1 with a first change at 90 and then every 60.  At the time I got it (used) I did a lot of research and many BITOG users reported having better success with Redline D4 (I dont know if DW1 was out yet). Redline tells me D4 is compatible with Honda fluid.  the tyranny holds 12qt but a drain fill only changes half. So rather than wait for 90 to do a full flush I did the first drain fill at 60 and then a drain fill every 30 after that.  Figure Im changing half the fluid more often so it averages out. And less danger of causing problems that flushing an old auto can do. and much easier to do.



Sounds like you know this but Honda transmissions should never be flushed the big factory shop manuals even state that in bold. If someplace is going to flush a honda transmission thats a sign to go elsewhere. I don't know what the dealerships do Ive heard of people unhooking the lines from the transmission cooler to get more out of them somehow. I just do the 2 1/2 qt change and keep it fresh like you. We regress I think...


----------



## Stelcom66

lindnova said:


> I chose to change the fluid every 20k and drive through or back into parking spots to minimize cold reverse shifts



Sounds like my lawn tractor, it usually takes a couple tries getting into gear to go forward - so I usually mow most of the lawn without going in reverse.



firefighterjake said:


> but honestly my wife is getting low to mid 30s for gas mpg which is pretty good in my opinion for an AWD vehicle.



It sure is good, probably about 10 mpg better than my older manual transmission Forester.


----------



## Ashful

jharkin said:


> Ive learned a lot reading stuff in BITOG (http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/motor-oil-101/) .  I thought I even saw some article about more recent research actually finding some benefits from longer change intervals...


I'm no expert on this, by any means, but I do know that removing corrosive deposits from the crank case is a substantial consideration in defining oil change intervals.  There are lubricants made today that will go well beyond the specified oil change intervals, in terms of viscosity breakdown and other parameters.  So, I wonder about 15k mile oil change intervals, in vehicles where you are only accumulating 5k miles per year.  I've had dealers argue with me about changing oil under their full maintenance warranty program at less than the specified mileage, when I want the factory-installed oil changed after a year of driving.


----------



## jharkin

moey said:


> Sounds like you know this but Honda transmissions should never be flushed the big factory shop manuals even state that in bold. If someplace is going to flush a honda transmission thats a sign to go elsewhere. I don't know what the dealerships do Ive heard of people unhooking the lines from the transmission cooler to get more out of them somehow. I just do the 2 1/2 qt change and keep it fresh like you. We regress I think...



Yep, I know, I have the factory manual (that thing is heavy  )   I thought it had some process for draining out close to the full volume without one of those flushing machines.... but yeah either way I dont do it and just drain/fill (I DIY).   Ive heard all the horror stories about flushing trannies causing dirt to get stirred up and into the valve body.




Ashful said:


> I'm no expert on this, by any means, but I do know that removing corrosive deposits from the crank case is a substantial consideration in defining oil change intervals.  There are lubricants made today that will go well beyond the specified oil change intervals, in terms of viscosity breakdown and other parameters.  So, I wonder about 15k mile oil change intervals, in vehicles where you are only accumulating 5k miles per year.  I've had dealers argue with me about changing oil under their full maintenance warranty program at less than the specified mileage, when I want the factory-installed oil changed after a year of driving.



True... and even I am a bit skeptical about going 15k or multiple years... it was just the idea of doing 3k when the book says 15k that seems to much to me (and yes I did note that your car actually calls for 3 in the book, that wasn't what I was referring to). Funny that I just had the opposite argument with my Toyota dealer (since they give me free changes for the first 2 years)... I had only put on ~ 3k in the first 6 months and they kept telling me I needed to change it at 6 months because of the serve schedule.... well my driving is mostly my 15 mile commute so Im not driving much off road or in dusty conditions  and almost always drive for 30+ min at a time letting it get up to temp - more like the normal schedule. So i had them to hold off and wait for 5k miles to do the change with was around 8months.  My engine has not imploded yet.

Once its out of the free service period all avoid all the arguing and do it myself with synthetic.  At 5k or 1 year whichever comes first.


----------



## Jags

I just don't know what to think, but I do know that the need to be picky on PM stuff just so it doesn't quit working would drive me insane.


----------



## TMonter

moey said:


> The only honda auto tech I have ever talked with always said to change your transmission fluid ( 2.5 qts ) every 10-15k. Much much more often then the manual states. Fortunately its very simple to change. One bolt no filter. Always use the Honda fluid as well.
> 
> They did make some sh*t transmissions for quite a few years. Seemed like a roll of the dice as to whether it was a good generation or bad generation transmission.



Actually never use the Honda fluid on a new rebuild, go with a high quality synthetic fluid instead. The stock Honda fluid does very poor under heavy use or stop and go driving. The only reason to use Honda fluid would be to maintain a factory warranty.

The other thing to do on those years with the poor transmissions is add an additional cooler


----------



## TMonter

jharkin said:


> Yep, I know, I have the factory manual (that thing is heavy  ) I thought it had some process for draining out close to the full volume without one of those flushing machines.... but yeah either way I dont do it and just drain/fill (I DIY). Ive heard all the horror stories about flushing trannies causing dirt to get stirred up and into the valve body.



This is generally only the case for people who have neglected to change the transmission fluid on a regular interval. If you've changed the fluid every 50k or less running a flush machine shouldn't cause an issue.


----------



## moey

TMonter said:


> Actually never use the Honda fluid on a new rebuild, go with a high quality synthetic fluid instead. The stock Honda fluid does very poor under heavy use or stop and go driving. The only reason to use Honda fluid would be to maintain a factory warranty.
> 
> The other thing to do on those years with the poor transmissions is add an additional cooler



Honda ATF is synthetic it has been for 5 or so years.


----------



## moey

TMonter said:


> This is generally only the case for people who have neglected to change the transmission fluid on a regular interval. If you've changed the fluid every 50k or less running a flush machine shouldn't cause an issue.



Its also what Honda engineers are very emphatic about not flushing.


----------



## Ashful

Interesting that my thread commiserating the demise of manual transmissions has turned into two pages of people talking about AUTOMATIC transmission fluid.


----------



## TommyTally

It's funny I found  this thread. I have been casually looking for a new half ton crew cab with a manual transmission. Based on what I can find, I don't think a manual is going to happen.


----------



## TMonter

moey said:


> Honda ATF is synthetic it has been for 5 or so years.



Yes but they still used the older non-synthetic fluid on older transmissions or did up until about 4 years ago. That may have changed recently.

In late 2010, the local Honda dealer wanted $4200 dollars for a transmission rebuild on the wife's Odyssey and they weren't even going to put a cooler and synthetic transmission fluid in it. I had a guy who has been doing transmissions for 40 years and has done a couple dozen of these transmissions do the work, put all OEM parts and an extra cooler and full synthetic fluid with a 60k warranty for a grand less. The last transmission failed at 109k and the new one has 50k on it so we'll see how it goes, but no particles in the fluid changes so far.


----------



## Stelcom66

TommyTally said:


> It's funny I found this thread. I have been casually looking for a new half ton crew cab with a manual transmission. Based on what I can find, I don't think a manual is going to happen



The closest thing to it would be a 2015 Chevy Colorado, but it must be a base extended cab 2WD model with the 2.5L 4 cylinder. A road test reviewer said that drivetrain was adequate - doesn't surprise me because the 2.5L puts out about as much power (but probably not torque) as the 4.3 V6 did several years ago. If I was to go 2WD I could see going with the 2.5 and the manual. They should have offered a longer bed option, longest length is 6'2".

Too bad the manual isn't offered with 4WD, that would probably require the V6. A couple times this past winter I obtained firewood at places with snow on the ground, I suppose I might have made it out ok loaded with wood, but likely would have had trouble empty going up a slight incline with just 2WD.


----------



## iamlucky13

TommyTally said:


> It's funny I found  this thread. I have been casually looking for a new half ton crew cab with a manual transmission. Based on what I can find, I don't think a manual is going to happen.



You've got to be kidding me. No manual transmission option for the primary medium-duty vehicle on the market?


----------



## iamlucky13

jharkin said:


> The Pilot oil life monitor always comes on around 6k... Tacoma still says 5k in the book. So I do 5k on both of them. synthetic.



As far as I've been able to find out, oil life monitor is a slight misnomer. It doesn't actually monitor the oil, which would require some fairly sophisticated measurements. It monitors the engine operating conditions (temperatures, RPM, etc), and predicts the oil life based on the manufacturer testing and what they expect drivers are typically using. I've heard that used oil analyses indicate the monitors are pretty accurate if you're using the minimum specified oil, but if you're using a high quality synthetic, the oil generally has a fair amount of life left in it when the monitor says it's time to change the oil.



jharkin said:


> My MIL civic says 15k but she drives so little miles I change hers once a year based on time. then you have big commercial diesels with ridiculous intervals like 50k. its all over the map



A once a year minimum regardless of miles seems like a decent policy. At worst, you're wasting a small amount of the useful life of the oil, but not enough to feel bad about. I think most manuals still make a recommendation of "X miles or Y months, whichever comes first."

Different use cases result in different oil lives. Your all-over-the-map observation isn't random, but generally based on what the manufacturer has found in their long-term testing. Commercial trucks typically get driven differently (mostly highway miles) and usually have proportionately larger oil capacities and better filters. That these intervals do work is well attested by the fact that trucks with 1 million+ miles on them are not uncommon.

Here's a similar data point from a guy who ran 39,000 mostly highway miles on an Amsoil synthetic and an after-market filter modification (similar to what commercial trucks usually have). He sent the used oil to a lab for analysis. Their tests indicated he actually could have run a little longer without an issue, and that his custom filter setup was doing a good job of keeping metal wear particles from recirculating through his engine.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2289228

Granted, he added over a full change worth of make-up oil in between changes to replace what burned off, but his 1 quart per 7,000 miles of oil consumption is not at all unusual for a Honda.


----------



## jharkin

Ashful said:


> Interesting that my thread commiserating the demise of manual transmissions has turned into two pages of people talking about AUTOMATIC transmission fluid.


----------



## Highbeam

Ashful said:


> Wife's last three cars have all been spec'd at 10k changes on full synthetic, but always needed topping off at 5k, lest a low oil level sensor light comes on and scares the hell out of you.



My wifes 5.3 Yukon engine has the same oil monitor and the "low  oil" warning message comes on when the oil level reaches the low end of the normal range on the dipstick. Freaked me out the first time too but it's not the same as a low oil pressure idiot light. I actually much prefer a low oil level light to come on before a loss of oil pressure but at first I thought they were the same!

I can swap a manual 6 speed to my F350 diesel for less money than replacing the auto trans. Not worth the hassle though with all the computers and instrucment cluster revisions. With a proper shift kit (programming) the auto trans can be made pretty dang pleasant to drive.


----------



## Ashful

"Pleasant" isn't my driving style.  Whether trucks or hotrods, I'm just used to grabbing gears and using a clutch.

Last "automatic" I had was a manual valve body C6 in a Mustang 5.0, that I had refitted with a 435 cid (7.1 L) Ford big block.


----------



## TommyTally

Stelcom66 said:


> The closest thing to it would be a 2015 Chevy Colorado, but it must be a base extended cab 2WD model with the 2.5L 4 cylinder. A road test reviewer said that drivetrain was adequate - doesn't surprise me because the 2.5L puts out about as much power (but probably not torque) as the 4.3 V6 did several years ago. If I was to go 2WD I could see going with the 2.5 and the manual. They should have offered a longer bed option, longest length is 6'2".
> 
> Too bad the manual isn't offered with 4WD, that would probably require the V6. A couple times this past winter I obtained firewood at places with snow on the ground, I suppose I might have made it out ok loaded with wood, but likely would have had trouble empty going up a slight incline with just 2WD.



I really need the 4WD based on where we live. Too much snow and too many hills to get away RWD only. I looked at the Colorado, but I don't think it came with the manual in the V6 application IIRC.


----------



## TommyTally

iamlucky13 said:


> You've got to be kidding me. No manual transmission option for the primary medium-duty vehicle on the market?



If you find one, let me know.


----------



## joecool85

TommyTally said:


> If you find one, let me know.


x2


----------



## Hills Hoard

I always said i'd never get an automatic.  I like to actually "drive" my car....but i think technology has come a long way and the autos ive driven recently are far from what they were 10 years ago...


----------



## iamlucky13

TommyTally said:


> If you find one, let me know.



I hadn't been looking.

But I know I will be replacing my current car in a few years, and if you can't even find a 1/2 ton pickup with a manual, then I have to expect finding a passenger car with a manual will be nearly impossible. Not to mention, I occasionally consider getting a pickup.


----------



## joecool85

There are still a handful of cars with manuals. Ford Fiesta, Focus, and Mustang for instance.


----------



## firefighterjake

Honda Accord
Honda Civic
Subaru Forester
Subaru Impreza


----------



## Ashful

iamlucky13 said:


> ...if you can't even find a 1/2 ton pickup with a manual, then I have to expect finding a passenger car with a manual will be nearly impossible. Not to mention, I occasionally consider getting a pickup.


If buying a 1/2 ton pickup, you will find three pages of paint options, interior options, dual zone climate control options... but very few options on drivetrain.  Trouble is, they've become more fashion statement than truck.

I see dually 350 SuperDuty trucks every day, that do less work than my old 1/2 ton, with pristine beds penetrated by wanna-be big-rig smoke stacks.  The manufacturers are only serving their perception of market desires.  Most Americans don't use their trucks for work today, they use them to drive to their fantasy football meetings.

On cars... I was blown away that Audi could not sell me an A4 Quattro wagon with a manual trans.  The dealer's response, "most American's don't want manual, so Audi doesn't offer many manual configurations."  My response, "True, most American's don't want manual, but they buy Buick and Nissan.  However, those shopping Audi likely do want manual."  The dealer seemed to agree with that sentiment, but then again, I was the customer with cash in hand... he'd have probably agreed with anything I said.


----------



## joecool85

Ashful said:


> ...My response, "True, most American's don't want manual, but they buy Buick and Nissan.  However, those shopping Audi likely do want manual."  The dealer seemed to agree with that sentiment, but then again, I was the customer with cash in hand... he'd have probably agreed with anything I said.



Oddly enough, even Buick offers a stick... 2015 Buick Regal.


----------



## Stelcom66

Not that I'm considering a new car, but I was very disappointed to hear when Subaru discontinued the manual transmission option on the 2015 Legacy, then especially the Outback. I really thought they'd hold out. Almost surprised that the new Forester is available with a manual ...for now.


----------

