Tweet
This blogger thinks so:
Thoughts?
I recently blogged about the Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT-8. Overall I liked the car, but some readers commented that they couldn't understand how Jeep could offer such a clearly high-performance vehicle without a manual transmission (even as an option). Jeep is hardly alone in their lack of manual appreciation. The latest BMW M5 and M6 models weren't available with a traditional manual transmission, at least not initially. There's no manual in Audi's S8, Porsche's Cayenne Turbo, or any version of the Mercedes-Benz SL (a model whose name comes from the term sports light).
Then there are the models that a technically available with a traditional manual transmission, but good luck finding one at your local dealer or in the classifieds. These would include such paragons of performance as the Aston-Martin V8 Vantage, Ferrari F430 and Lamborghini Gallardo. Even Mitsubishi's orignal bad boy rally racer, the Lancer Evolution, will be available with only two pedals this year. And who wants to bet how the majority of them will be equipped for the U.S. market? Here's a hint: Remember when the Porsche faithful bemoaned the availability of an automatic in their beloved 911 Turbo? They wondered who would actually buy a car like that with a slushbox shifter between the seats? The answer turned out to be the majority of Turbo buyers.
What does all this mean for the long-term health of the manual transmission? Is it destined for the same fate as the hand-crank starter, points ignition and carburetor? And with the development of electro-hydaulic clutches is the death of the manual transmission even worth worrying about? As usual, I have the answer to all these questions and more.
First, the manual transmission is going to go away eventually. Less than 10 percent of new vehicles sold in this country have three pedals in the driver's footwell. Blame it on traffic congestion. Blame it on lack of training. Blame it on pure laziness if you must, but don't expect the trend to reverse. Many will see the "technological fix" to this situation in the form of transmissions like Audi's DSG and Ferrari's F1 offerings.
I like those transmissions, and I certainly prefer their driving characteristics to what is delivered by torque converters. But I was talking to a Ferrari technician recently and he made an interesting statement: If I'm in a car that starts to slide sideways, or even goes into a full spin, there's nothing I can do about it in an F1 car. But with a traditional manual transmission I can work the clutch and accelerator pedals to potentially save the vehicle.
I'd never thought about that, even though I've used the clutch to balance a sliding vehicle on a couple of occasions myself. It occurred to me that the best comparison to this is another (relatively) recently-introduced technology -- ABS. Like ABS, an electrohydraulic clutch is better for most of the people most of the time. But just as with ABS, there are situations where a computer's ability to solve a problem aren't as good as a human's. The electrohydraulic clutch can't tell when it would be better to have the clutch only partially engaged. In fact, that's the heart of why these new transmissions are so "good" -- they essentially spend no time in partial clutch engagement.
Typically a car with an electrohydraulic clutch will pull faster lap times than one with three pedals. I guess there's no denying the stopwatch, so that's that, right? Of course, I recently drove an Audi R8 with three pedals and a metal-gate shifter. Trust me, there's no denying how that interation of man and machine feels, either. I'm the first one to sign up for an automatic when it comes time to drive around West Los Angeles. But I'm also glad my Ford GT has a large metal shifter and three pedals below the dash.
When it comes to pure fun behind the wheel (not to mention maximum power-delivery flexibility, should the need arise...) there's simply no comparison. But that won't stop their demise.
Then there are the models that a technically available with a traditional manual transmission, but good luck finding one at your local dealer or in the classifieds. These would include such paragons of performance as the Aston-Martin V8 Vantage, Ferrari F430 and Lamborghini Gallardo. Even Mitsubishi's orignal bad boy rally racer, the Lancer Evolution, will be available with only two pedals this year. And who wants to bet how the majority of them will be equipped for the U.S. market? Here's a hint: Remember when the Porsche faithful bemoaned the availability of an automatic in their beloved 911 Turbo? They wondered who would actually buy a car like that with a slushbox shifter between the seats? The answer turned out to be the majority of Turbo buyers.
What does all this mean for the long-term health of the manual transmission? Is it destined for the same fate as the hand-crank starter, points ignition and carburetor? And with the development of electro-hydaulic clutches is the death of the manual transmission even worth worrying about? As usual, I have the answer to all these questions and more.
First, the manual transmission is going to go away eventually. Less than 10 percent of new vehicles sold in this country have three pedals in the driver's footwell. Blame it on traffic congestion. Blame it on lack of training. Blame it on pure laziness if you must, but don't expect the trend to reverse. Many will see the "technological fix" to this situation in the form of transmissions like Audi's DSG and Ferrari's F1 offerings.
I like those transmissions, and I certainly prefer their driving characteristics to what is delivered by torque converters. But I was talking to a Ferrari technician recently and he made an interesting statement: If I'm in a car that starts to slide sideways, or even goes into a full spin, there's nothing I can do about it in an F1 car. But with a traditional manual transmission I can work the clutch and accelerator pedals to potentially save the vehicle.
I'd never thought about that, even though I've used the clutch to balance a sliding vehicle on a couple of occasions myself. It occurred to me that the best comparison to this is another (relatively) recently-introduced technology -- ABS. Like ABS, an electrohydraulic clutch is better for most of the people most of the time. But just as with ABS, there are situations where a computer's ability to solve a problem aren't as good as a human's. The electrohydraulic clutch can't tell when it would be better to have the clutch only partially engaged. In fact, that's the heart of why these new transmissions are so "good" -- they essentially spend no time in partial clutch engagement.
Typically a car with an electrohydraulic clutch will pull faster lap times than one with three pedals. I guess there's no denying the stopwatch, so that's that, right? Of course, I recently drove an Audi R8 with three pedals and a metal-gate shifter. Trust me, there's no denying how that interation of man and machine feels, either. I'm the first one to sign up for an automatic when it comes time to drive around West Los Angeles. But I'm also glad my Ford GT has a large metal shifter and three pedals below the dash.
When it comes to pure fun behind the wheel (not to mention maximum power-delivery flexibility, should the need arise...) there's simply no comparison. But that won't stop their demise.
Thoughts?
Comment