The decline of manual values

[driveaway]

Take for example a Toyota Avensis, the manual one cost £750 to replace the gearbox and it is running fine, whereas the automatic gearbox one, the gearbox was replaced only a couple of miles ago, and issues are starting to crop up already....
I suppose everyone has their own experience, so as you said, agree to disagree....

[TwigtheWonderkid]

driveaway said:

I strongly believe, that people who CANNOT drive a manual (not someone who just chooses not to), and hasn't got the license for one, shouldn't really be allowed on the road.
Automatic is essentially the licence to drive a faster, passenger carrying go-kart.
Learning to drive a manual is learning to drive a car.
Learning to drive only automatic, is learning to drive a go-kart.
You might prefer one or the other, but you should know both otherwise as I said above....

Have you got any actual evidence that auto only licence holders have a worse accident record in automatics than manual licence holders have in automatics?

Do you have a full motorcycle licence? Or a full Class 1 articulated lorry licence? If not, how do you feel about the view that if you don't hold one or both of those, you shouldn't be able to drive a car?

[kambites]

Deep Thought said:

I think we were talking about general use and the general public and i think for most normal duties a modern auto is going to be a better choice than a manual.

Very much so. The holy grail for that sort of driving is full automation which is obviously why we're heading in that direction.

[chris1roll]

driveaway said:

Take for example a Toyota Avensis, the manual one cost £750 to replace the gearbox and it is running fine, whereas the automatic gearbox one, the gearbox was replaced only a couple of miles ago, and issues are starting to crop up already....
I suppose everyone has their own experience, so as you said, agree to disagree....

The older they get the worse it is too.
My wife will only drive an auto (has a full licence but hasnt driven manual for 15 years+).
When looking at the say sub 3k point, the number of autos that when you read the description say "gearbox fault" is noticeable.
Or you get there and the fluid is burnt and there's a bottle of atf in the boot

So we had the gearbox rebuilt on her current car when it started messing around (not something I fancied attempting in the shed) 18 months and about 10k later and its starting to play up again.

TBH if we just got a manual and I had to spend a day replacing a burnt out clutch every six months it would still be cheaper and less stressful

[Deep Thought]

chris1roll said:

The older they get the worse it is too.
My wife will only drive an auto (has a full licence but hasnt driven manual for 15 years+).
When looking at the say sub 3k point, the number of autos that when you read the description say "gearbox fault" is noticeable.
Or you get there and the fluid is burnt and there's a bottle of atf in the boot

So we had the gearbox rebuilt on her current car when it started messing around (not something I fancied attempting in the shed) 18 months and about 10k later and its starting to play up again.

TBH if we just got a manual and I had to spend a day replacing a burnt out clutch every six months it would still be cheaper and less stressful

Given an auto car could be making 50% more than the manual variant, in a typical family hatch, its not much of a surprise if you're struggling to something at under £3K.

That said of the 5,275 under £3K cars on A/T that are automatic only 6 have the keywords "gearbox fault".

In my time in motor trading i very regularly saw cars with dual mass flywheel issues, linkage issues, clutches slipping, master / slave cylinder issues, crunching sychros whereas auto box faults were rare.

[Unreal]

Deep Thought said:

chris1roll said:

The older they get the worse it is too.
My wife will only drive an auto (has a full licence but hasnt driven manual for 15 years+).
When looking at the say sub 3k point, the number of autos that when you read the description say "gearbox fault" is noticeable.
Or you get there and the fluid is burnt and there's a bottle of atf in the boot

So we had the gearbox rebuilt on her current car when it started messing around (not something I fancied attempting in the shed) 18 months and about 10k later and its starting to play up again.

TBH if we just got a manual and I had to spend a day replacing a burnt out clutch every six months it would still be cheaper and less stressful

Given an auto car could be making 50% more than the manual variant, in a typical family hatch, its not much of a surprise if you're struggling to something at under £3K.

That said of the 5,275 under £3K cars on A/T that are automatic only 6 have the keywords "gearbox fault".

In my time in motor trading i very regularly saw cars with dual mass flywheel issues, linkage issues, clutches slipping, master / slave cylinder issues, crunching sychros whereas auto box faults were rare.

Tend to agree. Not a trader but I've owned a lot of cars. Manuals need maintenance. Autos tend to be fit and forget until you hit higher mileages. By that time they're owned by people who aren't loaded so there's a lot of crying when the bill comes in.

I like autos in some cars and manuals in others but whereas I'd probably be happy to exchange or repair a manual I'd invariably dump a car with an auto problem.

I can see manuals disappearing but they'll continue to hold a big attraction for older drivers of performance cars.

[driveaway]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Have you got any actual evidence that auto only licence holders have a worse accident record in automatics than manual licence holders have in automatics?

Do you have a full motorcycle licence? Or a full Class 1 articulated lorry licence? If not, how do you feel about the view that if you don't hold one or both of those, you shouldn't be able to drive a car?

I was referring to cars, not other vehicles, besides that my point was not specifically related to accidents, I mean the general driving.
Many young drivers (I am a relatively young driver, no white hairs yet....) friends of fine included, who only can drive automatics, feel as if they just got a licence to zip around in a go kart on the streets (or at least they act that way), but ones that drive manuals seem to be a bit more mature about things..
They have more control on their car, and control their speed, USUALLY in a more civilised manner...

[Mr Tidy]

Unreal said:

I can see manuals disappearing but they'll continue to hold a big attraction for older drivers of older cars.

FTFY!

Well for my case anyway. I'm 65 and my teenage cars are both manual.

[heebeegeetee]

NDNDNDND said:

heebeegeetee said:

I have my old 986 outside, which is perfectly set up for heel and toe.

Which presumably you'll find:

heebeegeetee said:

Archaic and inefficient [and] frustrating...

I totally agree that the actual act of changing gear is a piece of pi**, not least in the car I've just bought, but that also leaves me puzzled over the fuss people make about manual changing.

Or perhaps your original comment was, as I suspect, some sort of weird nonsense to make a flex about how superior you think you are on the internet?

You're just getting weirder. How on earth is discussing gearboxes "some sort of weird nonsense to make a flex about how superior you think you are on the internet?"
And why have you picked me out for this? I'm not alone here.
I'll also remind you that you reckoned that I couldn't heel and toe, despite knowing nothing about me. Presumably this was to make you feel superior, which I also find odd because it takes about 5 mins to learn.

[heebeegeetee]

driveaway said:

Is the trend moving over to auto just a sign of generational laziness....?

I strongly believe, that people who CANNOT drive a manual (not someone who just chooses not to), and hasn't got the license for one, shouldn't really be allowed on the road.
Automatic is essentially the licence to drive a faster, passenger carrying go-kart.
Learning to drive a manual is learning to drive a car.
Learning to drive only automatic, is learning to drive a go-kart.
You might prefer one or the other, but you should know both otherwise as I said above....

This is just getting bizarre. I've raced karts (proper 2 stroke jobs, not the heavy 4 stroke hire things).
The two automatic vehicles I have in my life is an old Nissan X-Trail, 150bhp & 173k miles on it, and a motorhome.

To suggest there could be ANY correlation whatsoever between those and a kart... well, I'm going to have to ask you to explain.

[heebeegeetee]

kambites said:

Deep Thought said:

Traffic jam on a motorway - yay where's the gear stick! Nope.

I get around this one by largely avoiding both traffic jams and motorways. I could count the number of times I've spent more than ten minutes in slow-moving traffic in the last year on the thumbs of one hand.

Edited by kambites on Sunday 19th May 15:56

Do you think 10s of millions of people could do the same? Is this a rational argument in favour of the manual gearbox?

[driveaway]

heebeegeetee said:

This is just getting bizarre. I've raced karts (proper 2 stroke jobs, not the heavy 4 stroke hire things).
The two automatic vehicles I have in my life is an old Nissan X-Trail, 150bhp & 173k miles on it, and a motorhome.

To suggest there could be ANY correlation whatsoever between those and a kart... well, I'm going to have to ask you to explain.

haha, I obviously did not mean people like you.....
I am referring to more young drivers that zip around in auto-karts aka automatic gearbox cars, thinking their on the track somewhere racing.
If your trailing or driving a motorhome than you probably do know what your doing, not driving around with a lack of control, lack of awareness etc...

[NDNDNDND]

heebeegeetee said:

NDNDNDND said:

heebeegeetee said:

I have my old 986 outside, which is perfectly set up for heel and toe.

Which presumably you'll find:

heebeegeetee said:

Archaic and inefficient [and] frustrating...

I totally agree that the actual act of changing gear is a piece of pi**, not least in the car I've just bought, but that also leaves me puzzled over the fuss people make about manual changing.

Or perhaps your original comment was, as I suspect, some sort of weird nonsense to make a flex about how superior you think you are on the internet?

You're just getting weirder. How on earth is discussing gearboxes "some sort of weird nonsense to make a flex about how superior you think you are on the internet?"
And why have you picked me out for this? I'm not alone here.
I'll also remind you that you reckoned that I couldn't heel and toe, despite knowing nothing about me. Presumably this was to make you feel superior, which I also find odd because it takes about 5 mins to learn.

You're the one who reckons every man and his dog can heel n' toe, so it's hardly me trying to be superior is it?

Why do you own a manual Boxster if you think manual gearboxes are so horrendous?

You're not making any sense and you're contradicting yourself. What is your point?

[heebeegeetee]

driveaway said:

heebeegeetee said:

This is just getting bizarre. I've raced karts (proper 2 stroke jobs, not the heavy 4 stroke hire things).
The two automatic vehicles I have in my life is an old Nissan X-Trail, 150bhp & 173k miles on it, and a motorhome.

To suggest there could be ANY correlation whatsoever between those and a kart... well, I'm going to have to ask you to explain.

haha, I obviously did not mean people like you.....
I am referring to more young drivers that zip around in auto-karts aka automatic gearbox cars, thinking their on the track somewhere racing.
If your trailing or driving a motorhome than you probably do know what your doing, not driving around with a lack of control, lack of awareness etc...

Ok, fair enough.

So,moving on, what do we think about this?

Here is Mr Harry Metcalfe in his review of the M2, who is one of the most experienced car owners by far of this parish, and here he is in this great car, which lets be honest, is as well set up for the road as any car possibly ever has been.

And yet, even with a quick gearchange, the change of gear is still so slow that the car has time to dip, the drive to the driven wheels is still broken for long enough that the whole car dips forward, and then lifts again as the drive is re-engaged. (And presumably it's this behaviour in lesser mortals is what spears these types of cars off the road into the scenery?)

I can't see how the purists amongst us can feel this is possibly right? Imo that car should launch itself down the road in a seamless burst of acceleration, surely, and not dipping and lifting at every gear change?

It just doesn't square right to me. Sure, in an old car I want the tech that it came with, but fitting old technology to a bang-up-to-date car just doesn't seem right to me. Sure, if you want to do it for fun then that is absolutely fine, but I can't see how people can argue that they want an old transmission fitted because it is the right tool for the job and is superior to the alternative? How is breaking the drive to the wheels for so long, and having to do it repeatedly, possibly be the correct way to do it? (actually saying it has to be done repeatedly is probably not accurate, with that much power I'd image it could be changed from 1st to 3rd to 6th if so wished. If wanting to go through every gear was desired, I guess we all have to accept that nobody would do it remotely as quick as a dct?)

Looking forward to seeing the answers, guys. Take it away Harry :

https://youtu.be/tet4xDobQ0M?si=qTWuEc6dYeHxq9gS&a...

Edited by heebeegeetee on Monday 20th May 00:57

[heebeegeetee]

NDNDNDND said:

1.You're the one who reckons every man and his dog can heel n' toe, so it's hardly me trying to be superior is it?

2. Why do you own a manual Boxster if you think manual gearboxes are so horrendous?

3. You're not making any sense and you're contradicting yourself. What is your point?

1. Never said that. Looks like your argument doesn't work with honesty. What I asked was do you seriously think thar are any/many on a car forum, and on a thread about manual gearchanges in particular, who cannot heel and toe? I'd be surprised if there were many. And, I think you're making a huge mistake if you think there are any superior skills needed to operating a synchromesh gearbox.

2. I've never said manual gearboxes are horrendous. The reason I bought manual was because I didn't like tiptronic (but I'd have pdk); the reason I've just bought a manual Nissan X-Trail is because the alternative was cvt, which I don't want, but I would have had a slush box as my previous X-Trail had, or a modern dct/dsg type box.

3. Nope, it's your struggle with reading and comprehension.

[GravelBen]

heebeegeetee said:

Do you think 10s of millions of people could do the same? Is this a rational argument in favour of the manual gearbox?

Its a rational argument for people choosing the gearbox that suits their use and preference best.

Which is a point a number of people on this thread have made only to get shouted down by a chorus of 'but automatics are easier and [sometimes] more efficient and [sometimes] faster!'.

If automatic suits you best for a certain example/use case then by all means choose one, but I'm not sure why the automatic evangelists here are so dedicated to trying to convince everyone else to drive an automatic too.


To get back to the original question of whether manual values will drop relative to autos in future, its hard to say - here in NZ manuals are already much harder to find than autos for many vehicles (partly due to decades of the second-hand market being flooded with Japanese imports) and tend to demand higher second-hand prices than automatic as enough people want manuals that supply seems to be more limited than demand.

[heebeegeetee]

GravelBen said:

If automatic suits you best for a certain example/use case then by all means choose one, but I'm not sure why the automatic evangelists here are so dedicated to trying to convince everyone else to drive an automatic too.

Nobody is trying to do that, we're simply having a debate.

• Personally*, I think there's an awful lot of BS on the manual side, I don't mind addressing those points, but I'm certainly not trying to convince anyone to do anything.

[kambites]

heebeegeetee said:

Do you think 10s of millions of people could do the same? Is this a rational argument in favour of the manual gearbox?

It's certain a rational argument in favour of the existence of the manual gearbox. It's obviously not (and wasn't meant to be) a rational argument for everything containing a manual gearbox. As I said above, I think for 95+% of use-cases, total automation should be the end-goal. After all who wants to control the steering or acceleration/braking in traffic or on the motorway either?

Ultimately cars are devices for getting people and things form A to B and the "best" car will the one which does that with the minimum effort and hence the minimum input from the user. I think anyone who wants anything else from a car is very much in a minority but that doesn't mean they don't exist or that they, economics of production permitting, shouldn't be catered for by the market.

Edited by kambites on Monday 20th May 08:28

[Forester1965]

As far as the future is concerned what we think of manuals in new cars will be irrelevant, there won't be any.

In some used drivers cars the rarity value will keep manual values up I expect until the age group reminiscing over them gets too old to keep up interest.

[Rich Boy Spanner]

The traffic is now so bad that a manual is a total PITA. I have a manual and an auto. The manual is increasingly starting to feel like an old horse and cart. Saying that, I wouldn't buy any automated manual/DSG because of the repair costs.