Questions regarding the future of manual transmissions

[Omshanti]

As I am sure many of you do too, I prefer manual transmissions with 3 pedals infinitely more than any other types of transmissions. I know from his videos and comments that Chris harris, one of my favorite auto journalists, does as well. So there are many people out there who prefer manual boxes, yet in spite of this it seems the manual transmission is dying out, which is where my question comes in. Why? I don't know much but aren't traditional manuals cheaper and simpler in terms of the design and manufacturing process compared to paddle shift semi automatic gearboxes which are so popular now? Couldn't conventional manual transmissions be easily fitted to any model of cars which are fitted with the paddle shift types? If so why don't manufacturers give the option of manual transmissions to the buyers and only fit semiautomatics in their new cars recently?

[thinfourth2]

Because of the CO2 god

Oh and formula 1 uses semi automatics so therefore its the perfect thing in a shopping car

[OwenK]

Packaging's another concern, if you design a car from the start to be semi auto only then you don't have to leave space for an awkward direct mechanical linkage to the gearbox, which allows more interior space and flexibility in styling. Many customers want this sort of transmission, including a proportion of the enthusiast market, which leaves the manual buyers as the minority - and the manual transmission's case isnt helped by also having more difficult packaging requirements... Plus as said its convenient for the CO2 regs, you can have it drive frugally in standard mode for the test and still be able to offer your customers a sporty drive.

[duncancallum]

I think the future hold little tiny forced induction engines that run at their most efficient rev range and a cvt box that controls the acceleration.

I will stick to a manual as nothing beats a nice heal and toe down shift.

[telecat]

Two Words "Sequential Shift". Still a manual, Any number of gears can be housed in the box and will use a similar amount of room to a Auto stick.

[kambites]

telecat said:

Two Words "Sequential Shift". Still a manual, Any number of gears can be housed in the box and will use a similar amount of room to a Auto stick.

Proper sequential manual boxes are extramely rare in cars. Lovely things in a sports car though.

Things like SMGs and DSGs are automatics to me (and to the OP, by the sounds of it).

[Omshanti]

Does that mean that a conventional manual gearbox uses more space than other types of gearboxes?
Why do manuals emit more CO2 than automatics? Due to having less gears?
Also Telecat, what type do you mean by sequential shift? The usual semi automatic sequential types without the clutch pedal, or are you suggesting a sequential manual with a clutch pedal which I believe no one has done yet?
Is it technologically possible to create a transmission which can be switched between an automatic mode and a manual mode with a clutch pedal, where the clutch pedal comes into use only when in manual mode?
Perhaps even a transmission which is switchable between a full automatic mode, a semi automatic sequential (with paddles or not) mode, and a full manual with clutch pedal mode.
Is this possible?

[kambites]

Omshanti said:

Why do manuals emit more CO2 than automatics? Due to having less gears?

Because the official EU test specifies what gear the car must be in at each point in the test for a manual, but lets an automatic choose its own gears. Thus manual gearbox manufacturers are either forced to tailor their boxes to the test, which would give them very odd gear ratios, or put up with a rubbish result.

It would certainly be possible to create a box that could operate as a full manual; an automated manual and a full automatic, but it would be heavy and rather complicated.

[Omshanti]

kambites said:

Because the official EU test specifies what gear the car must be in at each point in the test for a manual, but lets an automatic choose its own gears. Thus manual gearbox manufacturers are either forced to tailor their boxes to the test, which would give them very odd gear ratios, or put up with a rubbish result.

That sounds unfair.
I see now, it's the official regulations which are killing the manual transmissions.

kambites said:

It would certainly be possible to create a box that could operate as a full manual; an automated manual and a full automatic, but it would be heavy and rather complicated.

I agree, but it might keep the manual box alive within the regulations if any body achieves a light weight version. Or perhaps hydrogen powered internal combustion engine in the future (if anybody tries to make them) might save the manual transmission as they would be just like the usual petrol engines but without the CO2 issue.

[eldar]

Modern autos usually have more gears, 7 or 8, which will play a part as smaller turbo engines with much narrower efficiency (rather than power) bands appear. Thus balancing the right gear/engine speed will become too complex for mere mortals in the hunt for low CO2 bands.

Not all bad, as long as a manual over ride exists.

[Ozzie Osmond]

A key feature of modern cars is torque management by the ECU which protects the driveline during gear shifts, enabling an auto box to be built lighter than a manual. A manual box needs a good margin of capability to ensure its ability to survive heavy-footed drivers. The whole driveline is affected.

[davepoth]

Also, when you say "many people prefer manuals", it's not really the case. Even on a motoring enthusiast site like this there are people who prefer paddle shifts or autos of whatever description. The reasons for not having an auto previously (power sapping, not enough gears, expensive on fuel) has been eliminated, so for all the people who don't really care about driving it makes much more sense.

[Omshanti]

Every time I hear about environmental regulations, I see a certain unfairness, like the lightbulb issue a couple of years ago. It's always the average consumer who suffers from regulations, when in fact the CO2 emission can be reduced much more significantly if the focus of regulations were on corporational/industrial level rather than private. It's like everything an average person uses in daily life, such as cars, light bulbs ...etc are severely regulated but it's actually the large industries and businesses which emit the much larger proportions of CO2 in the world and they are not regulated as much due to economical reasons. I am sure there are many many ways of reducing CO2 (much more efficiently), other than regulating the gearboxes of the cars average people use, which are not addressed simply because the big cooperations loose profit if a regulation came into place. For example, the fast food industry. They are free to cut down rain forests, make huge cattle farms and transport the cheap meat around the world in massive tankers, and they are totally unnecessary for humanity (in fact they are harmful to health), and I am sure they are regulated much less than gearboxes in cars you and I use everyday. Governments can do so many things but choose not to and basically private people pay for the big cooperations and businesses who are the ones destroying the planet when they don't have to.

Sorry about the rant.

[Omshanti]

davepoth said:

Also, when you say "many people prefer manuals", it's not really the case. Even on a motoring enthusiast site like this there are people who prefer paddle shifts or autos of whatever description. The reasons for not having an auto previously (power sapping, not enough gears, expensive on fuel) has been eliminated, so for all the people who don't really care about driving it makes much more sense.

I agree. I am Japanese, and in Japan most people prefer automatics. Unless they are on motorbikes. In Japan there are far more motor bike enthusiasts than car enthusiasts.

Ozzie Osmond said:

A key feature of modern cars is torque management by the ECU which protects the driveline during gear shifts, enabling an auto box to be built lighter than a manual. A manual box needs a good margin of capability to ensure its ability to survive heavy-footed drivers. The whole driveline is affected.

Automatic boxes don't need to be built as robustly as manuals because they don't need to withstand people changing gears themselves. Am I understanding correctly?

Edited by Omshanti on Sunday 22 July 11:47

[Superhoop]

kambites said:

Because the official EU test specifies what gear the car must be in at each point in the test for a manual, but lets an automatic choose its own gears. Thus manual gearbox manufacturers are either forced to tailor their boxes to the test, which would give them very odd gear ratios, or put up with a rubbish result.

It would certainly be possible to create a box that could operate as a full manual; an automated manual and a full automatic, but it would be heavy and rather complicated.

But there is still hope for the manual box yet - the test does indeed specify which gear the vehicle should be in, unless there is a gear shift indicator on the vehicle that suggests differently, in which case, the gear recommended by the GSI is used. This being the sole reason that more and more manufacturers are installing GSI's on the instrument cluster - to get a better result in the test

[kambites]

Superhoop said:

But there is still hope for the manual box yet - the test does indeed specify which gear the vehicle should be in, unless there is a gear shift indicator on the vehicle that suggests differently, in which case, the gear recommended by the GSI is used. This being the sole reason that more and more manufacturers are installing GSI's on the instrument cluster - to get a better result in the test

Ah, fair enough.

Probably wouldn't help my car much; the gear shift light comes on at something like 7000rpm.

[Superhoop]

kambites said:

Ah, fair enough.

Probably wouldn't help my car much; the gear shift light comes on at something like 7000rpm.

I can't remember who, but one of the manufacturers has a GSI, which is on as a standard feature, but can be permanently disabled - so even the manufacturer has thought 'nobody will want this, but we need it for a low CO2 figure'

[eldar]

Superhoop said:

I can't remember who, but one of the manufacturers has a GSI, which is on as a standard feature, but can be permanently disabled - so even the manufacturer has thought 'nobody will want this, but we need it for a low CO2 figure'

It isn't new, though. I had a MK1 golf years ago, and that had a change-up-now-for-best-economy light.

[otolith]

It's only recently that the rules have allowed the shift light to determine the gears in the test.

[telecat]

kambites said:

telecat said:

Two Words "Sequential Shift". Still a manual, Any number of gears can be housed in the box and will use a similar amount of room to a Auto stick.

Proper sequential manual boxes are extramely rare in cars. Lovely things in a sports car though.

Things like SMGs and DSGs are automatics to me (and to the OP, by the sounds of it).

Personally I'd like the clutch with a SeqBox. I don't see a problem with them myself. If the GSI light gets Petrol manuals though the EU's Stupid rules then I don't see a problem with them either.