GST vs HST during a shift change

[finn1]

Manuals are not more expensive to produce, not even close. But they ARE more expensive for manufacturers and dealers to support once they fall below a certain market share when you still have to produce spares and distribute tools and train technicians to service them even though they'll only run into it once in a blue moon.

They also hurt instead of help manufacturer's CAFE ratings at this point. Back when manuals had more gears than automatics they weren't hurting, but now automatics commonly have more ratios and not only that, can be programmed to perform in a VERY specific way during the EPA test loop even if it creates aggravating behaviors in real world driving.

One interesting thing to note is that even though automatic transmissions are now up to 10 speeds, you can look back at the acceleration times of prior generations of the same cars and often times with similar power and weight, cars with 8, 9, 10 gears are not any quicker in timed runs than when they had 6 speeds. They are losing as much time shifting through extra gears as they gain by accelerating slightly harder in each gear. It's actually annoying to drivers to shift more without accomplishing more, so at this point the 'growth' of gear ratios in automatics in road cars serves only to exploitatively 'deceive' the EPA test loop without actually 'cheating'. 6 speeds is essentially the point of diminishing returns for both manuals and autos, but unlike manual drivers who, even having gone out of their way to get a manual, dont WANT to deal with much more than 6 gears, automatic transmissions continue to gain gears that human drivers didn't ask for and can't make much use of, just to optimize for the EPA test loop.

Per my former compatriots at Ford, manuals are more expensive to produce than automatics, and have been for years. Manual gears are expensive machined forgings, and bearings are large and expensive. Most automatic internal parts are precision stamping.

Warranty costs were consistently higher on manuals. Remember, you have to include the clutch warranty.

The other thing that killed the manual in Diesel trucks was lack of torque capacity.

Yes, CAFE fuel economy was a prime motivator for increasing transmission gear numbers. It’s real, though. My 2018 Ram gets a solid 6 mpg better fuel economy than my 2005 does. Same basic engine, and better performance and drive ability.

 

[DieselBound]

Per my former compatriots at Ford, manuals are more expensive to produce than automatics, and have been for years. Manual gears are expensive machined forgings, and bearings are large and expensive. Most automatic internal parts are precision stamping.

Warranty costs were consistently higher on manuals. Remember, you have to include the clutch warranty.

The other thing that killed the manual in Diesel trucks was lack of torque capacity.

Yes, CAFE fuel economy was a prime motivator for increasing transmission gear numbers. It’s real, though. My 2018 Ram gets a solid 6 mpg better fuel economy than my 2005 does. Same basic engine, and better performance and drive ability.

My diesel truck has a 1,200 lbs-ft clutch in it. They DO make clutches that can handle the torque. That argument doesn't fly. BUT, as you note, the cost is the point: my clutch was something like $1,500.

Automatic transmission are FAR better today than they were.

 

[finn1]

My diesel truck has a 1,200 lbs-ft clutch in it. They DO make clutches that can handle the torque. That argument doesn't fly. BUT, as you note, the cost is the point: my clutch was something like $1,500.

Automatic transmission are FAR better today than they were.

My database comes from a manufacturer, one that sells hundreds of thousands of diesel pickups per year., none of which has a manual transmission available anymore.

You can’t argue that the forged and machined gears in your manual are more expensive to produce than the simple stamped and powdered metal parts in a modern automatic.

 

[DieselBound]

My database comes from a manufacturer, one that sells hundreds of thousands of diesel pickups per year., none of which has a manual transmission available anymore.

You can’t argue that the forged and machined gears in your manual are more expensive to produce than the simple stamped and powdered metal parts in a modern automatic.

Well, yes, I READ your original posting (and didn't feel the need to comment on the gear-cost issue- I didn't find that to be non-factual). Your comment on clutches is what I was responding to. [NOTE: I don't need to read databases to know the reality out in the world- I've got plenty of real-world information; and note that this does not imply any difference]

 

[finn1]

Not sure what 1400 ft lb of torque capacity has to do with warranty cost, or, for that matter, the price of tea in China.

 

[DieselBound]

Not sure what 1400 ft lb of torque capacity has to do with warranty cost, or, for that matter, the price of tea in China.

Not surprised that you're unsure as you seem to have missed (didn't actually read? or was it comprehend?) what my replies were actually responding to.

BTW - Did I really, erroneously , claim that my clutch was good/rated for "1400 ft of torque"?

 

[scaredychicken]

for a minute there, you had me ... I thought that the thread was about TAXES in Canada

carry on

 

[finn1]

Not surprised that you're unsure as you seem to have missed (didn't actually read? or was it comprehend?) what my replies were actually responding to.

BTW - Did I really, erroneously , claim that my clutch was good/rated for "1400 ft of torque"?

Got me: 1200 ft lb.

 

[Vigo327]

I rebuilt automatic transmissions for a living about 15 years ago. I think you have to take apart automatics and manuals to have a good idea how plausible the claim of autos being cheaper to build than manuals is. It might work out if the automatic didn't have 7 times as many parts in it, and if some automatics weren't substantially automated manuals anyway. It's too broad a statement. I agree that the individual parts can be of cheaper construction, but i dont think it's possible to separate 'unit cost' from production volume unless Ford or anyone else had ever asked for bids to produce as many manuals as they do automatics. Modern automatics would cost 15,000 instead of 3-5k if we didn't build so many of them.