Yes. Yes he did.
this week's Wrangler rumor: no manual trans for 2017
- Thread starter haven
- Start date
Yes. Yes he did.
SSF556
SE Expedition Society
The days of manuals getting better MPG are long gone. I actually would be surprised if any OEM in North America is spending any money on making manual transmissions more efficient...hell Jeep does not even put the correct amount of fluid in them....:smiley_drive:
Here's the horrible truth - 90% of my driving these days is simply for work, driving my Nissan NV200 van around in crappy traffic. There is no joy when you're driving an NV200, regardless of what sort of road your on - it's a soul crushing utility box. Heck, I don't even own a car these days because when I do get time to go play I take the Rover out.
So would I have a self driving version of my work van? With great pain, I have to admit I'd consider it. It would make me money as I could work while traveling between jobs. But I still fear the self driving car as you know it's just the first step toward outlawing human driven cars. It wasn't that long ago when I was spending time at the track instead of on the trail. I still remember how to heal-toe and by God, I plan to do it again one of these days!
Traditionally the manual got better mileage than the slushbox, but with 7, 8, 9 speed autos these days I'm guessing that's what's giving it the advantage. That and you can program the trans computer to shift up at like 1200 rpm to maximize economy over power whereas the manual can be (gasp!) controlled by the driver.
Hilldweller
SE Expedition Society
I want that engraved on my tombstone.
Hopeless Diamond
Explorer
SilicaRich
Wandering Inverted
It would be a shame to see manual transmissions go, especially in a Jeep. I feel like Jeep is trying to satisfy the wrong crowd but there is no doubt that automatic transmissions are far more superior to manuals in most regards. I think manuals are more of just part of the fun factor in today's market, whole reason I have one. With a little luck, maybe Jeep will continue to stick with a manual option.
HRPINDC
Adventurer
I do think the reality is that the manual transmission's days are numbered. Increasingly stringent fuel standards are making manufacturers squeeze every drop of gas for all its got. Brands like Jeep that are inherently inefficient will need to be extra diligent since they don't have econo boxes to balance things out. I'm guessing that the Ferrari purists were also whining about the manual's demise back in 2014, but no one is complaining about it now. The manual may be more fun, but the modern auto is better in every way. Stupid progress.....
brushogger
Explorer
To me, the main advantage of a MT is longevity. Just keep grease in it and it will easily go 200k miles. My last one was a 91 Chevy K1500 extracab with a 5 speed. Sold it with over 300k miles. The original clutch was just starting to slip. How many autos get close to that without an expensive rebuild.
Haf-E
Expedition Leader
I have over 220,000 miles on the 5 speed automatic tranny in my Sprinter van and its still going strong. I have a few friends with original trannys that are in the mid 300K range. Mine hasn't had an easy life either - Its hauled heavy trailers across the US east to west and CA to WA a couple of times. Also has been stuck in mud and snow way to many times and rocked forward and backwards. It has had regular fluid changes (about every 50k) and I added an additional cooler when it was new. It still shifts well although there is some rumblestrip noise/vibration when deaccelerating (which was there even when it was new).
So it is possible for one to last - but I a nervous about some of the fancy 9 speed, dual clutch and CVT trannys - the dealer says my daughter's 2014 Honda Civic's CVT needs a tranny fluid change every 30K miles - but the owner's manual doesn't include a maintenance schedule anymore - says to just do it when the "maintenance minder" display on the dash recommends it. They wanted $150 to do it - and I checked on a forum and it has to be done from under it with a pump as there isn't a fill tube - just a hole in the side of it that can't be accessed from the top... and no dipstick either...
So it is possible for one to last - but I a nervous about some of the fancy 9 speed, dual clutch and CVT trannys - the dealer says my daughter's 2014 Honda Civic's CVT needs a tranny fluid change every 30K miles - but the owner's manual doesn't include a maintenance schedule anymore - says to just do it when the "maintenance minder" display on the dash recommends it. They wanted $150 to do it - and I checked on a forum and it has to be done from under it with a pump as there isn't a fill tube - just a hole in the side of it that can't be accessed from the top... and no dipstick either...
Automatics have surpassed manuals in performance and economy (and number of ratios) so there really is no practical reason for a manual anymore. I still love manuals but there is no longer any reason to get one in a new vehicle, they're worse in every objective and practical way, unfortunately. I'd have a tough time convincing myself to order one on even a Wrangler given you lose performance and economy - and they're better off road due to the very wide gear ratio spread and ability to crawl with the tc. In the days of 3 or 4 speed inefficient auto vs a 5 or 6 speed manual it wasn't much of a question that the auto is worse in almost every way except convenience, but now it's the opposite.
SSF556
SE Expedition Society
The 5 speed in the Wrangler is a hoss...W5A850 is the designation. If you are interested do a google and you will read about how robust it is and the different vehicles it is in...even a Porsche 911.
comptiger5000
Adventurer
A well driven and well geared manual will be more efficient in the city than an auto, as it's still got a bit more efficient power transfer (auto will have to spend at least some time with the torque converter unlocked). However, on the highway, if they're geared the same, it's pretty much a crapshoot at this point. And many modern manuals are given shorter gearing on the highway than the autos to avoid needing to downshift on every single hill (because that makes people complain), so they end up getting worse mpg.
The EPA test for manuals is useless, by the way. You've gotta compare real-world numbers, not the ratings. The EPA test for a manual specifies that you must shift at certain road speeds, no matter how wrong it is for the gearing setup of the vehicle being tested. That's why GM did the 1-4 skip shift thing under certain throttle conditions. It got the test mpg in line with real world driving, rather than it testing far worse than you'd actually get.
Durability-wise, any well built trans that's maintained properly (fluid changes, etc.) will last. Auto or manual. If it doesn't last with proper maintenance, it's either been blatantly abused or it's a bad design. FWIW, I'm at 207k and counting on the Chrysler 46RE in my ZJ and it's still as solid as it was when I bought the Jeep at 100k. Yet, if you look around online, you'd get the impression that this trans is a POS, as most people don't maintain them until they're already failing.
The EPA test for manuals is useless, by the way. You've gotta compare real-world numbers, not the ratings. The EPA test for a manual specifies that you must shift at certain road speeds, no matter how wrong it is for the gearing setup of the vehicle being tested. That's why GM did the 1-4 skip shift thing under certain throttle conditions. It got the test mpg in line with real world driving, rather than it testing far worse than you'd actually get.
Durability-wise, any well built trans that's maintained properly (fluid changes, etc.) will last. Auto or manual. If it doesn't last with proper maintenance, it's either been blatantly abused or it's a bad design. FWIW, I'm at 207k and counting on the Chrysler 46RE in my ZJ and it's still as solid as it was when I bought the Jeep at 100k. Yet, if you look around online, you'd get the impression that this trans is a POS, as most people don't maintain them until they're already failing.