Is there such a thing as a bad manual transmission?

ProDarwin said:

I had a 2nd gen, but didn't notice either of those issues.  The main issue I had was I had to hit 'sport' or whatever mode whenever I got in the car or I would stall it.  One time I tried to pull out into traffic and immediately stalled several times in a row before realizing it was in 'normal' driving mode.  

Hyundai does some weird programming E36 M3.  Remember this is also the car that you can't fully defeat stability control on.  And a car that rather than make peak torque consistently, climbs until it hits a number, gets kicked in the face by the ECU, then climbs back up again repeatedly.

My '14 JCW was very similar to this. Sport mode was just reasonable mode, and normal mode was "xanax mixed with vodka" mode. 

The one in the Wreck Racing Insight probably counts

billstewartx said:

crankwalk (Forum Supporter) said:

Alfa spider veloce. Syncros were not smooth on a low mile gearbox and the ergonomics were terrrrrrible. On a 4-5 hour drive my arm was so tired. Just not comfortable and not as enjoyable to row the gears. 

oh. my. gawd. 

one of the best gearboxes. Ever. 

I disagree. Italians can make nice gearboxes but super fragile 2nd gear syncros  and bad ergonomics didn't do it for me. Going from that to my BMW 2002 was night and day different.

In reply to crankwalk (Forum Supporter) :

I wonder if that is cultural.  A road test of an early Ferrari (think 2 liter V12 kind of thing) had the driver mention that the gearbox was completely unsynchronized but you didn't really need it, just a quick double clutch and it snicked right into gear.

I really like the shifter position on that car.  Prefer shifters with the pivot NOT under the knob, feels more natural somehow.  Even the backwards Cobra shifter feels good.

The only one I can think of is the 81 Scirocco I used to co-drive. It was fine when the shift bushings were fresh but they would wear out within a season of using the car.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to crankwalk (Forum Supporter) :

I wonder if that is cultural.  A road test of an early Ferrari (think 2 liter V12 kind of thing) had the driver mention that the gearbox was completely unsynchronized but you didn't really need it, just a quick double clutch and it snicked right into gear.

 

I really like the shifter position on that car.  Prefer shifters with the pivot NOT under the knob, feels more natural somehow.  Even the backwards Cobra shifter feels good.

I don't think it is cultural. I've driven lots of Italian stuff and that one stuck out for how uncomfortable it was for any length of time and how notchy it was for a low low miles unit. 
 

Cramped driving position and tight pedal box is an Italian thing but not necessarily the shifter in an awkward spot straight in front of you. I'm not a lazy driver that needs an armrest and 4 cup holders but I think an armrest would have done wonders to how I felt about the transmission. 

I'll go against the general enthusiast grain here.  I'd say any new manual transmission made in the last 10 years is bad, maybe pointlessly irrelevant is more accurate.  Not because they are objectively poor, but because technology and development have overcome their advantage.  A modern electronically controlled trans and torque convertor is every bit as good, normally better than a manual. Now, many love their manuals, and are of the 'out of my cold dead hands' mentality, Fair enough.  I count that view the same as my daughter preferring horses over cars.  She might enjoy them, but there's zero need for them by any objective and almost all subjective reasons beyond 'fun' for them.

BTW, I'm not some young kid who grew up with auto's, I"m in my mid 50's and didn't own an automatic car until this century.  I grew up with the mindset that the only reason to own an automatic was because you lacked the request limbs to operate a manual.  That was back when automatics meant three speed slush boxes that took an age to react, had horribly inconsistent slippy TC's and sapped so much power that you need an egg timer to record 0-60.  But I did grow up where a 1.6L 4cyl making 60-90hp was the average family car.  Recently I got my old Volvo C30 back on the road, and honestly expected to be nostalgic about the manual and wondered if I'd stat missing a manual in my other cars.  Nope, not one bit. I'll even take my (now ancient technology) ZF 5HP in my 986 Boxster over a manual for daily driving.

P.S. I count DSG's and flappy paddles as autos not manuals.

Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) said:

A modern electronically controlled trans and torque convertor is every bit as good, normally better than a manual.

Have you driven a peasant grade rental car?

In reply to ProDarwin :

Fair point no I haven't, but most of what I posted was purposefully the opposing view as so many still look down on owners of 'enthusiast cars' with auto's as not real enthusiasts.  Now that view has it's upside, as when I'm searching for my next car I'll happily be able to find one much cheaper than the manual versions that are earning ridiculous premiums.

crankwalk (Forum Supporter) said:

billstewartx said:

crankwalk (Forum Supporter) said:

Alfa spider veloce. Syncros were not smooth on a low mile gearbox and the ergonomics were terrrrrrible. On a 4-5 hour drive my arm was so tired. Just not comfortable and not as enjoyable to row the gears. 

oh. my. gawd. 

one of the best gearboxes. Ever. 

I disagree. Italians can make nice gearboxes but super fragile 2nd gear syncros  and bad ergonomics didn't do it for me. Going from that to my BMW 2002 was night and day different.

Regarding Italian Transmissions.  Ferrari's varied  from the rather fragile 5 speed behind most of the late 50's to early 60's 250's series V12's. 
  Let down further by a very marginal clutch.  As Power increase in the mid and late 60's. They would strengthen the gears. Only to have the clutch let them down.   Then beef up the clutch until  your left leg would quiver   Trying to push it in.  The absolute worst I ever drove was Carl Larson's 330. A nice sophisticated sedan with a very smooth  responsive engine.  But that clutch!!  Impossibly stiff. Almost a guarantee  that a novice would stall the engine the first time driving it. And then restart the engine, rev it to forever Jesus and basically dump the clutch to get going.  Once rolling the best technique to shifting was to match gears and not use the clutch at all. 

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to GCrites80s :

Interesting point.  I've driven a couple T56 Camaros and they were okay, once you got around the trashed 2nd and 3rd gear synchros, which is a specific-vehicle issue.

Also got to drive a T56 based trans in a 565ci Torino, and it was really nice.  It also had a moderately long shifter compared to a modern car, and I engineered the clutch hydraulics so of course I'm proud of how well that functioned  

 

Also, the sound of that thing wailing at 7k through the dual 3" exhaust made me think I was at Talladega   It did something like 650 ot 700hp at the wheels, through the mufflers.

 

I am still not keen on big block engine braking combined with a close ratio trans, but it is what it is.  The Torino was easier to drive than the 604ci Chevelle with a genuine M22.  That one would chirp the tires from engine braking if you didn't upshift fast enough in city driving.  I have too much mechanical sympathy to do that.

My objection to the Muncie. Was how mushy the transmission case was.  
     I used a M22 for the DeMar  even when I could get brand new cases 1 weekend was all it was good for.  Then I'd dimple the front bearing back into alignment, rebuild the gears etc. and it was good for 1 more day. 
    When I ran out of new cases, I'd have a local machinist bore out the  worn out bearing hole and put in a 6061 T6 bushing to hold the bearing in alignment. That usually got me another weekend. 
   Luckily the gears, syncro's and shafts  were almost always available. It really took some serious misalignment to ruin them.   
    To be fair the year I raced it we never had any transmission problem.  Change the fluid after every session was the only maintenance.  Sometimes I didn't even do that.    
         But Carl just didn't seem to have the knack.  

In reply to frenchyd :

My experience with manual Ferraris  has just been with the v8s and they've all been great even shifting 7k + rpm's and with light clutches.

Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to ProDarwin :

Fair point no I haven't, but most of what I posted was purposefully the opposing view as so many still look down on owners of 'enthusiast cars' with auto's as not real enthusiasts.  Now that view has it's upside, as when I'm searching for my next car I'll happily be able to find one much cheaper than the manual versions that are earning ridiculous premiums.

I would agree that the premium, sports car or sporty-ish focused autos are not bad, and can often offer advantages.  The lower grade autos especially in lower power cars are garbage from a performance standpoint.  A manual in a B-spec car is a night and day difference vs. auto

I'm not saying I prefer it over a manual, but I'm pretty pleased with the DSG in my Passat TDI.

The worst manual I've used was the 4 speed in my Uncle's 84 Iron Duke Fiero. The car was pretty rough though, so it might have just been due to wear.

The Audi transmissions I've used aren't great objectively, but they have their own charm. The 01e in my urs6 had pretty long throws and didn't like fast shifts, but it was easy to find gears, and the transmission itself was ridiculously tough. The 016 in my 200 offers better feel now that the shift bushings have been replaced, but they're weaker than the 01e.

In reply to Turbine :

I liked the 016 in my Quantum, had much closer ratios than the large chassis cars got.  You could keep the engine on boil between 3500 and 4500 all the way up to 75

The clutch was horrendous.  It engaged on the floor.

crankwalk (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to frenchyd :

My experience with manual Ferraris  has just been with the v8s and they've all been great even shifting 7k + rpm's and with light clutches.

I haven't driven any of the new V8's. In fact I've never driven any Ferrari after the mid 60's  

 Enzo was still in a horsepower race at that time.   His V12's were his answer.  And he had others concerned about transmissions ( with an accordingly small budget).   
In fact all they way to the GTO. He still used the same geometry. Since the bodies were farmed out, he could focus on extracting power from the engine.    ( I'd love to study the Formula 1    1 &1/2 Liter cars and compare the geometry  to the later 3.0 liter cars to see what changes those cars got.  
I'm sorry, I digress. 

The one I test drove in the Subaru Crosstrek was less than stellar a few years back. Felt like driving a tractor.

I will also agree on the "regular" Subarus with manuals. The Forester I test drive once felt awful, like it was truly an afterthought.

My jeep jk Wrangler could certainly be better. The transmission itself is fine and reasonably smooth, but the shift tower has really poor detents that can pop out of gear on rough enough roads. The shifter is also very rubbery mounted. Also the way the pedals are arranged makes heel and toe shifting extremely hard. 

Some will probably disagree, but I find my s2000's gears to be way too close together left to right.

2020 Tacoma V6 6speed, just awful. Test drove the automatic the same day and you can tell all the development went into the auto.

1984 Ford Tempo, no idea what gear you may be in

2002 Ford Focus SVT, seems like they used the parts bin from the Tempo

In reply to freetors :

What year Forester? I drove a 2004 for 50,000 and quite liked the transmission. Crisper than some other appliances. Very similar feel to a 4th gen Prelude if I recall. My only complaints were more for the overly low diff gearing making all the gears feel too close.

In reply to mblommel:

The 2nd gen Tacoma also had a garbage feeling trans. Dad jumped from a 1993 PU to a 2010 Taco. The Taco was much worse in every way including that rubbery appendage jutting up from the floor.

Mazda H-type 5-speed in the GD chassis 626/MX-6 Turbo.  Nothing special to drive, not bad, but also not up to the torque of the factory engine.  It's the reason I wouldn't go looking for another of these cars, having been burned by the transmission in the past.

In reply to buzzboy :

I had a 1992 Toyota pickup 5 speed and it was awesome. It was so disappointing to drive that new one and have it be a broomstick attached to bungee cords.