I researched it to present the information, but documentation exists to support either preference, so I could come up with nothing. I can, however, rely on my own experiences operating a half dozen cars at a time over a period that spans decades.
Besides a hit that one takes on resale of a manual trans vehicle I did see quite a few statistics showing better fuel economy with modern automatics than manuals, in general. Over the long haul that can add up to real money for a thrifty/cheap individual. CSA
We’ve previously owned 4 automatics with a MINIMUM of 300k miles before we got rid of them. Fluid exchange was the only service ever done. We gave my wife’s 96 Accord (with over 32k miles) to our niece when she started college. She drove it til she graduated and kept it for another couple years til she got married. Sold it with close to 500k miles…tranny just had fluid exchanges. Not other service.
The internals of a manual are probably more reliable then an automatic because of far fewer parts. But that doesn’t mean an automatic is unreliable.
The weakest link in a manual tranny is the clutch. Back when you could buy a mid-size SUV with a manual - you’d find that the towing capacity of the Automatic was MORE then the manual. The two manual SUV’s I owned (1990 Pathfinder and 98 Pathfinder) were rated as Class-II (3500lbs) for towing. The same vehicle with same engine but with an automatic was rated Class-III (5,000lbs). Most were that way.
Every vehicle we’ve owned with an automatic the manufacture recommended against any type of flush. Their recommendation was always to just replace what was in the pan every 30-50k miles. 4 vehicles with a combined mileage of over 1 million miles and no issues tells me it was pretty reliable.
Maybe the manual is more reliable…so what. 400k+ miles isn’t enough miles for you?
Most back-yard mechanics can easily do a tranny fluid drain and fill…and most won’t be able to do a clutch repair (or want to). The cost of just one clutch repair on a vehicle like my 98 Pathfinder was equivalent to 4-5 fluid exchanges if you paid someone to do it…6-10 if you did it yourself.
In 1948, the GM Hydramatic automatic transmission became available on the Pontiac. Over 80% of the 8 cylinder Pontiacs and 50% of the 6 cylinder were equipped with Hydramatic. The upscale GM buyers apparently preferred the automatic transmissions. However, when Ford introduced the automatic transmissions on the Ford and Mercury in 1951, a smaller percentage of Fords and Mercurys were sold with automatic transmissions than the corresponding Chevrolets and Pontiacs. I guess Ford product buyers were more conservative than GM buyers.
My last car with a manual transmission was a 1965 Rambler Classic 550. A snap ring broke in the transmission, ruined a synchronizer, the main drive gear and shaft. The transmission specialist that did the repair advised me not to buy another car with a manual transmission. He claimed these transmissions were designed in the 1930s when engines had less torque. This was in 1970. I am talking about the three speed manual transmissions here.
I haven’t had a manual transmission since that Rambler, except for a 1950 Chevrolet one ton pickup with a 4 speed floor shift that I bought in 1972 for $115. That transmission shifted very well.
I assume that today’s floor shift manual transmissions are better engineered than the 3 speed manual transmissions of the earlier time period.
I enjoyed driving the early 1970s MG Midgets. I liked driving an underpowered car where the gears had to be used to maximum advantage. However, this was pleasure driving. For my regular driving, I will take whatever transmission comes in the vehicle that best fits my needs.
If you lived in Europe you wouldn’t be asking this question. Americans seem to think that it’s difficult. My '37chev ( four speed, V8, street rod) is my favorite of the 6 cars I drive.
Driving a class 8 truck with an Eaton-Fuller manual transmission with straight cut gears on a country road is fun?
I’m going to feel like Mario Andretti . . . ?
Now as for semi trucks using manual transmissions . . .
I believe there has been a recent move towards automated manuals. They’re still the big cast iron Eaton Fuller transmission with straight cut gears, but instead of synchros, there are clutch(es). I’m not sure if automated manuals are the best of both worlds, or the worst of both worlds
But any time somebody makes statements how much fun it is to drive stick, how in control they feel, how superior they feel to those who drive auto, I may just bring up the Eaton-Fuller transmission with the straight cut gears . . . not exactly fun, by my estimation
For those of us ignorant of such things, raises my hand, please explain what is meant by straight cut gears and how, if so, that differs from manual transmissions in cars. I’m curious.
The internet would be useful here to save virtual ink in my response. Straight cut gears are just that… Like the gears you see in old movies with draw bridges or something, they are the primitive drawings of the generic gear you have seen since childhood. While they have been useful and still have purpose…in a transmission they whine, some say they scream… but they sure do make mechanical noise thats unquestionable. I personally find the sound cool but it could definitely become annoying
We moved to helical cut gears to virtually eliminate this noise. In a stress test the straight cut gears will win that battle every time…but we really dont need them in car transmissions until obscene horsepower and torque rear their heads.
.