I don’t disagree that automatic can perform in demanding situations, but with a competent driver, or electronic control system, manual with its solid clutch connection and no oil pump is more efficient. We can go back and forth on this, but the trucking industry has chosen to use either a traditional manual or an automated variety instead of slush boxes
Ok I have a plethora of tools and set of golf clubs in the back of my car and never have noticed a significant change in mileage if stuff was in the back or not. Maybe I could do like the airlines and charge an extra fee for passengers over 50 lbs.
What exactly do you mean with “trucking industry” . . . ?
While semis use Eaton Fuller manual transmissions . . .
There are tons of class 8 vocational trucks which use Allison auto transmissions
Eaton has automated manuals. European trucks are using those built by ZF
CA,there are lots and lots of Automatic trucks in this area,you cant beat in town,refuse trucks dump trucks ,school buses etc,state vehicles the list goes on.The big advantage over the road is that steady state when you dont have to shift gears,you may have slight advantage in effeciency,I’ve heard too many auto haters become converts after a couple of weeks-Kevin
Big diesel rigs do use manuals…or some automated variety.
But vehicles like Pickups or SUV’s the automatic is STRONGER for towing. The main reason is the clutch. The clutches in these vehicles is the weak link. When I bought my 90 and 98 Pathfinders with manuals I had a towing limit of 3500lbs (Class II). The automatic equivalents had a towing capacity of 5000lbs (Class III).
MikeInNH 5:34AM Big diesel rigs do use manuals...or some automated variety.But vehicles like Pickups or SUV’s the automatic is STRONGER for towing. The main reason is the clutch. The clutches in these vehicles is the weak link. When I bought my 90 and 98 Pathfinders with manuals I had a towing limit of 3500lbs (Class II). The automatic equivalents had a towing capacity of 5000lbs (Class III).
The other difference is that big rigs have low gear ratios that allow crawl speed manuvering with the clutch locked up. It’s not just a strong clutch, it’s a range of gear ratios that allow starts with minimum clutch slipping even at the heaviest loads.
If the manual Pathfinder had a extra sub-first gear and a second extra low reverse ratio for trailer backing, the clutch abuse issue would go away.
I have often wondered why someone hasn’t built a manual transmission where the power flow for first and reverse went through a fluid coupling or torque converter but the rest of the gear ratios were normal. That would save a lot of clutch abuse when backing a trailer.
If the manual Pathfinder had a extra sub-first gear and a second extra low reverse ratio for trailer backing, the clutch abuse issue would go away.
Probably…but there’s really no need for a vehicle that size. And it’s very cost prohibitive for them. While the Pathfinder and 4runner are great vehicles for towing…I suspect less then 5% actually tow with them.
And it’s NOT just the Pathfinder…Almost all mid-size and full size SUV’s and Pickups the automatics had a higher tow rating then the manuals.
Kevin, notice that I’m not entirely against automatics, just those slush box type with atf cooler. Give me an inherently EFFICIENT automated manual transmission in my daily driver and I’d be happy as a clam.
BLE, you don’t really need fluid coupling for launching. An abuse resistant ceramic clutch is a good substitute for the fragile organic clutch. Although one has to relearn how to use a ceramic clutch, which is like an on/off switch.
@MikeInNH Long Lost Magliozzi Brother6:45AM
If the manual Pathfinder had a extra sub-first gear and a second extra low reverse ratio for trailer backing, the clutch abuse issue would go away.
Probably…but there’s really no need for a vehicle that size. And it’s very cost prohibitive for them. While the Pathfinder and 4runner are great vehicles for towing…I suspect less then 5% actually tow with them.
Really, all it would take is a two speed axle, put it in low range and you have your granny first and reverse allowing you to just engage the clutch on an idling engine and have the vehicle crawl along at a slow farm tractor pace. Sure it would cost extra but it could be an extra cost option for people who plan to use it to launch and retrieve their 28 ft. keelboats at the yacht club on a routine basis.
When I was a kid, my uncle, who was a semi driver at the time, took me on one of his two day runs one summer. He picked up his trailer, which he found out was at the maximum load weight. I swear he used 5 gears just to get out of the yard. My vocabulary grew significantly that day.
Really, all it would take is a two speed axle, put it in low range and you have your granny first and reverse allowing you to just engage the clutch on an idling engine and have the vehicle crawl along at a slow farm tractor pace. Sure it would cost extra but it could be an extra cost option for people who plan to use it to launch and retrieve their 28 ft. keelboats at the yacht club on a routine basis.
If it costs them $5 and they’ll only increase their sales by less then 1%…they’re NOT going to do it. So there’s no way they’re going to spend a few hundred dollars for MAYBE a 1% increase in sales.
Another reason they wouldn’t add that kind of option is the expense creating, testing (for durability), and certifying it (for emissions). Every different drive train combination has to be certified, I think. If the market is small, it won’t justify the expense.
If manual transmissions often can’t justify the work to include as an option, a modified manual sure won’t.
Pathfinder 4Runner @MikeInNH
"I suspect less them 5% actually tow with hem…"
Let’s do a survey that is totally subjective and without merit. There are three of us that I know of here who own 4Runners and two of us tow. That’s 66.6%. So as far as 4 Runners go, I think it’s a little higher. I personally know three others with 4 Runners. Of course they are all lake side dwellers too and they all tow as well. You may live in the suburbs so your survey would look different then mine and be equally without merit. There fore, the average of these two extremes is thirty percent. Still say it’s a little more.;=)
The Pathfinder of recent memory is more a frameless Ford Explorer type so I would discount that as a towing vehicle and is soon to be like a Highlander. So bottom line for me is, the Pathfinder maybe is 5 % but the 4Runner is much higher…I guess.
The Pathfinder of recent memory is more a frameless Ford Explorer type so I would discount that as a towing vehicle and is soon to be like a Highlander
First Generation Pathfinder (1986 thru 1995) - Body On Frame.
Second Generation Pathfinder (1996 thru 2004) - Unibody.
Third Generation Pathfinder (2005 thru 2012) - Body On Frame
4th Generation Pathfinder (2013 to Present) - Unibody.
The new Pathfinder (2013) is a Unibody FWD/AWD vehicle. So it depends on which year Pathfinder you’re talking about. So most of the years Pathfinder was body on frame. And my 98 Pathfinder I did tow with. It had no problem towing my 3000lb popup. I do prefer body-on-frame though.
A good portion of the people who buy SUV’s are buying them for the room and 4wd. Who knows what the actual number is of people who tow. I still think it’s very very low. And for the people who need a 2-speed axle and granny gear…I suspect that it’s well below 1%. People who usually tow something that would need a 2-speed axle…also tow with a larger vehicle.
I guess that body on frame is better for towing, although I had a 1990 Ford Aerostar with the extended body and the 4.0 six cylinder engine. U-Haul would not let me tow as large a trailer with the Aerostar as I was permitted to tow with my 2000 Windstar with a unit body and a 3.8 six cylinder engine. The U-Haul dealer showed me the book released by U-Haul.
Our 2003 4Runner has a full frame. Since my wife is retired and needs something to do, I may get her a Myers snow blade for the 4Runner for a Christmas present so she can bring in some money clearing driveways. (I am hoping she doesn’t see this post or I will have to change my plans).
U-Haul is ridiculous . . . I don’t care what their book shows
Which vehicle do you think is better suited for towing
The RWD Aerostar with the 4.0 V6
The FWD Windstar with the 3.8 V6
@db4690–I preferred the RWD Aerostar for trailer towing. I used the biggest single axle trailer available to haul my son’s furniture 400 miles to his apartment and then pulled the trailer back. I used the same sized trailer to move my wife’ parents to an assisted living facility and pulled the same sized U-Haul with the Windstar. That was about a 25 mile trip each way.
I have no idea how U Haul concluded that the towing capacity was greater for the Windstar.
Here’s another obvious comparison
Astro van versus Lumina APV
To me, it’s obvious that the Astro is the better choice for towing
But U-Haul might have something else to say . . .
LOL
The only tranny I’ve ever blown was the manual on my '72 Vega. 'Nuff said.