do cars with manual trans generally last longer than auto?

[Scarpozzi]

I've seen most automatic transmissions last anywhere from 140-200k miles these days based on models built in the 90s. If you drive one incredibly careful and do all the maintenance checks, you might be able to get 300k.

Manual transmissions usually require clutch replacement in the 150-200k range, but this varies primarily on how well the driver shifts. Many people will use the clutch to hold their car on a hill, rather than using the brake....that's a perfect habitual example of how to shorten the life of a clutch.

Stickshifts are usually cheaper (to buy and maintain) and last longer. However, I have trouble finding cars that I like that are manuals. I think the ratio on the road in the US is 20% of cars are manuals and 80% are automatics. Maybe stickshift are actually more scarce than that these days. People are getting lazy.

 

[TheDebater]

All 4Runner transmissions are great, the 3rd gens ('96-02) are no exception. The guys at www.toyota-4runner.org and www.yotatech.com will be able to give you more infor. Also, these forums have tons of great info on anything having to do with 4Runners, and yotatech.com doesn't stop there. My personal opinion is that if you're nice to the manual it'll last longer than the car will. Then again, the autos in the 4Runners are great and hold up forever supposedly. Good luck

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Vic
If any manual trans and clutch were to go out prior to 100k miles, I would certainly blame that on operator abuse/error.
Manual trans also have lower repair and replacement costs than autos.

Regarding the clutch: Typical life for a Porsche clutch: 100,000 miles is very good for a non-abused clutch in the kinds of cars I drive. Depends on the type of driving too, highway miles will make a clutch last "longer" than constant city driving. Double-clutching also wears a clutch faster but it makes the transmission shift more smoothly and cannot be considered abuse.

Regarding the costs: Clutch replacement on a 924S: Parts; $500. Labour; $1,000. A complete re-build on the autobox of my old Accord was only about $100 more in total.

ZV

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Vic
If any manual trans and clutch were to go out prior to 100k miles, I would certainly blame that on operator abuse/error.
Manual trans also have lower repair and replacement costs than autos.

Regarding the clutch: Typical life for a Porsche clutch: 100,000 miles is very good for a non-abused clutch in the kinds of cars I drive. Depends on the type of driving too, highway miles will make a clutch last "longer" than constant city driving. Double-clutching also wears a clutch faster but it makes the transmission shift more smoothly and cannot be considered abuse.

Regarding the costs: Clutch replacement on a 924S: Parts; $500. Labour; $1,000. A complete re-build on the autobox of my old Accord was only about $100 more in total.

ZV

Damn, that's crazy.......

For 1000$ in labor, I'd bring a friend over, buy a keg, and make arrangements for the car to be out of service for a week.

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: Quixfire

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: fredtam
No but they are cheaper to fix.

<---- mechanic

So you're saying on average you see more manual transmissions come in for a rebuild than automatics?


No way...........

I don't believe than either, I am a mechanic and I see more automatics for service than manuals.

Well no sh!t huh. Did you stop to think that maybe thats because most cars are automatic. The question is does one last longer than the other. As a general rule the average driver will wear out a clutch between 70-90k miles whereas the average automatic won't need servicing till about 115-120k. Start taking a look at the mileage and not the quantity.

The clutch is a wear item like brake pads, it doesen't count against the longevity of the transmission.. Only against maintenance costs.

Even if you include replacing the clutch, I am quite sure a manual transmission is cheaper as far as maintenance goes. Replacing the clutch is going to be cheaper than having your slushbox rebuilt.

It was my understanding that maintenance cost was the question. A clutch at $350 is a little more than brake pads. That is really the only difference between the two for the most part. To have either rebuilt you are looking about the same price and the actual guts of both transmissions have about the same mean time between repairs with the newer automatic designs. Given that you are adding to the maintenance cost by having the clutch. If the guts are good to 150K on both but you have to buy a clutch every 75k then the auto is the least expensive maintenance cost of the two. All this of course depends on terrain and driving habits of course.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Eli
Damn, that's crazy.......

For 1000$ in labor, I'd bring a friend over, buy a keg, and make arrangements for the car to be out of service for a week.

My car occupied 100% of the attention of a two-man shop for 1.5 business days during that clutch change. It's a 12 hour job. Everything's all crammed in there, it's a pain.

ZV

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: Quixfire

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: fredtam
No but they are cheaper to fix.

<---- mechanic

So you're saying on average you see more manual transmissions come in for a rebuild than automatics?


No way...........

I don't believe than either, I am a mechanic and I see more automatics for service than manuals.

Well no sh!t huh. Did you stop to think that maybe thats because most cars are automatic. The question is does one last longer than the other. As a general rule the average driver will wear out a clutch between 70-90k miles whereas the average automatic won't need servicing till about 115-120k. Start taking a look at the mileage and not the quantity.

The clutch is a wear item like brake pads, it doesen't count against the longevity of the transmission.. Only against maintenance costs.

Even if you include replacing the clutch, I am quite sure a manual transmission is cheaper as far as maintenance goes. Replacing the clutch is going to be cheaper than having your slushbox rebuilt.

It was my understanding that maintenance cost was the question. A clutch at $350 is a little more than brake pads. That is really the only difference between the two for the most part. To have either rebuilt you are looking about the same price and the actual guts of both transmissions have about the same mean time between repairs with the newer automatic designs. Given that you are adding to the maintenance cost by having the clutch. If the guts are good to 150K on both but you have to buy a clutch every 75k then the auto is the least expensive maintenance cost of the two. All this of course depends on terrain and driving habits of course.

I disagree with this. Discounting the clutch, which may be expensive, but it is still designed to wear out.. it does not count for or against the longevity of the transmission.

OK, it will probably cost about the same to have each rebuilt.. But my point is that you should never have to rebuild your manual transmission. It should last many hundreds of thousands of miles. It should outlast your engine. The synchros could be totally gone, and you could still get somewhere if you really wanted to.

That doesen't happen with an automatic. Once an automatic starts to fail, you're fscked.

Perhaps we should say that an automatic is simply more delicate?

 

[LongCoolMother]

my brother's car needs a clutch replacement already and hes got only ~50k on it. porbably because he drives extremely aggresively and i learned how to drive manual on it. plus, its a pure sports car, so i guess those performance vehicles need more maitinence.

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: Quixfire

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: fredtam
No but they are cheaper to fix.

<---- mechanic

So you're saying on average you see more manual transmissions come in for a rebuild than automatics?


No way...........

I don't believe than either, I am a mechanic and I see more automatics for service than manuals.

Well no sh!t huh. Did you stop to think that maybe thats because most cars are automatic. The question is does one last longer than the other. As a general rule the average driver will wear out a clutch between 70-90k miles whereas the average automatic won't need servicing till about 115-120k. Start taking a look at the mileage and not the quantity.

The clutch is a wear item like brake pads, it doesen't count against the longevity of the transmission.. Only against maintenance costs.

Even if you include replacing the clutch, I am quite sure a manual transmission is cheaper as far as maintenance goes. Replacing the clutch is going to be cheaper than having your slushbox rebuilt.

It was my understanding that maintenance cost was the question. A clutch at $350 is a little more than brake pads. That is really the only difference between the two for the most part. To have either rebuilt you are looking about the same price and the actual guts of both transmissions have about the same mean time between repairs with the newer automatic designs. Given that you are adding to the maintenance cost by having the clutch. If the guts are good to 150K on both but you have to buy a clutch every 75k then the auto is the least expensive maintenance cost of the two. All this of course depends on terrain and driving habits of course.

I disagree with this. Discounting the clutch, which may be expensive, but it is still designed to wear out.. it does not count for or against the longevity of the transmission.

OK, it will probably cost about the same to have each rebuilt.. But my point is that you should never have to rebuild your manual transmission. It should last many hundreds of thousands of miles. It should outlast your engine. The synchros could be totally gone, and you could still get somewhere if you really wanted to.

That doesen't happen with an automatic. Once an automatic starts to fail, you're fscked.

Perhaps we should say that an automatic is simply more delicate?

No argument here. :beer:

 

[OS]

I wouldn't say either one has an longevity benefit. The synchros and clutch still wears out on a manual, it's just a matter of driving style. Automatics, I have abusively driven on cars up to 150K miles without any need for major work.

 

[OS]

Also, I wouldn't say any properly designed and built automatic is any more delicate than a manual. I'd like to see someone justify such a claim.

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: OS
Also, I wouldn't say any properly designed and built automatic is any more delicate than a manual. I'd like to see someone justify such a claim.

By "delicate" we mean that once an auto is fvucked its time to fix it with the exception of slight slipping. When a manual starts to go south you can still go for a while. Somewhat right.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: OS
Also, I wouldn't say any properly designed and built automatic is any more delicate than a manual. I'd like to see someone justify such a claim.

Automatics run at higher internal temperatures, more wear. Once the bands on an automatic start to stretch it's gone. When a clutch fails, it fails slowly, and with a few exceptions, it's a relatively cheap repair. Synchros are completely superfluous so their failure shouldn't even count. A manual will still function perfectly without synchros, it just demands a better driver. As has been pointed out, when something on an automatic fails, the transmission is dead, most manual transmissions never suffer a catastrophic failure like that.

ZV

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Regarding the clutch: Typical life for a Porsche clutch: 100,000 miles is very good for a non-abused clutch in the kinds of cars I drive. Depends on the type of driving too, highway miles will make a clutch last "longer" than constant city driving. Double-clutching also wears a clutch faster but it makes the transmission shift more smoothly and cannot be considered abuse.

Regarding the costs: Clutch replacement on a 924S: Parts; $500. Labour; $1,000. A complete re-build on the autobox of my old Accord was only about $100 more in total.

ZV

You're comparing the repair costs between a Porsche and a Honda. Not a very fair comparison, I would say...
Hell, it wouldn't cost $1500 to replace the clutch on my AWD Subaru.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Regarding the clutch: Typical life for a Porsche clutch: 100,000 miles is very good for a non-abused clutch in the kinds of cars I drive. Depends on the type of driving too, highway miles will make a clutch last "longer" than constant city driving. Double-clutching also wears a clutch faster but it makes the transmission shift more smoothly and cannot be considered abuse.

Regarding the costs: Clutch replacement on a 924S: Parts; $500. Labour; $1,000. A complete re-build on the autobox of my old Accord was only about $100 more in total.

ZV

You're comparing the repair costs between a Porsche and a Honda. Not a very fair comparison, I would say...
Hell, it wouldn't cost $1500 to replace the clutch on my AWD Subaru.

I'm also comparing what is pretty much the worst Porsche ever for a clutch replacement. The 944 and 924S are among the most labor-intensive clutch replacements ever. A 911's clutch can be replaced pretty easily I'm told, and my 914's clutch can be replaced very easily. Heck, the entire engine and transaxle on a 914 can be dropped and replaced in an afternoon in a driveway.

The 944/924S clutch job ranks up there with a clutch job on a Jaguar E-type, and the E-type clutch job description begins with: "After removing the front bodywork and engine..."

ZV

EDIT: My intent was to point out that the prices are highly variable by model of car.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: OS
Also, I wouldn't say any properly designed and built automatic is any more delicate than a manual. I'd like to see someone justify such a claim.

Automatics run at higher internal temperatures, more wear. Once the bands on an automatic start to stretch it's gone. When a clutch fails, it fails slowly, and with a few exceptions, it's a relatively cheap repair. Synchros are completely superfluous so their failure shouldn't even count. A manual will still function perfectly without synchros, it just demands a better driver. As has been pointed out, when something on an automatic fails, the transmission is dead, most manual transmissions never suffer a catastrophic failure like that.

ZV

I could argue with you all day about how likely/accurate some of your contentions are, but even taken at face value, none of that really means an auto tranny is more "fragile" than a manual.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: OS
Also, I wouldn't say any properly designed and built automatic is any more delicate than a manual. I'd like to see someone justify such a claim.

Automatics run at higher internal temperatures, more wear. Once the bands on an automatic start to stretch it's gone. When a clutch fails, it fails slowly, and with a few exceptions, it's a relatively cheap repair. Synchros are completely superfluous so their failure shouldn't even count. A manual will still function perfectly without synchros, it just demands a better driver. As has been pointed out, when something on an automatic fails, the transmission is dead, most manual transmissions never suffer a catastrophic failure like that.

ZV

I could argue with you all day about how likely/accurate some of your contentions are, but even taken at face value, none of that really means an auto tranny is more "fragile" than a manual.

It depends on how one defines fragile. In the simplest terms, an automatic has more parts, which necessarily makes it more fragile. Even if every part is 99% reliable, something with 10 parts will be less reliable overall than something with 9 parts. (10 parts = 0.99^10 or 90.43% reliable; 9 parts = 0.99^9 or 91.35% reliable.)

ZV

 

[greenman100]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Vic
If any manual trans and clutch were to go out prior to 100k miles, I would certainly blame that on operator abuse/error.
Manual trans also have lower repair and replacement costs than autos.

Regarding the clutch: Typical life for a Porsche clutch: 100,000 miles is very good for a non-abused clutch in the kinds of cars I drive. Depends on the type of driving too, highway miles will make a clutch last "longer" than constant city driving. Double-clutching also wears a clutch faster but it makes the transmission shift more smoothly and cannot be considered abuse.

Regarding the costs: Clutch replacement on a 924S: Parts; $500. Labour; $1,000. A complete re-build on the autobox of my old Accord was only about $100 more in total.

ZV

YOU'RE COMPARING A PORSCHE TO AN ACCORD. :disgust::Q

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
It depends on how one defines fragile. In the simplest terms, an automatic has more parts, which necessarily makes it more fragile. Even if every part is 99% reliable, something with 10 parts will be less reliable overall than something with 9 parts. (10 parts = 0.99^10 or 90.43% reliable; 9 parts = 0.99^9 or 91.35% reliable.)

Your definition fails to take into account control differences. All it takes is a driver to be messy a couple times over the lifetime of a manual to cause serious wear to the tranny. Disregarding stupid sh*t like neutral dumps, shifting in automatics is always machine controlled and they never screw up. Things like misshifts are basically impossible in automatics.

For even sport compact cars, I have seen in both the RSX and the WRX good evidence that the automatics are more durable than the manuals.

It's case by case situation but I don't see any consistent evidence that automatics are shorter lived, or any less durable than manuals.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
It depends on how one defines fragile. In the simplest terms, an automatic has more parts, which necessarily makes it more fragile. Even if every part is 99% reliable, something with 10 parts will be less reliable overall than something with 9 parts. (10 parts = 0.99^10 or 90.43% reliable; 9 parts = 0.99^9 or 91.35% reliable.)

Your definition fails to take into account control differences. All it takes is a driver to be messy a couple times over the lifetime of a manual to cause serious wear to the tranny. Disregarding stupid sh*t like neutral dumps, shifting in automatics is always machine controlled and they never screw up. Things like misshifts are basically impossible in automatics.

For even sport compact cars, I have seen in both the RSX and the WRX good evidence that the automatics are more durable than the manuals.

It's case by case situation but I don't see any consistent evidence that automatics are shorter lived, or any less durable than manuals.

I covered the fact that manual longevity depends on the driver. And "a couple" (by definition, two, though I'll grant that you meant maybe 2 missed shifts each year) of botched shifts in a manual are completely inconsequential. A person would have to be shifting without the clutch and really grinding the gears while so doing to put any kind of serious wear on a manual transmission.

As for shifts "never screwing up" in automatics, bullcrap. There's a TSB out on the AOD-E transmission in my Lincoln for the valve controlling the 1-2 up/downshift. It's a part that only costs a few dollars. If it fails (a common problem) guess what, the 1-2 shift is is screwed up.

The reliability problems associated with manual gearboxes are nearly all user error. Clutch dumps fall into the same category as neutral drops. Assuming that both are treated properly, according to maintenance schedules and are not abused, the manual will last longer. Period. You cannot claim that idiot drivers are the fault of the manual transmission. There's simply no excuse whatsoever for missing a shift in any modern manual transmission. Botching a shift almost has to be done on purpose.

The two cars you mention are incredibly poor examples. In both cases the demographic most likely to choose a manual transmission is also the demographic most likely to severely abuse their transmissions. You have correlation, not causation.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: greenman100

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Vic
If any manual trans and clutch were to go out prior to 100k miles, I would certainly blame that on operator abuse/error.
Manual trans also have lower repair and replacement costs than autos.

Regarding the clutch: Typical life for a Porsche clutch: 100,000 miles is very good for a non-abused clutch in the kinds of cars I drive. Depends on the type of driving too, highway miles will make a clutch last "longer" than constant city driving. Double-clutching also wears a clutch faster but it makes the transmission shift more smoothly and cannot be considered abuse.

Regarding the costs: Clutch replacement on a 924S: Parts; $500. Labour; $1,000. A complete re-build on the autobox of my old Accord was only about $100 more in total.

ZV

YOU'RE COMPARING A PORSCHE TO AN ACCORD. :disgust::Q

Covered earlier in the thread. RTFT.

ZV

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
It depends on how one defines fragile. In the simplest terms, an automatic has more parts, which necessarily makes it more fragile. Even if every part is 99% reliable, something with 10 parts will be less reliable overall than something with 9 parts. (10 parts = 0.99^10 or 90.43% reliable; 9 parts = 0.99^9 or 91.35% reliable.)

Your definition fails to take into account control differences. All it takes is a driver to be messy a couple times over the lifetime of a manual to cause serious wear to the tranny. Disregarding stupid sh*t like neutral dumps, shifting in automatics is always machine controlled and they never screw up. Things like misshifts are basically impossible in automatics.

For even sport compact cars, I have seen in both the RSX and the WRX good evidence that the automatics are more durable than the manuals.

It's case by case situation but I don't see any consistent evidence that automatics are shorter lived, or any less durable than manuals.

I covered the fact that manual longevity depends on the driver. And "a couple" (by definition, two, though I'll grant that you meant maybe 2 missed shifts each year) of botched shifts in a manual are completely inconsequential. A person would have to be shifting without the clutch and really grinding the gears while so doing to put any kind of serious wear on a manual transmission.

As for shifts "never screwing up" in automatics, bullcrap. There's a TSB out on the AOD-E transmission in my Lincoln for the valve controlling the 1-2 up/downshift. It's a part that only costs a few dollars. If it fails (a common problem) guess what, the 1-2 shift is is screwed up.

The reliability problems associated with manual gearboxes are nearly all user error. Clutch dumps fall into the same category as neutral drops. Assuming that both are treated properly, according to maintenance schedules and are not abused, the manual will last longer. Period. You cannot claim that idiot drivers are the fault of the manual transmission. There's simply no excuse whatsoever for missing a shift in any modern manual transmission. Botching a shift almost has to be done on purpose.

The two cars you mention are incredibly poor examples. In both cases the demographic most likely to choose a manual transmission is also the demographic most likely to severely abuse their transmissions. You have correlation, not causation.

ZV

Yep...

Automatics are less reliable than manuals by design. You just can't get around it. It is an effect of being orders of magnitude more complex. Now of course maintenance is another concern, but as per the thread title.. yeah.

You all have to keep remembering the phrase, all else being equal. That means the only variable is the transmission.

A manual transmission should theoretically be able to last just about forever... there is very little wear occouring in a properly maintained and cared for manual. That's not really the case with an automatic, the clutch packs wear with just about every shift.

Unfortunately, the clutch packs in an auto are inside of it, so they count towards the whole rebuild thing...

Think of it this way..

What is more reliable, two meshed gears, or two sprockets and a chain? Both accomplish the same thing.

But.. the two meshed gears will be more reliable, because the chain adds complexity. The two meshed gears should have a lifetime in the hundreds of thousands of hours, if not more.

The sprocket and chain setup will not.

Of course there are flaws with the analogy, but you get the point. In a MT, the gears are physically linked. For them to break requires a catastrophic failure of the metal fracturing kind.

In an AT, there's all these gizmos and gobbleygook between the driver and the driven... lol.. dunno, it's very easy for me to conceptualize for some reason.

 

[Thegonagle]

Uh, six of one, half dozen of the other.

With a manual transmission car, most of them will need at least one clutch replacement over the useful life of the vehicle ($$), and the hydraulic mechanism will also probably need to be rebuilt with new rubber parts one time ($). The manual transmission itself should generally last the life of the vehicle if it's not abused and has its gear lube changed once or twice.

With an automatic, you MUST change the fluid at the recommended intervals ($), or you're going to be looking at a rebuild a little after 100,000 miles ($$$).

 

[Tom]

"Hell, it wouldn't cost $1500 to replace the clutch on my AWD Subaru."


Maybe not, but it will cost the better part of a grand if done right. And your AWD clutches will add another grand on top of that if they go bad.