I am very intrigued by the statement that automatics cost more to repair than manual trannies. Back in the 1960s & 70s a manual transmission cost over 4 times as much to rebuild as a slush box because of extra hours of labor involved. As a friend of mine who was the best transmission man in a town of over 200k told me: In the stick shift you have to set all the clearances but in the slush box you just have to make sure that you are dropping the parts in facing the right direction.

The problem of multiple operators of the vehicle was not addressed either. If there are 2 or more drivers of a vehicle with a manual transmission it will need repair much more quickly than if it has an automatic. It does not matter if all of the operators are highly skilled each one will have a slightly different way of driving and a clutch & manual box do not like that. Fleet operators discovered this very quickly when automatics became rather common and that is why you find taxis, police, light & medium trucks all with automatics.

Ralph, I don't mean this meanly, but you're a knucklehead. Sure, maybe a manual transmission is more of a bother to rebuilt than an automatic, but the actual cost of maintaining a manual transmission vs an automatic is less because generally speaking, one never has to rebuild a manual! Automatics need rebuilding-- manuals generally just need a new clutch (which is much cheaper than an automatic tranny rebuild) every so often-- usually at long, long intervals. I've never had to replace a clutch on a car I've owned from new sooner than 125,000 miles. And I have several cars with more than 300,000 miles, and guess what, in all those cars and all those miles, I've never once had to rebuild a manual transmission! Nor has any other person I know who drives manuals had to.

I'm sure there are some crummy models out there with badly designed manual transmissions that actually fail-- but in general, because of it's more robust construction-- around 60 moving parts around what, 1200 moving parts in an automatic-- manual transmissions, properly designed and properly driven simply do not fail within the normal life of a car.

Another difference worth noting is that many manual transmissions have one more forward gear than their automatic counterparts. At the same highway speed, a manual in 5th gear will run at fewer RPMs than the same car with its automatic in 4th.

This applies to slightly older-than-current models, of course, now that autos seem to be catching up in even the most basic cars (e.g. the VW Jetta 2.5, which has five forward gears in both its automatic and manual forms).

That problem of multiple regular operators is true of any vehicle.

Any road construction superintendent will tell you that assigning a piece of mobile equipment to a specific operator (provided the guy has any skill) is always better than letting anyone run it.

Six speed automatics are getting common in the upper price ranges.

The Americans are behind the curve on this one, although GM dies offer a fine six speed.

That may be true, but I find it hard to believe it has anything to do with the fact that different operators have different techniques. I suggest it has much more to do with the fact that when a piece of equipment is operated by one person only, that person takes some "ownership" and responsibility for it.

Ridiculous... modern gearboxes have a better mileage than the manual ones with the same engine.

The best example is the 7G from Mercedes Benz

The real problem are the older vehicules... or new ones that aren't using the better technical solutions, only for production costs reasons

FPF422:

I disagree.

Always found manual to be better, lasting longer, and now they are coming 6 speed which lessens the intervals. Automatics do not hold up over time and do not warm up quickly in the Winter causing the torque converter to be slower in locking up.

The 7G from MB is a seven speed gearbox... 6 speeds is so passé ;-)

The new DSG will be also a 7 speed one

and my point was on the mileage. Those new gearboxes have a better one than the stickshifts on the same engine. I have a MB SLK350 with the 7 G and from the MB data and from experience (comparing with a friend who owns a manual 6 speed SLK350) my mileage is better.

run75441, I don't know your car experience but this one is my 14th car (not counting company cars) but only my third in automatic. I've had problems with manual ones but never (yet?) with my automatic gearboxes.

Also, where I live, Belgium, winter temperatures aren't a problem.

I believe that under the circumstances ( weather where we live, type of vehicles, etc.) we could be both right.

I could also tell you that I know manuals that are very slow to warm up and autos that are rather too quick to warm up. I could go into specifics but I'm not a great typist and English isn't my mother tongue... :-D

FPF422:

I do alot of my own work (not trans) and my last Ford has >234,000 miles on it with a Yamaha Engine in it and not burning oil. The Trans is giving me issues though; but then, it was undersized for the torque and the horsepower. This same experience may also be typical for Euro vehicles but not so typical over here as most people do not keep cars a long time. I had a nice Opel Vectra they leased to me the last time I visited Homburg and Bosch.

Mercedes is not a common car here which is why we may also disagree. The lock-up in most vehicles here for Automatic will not happen until the engine warms up sufficiently. Hence lower mileage in Winter when temps are below 0 Centgrade. Manuals do not suffer from that issue as it is all gears with the exception of the clutch.

I am sure we are both capable mechanics. Fun talking to you! and thanks for responding.

I am a 62 year old Grandma. You know me: never goes over the speed limit? I drive a 2000 Suzuki Esteem that I have had since it was brand new. Not that many will believe me but I get 45+ mpg. Stick shift. She now has 95,000 miles on her. I use synthetic oil, change it at around 6,000 miles.

Prior to the 2000 Esteem, I drove a 1995 Geo Metro, yup, stick shift and I got 50+ mpg. I traded it in for the Esteem. It was beginning to use a little oil and I had over 100,000 miles on her, and the kids were nagging me about diving a "Pregnant Rollerskate" and what with all the pulp trucks on the road they felt I needed something bigger, so I caved. No one else but me drives my car. And probably no one else ever will. They don't know how.

Now: someone out there in cyberspace tell me why I have had the gas mileage I have! I laugh at the 35 MPG Hybrid ads.

Quite possibly true for vehicles such as your MB -- note that here, few if any MBs are even available with manual transmissions for comparison.

The automatics of cars like that are far more sophisticated than what most Americans drive however.

Got a flat battery in a manual? Put it in second, find a couple of volunteers to get you up to walking speed and you are away. On an auto - you can't even move it so you can get another vehicle to jump start it.

A couple of additional factors were not mentioned. Automatic transmissions are heavier and larger; In the initial manufacturing process, costs are higher, and far more resources and energy are needed. The weight itself is a factor in mileage. Then there's the need for transmission fluid. All these add to the environmental "imprint" of an automatic transmission.

Good grief, who the hell can afford a Mercedes Benz? It's all I can do to pay for a Hyundai.