Durability: Manual or Automatic

BIGkev1001 · 03-21-03, 10:10

A couple of my friends and I were discussing which transmission type is more durable, Standard or Automatic? I tend to think that manuals are much more durable. Some of my friends think that today's computer controlled automatics are more durable. I know that there are many factors that would go into this but all things being equal which do you guys thing is more durable (last longer)?

Scottwax · 03-21-03, 10:21

Manuals, definitely. You may need to put in a clutch or two, but a manual will go far longer without a rebuild than an automatic-plus, automatics are harder to rebuild properly. The shop that did my Accord's automatic took 5 tries to finally get it right.

hondaguy2582 · 03-22-03, 12:05

computers get old after awhile, start having problems. Same thing with auto trannys unless they are kept up good. Ill stick with my manual

porterdog · 04-07-03, 09:01

A friend of mine is a gearhead and works for one of the Big Three in autotrannies. Couple years ago I came over to his house to find the auto tranny from his project truck in pieces all over his garage floor (taken apart, not exploded!). "Sheeeesh!" I said. "How many parts inside that thing?"

"Uhh...." he said, considering. "Probably about 1500?"

"How about in a manual?"

"Probably closer to 300?"

nuff said.

Robert

blkZ28Conv · 04-07-03, 09:53

Probably equally reliable if cared for and driven properly. With that said an automatic takes out the "human" factor for self-induced problems ( missed shifts, clutch riding, etc). I own and have driven both and I have never needed to have an automatic trans repaired.

ShineMGood · 04-07-03, 10:08

The automatic in my Mercedes 300SD made it 360,000 miles before I sold it. That car was amazing.

IndigoGTI · 04-07-03, 10:24

Quote:

Originally posted by porterdog
A friend of mine is a gearhead and works for one of the Big Three in autotrannies. Couple years ago I came over to his house to find the auto tranny from his project truck in pieces all over his garage floor (taken apart, not exploded!). "Sheeeesh!" I said. "How many parts inside that thing?"

"Uhh...." he said, considering. "Probably about 1500?"

"How about in a manual?"

"Probably closer to 300?"

nuff said.

Robert

According to Murphy's law; a system with fewer given parts (functions) than a comparable system with more parts (functions) will be less prone to failure. Or something like that anyway. So, manual transmissions get my vote. My mom bought a Toyota Corolla new in '83, the car now has over 200,000 miles on it, and has never had any transmission work done save for new clutch master and slave cylinders. The clutch is original too. I even drove the car for a year when I was 17, and it is still alive and kicking.

Spilchy · 04-07-03, 10:36

I have 2 Saabs one with 120,000 miles and one with 103,000 miles - both automatic. No issues.

Jake11375 · 04-07-03, 10:48

I would have to say manual. Usually the clutch will go first and the transmission lasts the life of the car. A manual gives you more options on replacement as well. If some of your gears go out early, you can always replace those particular gears opposed to the entire transmission. But sometimes, if you get into replacing too many gears, you would be better off just getting another tranmission, because the majority of charges go into disassembly and reassembly.

Jake11375 · 04-07-03, 10:50

Needless to say, the main factors in a lasting transmission, auto or manual is maintenance and driver aggressiveness.