Automatic or manual?

Driven tens of thousands of miles all over the country after snapping a little switch to “D”. Never found a hill I couldn’t safely climb or descend, never a dock I couldn’t back into, never a fatigued left leg, never a hideous grinding sound beneath my seat, never rolled backwards on a hill, never a fleeting thought about my ego, rarely less than 8 mpg monthly average. What’s a manual?

 

If you are buying the truck then a manual is a no brainier. Eaton has had it perfected for 50 years. If you prefer complicated computer diagnostics and shop time then auto is the no brainier. This isn't complicated. A manual transmission and rears are the only thing that are still fail proof and some of you guys with your ear buds in don't get it.

 

Not that I am saying Manual is better or worse than Auto. But where do you get that manual transmissions are fail proof? Clutches can break on a manual just as easily on an auto. So either transmission can, and at some point, will fail.

 

All I care about is a paycheck. Matters not, but if you have to go to big cities a lot like Atlanta and Nashville, you will be thrilled to have an automatic (and a Volvo).

 

A transmission is good for a million and half miles minus a clutch replacement at Billy Bob's. Or you can stick sensors all over it and run it with a computer so when it breaks some nit wit can hook a computer to it and throw parts at it. A good driver can beat or at least average what the auto does for fuel mileage. Simplicity is king, unless you hire drivers who really can't drive and trade their trucks in before warranty. Most OO don't want them unless they have a bum knee. The rest take them because that's what the market is flooded with.

 

You can drive a manual with a shot clutch home and have it fixed by somebody you trust.

 

This topic comes up every few months. It came up last winter and someone named calfhauler or something went on a rampage about how real men use a clutch blah blah blah.

AMTs are more fuel efficient, it's been studied and documented. Don't expect me to look it up for you, do it yourself if it means that much.

If AMTs are so prone to break down, then why, as has been asked, are so many companies adopting them?

Because they are not more prone to break down. Yes, they are more sophisticated, and therefore more complicated, BUT: they are built lighter because they don't have to allow for the human error factor. People crash and slam gears. A lot. AMTs do not. Far less stress and strain on the components.

But it's not about ego! BS. It's all about ego and testosterone poisoning and appearance, because " real men jam gears."

LOL!

 

They didn't switch to them for reliability. They switched to increase their driver pool. It helps with fuel mileage undoubtedly with new drivers.

 

Autos simply allow people who can barely drive a car to drive a truck.