The manual transmission is sometimes regarded as godlike in car culture. Enthusiasts who worship at the altar of the manual often believe that all vehicles are made better with a third pedal. Most of the time, I’m inclined to agree. There has yet to be a car that I’ve driven that was made worse with a shift-your-own-adventure transmission. But this cannot be the case for every car that has ever existed. Is there a car that was somehow made worse with a manual transmission?
Admittedly, this question was pretty hard for me to answer because I am a huge fan of manuals. My insane car-buying habits have meant that there were times in which I owned the automatic version and the manual version of the same car at the same time. Being able to compare both transmission options within minutes of each other is shocking.
In one of these cases, I owned a 2012 Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen TDI DSG and a 2010 Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen TDI six-speed manual at the same time. Both cars had the same options, the same engine, and the same interiors. The only difference was in color and gearbox. The 2012 was fine! VW’s DSG is lightning quick, and when it works right, it’s something that works smoothly in the background that you never have to think about.
On the other hand, the 2010, despite being pretty much the same car, felt far more engaging to drive just because of the change in transmission. It was awesome. I’ve even once gotten the chance to drive a Smart Fortwo with a real five-speed manual, and it was so good that I bet Smart haters would be complimenting the little city car.
But is that going to be the case with every vehicle?
I think if there’s a vehicle that maybe had been made worse with a manual transmission, it could be a heavy-duty pickup truck built in the past two decades or so. I’ve once driven an older manual Super Duty, and while it was so cool to row my own in a heavy work vehicle, the clutch was a heavy unit. I could imagine my left foot getting really tired rowing gears while towing a trailer, or inching the truck along in dense city traffic.
But I also get why old manual diesel trucks are legendary. Automatic truck transmissions often sucked back then, no matter which brand they came from, so a manual was pretty much the best shot at stellar longevity. Also, manuals are still really cool! But were these trucks actually better to drive? The last manual-equipped heavy-duty pickup in America was the Ram, and that hasn’t had a manual since 2018.
If I had to give a wild answer to this question, it would be a diesel-mechanical locomotive with a manual transmission, which is a thing!
Pete piping in real quick. I can’t recall if it was the vanilla-spec Ford Focus or Fiesta that I’m thinking of, but I test-drove both circa 2013, each with a stick as well as the automatics. One if not both of them (definitely the Focus, I think) was done no favors by its manual gearbox. The throws were long and imprecise, and it just didn’t feel good. On top of that, the ratios were wack. I recall a very low (numerically high) first gear, and then a huge jump to second, a minor tooth-change for third, and then a too-tall fourth gear and another short hop to the fuel-economy-optimized fifth gear. Or something like that – but for sure, it was a lot of extra work for no extra fun. The autos, on the other hand, seemed to have reasonable ratios and responded with crisp-enough shifts and hesitation-free downshifts when I matted the pedal. Not thrilling, but not frustrating.
How about you? Is there a car, truck, SUV, or other vehicle that was made worse with a manual transmission?
Top graphic image: Ford
The GM Super H Body cars (Monza, Skyhawk, Sunbird), the cable clutch was horrible, but the shifter assembly was mounted remotely to the floor, if you cranked it up and shifted the shifter would bind and it wouldn’t go into gear.
Any non performance or non-offroad vehicle. I had a Ford Fairmont (4-dr), straight 6, with a 3 speed on the floor. It sucked. I have driven panel vans that were 3 on the tree or 4 on the floor and they sucked. For a straight shift to be fun, the car has to be a fun car to drive.
I will say the last of the Jeep TJ’s with the six speed from Mercedes was not better than the AX15. At least from a gearing standpoint. Some gears were almost useless for the most part.
I think the worst manuals were the 3 speed poverty spec manuals from the 70’s back. usually not low enough first gear to be fun, and often the spacing between ratios was enough to take the already lower spec’d cars out of their usually lower powered sweet spot.
Came here to say “TJ”, didn’t have to look far.
Those manuals are VERY agricultural, but not in a good or fun way. Throwing 12 inches of shift in the general direction of something called ‘second’ was awful, and there was never any feeling of power or oomph.
Still, my neighbor loves his. I guess it is a Jeep thing, and I don’t understand.
I enjoyed the NV3550 in my 01 XJ, but I had heard a lot of bad things about the later NSG370 6 speed.
That’s a good point – I’d say as a general rule engines that don’t want to rev make the experience less enjoyable.
On a little compact diesel hatchback – whatever, it doesn’t weigh anything and modern small diesels have decent powerbands and gearing to match.
But a lumpy old v6 or v8 that redlines at 6k but only makes more noise and vibration after 3k – hard to have fun with that.
The last Subaru Forester with a stick, whatever year that was. When I was a service advisor at Subaru, it was the single car I dreaded coming in. There was only me and another advisor out of the 20+ non-technicians in the service department that wouldn’t consistently stall them. The engine just didn’t have enough torque to smoothly get the car moving. You could tell that the stick was not given the same R&D dollars as the CVT
The Rev hang on the older WRX’s was pretty terrible too.
Weirdly though, I found that the 06-09 Legacy Turbo’s 6MT was pretty great when they came in. You could tell that the issues were that of tuning, not necessarily the hardware
My wife daily drives a ’15 Forester with the manual. I think that was the last generation? Love the stick in that one, although my in-laws’ near identical one with the CVT is not terrible. Really the only CVT I have driven that didn’t suck. I wish you could still get one with the manual.
I haven’t driven anything that was made *worse* by a manual transmission, but my 02 Mustang GT made me a slightly less ardent believer in the “manuals or nothing” ethos.
It’s the 5-speed, and though it shifts pretty smoothly now that I flushed the transmission and put the proper amount of fluid in it, the throws are a bit long and the shifter is always at such an odd-looking angle. Least forgiveable, though, is the cable-operated clutch. It is very heavy, and gets tiring in traffic. And come on, my old 1980 Datsun 210 had a hydraulic clutch.
Anywho, I still think the stick is better for sheer control of those rear wheels, but I have a greater understanding for those that chose the auto.
I don’t think I drove any manual Cobalts, but don’t expect it to be any different from the ION – the standard 2.2/2.4 Ecotecs were much better suited to the 4-speed auto. The manual was balky, tons of rev hang before it was cool, whatever the pedals were connected to was a guessing game. These traits were present in the 2.2/5MT VUE but somehow it wasn’t so bad, maybe because it was expected in the taller, heavier VUE.
Ghosn-era FWD Nissans – 5MT Altima was ropey and vague with either motor, 6MT 5th gen Maxima tended to bind. They may have improved it later on, but as I recall the reviews of the 6MT on 4th gen Altimas were kinda meh.
I test drove an ‘08 Cobalt SS Turbo, and that shifter was actually quite good as I recall. Can’t comment on the lower-spec ones, but at least the SS got a nice one.
I never got the opportunity to drive any of the super/turbocharged ones unfortunately, which used a Saab manual. Really the shifter wasn’t even the root of the issue on the ‘regular’ ones, balky shifters aren’t uncommon – it was how the rest of it was set up, made it tricky to drive smoothly.
I had a manual VUE, and it was far better with the stick. Drove other 2.2 vehicles with auto, and definitely not as fun.
The manual VUE was better to drive than I would have expected. An L200 manual was also good, that was a Saab unit vs. Getrag. Regular IONs weren’t really fun anyway but with a manual it felt like it was trying to convince you not to drive it.
2022 Jeep Wrangler JL. I was looking for a second “fun” car this spring so I test drove a beautiful, dark green 4-door JL with about 40K miles. It had the worst shifting manual I’ve ever used. Clutch pedal went straight to the floor with minimal feel, and getting the clutch to eventually engage after shifting was a herky-jerky mess no matter how much you finessed it. Maybe the previous owner trashed the clutch, but I’ve heard since then that the newer JL manuals are garbage. Recently rented a 2025 JL with an automatic and it was great. I also test drove a 2017 JK with 100K+ miles and that manual was way better than I expected, so I’m not sure why Jeep put a crappier transmission in the JL.
Came here to say this. I had a 2019 JLU to replace my 2000 TJ, and I just had to have a manual. After about a week, I wished I had the auto. The one thing that the manual did great was the stop/start. When you touched the clutch, the engine would fire up and it’d be ready without lag by the time you were in gear. Still, it was terrible. I sold it for a healthy profit during COVID about a year later.
That’s because the JL has a cable shifter but the JK had a shifter that went through a hole in floor directly to the transmission as the good lord intended.
A little more general comment: Any of the old “3 on the tree” manuals! Have you ever tried to drive one of those? Give me the automatic version any day (if it existed). Most of you all are probably too young to have encountered any of these, but it was a whole other skill set.
You’re not wrong. All of the linkage required to make it work results in a floppy, loosey-goosey feel that doesn’t inspire confidence. This is a great answer that covers a lot of old vehicles.
In high school I worked part time at my cousin’s auto body shop. The shop truck was an old F-100 with a six cylinder engine and three on the tree. Every so often the linkage would jam up, necessitating crawling under the truck and yanking the shift linkage up and down to free up the shifter.
My mom (with small 4 kids) use to have to cary a small sledge hammer in the 66 dodge van for when the linkage froze up. Her life was hard.
This is something that reads like a lie, yet somehow I believe it.
I am on the phone with my 84 year old mom right now, story confirmed. It was too expensive to get fixed and it was an intermittent problem anyway.
Yes everything from full sized vans, 1 ton trucks to saab sonnets. Column shifting sucks.
It’s definitely not a setup for sportiness, but I love me a column shift. It’s so different I find it endlessly entertaining. I actually had a three-on-the-tree AMC Pacer and I adored that car.
I imagine there’s a small factor there of it not being a truck? If I had to guess.
Followed shortly by the Chryslers Fluid Drive system. Though I feel like that one is just scary until you get used to it and understand how to keep it functional.
I learned to drive on an F-150 with three on the tree and the 300ci straight six. It was… fine, but definitely not elegant. The worst part was going from first to reverse on accident, the best part was my HS classmates thinking I was doing unspeakable things with an automatic transmission.
Ours had power steering and brakes, and that engine had a lot of torque, which made the whole experience tolerable. I once drove an otherwise identical truck with manual steering and brakes and it was pretty unpleasant.
I owned an F150 with the 300 straight six, 3-on-the-tree, and fully manual clutch and steering. Only thing power-assisted was the brakes. The steering was “Armstrong” power only — meaning you were the only force moving the wheel, and the clutch was actuated strictly by a lever linkage; no hydraulics involved.
The clutch also had been upgraded to a larger heavy-duty unit with stiffer springs. It wasn’t hard to operate, at least not to me, a soccer kicker who’d also spent years using a bicycle to get around despite having a license. (So I might have had a skewed idea of “not hard” to operate…) The problem was the return force generated by not only the springs but by a big clutch taking up — which would easily slam you knee into the bottom of the steering wheel if you didn’t keep it under control. That and since the linkage bridged between the cab and the transmission, frame flex aggravated by the big six’s torque would change the linkage’s angle and mandated a bit of finesse on the clutch to get it to engage smoothly.
And of course, at the same time you were hauling on the big steering wheel to turn into traffic and often had to keep it pointed while taking the other hand off to swing the column shift’s long throw into the next gear. It wasn’t for the faint-of-heart. If you liked big trucks and heavy equipment, it was great fun. I’m a whole lot older but still in good enough shape and would probably still think it was fun. I’d guess that 90% of modern drivers would think that may idea of “fun” is a little disturbing.
On the other hand, if just having a manual transmission is a theft deterrent in the modern age, then that truck might be positively un-stealable today.
That… actually sounds fun! Cars are too fast and too easy now. It’s fun to work for it. Not every day though, perhaps.
agreed, I had the displeasure of driving an old van with the 3 on the tree. what a POS and not fun at all.
My 1983 RN38 Hilux. I loved the truck, loved driving the truck, but the stock transmission was flawed. The earlier L52 side-loader transmissions had a weak input bearing known to grenade over time, which happened to me. I ended up having one rebuilt with a housing clearanced for the larger input bearing from the W56 transmission, then it shifted like butter and had the brawn to back it.
The 1993-1994 Subaru Impreza with the 2WD 5-speed manual transmission had reliability issues. Same car with AWD or with the automatic did not. So it’s a flip of a coin whether the manual made this series of Impreza better or worse.
For the AWD cars, the first-gen 4EAT automatic transmission was reliable but…interesting…to drive. It had several different shift maps, and none of them shifted 1-2-3-4 like a normal car. If you put it in ‘D’ like most cars, the standard map skipped 1st and then went 2-4-3-3Lock-4-4Lock, with all of the shifts happening early enough to make the car feel gutless. Most of the time you couldn’t use first gear unless manually selecting it, which also locked the center diff (good offroad, annoying in parking lots). Selecting second locked the trans into just second gear (occasionally useful). Selecting third gave somewhat normal shifting (still skipped first, just not as often) without feeling so gutless, and was the option recommended in the owners manual for most driving. If wanting to go highway speed, their recommendation was to accelerate to speed with third selected and then select ‘D’ to enable fourth gear only after reaching speed.
So what is ‘D’ for, if not for driving the car? Supposedly the weird shifting map performed better in that year’s EPA testing. So they set that up as the default, and then told their customers not to use it (for those few that actually read the owners manual). Later 4EAT generations shift like any normal 4-speed, so I guess they eventually abandoned whatever gains this strategy offered.
Given the quirks, the AWD manual is definitely my preferred option out of the three. But the 2WD manual might be the worst, when factoring in the longevity issues.
They were the same manual transmission. Only differences were FD ratio and the center diff on the end for the AWD. If anything, the AWD should be more problematic because any excess torque can’t be bled off by tire spin, leaving the transmission to absorb it.
Yep. They share most of the design, share most parts, and fit into the same parts number scheme. It sure looks like same transmission minus the center diff & rear output shaft. You’d think the simpler FWD unit would have fewer problems. But that’s not how it worked out in practice. 🙁
For my own, it failed around 175k miles, which isn’t bad for ’90 with a transmission originally designed for a lot less power and weight and that was after dozens of J turns, lots of sliding on gravel and snow and shocks from encountering pavement, a high speed run across the US, and hitting a top speed that was a bit higher than expected (though it took a while to get there). Even then, I lost 3rd, but was able to limp it around. The used replacement lived with the car for the remaining 100k miles, but I don’t know the mileage it came with from the wrecking yard. I knew of a bunch of blown AWDs, but they were all modified turbos, so those don’t count.
I mean there’s no universe where this one is GOOD but the Chevrolet/Daewoo/Suzuki Opera/Lacetti/Reno had a profoundly awful manual transmission that made a not great car very bad. It was extremely vague, floppy, and poorly geared.
I mean the car would have been improved with a manual transmission that was actually good but the one I drove had a transmission so bad that the car was nearly undrivable. And this was new, on the lot, not an old one that was run hard and put away wet.
Is this the same Lacetti they featured in Top Gear for a bunch of years?
It is! Well the one I test drove was the Canadian model, so an Optra. I managed to slip “reasonably priced car” into the conversation.
It’s… Not a good car. The Suzuki Liana (or Aerio at my local dealer) was alright though.
Contractor I worked for building suburbs in college in the early 2000s had a whole fleet of 10th gen F-150s which I think he got in 2 batches because they were about 50/50 on a few options like vinyl/cloth and stick/auto. While the manual wasn’t really worse it added absolutely nothing to the driving experience.
Haha yeah – those things were a PAIN to emission test on a dyno. You were supposed to use second gear for the entire test (15 and 25 mph portions, each lasting up to 60 seconds. You had a mile an hour tolerance each way and had an RPM limitation you had to stay in so you couldnt theoretically rev the engine to superheat a marginal catalytic converter.
There was such a big difference between first and second gear to get it to run the test you either had to run the 15 in first gear which would put the rpm right at the limitation or lug the crap out of it in 2nd while trying to keep the rpm above minimum and not exceeding 16.0 mph.
When I was getting my inspection license at the local community college – 3 guys failed because they couldnt complete a test on the final exam which included one of these trucks the school had.
The worst? An aircraft tug from the 1940’s. You don’t know pain until you try to move a fully loaded BAC 111 across the airfield.
I would like to hear more about that pain.
My dad bought a 6 speed Challenger and that gearbox is dogshit. Not sure if it’s always the case or the aftermarket short throw but that thing is so imprecise it requires you to slow down your shifts and feels terrible to drive.
The first gen Crosstrek with the crappy 5-speed. I was shocked when I had a CVT as a service loaner and found it to be a much better match for the anemic 2.0L. I assume the 6 speed on the 2nd gen cars, with it’s taller top gear and much more closely spaced 1st and 2nd was a big improvement.
Reliability was bad on sticks in trucks too. My dad’s pickup had a note to never use 5th if towing or otherwise loaded up a hill. They were known for eating 5th if too much torque was applied. Later diesels ate clutches despite lower output than the automatic.
I’ll add that jaguar was known to be a bad stick back in the day. (Before Ford). American toughness was great but shifting was more dumptruck than car.
I know its isolated, but my FIL has a 2002 Ram 2500 6 speed manual with 180K on it, towed a 30 foot 5th wheel for a couple years and is still on the original clutch which shows no issues. I’m sure it’ll go eventually but that truck is a beast.
The issue seems to be driving it like a car. Drove a ram a few times towing and the owner told me to never use the gas and clutch at the same time. Idle was all thats needed for a loaded trailer.
Hey, is this the same XT6wagon from that orange board? If not, sorry – if so, LOL
Saab 9-5s: I’ve driven both manual and auto versions, and the auto is surprisingly the better drive. I’ve read that the current gen Alfa Guilia offers a manual in Europe but that they aren’t great.
I hear the IS300 manual was agricultural, but have yet to find one to confirm.
In my case my 2009 Ford Ranger, maybe the transmission is going bad but sometimes it will be so hard to put it on first gear that I have to start in second gear and then back to first and it will engage smoothly. Another day it could be the Reverse that I have to fight on.
A dragging clutch will cause this symptom. Maybe try bleeding the clutch hydraulics?
Haven’t driven a newer one but I’ll assume its 80s tech instead of modern. 1st had minimal synchronization and was largely a stop only thing. 2nd then 1st at a stop is a synchronization thing. Try replacing fluid as it helps STi with issues. Too many replace synchros first.
I did a fluid replacement myself, the one it had was not even red anymore. It kind of helped at first but then the issue just keep happening.
learned to drive manual in an 89 and owned a 99 myself and never experienced these issues.
I’ve got a ’98 and after replacing the clutch, master/slave, flywheel, and pilot bearing, it shifts wonderfully. The main problem I had was the pilot bearing had turned to dust which made shifting in lower gears difficult.
My dad’s is a 2001 4cyl. It was doing some really funky stuff as it warmed up that was mostly fixed by a coolant flush – but I’m sure that it needs a clutch refresh at this point. It’s not a good sign when it idles perfect in neutral but surges with the clutch in while in gear….
I rented a manual ranger on Turo a few years ago. It was a 3.0 V6 2wd extended cab. I enjoyed it a lot more than I expected. The vibe was like.:: I felt like I should be barefoot in a developing country, bouncing down a dirt road and banging through the gears. I didn’t even mind that I had to go down to 3rd gear to keep with highway traffic on hills. Conversely, I drove an automatic Ranger, and that was pretty meh.
You had a bad transmission, manual Rangers used a really good 5 speed made by Mazda. I put hundreds of thousands of miles on a ’91 and then a ’97 Ranger, even when the trucks were worn out the transmissions were still precise and fun to drive.
That’s a classic case of the clutch not fully releasing. You likely either need to bleed the clutch slave cylinder (uses brake fluid), or the bushing on the clutch pedal where it connects to the master cylinder is worn out.
One of the most disappointing test drives I’ve had was a Jaguar F-Type S with a manual. I’ve never driven the automatic version, but the shifter was rubbery and vague to the point I couldn’t tell if gears were actually engaged, and the clutch didn’t engage where the pedal changed force, and was possibly the worst manual I’ve ever driven, including old-style VW Golf rental cars in South Africa. The shifter was also so close to the dash that I kept hitting the hazards shifting into 3rd.
I’ll be sitting this one out.
Mercedes… COTD above.
Oh I get it, and in general, I’m on the same page.
But would you want a 60’s Cadillac with a manual? Sure, it’s novel, but it kind of runs against the car’s grain. Same for any big, poofy boat, Lincoln, Buick, etc. Smaller cars like the CTS, Regal, or Lincoln LS with a manual are great, though. Just not for Town Cars, DeVilles, or Electras.
Those big boats didn’t come with manual transmissions, though, so it’s a moot point. The last Caddy with a stick before the recent ones was 1953, I believe. The Continental only had a manual in 1947. Those cars were not designed for you to row your own.
A lot of full-sized cars in the 60’s came with a manual- like the 300 in today’s Shitbox Showdown.
But not the big poofy soft suspension luxo-barges that you were talking about. The 300 was practically a performance car in that era.
Eeeeehhhh, not really. Even with the 413, this thing wallowed through corners and had stopping distances that were measured in leagues. Fast, yes. Performance, no.
Even a Biscayne with a manual is pretty odd.
While the manual trans didn’t make the experience worse, having one in the ’80s Ford Taurus MT5 and Ford Aerostar I drove with a stick sure didn’t make them any better.
Aerostar manual??? That’s a DT Holy Grail right there!
Pete: Regarding the Focus/Fiesta: Yes, the manual might have been worse to drive, but at least they didn’t blow up before 80k miles due to the Powershift transmission
I owned both Fiestas and the manual was a bit better experience even with the odd ratios. But I got used to it pretty quick and could get the most out of the powerband while the Powershift had a mind of its own (although it never let me down)
I feel like most peoples’ takes will be considered controversial here because there’s always someone who likes the manual version better, but I’ll throw a vote in…
…for the Chevy Corvair.
I’ve had two. The first was a ’63 Convertible with a 4-speed. It never ran. I ended up having to part it out. But IMHO, the longer the shift linkage has the run, the less fun things get.
Also, my second Corvair, a 1965 convertible with a Powerglide, was a much more fun conversation piece. The shifter in the ’65 was a tiny little t-handle in the middle of the dashboard and there was no Park, just RNDL. Plus the Powerglide was easy to maintain and rebuild.
supposedly, most Mercedes cars are worse with the manual than the automatic. They just stopped making them last year, but they could’ve stopped 30 years ago and nobody would care LOL