In new car pricing it seems quite widespread that auto transmissions cost more than manual transmissions. I hope someone can tell me why.
Manuals require an extra pedal, a clutch mechanism and they are not that common anymore.
Autos don't need the extra pedal, etc and they are far more popular than manuals.
When applying Henry Ford's concept of "mass production reduces costs" I find it hard to work out why auto transmissions cost so much more than manuals.
So you think that in an auto there are no clutch and gears behind the scenes and you can just connect up the engine to the tyres?
Well yes, by definition, an automatic transmission does not have a clutch, 'behind the scenes'
You still need to decouple the engine from the wheels when idling. It may not be called a clutch but the function is still needed.
True
automatics require a heap of electronics and a very much harder to make than manuals
the reality is that manual transmissions have reached their maximum potential maybe 10 yrs ago
automatics still have not
and its $2,000 free money for the car company
Auto's still have gears and all the bits and pieces that a manual does. Now replace that clutch pedal and gear stick with all the internal compenents and computers required to change the gears for the driver automatically. It is far more complicated and with some cars even more advanced to allow the auto transmissions to make the gear changes seemless to the driver so they dont notice. Add on top of that Auto's are more desireable as its easier and often less effort in the city than a manual, I'm surprised the gap between the 2 are not larger.
Pretty sure Auto is a good way for Manuf. to make an extra 1500 dollars per car ;)
That said never going back to Manual now.
For the same reason you would expect an automatic coffee machine to cost more than a manual one.
Modern autos are very complex beasts, and many use a 'computer' to determine the best gear at any given point in time, taking into account your driving style, feedback from the road surface etc. Eight-speed auto transmissions are not uncommon these days and, while not necessary, are good for the fuel economy.
As Snappy1234 suggested,
The reason manuals are still offered in a number of cars is to reduce the advertising price. Eg $19990. The take up rates of manual cars in Australia, America and Asia is very low, even for sports cars.
This is the reason they have been dropped from development from manufacturers like ferrari and Lamborghini(on some models). (Auto gearboxes can now change gears faster than the best manual drivers, therefore providing faster acceleration)
In Europe the manual gearbox is the most preferred of the two gearboxes.
Often cars that have been designed for Europe will have a manual option. Otherwise manuals are increasing becoming obsolete in new cars.
It is just a way to milk the market for the additional $1500-$2500 that they can get away with.
very true. The cost to make a manual vs auto is probably the same. It is a way to get another 2 - 4 k out of the consumer
With our last car purchase, the manual option was the more expensive option. From looking at others I found similar pricing at the time. Therefore I thought it was the other way around.
Last time I looked it was hard to find a manual option across a certain brand of car unless you were looking at a sporty type car.
Fair point. Development costs may be high for each new generation of auto box but $1K+ difference is a hangover from the old days when manuals dominated the market and autos were exotic beasts. As someone above said it's likely a marketing thing, a price point difference which we've become accustomed to but which should no longer exist. The additional complexity cost of the auto should have been well and truly offset by the mass production benefit by now - depending on the auto box of course.
these days auto trans are significantly advancing in technology and are far more costly & complex to produce than there manual counterparts
Cross section of viewpoints. These days I don't buy the line that if it's computerized it will cost more. It may be that the extra cost of an auto helps to pay for R & D which produces more advanced technology. However I still think in terms of economy of scale, it should be cheaper to build an auto transmission.
And where is your analysis that says economies of scale will bring down the price in this case? It's just a belief of yours without evidence.
Say I sell vanilla ice cream and offer optional chocolate topping for extra. Even if 95% of the customers buy the topping, it will still cost me more for both than just ice cream. Could it be that the extra complexity of auto transmission will always raise the cost price no matter how many units are made, have you considered that? You have to analyse each case rather than flat out say: Economy of scale will always make things cheaper.
Henry Ford and elementary logic of mass production and uptake suggests you're way off the mark. The big costs of development and production "tooling up" are defrayed against units made.
Show me the cost analysis for this case, otherwise it's just your belief.
@greenpossum: good job, but that sort of inane response doesn't cut it I'm afraid. Do some basic research of your own. The benefits of mass production are well understood and well documented. We don't have access to the detailed accounts of auto box makers but we hardly need to to draw some conclusions in regard to costs. Add to that the Chinese "miracle" (I'll leave you to figure out how that's relevant) and automation of part production and there's good reason to believe that "costs" diminish as more units are sold. Have a little think on this - why do prototypes cost so much in comparison to production models of pretty much any product you can think of?
@Possumbly: No, the OP and you begged the question. Both of you stated without proof that economies of scale always bring down prices of the advanced design below the basic design as if it were an eternal truth. I suggested that there might be situations where it EoS might not hold, using an analogy. The manual model might be the basic design and the auto transmission added on. I want you to show that EoS holds here. All you have is suggestions and hints but no proof. If you don't have the proof, then just agree to disagree in the absence of any hard facts.
I don't have a bet riding either way; I'd be equally pleased whichever way it turns out, but I don't accept assertions without proof, that's shabby reasoning, that's all.
@greenpossum:
You're a master of invention. Nowhere did either the OP or I state that mass production "always" brings down costs, although there are myriad examples which suggest that this is generally the case. Google and satisfy yourself instead of asking an anonymous forumite to "prove" it to you.
And, unless the words 'think', 'believe', 'may' and 'should' have been redefined in the last 24 hours to imply certainty I can't see that anyone has "asserted" anything. We've simply offered a reasonable opinion based on well established historical precedent. You on the other hand have done nothing other than ask for something you likely know we can't deliver. If I was mischievous I'd ask you to provide proof that our educated speculation is incorrect, but then I'd be no different to you. Suffice to say neither you nor I knows the current unit cost of any of the various gearboxes available.
I see you've accidently stumbled on a point I've already alluded to. Manuals may have been the "basic design" (biggest sellers) in the past for obvious reasons but that's no longer the case for many cars because the efficiency and performance advantage they used to have no longer exists. Iirc autos outsell manuals in this country 2+ to 1, although globally it was neck and neck when I last looked.
No-one has a vested interest here, we're simply speculating - reasonably in most cases - as to why there should still be a significant premium (up to 10%) on autos in some cars. It's a complex topic.
@Possumbly: So what's this then about OP writing about Henry Ford's concept of mass production, and finding it hard to believe it wasn't bringing the price down? Also your very words above, good reason to believe? So now the reasons and beliefs have been downgraded to speculation? Well that's fine with me I already recognised that was the case.
The split up of sales or the efficiency is not of interest to me. I'm also sure you have no vested interest. I am simply calling the OP's and your statements what they are: speculation. What would be more useful would be a quote from an auto exec saying, well our autos of model X cost $200 more (or $200 less) to make. But then the next question would be would you believe what they say?
Ho hum, back to the bargains…
@greenpossum: Frankly it's of no import to me whether you think our comments are speculation or manna from heaven. What concerns me more is your complete inability to construct an argument without invention and obfuscation - quite possibly unintentional - while simultaneously ignoring the obvious (that would be the effects of mass production on costs and pricing). That's quite something to pull off, even on this forum. The old adage you can lead a horse to water seems appropriate. Forget the bargains, unless they involve books and lessons on elementary research.
@Possumbly: I must say you seem so upset with any suggestions that might be misaligned with your beliefs that you have to resort to name calling. Poor form. Sorry but I prefer to play the ball and not the man.
@greenpossum: you're a very perceptive kid, as the icecream analogy showed only too well. Here's a book you should read
well auto is automated and a manual is just like its name a manual
generally a automated system of any kind will always cost more.
for example,
a wheel brace would be classed as a manual tool
a impact wrench would be classed as an automated tool
one requires manpower to produce torque
the other does the torquing all for you
and of course the impact wrench carry's a heavier price then a brace because
of the little extra computerized components inside & its complexity to build compared to a brace.
im aware this wasn't the best example for a auto vs manual trans but you get the idea.
Often wondered why anyone living in a city would buy a manual, like sitting in the traffic or using for speed where?.
internal complexity and evolving technology involved in the auto tranny.
manuals have changed bugger all in last 50 years.