From the Article:
To further improve fuel economy, product development chief Raj Nair says Ford is developing a 10-speed transmission to replace its current 6-speed.
Now, only 3.9% of cars sold in the US in 2012 were Standards, 30 years ago it was 19%. When the US Army adopted the Humvee to replace the Jeep and other trucks, the Army committed itself to Automatics. The Humvee was adopted in 1984. The Army started to convert its M35 fleet of 2 1/2 ton trucks to Automatics in 1993. Most M35s were withdrawn from Service starting in 1999 and with that withdraw we lost a huge pool of people who had been taught to drive Manual Transmissions.
In simple terms, Ford is appears to be staying with Auto only transmission for Ford does NOT expect a huge demand for Trucks with Manual Transmissions. The last time I checked only Dodge/Ram had a Standard Transmission as an option. Through the 2015 EPA MPG booklet only mentions Automatics for all light truck makes including Dodge/Ram:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/guides/FEG2015.pdf
Now, how long will this decision last. Manual Transmissions at 97% efficiency are still more efficient then any other transmission. Efficiency for Manuals is 97%, for Automatics it is only 86%, for Continuously Variable Transmissions (CVT - belt transmissions) the efficiency is 88% and for Continuously Variable Transmissions (CVT toroidal transmission) it is at 93%.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/195202379/Seamless-AMT-Offers-Efficient-Alternative-to-CVT
Furthermore it is a lot easier and cheaper to design a 10 speed MANUAL transmission then any other type of 10 speed transmission. Manual Transmission tend to get better fuel economy then any other transmission.
Please note the above is only true if all other factors are equal. What a lot of car makers do NOT tell people is the actual gearing of each gear (it is available but you have to dig for it). Consumer reports did a report on a car that did better milage with an automatic then a standard and then pointed out the reason was the automatic had a much higher final gear ratio (Consumer report did not say so, but the manual was geared for people who wanted to speed and you get better speed with lower final gear ratios).
http://consumerreports.org/cro/2012/01/save-gas-and-money-with-a-manual-transmission/index.htm
Given the same gear ratios, Manual Transmissions do better then Automatics. The only transmission that comes close to a Manual Transmission is what is referred to as an "Automated Manual Transmission:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2011/september/cars/small-sedans-hatchbacks/automated-manual-transmissions/index.htm
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/dual-clutch-transmission.htm
Now, car makers have also done the reverse, use higher gear ratio in a manual transmission to get better milage then an automatic. For example the Chevrolet Cruze with a 1.4 liter engine gets a combined 30 mpg for both its Automatic and Standard transmissions, but the Cruze ECO which uses a different manual transmission gets 33 mpg. The ECO transmission has a higher final gear ratio then the transmission used in the non-Exo Cruze.
Now, Automated Manual Transmission have equaled and exceeded Manual Transmission fuel efficiency, but so far I have NOT seen any reports of such transmissions in a light truck. These transmission first appear in the 1960s, then called "Semi-Automatic Transmissions" but tended to be torn apart by drivers NOT to careful on how they shift.
I knew a Truck Driver who was taught how to drive in the US Army and had to drive a Tractor Trailer with a Semi-Automatic Transmission. He inform me it has such a bad reputation that soldiers assigned to drive one had special training and had to sign a "Statement of Charges" to drive one. A "Statement of Charges" was a bill the Army sent you for damage you did while in the Army. Improper shifting of that Transmission was so bad, his unit forced drivers to sign one and if the transmission failed they had to pay for its replacement (Yes that was illegal, but it was done).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_transmission
Now in the 1990s computers were added to the Semi-Automatic Transmissions and they became "Automated Manual Transmissions". I have NOT heard anything about how delicate they are, but I have NOT heard the reports of the transmission being torn apart do to bad shifting. Thus the worse parts of the Semi-Automatic Transmission were solved with the introduction of the Automated Manual Transmission. I still have concerns about it having two clutches (none operated by the driver, both operated by the computer) when a manual or automatic transmission just has one. Please note I have NOT seen a Automated Manual Transmission on anything but smaller cars.
Thus Ford has more options then going with a ten speed automatic transmission (which is presently a pie in the sky concept, the US Army was the organization that designed the first Six Speed Automatic Transmission, and being Government was NOT patented, thus it is the basis for the six speed automatics of GM, Chrysler and Ford). I do NOT see Ford spending money on a ten speed automatic unless the Government comes up with money for the development (Through a 10 speed manual or Automatic Manual Transmission is possible for both are much cheaper to produce).
In addition to Manual, Automatic and Automatic Manual Transmission, you have Continuously Variable Transmissions (Marked AV in the EPA guide but most people use the terms CVT to refer to that type of transmission). The Jeep compass uses this type of transmission. It is used on most ATV.
CVT has been used on heavy equipment, but CVT tend to have low range of speed (thus CVT are used in ATVs for those are all low speed vehicles, there are NOT vehicles design to go through mud and on super highways). Jeep Compass is design for highway use, but not off road use, thus its CVT is higher geared then ATV's CVTs. CVTs big restriction is a lack of pulling power. CVTs do NOT have the power of Manual or Automatic Transmissions, thus popular on ATVs and on some cars, but nothing where hauling or rapid speed is required.
Now, lets talk about the EPA test.
Now the EPA test are now well known. The test was designed in the 1970s with the technology of that time period. The "Highway" test is just the car running down the road (actually on a test track) going 50 mph. No hills, no stops, no gos, no nothing just running. The "City" driving test is different, it runs on the same course, but with stops and starts at various times and distances. All stops must be slow and all startups must be slow for the technology of the 1970s could NOT handle anything else.
With the introduction of computer chips controlling not only the engine but the transmission, car makers could fine tune their cars for maximum numbers on the EPA test. Thus the test was valid in the 1970s, if you used it to compare different cars. A EPA test car of 20 mpg would get better milage then a car getting 19 mpg, neither car would get that actual milage but the EPA numbers were to be used as a standard between models NOT what you would get while driving.
With the advance in Computer Chips of the 1980s and 1990s, Car makers could ship their engines and transmission for the maximum fuel economy on the EPA test. Thus the numbers people were getting when actually driving became less and less like what the result of the EPA test were. The EPA has adjusted their test several times to make the test results more like real life, but by law the actual test had remained the same. Given the greater use of Computer Chips and people refusing to drive like the EPA test, you have had increase diverge between actual milage and EPA Mileage.
It is easier to manipulate Automatic transmissions then Manual Transmissions, for Manual transmission had shifted by hand. My sister worked in Detroit in the 1990s and it was common knowledge in Detroit that manipulation of automatics transmission to max EPA numbers was occurring, even at the cost of increase automatic transmission failures (The transmission would fail much sooner then older transmissions for the first and second gears were barely used so to get the vehicle into 3rd or higher gears sooner, the higher the gear the better the fuel economy, even with greater wear and tear on those higher gears).
Now, in the 1990s in Europe the Automatic Manual transmission was introduced. Automated Manual Transmission can equal Manual Transmission but are also delicate compared to manual transmissions. It is easy to manipulate how the Automatic Transmission works to make sure it gets its best economy at 50 mph.
Please note, the SMART car has an automated manual transmission that was designed in Europe. The SMART car has a 1.0 liter engine. That 1,0 liter engine is a little small for the American Market and has to be over-revved to get up to 50 mph (the Smart car was design for inner city driving at much lower speed then 50 mph). This hurts its fuel economy and no amount of playing with its chips will solve that problem. It is a problem with the US EPA milage test. The SMART car has a reputation of getting BETTER mileage then its EPA Mileage guides states for people that buy it keep it in its speed range of about 25-40 mph. This is the opposite problem of Prius, which on the EPA tests does much better then it does in real life, in fact much better then most other cars. The reason it was designed for 50 mph like most America cars, but being a hybrid the difference between real life fuel economy and EPA is worse then for most other cars.
In the case of CVT transmission at the cost of having much lower hauling and acceleration. Thus Continuously Variable Transmissions are NOT considered good transmissions for trucks or race cars, but everything else it is a good transmission (for example most ATVs used Continuously Variable Transmissions but are NOT geared any where near for use on highways). Automatic Manual Transmission still have some questions as to their reliability (mostly do to the reputation of the Semi-Automatic transmission it is descendent from).
On the other hand a conventional manual transmission, if designed with a large final drive as in the Cruze ECO manual Transmission, you can see a further increase in fuel efficiency. On the other hand we are talking about only 3.9% of all cars sold today. Is it worth it for Ford to offer this Truck with a Standard Transmission? With a ten speed standard it may get 30 mpg on the EPA test. I suspect GM went for the Cruse Eco so it could have the highest mpg made in USA vehicle. Sometimes getting that high number is more important from a marketing point of view then actual sales of that vehicle with that transmission. Time and the price of gasoline will tell,. Right now, with the price of gasoline going down, getting a full size light truck to do 30 mpg is no big deal, but when the price of gasoline starts to climb (and it will, right now it looks like 2017) then a 30 mpg full size light truck may be what is needed.
Some companies sill offer manual transmissions
MITSUBISHI Outlander Sport 2WD can be purchased with a manual transmission.
Jeep Compass, Wrangler and Patriot models can be obtain with Manual Transmissions with the manual 5 speed in the Compass and Patriot models doing an EPA 1 mpg better then the same models with an automatic 6 speed.
The Nissan Xterra 4WD can be obtained with a manual transmission.
The Subaru Forester AWD can be obtain with a manual transmission, through in the Forester it get 2 less mpg then the Automatic-Continuously Variable Transmission which is the other option in the Forester.
Side Note: More on the Army converting to Automatic Transmissions. The US Army was the first Army to adopt a tank with an Automatic Transmission, the M3 and later the M4 Sherman tanks of WWII. No one had any problems with them and the US Army has stayed with Automatic Transmission in tanks ever since.
On the other hand, the trucks and jeeps of WWII had only manual transmissions. Most people who knew how to drive during WWII had learned on Manual Transmission so having manual transmissions were NOT much of a problem during WWII. On the other hand, most enlistees and draftees during WWII came from the inner city. Suburbs existed but the movement to the suburbs is more a post WWII move then a pre-WWII move. People in the suburbs and the rural areas tended to own cars, but that was NOT true of people living in urban areas (Where most people lived before and during WWII). Thus most enlistees/Draftees during WWII did NOT have any driving experience prior to entering the service. The mass adoption of the Automobile as the main means of movement in the US is a post WWII development.
Do to the mass number of enlistees who had NO experience driving, the US Army had to developed some extensive driving classes. Given it had to be done, it was done.
Post WWII, the Army looked at those costs and when they looked at the cost of training Tank Drivers and Truck Drivers decided to opt for Automatic Transmissions as their new truck transmission (GM still had a monopoly on such transmissions during WWII due to outstanding patents dating from 1932 but those came to an end in 1947, so GM used its pull to get the Replacement Truck for the WWII trucks to be its automatic). Of this Automatic (The M135) more later, but the US Army ended up staying with Manual Transmissions for its Trucks till 1983.
In 1983 the US Army adopted the Humvee with an automatic, the M35 2 1/2 ton truck that served with the Humvee in the 1980s had a manual transmission (The original M35 had a five speed manual transmission and a Gasoline Engine). The M35 had been adopted in the late 1940s. M35s were rebuilt (and built new) with a "Multi- Fuel" engine starting in the 1960s (Multi-Fuel Engine were Diesel engines that could run on a mix of oil and gasoline if only gasoline was available as a fuel). These were called M35A1s. In the 1970s these trucks were upgraded with a straight diesel only engine and called the M35A2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humvee
The above conversion was NOT that quick. I drove a Gasoline M35 built in 1946 in the 1980s. I was with the Pennsylvania National Guard, which at that time was last on the list of getting new equipment.
Now my National Guard unit also had M35A1s and M35A2s (and given a choice between the 40 year old M35s with Gasoline engines and the M35A1s with their "Multi-Fuel" engines stayed with the older Gas jobs because they were more reliable, thus the M35A1s were replaced before the last of the M35s were finally called in to be converted to a Diesel Engine).
Now, I left the National Guard in 1989. The Gasoline M35s were finally retired just before I left (or put into storage, it is unclear what happened to them). The remaining M35A2s still all had Manual Transmissions but we saw more and more trucks the US Army was adopting that had Automatic Transmissions. Thus the decision to rebuilt the remaining M35s (including M35A1s and M35A2s) to M35A3s with automatic Transmission starting in 1993 was foreseeable and the older drivers in my unit did not like the idea.
The main reason they did not like the idea of automatic Transmissions was the unit had had some in the past, the notorious GMC M135s adopted in 1949. The M35 had been adopted in 1946 as an "interim" design to supplement the various 2 1/2 tons trucks that GM made for the Army during WWII (The 2 1/2 ton truck was the most produce vehicle of WWII, outdoing even the production of the Jeep). The problem was they was never enough of them and they were falling apart by 1945 (the WWII era 2 1/2 ton trucks were GM regular mid size trucks with an add on of a four wheel drive to the front wheel, the frame was NEVER design to take the punishment the occurs in Military Service thus it was clear they needed to be replaced by many held on till the 1970s).
The M35 was suppose to be an interim supplement to the WWII era trucks, the actual replacement was to be a GMC truck, built to Army Specs with an GM automatic Transmission, This was the M135. The M135 came into production as the Korean War broke out and promptly sent to that area of fighting to replace the WWII era trucks and the M35s. The M135 after four years of design, input and testing, was to be the truck of the future, it hit Korea and promptly failed. The troops hated it, did all they could to retain their WWII era trucks or the M35s. The reason? The M135 could NOT keep up with the M35 or the WWII era trucks when it came to climbing hills. On the flats the M135 could keep up, but on the hills it always fell behind and NOT a little behind a lot behind. Most units that had them tended to convey them separate from the rest of their unit, they fell behind that much.
When the National Guard received the M135 after the Army started to reject them, they had to be put into special convoys, for they could NOT keep up with the Trucks with Standard Transmissions even on the paved Pennsylvania Turnpike. Thus my older drivers did NOT look forward to new Trucks with Automatic Transmissions.
I bring up the M35s (and the M135) to show that the last large pool of Manual Drivers where with the US Army. The Army downside about 1/3 during the 1990s, converted several leg Infantry units to Armored units (more to justify buying more tanks then actual improvement in fighting capacity).
I.e. I use the term "Fighting Capacity" as opposed to "Fighting Ability" for "Capacity" includes the ability to get to the battlefield, which many of the up armored National Guard units will have a difficult time doing given other limitations of transport (tanks are shipped by ship and train, which can take weeks or even months to get to the battlefield, by which time the fighting may be over). "Capacity" includes the ability to get to the battlefield and it is easier to ship infantry and light artillery by air and those units could be at the battlefield within hours.
With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the subsequent demand for vehicles, the US Army ended up with more new trucks then it has had since Vietnam (and some say WWII). Most of the M35 series of trucks were withdrawn (the Marines gave up all of theirs) but the reports are some linger, but no where near the 40 year age of the M35s I drove in the 1980s. I looked at my old armory recently and it is full of FMTV vehicles, only produced since 1999. i.e. no older then 15 years old, and that is "new" equipment for a National Guard Unit (40-50 year old equipment is NOT unusual for National Guard units in the past, one National Guard unit in 1941 was still equipped with Model 1873 Springfields, which were "replaced" in 1892). Being Old does not mean it is junk, but the age of the equipment the National Guard has today is unheard of except right after WWII).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M35_2%C2%BD-ton_cargo_truck
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Medium_Tactical_Vehicles
I bring all of the above up, for since around 2000, the Army is no longer a huge pool of people who learned to drive manual transmissions. Even in the 1970s and 1980s most soldiers did NOT learn to drive manuals, but the pool of Soldiers who can drive a manual transmission has been reduced even more since 2000. This reduction has also reduced the number of people in the civilian world who can drive a Standard Transmission.
= new reply since forum marked as read
