> Manual transmissions are not "an order of magnitude less complex and cheaper." Don't take my word for it. Just look at the size of a manual drivetrain vs an

> Manual transmissions are not "an order of magnitude less complex and cheaper." Don't take my word for it. Just look at the size of a manual drivetrain vs an automatic. The increase in steel is directly proportional to the engineering required/number of moving parts. >Manual transmission vehicles get significantly worse mileage While it's true that CVTs have finally surpassed manuals for fuel efficiency, I think you are largely overstating the difference. We are taking about 1 to 2 MPG difference. Dual clutches are certainly faster, but again they are huge and complex things. And not more efficient. Among car enthusiasts, they are becoming about as popular as devices that chew your food for you - technically superior, but who cares? >Early gearboxes had longevity issues (clutches) but that's largely been sorted out and is no worse than manual transmission cars. I don't know how someone can take this seriously. A Nissan CVT is not even serviceable - you literally have to swap the entire unit when it goes bad. Which costs more than a used Nissan! Meanwhile a comparable manual will run as long as it's engine. Again, there's fundamentally half as many moving parts in the drive train. You can't escape the laws of thermodynamics.