Quote:
Originally Posted by brianeck
Hahaha I think your last sentence sums up what really happened here. Looking back I see the tone a bit more which I didn't notice at first. I'm not unhappy with the outcome as at least some of this thread was worthy discussion, but I promise I didn't mean to just flat out troll everyone. . .
I do in my own way just see a dark motive, just like when everyone tells us 9/10 cars sold are automatics. . . This makes sense when 99/100 cars aren't even offered in manual in the first place, and the 1 that is has other intrinsic benefits built in if you don't order the manual version.
Market research is one thing, and skewing it to your own production goals is something else entirely. We're 100% in the grey area as manual enthusiasts because there is definitely an agenda towards streamlining. Of course it costs car manufacturers less to have one transmission offered - it also costs less not to offer 500 overlapping 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 series cars and small SUVs that pinch of each others own markets.
Options are good for the consumer, but sometimes too many just waters everything down. I think there are a whole lot of other options with lower take rates than the MT which are still offered, so let's start by applying cost savings through their removal.
|
Not one true manual driver will choose the competition pack over the base model. All options are available on both.
Here's where I disagree. They aren't trying to corral us into buying an AT so they have a justification to kill the 6MT. The 6MT is dying because the internal combustion engine is dying (and transmissions of all kinds with it). It doesn't matter.
I have a 2 year old son. I don't think he will ever even learn to drive. Billions of dollars is being spent on quantum computing and topography programming to get us to driverless cars.