I think your confusing the issue 2005RedT. Yes, a manual transmission can be stronger than an automatic in absolute terms.

Quote:
Out in the woods we put our transmissions through absolute hell. I've seen transfer cases ripped in half, third members ripped out of the axle housing, entire axles ripped out from under rigs. I've snapped 6 axleshafts, probably 20 universal joints, ripped out my rear driveshaft, and a lot of other carnage.


Funny thing is that in an actual emergency any of those listed failures would be the end of it because your going to be hoofing it anyway. If you have time to fix it it isn't an emergency. A transmission that survives such abuse is in a real emergency is fine ... for the people who come along looking for parts to salvage after the emergency is over.

Also whereas a manual transmission proper can be strong and reliable your forgetting the clutch and related mechanisms. Add in the vulnerability of the clutch, throwout bearing and clutch mechanism to that exceptionally strong, bulletproof, manual transmission and your failure rate is still higher than an automatic. I have seen too many clutches stuffed with mud, too many failed hydraulic cylinders and ripped out lines, too many burned clutches and scarred plates to forget to factor them into the reliability of manual transmissions.

Vehicles, like survival itself, is a system. It is the strength of the system, not any particular component, that saves you. Yes, a manual transmission can be stronger than an automatic. But that extra strength is meaningless in the context of getting there because long before your automatic gives up something else will break.