Stickshift v. Automatic

I'll start off by saying that I don't drive stick. More specifically, I don't know how. For as long as I've been alive, my parents have owned cars with automatic transmissions, and that's all that I learned.

In fact, where I grew up (Long Island, NY), manual-transmission cars seemed pretty uncommon. I saw them in dealerships and such, and got the basic idea from Driver's Ed classes, but for the longest time I never knew anyone who owned one. (When I was about 18, my dad bought a limited-edition Cobra as an "investment", which of course had a stickshift.)

Now, I know that some people prefer a car with a clutch. (They'd have to, or automakers wouldn't bother with them.) My question is, why? For those of you who prefer stickshift, what makes it better than an automatic?

I also grew up in New York (upstate.) I am 30 and learned to drive stick 1 year ago. Prior to that I had never driven stick (well, my mom tried to teach me to drivve her Jensen-Healy when I was 11. I smashed the car within 5 seconds.)

When driving in traffic or on flat land, a stick is worthless. It is just one more damn thing you have to do.

However, on hills, or when driving a powerful car (especially on curvy roads) the stick gives you a lot more control.

For example, last weekend I had to drive my VW camper up a 19% grade with switchbacks. The camper is underpowered, so I had to shift into first. And the variability of the terrain made it preferable to have a lot of control over the gear ratio.

But for day to day use, stick is a minor pain in the ass.

The preference for a manual shift is that you control the speed and timing of the shift between gears. Shift cars, in general, pull away faster from a dead stop at a light, for instance. And I don't mean peeling out or driving like an idiot - just having the control of shifting and not waiting for the pre-set timing in the automatic transmission to shift for you.

Preference for either is all going to come down to...personal preference. Some people never learn how to drive correctly and they burn out their clutches. Some people never learn how to drive correctly and they drop their automatic transmissions.

I prefer the control of a stick (which I drive) but bemoan the loss of being able to put my arm around a girlfriend (which I could do in my old automatic clunkers). This subject reminds me of a great song by Cake: "Stick shifts and safety belts, buckets seats have all got to go. When we're driving in my car, it makes my baby seem so far".

The preference for a manual shift is that you control the speed and timing of the shift between gears. Shift cars, in general, pull away faster from a dead stop at a light, for instance. And I don't mean peeling out or driving like an idiot - just having the control of shifting and not waiting for the pre-set timing in the automatic transmission to shift for you.

Preference for either is all going to come down to...personal preference. Some people never learn how to drive correctly and they burn out their clutches. Some people never learn how to drive correctly and they drop their automatic transmissions.

I prefer the control of a stick (which I drive) but bemoan the loss of being able to put my arm around a girlfriend (which I could do in my old automatic clunkers). This subject reminds me of a great song by Cake: "Stick shifts and safety belts, buckets seats have all got to go. When we're driving in my car, it makes my baby seem so far".

Aargh! Sorry for the double post. Now if I could just control my mouse as well as I do my car...

Finally! Something worth argueing about!

I enjoy driving! Therefore I only buy manual transmission vehicles. Driving a stick is just more fun!

There is also a "control" factor. No automatic transmission or even one with a computer can know what the ideal gear for any given situation is better than the driver. I've driven automatics up grades and in quick acceleration situations and they are never in what I would consider the "proper" gear.

There's also the fact that you can't "race" in an automatic. When the jerk in the cherry red Camarro pulls up along side you at the light and guns his engine, you want to at least have the option of showing him what a loser he really is. I think there is a little Mario Andretti in every driver who prefers a stick.

Oops! I forgot a very important practical reason for a stick:

Dead battery? No problem. Give 'er a push and pop the clutch! Can't do that with an automatic (I don't think).

THe bump start is a big plus. But on the minus side, it is hard to drink your beer while driving a stick ;-)

Those of you who know nothing about computer programming, please skip this post. But those who do may find it interesting.

I once read an article which compared an automatic transmission car to a high-level language like Cobol or Basic. These things make things nice and simple, they do a lot of the thinking for you. They're designed for the average task, with a lot of preselected settings for the usual cases.

In contrast, manual transmission is like a low-level language like C or Assembler. These give you the freedom to do exactly when you want. They put the power in your hands, to make all the decisions, all the time. But those decisions had better be correct, because if you shift gears at the wrong moment, or type the wrong variable, you run a decent risk of crashing with no warning.

Nice analogy, Keeves, however did you mean to use the word "crash" literally for both scenarios? If so, then you're a bit deluded. Sticks are actually safer than automatics. If the driver of a stick is incapacitated at a light the car will just stall. If the same happens to the driver of an automatic, the car will proceed inti the intersection of its own accord.

Almost all car/train collisions caused by "creeping at the signal" are caused by automatics.

Papabear is correct. I intended the word "crash" in the figurative sense, so that it would cover a wide range of meanings, such as a car which stalls and is therefore crashed into, or a program which runs, but in a badly unexpected manner.

I agree with all the posts so far about driving a manual a "control thing". I just feel more like I'm *driving*, not just "steering". Nebraska isn't actually totally flat; this area is quite hilly and the manual is great for getting up icy hills in the wintertime.

I learned how to drive on a manual and never drove an automatic until 3 months ago. I had to ask my husband how! (blush). I wasn't sure what to do with the little thing that stuck out from the steering column (which position was drive, park, etc). And then there was the "phantom clutch" problem where I kept going for the clutch and accidentally hitting the brake. Not good!

So Ken leaves my car alone and vice versa. Not a bad deal...

PR

The stick is for better performance. It's fun when you're driving for fun. However, in traffic it just sucks.

A sportscar or truck should be a stickshift, and all luxury cars automatic.

You can't have it both ways, though. Someday, if I'm fortunate enough, I'll own 2 cars: A Cadillac and a Porsche. Until then, I'll just work my ass off.



------------------
¾È ³ç, ÁÖ µ¿ ÀÏ

You can't have it both ways, though.


I can't recall what it's called, but aren't there some cars where the shift had all the usual automatic-type gears in the up-down axis, but you could put it all the way down then shift manually by going side-to-side? I don't think it was "true" manual shifting, I think it was clutchless.

Revtim, the system you're referring to is called an AutoShift (among other trademarks). Basically it's an automatic transmission, but moving the lever in some unique way tells it to shift immediately, either one gear up or one gear down.

For those of you who like stickshift for hills, note that you can downshift in an automatic! If you want to stay in second gear to go down a hill, move the gear selector a couple of notches past the D, to the number 2. That's second gear, and the car won't upshift any higher. (It'll still downshift if the engine speed gets low enough, though.)

Stick shift is more fun to drive, and I don't find it a pain even in the traffic. But then agin I love motorcycles too....and most of them have clucth and manual gears..

------------------
Cogito Ergo Vroom
I think therefore I ride fast...

Some historical notes to contribute (?) to the discussion-
When automatic transmissions were first introduced, they were an option, and an expensive one at that. Many people stayed with standards rather than pay the extra $$$ for an automatic. So I think that, early on, the decision between standard and automatic was often an economic one.

Eventually it became obvious that on some kinds of cars (Cadillacs and other land barges for example), almost everyone was opting for the automatic and so automatics became “standard”. (No justification for the expense of two assembly processes, etc.) Many sports cars (and some economy cars) are still offered with both/either, because many people still want the standard for the reasons already discussed.

FTR- I drive a standard Porsche 911, which I bought when I walked to work most days and only drove for FUN. I must confess, however, that having recently relocated to New Jersey (commuter hell), I would like to be able to enjoy my morning coffee without having to steer with my knees!

And to go slightly off-discussion, referencing PapaBear and guys in red Camaros…
Why is it that so many of them who see a woman behind the wheel of a Porsche convertible feel compelled to race her off the mark at every stop light? To paraphrase Freud, “Sometimes a car is just a car.”

I myself prefer a stickshift. It's just more fun! Except on hills. But then it's a challenge to not roll into the idiot who gave you 1/2 inch of space behind you and not to ram the car ahead of you! Also, about guys who wanna race, com'on!

I drive a stick shift, and have driven one since I got my liscence. Doing so was an accident, as my first car happened to be a stick (at 16, beggars can't be choosers) so I taught myself how to drive stick, and I have loved it ever since. As to thr traffic concerns, I don't find it an issue. To me, there is no more effort in letting out the clutch peddle as letting out the brake peddle. Hill-stops, not a problem. Admittdedly in my younger, more mach days I would just jump from brake to gas and time it perfectly. But I got bored with all of that, and discovered the hand brake. More subtle control than the foot brake, and hey, isn't that why we all drive stick shift in the first place?

Yeah, I heard about that autoshift. I don't know too much about it. But what I meant by both ways was luxury vs. performance.



------------------
¾È ³ç, ÁÖ µ¿ ÀÏ

Good topic AuraSeer!

Like all great debates, this one is fraught with myths and misconceptions...

First, during acceleration both automatics and stick shifts give you nearly the same control over the timing of gear changes. Not that this matters, much since most people don't know the right timing and do not actually achieve optimum performance (on one end of the spectrum) and run the risk of damaging both automatic and manual transmissions (at the other edge of the spectrum).

For deceleration, manual transmissions have a clear advantage, although this is less of an issue with modern braking systems. In the pre-ABS days, you could use your manual transmission to perform what's called "engine braking" which would slow down your vehicle reducing the risk of locking your brakes. Most people don't do it right (if at all), but theoretically it could give you more controlled decellerations. Today, with modern Automatic Braking Systems, you can nearly get away with just "tromping" your brakes in any situation and not run the risk of a skid.

Manual transmissions tend to be higher maintenance, but this is probably attributable to lack of skill when drivers pit themselves agains those cherry red Camaros.

Also, proportionately, I'll bet (though I don't have the facts and figures to back this up) that there are more accidents in manual transmissions... Again, because of the way people drive them. On the automatic "creep"
causing more accidents... Maybe, but I'll wager that nearly as many accidents happen due to false starts when the driver of the manual transmission stalls on takeoff and is rear ended by the guy behind him who's racing that cherry red Camaro.

Revtim could also be describing what's known as a "straight shift". I've seen several varieties, though not one that is "notched" on the side the way Revtim seems to be describing. These strongly resemble automatics, but they use conventional gearbox technology with automatic clutches. I've heard that new, electronic versions of these may be coming out in the next few years that have all of the luxuries of automatics at less cost.

barton writes:

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>
Seven, if you do something wrong when shifting, the car stalls and stops. The brakes are linked to the clutch.
[/quote]

Yeah, or you burn your clutch or strip your gears or lock your cam, etc..


<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>
And on that note, sticks don't have an idle speed.
[/quote]

Not strictly true. Both manual and automatics will idle at some speed if they don't have friction or gravity to overcome (i.e. on flat ground). When they have to overcome the forces of friction or gravity, the manual transmission will generally stall the engine (at which point it will start to roll backwards, possibly presenting new problems). The automatic will will gradually roll to a stop, but will generally "hold" in this position.


<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>
The only disadvantage I know of to the stick is its problems with stopping and starting on hills. It drifts, no matter how fast you are, and you can bump people in close traffic. I live in Boston, so I have to watch this in certain areas. But if you're experienced on the clutch, this is no problem, and you also know that the same hill can help start a dead stick.
[/quote]

Try using the emergency brake and you won't roll back. The trick is to ease the clutch out to the point where the vehicle wants to surge forward, then pop the brake. So simple even an old lady can do it... in her cherry red Camaro.

So far the only good arguments for manual transmissions seems to be the rolling start and lower prices at the dealer...

The best argument for automatics is that, for the average Joe Putz, he'll get better fuel economy, he's generally safer, and he's less likely to do any serious damage to his transmission... unless he forgets to feed it transmission fluid.

Having said that, I drive stick shifts because they're fun!!!

Stick is definitely better, for several reasons.

One, it's fun. I like the total driving experience. Driving an automatic is like a go-cart for me.

Two, you have control over the engine, and you can balance power and acceleration for whatever the situation calls for. The better 'jump' from a dead start is the most obvious benefit, but there are countless little situations where a sudden shift up or down can give you a needed boost to change lanes or avoid some stupid driver.

Three, in an emergency you can downshift to slow the car. It'll ruin the clutch and the engine but you might save your life if the brakes are out and the handbrake is ineffective (most are pretty flimsy, my current car has a decent one) I have avoided a wreck in exactly this manner.

Four, better gas mileage. You can shift up at certain 'either-or' speeds around 20-40 when an automatic stays in the same one, and thus let the engine work less.

Five, it makes you concentrate on driving. Automatics make you lazy and more easily distracted if that right hand is free.

Six, you can start a battery-dead stickshift by putting it in neutral and pushing. This will, hopefully, charge the battery enough to get you going. Handy if you're in the middle of nowhere with no-one to jump you. I've never had to do this, but I'm told it works.

Seven, if you do something wrong when shifting, the car stalls and stops. The brakes are linked to the clutch. Automatics just keep going. And on that note, sticks don't have an idle speed.

The only disadvantage I know of to the stick is its problems with stopping and starting on hills. It drifts, no matter how fast you are, and you can bump people in close traffic. I live in Boston, so I have to watch this in certain areas. But if you're experienced on the clutch, this is no problem, and you also know that the same hill can help start a dead stick.

For driving in the snow, I'll take a manual transmission any day. You have so much more control of the amount of torque that's transmitted by the tires. When you go around a corner you're much less likely to skid if you disengage the clutch to eliminate engine drag on the rear wheels and allow them to rotate freely. If you do find yourself in a skid, it's much easier to regain traction if, while steering into the skid, you disengage the clutch to allow the wheels to match the road speed naturally.

------------------

Try using the emergency brake and you won't roll back

Anybody who has to resort to this technique has no business driving a stick. You only roll back for the amount of time it takes your foot to move from the brake pedal to the accelerator. If your reactions are so slow as to allow more than six inches of roll-back, you probably shouldn't even be driving a car, let alone one that isn't an automatic.

Thor, automatics have one or two low gears you can shift to for climbing. They are usually three speeds [one less than a stick].

Papabear, you can start an automatic if you can get it going to 20mph and then you put it in gear.

I like to own one of both.I use an automatic When the lady is in the car I want her sitting next to me and I don't like having to umm stick her crotch each time I shift.

But I like trucks and almost all of them I have seen are stick. They make some automatics, sure, but they are rare.

You can put an automatic into reverse at 50mph to save your life, too.

IN the 70's they used to make a semi-auto in the US, mostly vw's. Same as a stick but it clutched for you.

Clutches are not necessary really. You got one? Just Put the car in first and then start it and it'll start and run without the clutch then you can shift to second again without using the clutch--its all synomesh these days. But easier if you do use the clutch.
NOTE: Cars do require you to push in the clutch as a safetey features to start these days, so you might need an old car for that test.

Stick shifts are primitive and labor-intensive phallic substitutes ("Ah, the POWER of my STICK!").
Give me an automatic any day.

I disagree with the Manual sticks tend to be higher maintenance statement.

I've owned four cars. Two automatics. Two sticks. I have had to replace or rebuild the transmission on both automatics. I hate automatics. With the manuals the only major repair (for one) was replacing the clutch at 110k miles and the other replacing the brakes every two years (A whooping $99-110 for all four brakes.)
( I put 120k on it before selling it. Original clutch)

I am totally flabbergasted that so many people do not know how to drive a clutch. It is so easy. My neighbor tried to mow the lawn for her husband but could not figure out how to drive the riding lawn mower. Because I/we own not only a riding lawn mower but a farm tractor.I was called over to show her how everything worked. Sometimes I feel like the resident butch-girl because I know this stuff. These women (on my block are nice, but so fricking lame) Then she mows her property in first gear. I could have pushed mowed the lot faster. She now won't mow because (pardon me while I rant) she can't keep an eye on her baby girl in the playpen while mowing. Put the kid on your lap or in a baby back pack. In first gear the most dangerous thing that will happen is a mosquito might choke you. (their land is flat, they won't flip.)

Also, sticks are much better for getting your car unstuck from icy/snowy conditions and popping the clutch for dead battery situations.

I thank you for allowing me to vent. Please resume your normal clear headed discussion.

handy, a minor nitpick: modern automatics tend to have 4 gears, not 3. I'm also under the impression that manuals have 5.

Papabear,

You wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>
Anybody who has to resort to this technique has no business driving a stick. You only roll back for the amount of time it takes your foot to move from the brake pedal to the accelerator.
[/quote]

Try starting out on a 60% grade or steeper and with that fool in the automatic Lincoln Continental just two inches from your rear bumper!!! I rarely use the technique myself, however I took the British Driving test a few years back and it was required. I also noticed quite a few of my Brittish friends do this routinely.


Handy wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>
its all synomesh these days. But easier if you do use the clutch.
[/quote]

Easier and safer. One of the problems that can occur with synchromesh gears is that you can get in between gears and it's difficult to remesh. This happens quite often when someone tries to shift a manual transmission without using the clutch with the engine off.
It appears to shift, but doesn't quite engage - then when they start the car and try to engage the gears with the clutch, they find they are locked out. There are only two ways to recover from this situation (1) if you're lucky you can fumble around with the engine off, shifting clutchless from one gear to the next until you find one that meshes or (2) you can have your transmission disassembled...

I don't know if it's possible to "unmesh" by "dry" shifting when the engine is running, but I'd hate to chance it.


Shirley Ujest wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>
I disagree with the Manual sticks tend to be higher maintenance statement.
[/quote]

I based that assertion on statements made by a mechanic friend of mine who used to work in the U.K., but now works in the U.S.. In most of Europe, manual transmissions far outnumber automatics. The converse is true in the U.S.. This guy claimed that the number of transmission jobs he did in the U.K. was a lot higher than in the U.S.. I even questioned his assertion based on dollars (clearly it costs more to repair an automatic) and he maintianed that the frequency of manual transmission repairs to automatics was about 10 to 1. He said the average cost to repair automatics versus manual was less than 2 to 1. This is purely unscientific, but (having worked as a mechanic myself) it does seem to pass the common sense test. It's easier to screw up a manual transmission.

I also believe manuals are less trouble at the shop than automatics, and I do like the fun of shifting. But as most automatics now come with 4 gears - one of them overdrive - this means the car is usually in the optimal gear for the speed you're driving, unlike in the old days, when the three-speeds were a mere compromise. Also, I'm now driving a Ford Crown Vic LTD, as opposed to the VW of my youth, so automatic is pretty much de rigeur (sigh)...

In my view the reason I have stick shift cars is because they are more fun, pure and simple. There is a technique I learned from a race car driver called 'heal and toe' that they use for downshifting, double clutching and braking at the same time that I use when starting on a steep hill. You simply have your right foot on both the brake and accelerator pedal and rock it from the brake to the accelerator slowly. It took practice but I now can take off as smoothly on a hill as I can with my automatic that I use for work. The pedals have to be placed correctly but most cars can be used that way these days.

Challenging and fun.

Manual vs. Automatic?

Get what you want. It's different for anybody.

I drive a cherry red '95 Camaro (I know that was mentioned earlier in this thread ;) ;) ;) and I fit that stereotype) with a 5-speed manual (V6 engine, 160hp stock but with a few engine mods pulls closer to 250hp). I drove automatics for about ten years before I bought it (the previous manual was a POS 4-speed Ford Fiesta I had in high school) and I was just sick of autos. I am looking for a new car, and will probably stick with a stick (6-speed Trans-Am, V8 engine, 305h.p.). I like manuals for the control through the twisties (I live in the mountains). Gas mileage can be better for manuals too, if driven to conserve gas usage (which I rarely do). I like a stick in traffic, especially on the interstate, because it allows for much faster acceleration at 50+ mph speeds than any equivalent automatic could hope to offer.

But contrary to popular belief, sometimes automatics can be faster from a dead stop or low speeds if programmed correctly for it. Most of the fast stock drag racers prefer automatics because it is one less thing to worry about in the heat of a race (I'm primarily talking about Vettes, Mustangs, Firebirds and Camaros here). I drag race every now and then at the track (all my "serious" racing occurs at the drag strip, not the street, street-racing is very dangerous IMHO) and usually when I lose it's to an automatic because of my own mistakes with the clutch or slow shifts. At that level it's usually due to the driver's skill who wins or loses.

It is correct that most modern automatics are 4 speeds, but manual transmission configurations vary widely, mostly due to torque or engine displacement. A 4 cylinder manual (Japanese or European imports) is usually a 4-speed but can be a 5-speed for turbos. A 5 cylinder (European models mostly - SAAB and Mercedes) or 6 cylinder manual (either flat 6 (Jeeps), V6 (base Camaro or Firebird) or boxer 6 (Porsche)) is usually 5-speed but can be 6-speed if there are superchargers or turbochargers involved or large displacement. An 8 cylinder (V8 - Corvette, Mustang GT or Cobra, Camaro Z28 or Firebird Formula or Trans Am), 10 cylinder (V10 - Dodge Viper, exotic European sedans (BMW 7 series and Jaguars) or large pickup trucks) is usually 6-speed (massive amounts of torque) and 12 cylinder (Jaguars, Mercedes, Ferraris and Lamborginis) are always 6-speed. Any more gears than 6 tend to complicate the transmission design without greatly increasing performance.

Sorry for getting long-winded...

I've got to go out, put my ballcap on backward (another Camaro driver stereotype), blast some Marilyn Manson and wipe some Honda Accords or Tauri wagons at the nearest stoplight...

(I'm really in my late 20s, happily married with 2 young kids, professional) Does that fit the Camaro stereotype?

------------------

Finaly a thread where Im not a black sheep!! lol

I prefer manuals too....my truck was given to me by an uncle who was tired of working on the truck. It is an 85 f150, and has went through two engines (soon to be three) and two transmissions. I drive it mostly in the woods and swampy dirt roads...I like a manuals control on these surfaces, you can choose a gear with power if driving on sand or a gear with speed on a dried clay road.....Besides, I like to shift----and having three pedals on the floor looks kinda cool...
another plus for manuals---if you have a worn out engine (like mine) That manual lets you hold it in a certain gear, so that you dont strain the engine more than you have too-------------Soon I hope to replace that old ford 300 I-6 with a rebuilt one



------------------


"In wildness is the preservation of the world, so seek the wolf inside thyself"

Regardless of which transmission system you prefer, I feel everyone should at least know how to operate a manual. Sort of like knowing the multiplication tables and using a calculator. Anyone can drive an auto, just start it up and stomp on the gas pedal. You have a 50-50 chance of getting this one right even if you've never driven any vehicle more sophisticated than an ox cart. But on that day when the federales are shooting low and you and your baby's only chance for escape is to drive away in a straight stick, it would do a lot for your chances if you have actually driven one before.

I live in Colorado, where there's lots of mountains. Manual transmissions are the norm here - I don't know anyone who has an automatic. You don't want an automatic in the mountains. Trust me. I had a friend visit me a few years ago and she rented an automatic. We took it up to a mountain town, and it was terrible no matter what gear (drive, D1, D2) you put it in.

Going up the mountain, it was always lagging. Never seemed to get in the right gear, and I was mortified because there was always a huge stream of cars behind us, pissed because we were going so slow.

Coming down was worse. Out here, you learn pretty early on that you use your engine to slow you down when you're descending for 20 miles. If you try to use your brakes, you'll burn 'em out. You can smell the brake fluid burning from all the tourists ruining their cars on the weekends. This is a BIG hassle to control on an automatic - once again, no matter what "drive" setting you put it on, it's never the right speed.

Maybe some automatics work better, but this one, and any other automatic I've had the pleasure of using in the mountains, really sucked. Much easier to have a stick.

Honda's introduced another entrant: the continuous variable transmission on the Civic HX (the U.S. monicker). It's really nothing new (Subaru tried it in the '70's along with some other companies). Basically it's just a belt between two variable, tapered pullies. By making the pulley wider or narrower, the belt moves to a smaller or larger track, respectively.

The Civic HX CVT is very weird to drive. The interface is similar to an automatic, except you've got low, sport, and drive instead of 1, 2, and drive. The computerized CVT puts sets the "gear" ratio based on the ground speed and the amount of power requested on the gas pedal. There is a computer controlled clutch that is between the transmission and the axle instead of between the engine and the transmission. It only decouples when you completely stop.

Basically, it feels like driving an automatic that never shifts. If you give it a moderate amount of gas, the engine revs to about 2,500 RPM and stays there while the car continues to accelerate. At full throttle, the engine sits at 5,500 RPM.

I also got a chance to try it on ice--it performed a lot better than most automatics. If you tap the gas, the clutch will lock up and the wheels will spin a little, but let off on the gas and you can creep along at 1 MPH or so. It works quite good.

Although it's 105 HP, it is as fast as the 120 HP Civic EX--about a 9 second 0-60 time I think. The gas mileage is still different between the manual and the automatic, but it's closer than the other Civics.

It's pretty cool, but let's face it: it's a $17,000 _Civic_. Are you nuts? :-)

Ever get an automatic tranny worked on? It ain't cheap! They are also quite complex internally, and therefore have more parts that can break. If you drive a manual the way it should be driven, going easy on the clutch and not grinding the gears, it will be much cheaper in the long run.

Whoami, I assume the only accords you beat with you 6 cyl. dinosaur are stock versions?? We could spin this off into another thread here in great debates, (I'm gonna put my own spin on it here) Old boring American 8cyl. dinosaur engine design VS Technologically advanced Japanese 4 and 6 cyl turbocharged designs. :)
I am driving a "lightly modified" Celica, but I am about to trade it for an Eclipse turbo , which will be heavily modified. The downside to this whole debate is that we never get to see most of Japan's best sportscars, due to emissions or manufacturers' unwillingness to import them. There is a Celica drag car in Japan running with the MR2 turbo motor(which is available as a production car), which is modified and running 9.5 sec. 1/4 miles. It is modified heavily, but you can't even get this car in its stock form here. My eclipse is going to dyno around 300 hp when it's done(i hope). Eventually, I'm gonna trade it for a supra, and go hunting corvettes.

On a serious level, I strongly prefer a manual transmission, for the control reasons stated above.

Also, though, let us not forget the sage teachings of The Manly Handbook:

"A man should never drive an automatic transmission. The automatic transmission, you may recall, was invented so that women could learn how to block traffic from the driver's seat, instead of doing it from the passenger side by jabbering away at hubbie so much he couldn't concentrate."

Given a choice, I would never drive anything but a manual.

why?

1. IMO safer: You must pay attention to your driving, (and its impossoble to use a cell-phone)

2. more durable: manuals generally require less maintenance and can tolerate more abuse.
For most driving styles, a manual will last *far* longer.(clutch excluded)

3. simpler: when something does go south, a manual can be repaired with ordinary tools and common sense.
a slushbox requires a degree in black arts (and a lot of luck).

4. cheaper: With a manual, the only thing you should ever have to change is the clutch (less than $200).
(unless you really beat the car)

5. I'm an idiot: I leave my lights on at least once a month. Push-starting is a godsend.
(also useful when the starter goes out)

6. power: Although the newer autos are better, a manual will always waste less engine power through parasitic losses.

7. FUN: learn to do a heel-n-toe into a 90-degree corner at 30+mph and you'll be a convert too.
And, a properly executed power-shift (preload the lever and kick the pedal a glancing blow) at 6300 rpm is literally better than sex.

Disclaimer:
(this last maneuver should not be tried unless you are comfortable with the probability of *major* breakage if you do it wrong.)

Just for the record; yes, I am a gearhead. Please don't judge me based on that alone. I try to think as well.

WOTSB

I prefer the manual transmission, but I also have a taste for huge 60s-vintage Detroit luxury rolling iron, and they weren't making them available with manual transmissions for the most part.

If you are stuck with an automatic transmission, make the best of it--

a B&M Shift Improver Kit does wonders for the slushy, unresponsivle shifting of a passenger-car automatic transmission without turning it into something that hurts your butt when it shifts at 4 mph in the parking lot. And when you are responding to the cherry-red Camaro in the next lane, slide the lever into "L" and leave it there until the RPM = ideal performance shift point, then slip it to "S" (that's "2" for you non-GM folks). Know your shift points; just because your transmission can do it for you doesn't mean you can't override it for the most part.

Somewhere in the accelerator linkage, you'll find a switch that changes vaccuum to the transmission--this is what kicks it into "passing gear" when you tromp the gas pedal. Grab the electric leads and run wires to a second switch on floorboard or steering column, and you can shift to a lower gear without flooring it, or idle the transmission (as if by depressing the clutch on a manual transmission) when coasting. Nice for momentary increase of accelerator responsiveness when changing lanes in dense traffic.

You may also wish to look at aftermarket replacements for the torque converter, although I had no real complaints about the stock unit.



------------------
Designated Optional Signature at Bottom of Post

I prefer manual. Mostly because of the control issues already stated, but to add to them, I prefer better control in all kinds of adverse weather, rain, sleet, snow, high winds. I have driven in Southern Cal, Guam, IL, and VA/DC and I grew up in SW Va. I've driven on cross country trips and everywhere I go, I have found my preference has enabled me to out drive most of the reflex-challenged masses, most of who don't seem to grasp the concept of foul weather degrading road/tire friction. I currently live in Dallas TX and work as a field service tech and put in a couple of hundred miles per week on the job in and around the DFW metro area and every day I'm glad to be in my "work car", a 93 Geo Metro 5 speed, since almost every day I run in to "adverse" conditions (most of them behind the wheel of other cars). I just love the drivers around here, a little snow/ice or a couple of inches of rain, and most of them don't seem to know how(or when)to downshift to maintain control on slick surfaces.

And to all of you who love those automatics with the high tech ABS systems; It aint worth shit on a road covered with slick ice.

And pmh, yes you can use a cell phone while driving a stick, I do it all the time and I would bet I'm a safer driver than most.

and before you flame and say that I'm not a safe driver, I'm 34 and I have only been in 3 accidents while I was driving, in all three I was rear-end while stopped in traffic.

wduty

pmh,

You wrote:


1. IMO safer: You must pay attention to your driving, (and its impossoble to use a cell-phone)


This is a bad argument on a couple of accounts. Just because more attention is required, doesn't mean that it will be given. In the case of the American driving public, I think the opposite is demonstrated on a daily basis. If most people behaved rationally, then you might have a point. People will use their cell phones no matter what the obstacles. I saw a report in the U.K. (where 95% of the cars on the road are manual transmission) that said that nearly 20% of all the traffic accidents reported in 1998 were attributable to cell phone usage...


2. more durable: manuals generally require less maintenance and can tolerate more abuse. For most driving styles, a manual will last *far* longer.(clutch excluded)


Definitely not true. If you know how to properly drive one a manual transmission **MAY** not have a shorter life than an automatic, but for the larger driving public the automatic is more forgiving, less prone to abuse, and significantly more reliable.

I agree with most everything else you say, except for number 4 "cheaper"... statistics may catch up with you. On a per repair basis, manual transmissions may be less costly to repair, but on a cost over the life of the car, automatics generally fare better. (based on [admittedley] apocrophal evidence from a mechanic friend of mine)

If the driver of a stick is
incapacitated at a light the car will just stall. If the same happens to
the driver of an automatic, the car will proceed inti the intersection
of its own accord.


What if the driver of an automatic puts it in neutral at a light?


5. I'm an idiot: I leave my lights on at least once a month.
Push-starting is a godsend.


I'm an idiot: I leave my lights on at least once a month. Lights-on keys-out warning is a godsend.

But on that day when
the federales are shooting low and you and your baby's only chance
for escape is to drive away in a straight stick, it would do a lot for
your chances if you have actually driven one before.


Um... Good point. When I decide to become an outlaw I'll keep that in mind.

JoeyB:

I conceed your point on the safety issue. Never underestimate the stupidity of the general populus.

However, I stand by my statement that manual gearboxes are, in general, more durable. This statement is based on my own experiences, and I am open to discussion. I cannot find any stats on failures/milage in non-performance applications, but I contend that in otherwise identical vehicles, driven comperably, the manual will outlast the automatic considerably.

The cost over the life of the car issue is directly related to durability, so I won't argue that seperately.

note: I don't consider the clutch to be a part of the trans. If we do (and I suppose we really should), then you win hands down.

This probably doesnt apply to yall car drivers, but its still kinda intresting...
Freightliner (they build semi-trucks (eighteen wheelers) ) Offers a 10 speed transmission wich, with the push of a button, can be completely automatic, completely manual, or can be shifted manualy with a keypad on the dash. Sure, its a very expensive accesory, but if you are very hard to satisfy with transmissions, this ones for you.

------------------


"In wildness is the preservation of the world, so seek the wolf inside thyself"

I personally prefer an automatic because thats the only type i have ever driven. For me, the car is not a toy or a device to race people, it's something to get me from point a to point b. I dont give a shit if a stick is more fun. I fear driving (Well not really but i just dont think of it as all that much fun). I also dont think the maintenance of the gear box is any more than with a stick. We have had our '95 Grand Prix for about 5 years, and we havent had one problem with the transmission (it has over 100,000 miles on it too......mostly from my brother). Mostly the alternator and starter are the problems i've had with it :). I can beat almost anyone at a stop when i start going in that car. Also the battery in that car has never been drained from leaving the lights on because it has a warning that the lights are on when the engine is off. God i love that car...

------------------
"Let me show you something
that you've never seen before
like a light im gonna shine on you
forever is a word i dont often get to say
but if you say it loud enough i'll say it too"