Why do so few Americans know how to drive a stick shift? [Archive]

suranyi

07-26-2011, 06:37 PM

In the UK, at least, something of a chicken-and-egg situation developed. Automatics have always been much less common, for whatever reason, and there are separate categories of driving licence for automatics and manuals. So rather than cut themselves off from 95% of the used car market, almost all learners learn to drive a manual, and their first cars tend to be manuals. And when driving a stick is all you've known, automatics feel very weird first time you try them, believe me. So people tend to stick with sticks, as it were.

That said, I think automatics are gradually becoming more popular, now that their fuel consumption is comparable to manuals.

Also a chicken-and-egg situation in the US, but going the opposite way: automatics became more and more common, so that it became less and less usual to learn to drive on a stick, so that fewer and fewer people know how to drive on sticks, meaning that automatics become more common. Also, there are no separate categories of licenses for automatic vs. stick here.

I remember when I was learning to drive I didn't have access to anything but automatic transmission cars. My parents cars were all automatics. The driving school cars were all automatics. It would have taken a deliberate effort to find a car with a stick to learn on.

tellyworth

07-26-2011, 06:39 PM

In many European countries, if you get your license using an automatic, you're only licensed to drive automatics. If you get your license using a stick shift, you can drive a stick shift AND an automatic.

Same deal in Australia. This article gives some numbers (http://www.theage.com.au/national/its-automatic-demand-for-manual-cars-has-shifted-down-20100605-xlxx.html).

Keeve

07-26-2011, 06:40 PM

My wife and I (both Americans) learned to drive on automatics. About 20 years ago, we took lessons to learn the stick so that we could save money on our next car. We hated it, and will never do it again. The effort of driving in heavy traffic -- especially one point when I was on a two-mile uphill incline in bumper-to-bumper traffic -- made us give it up forever. It's just not worth the cost savings; I'd rather take the bus.

Exapno Mapcase

07-26-2011, 06:41 PM

One explanation I've read is that the daily driving experiences were different for Americans starting at a much earlier time. The move to the suburbs started in the 1950s so that people were doing much of their driving on expressways. This cut two ways. One was that the need for a stick was much lessened when most of the driving was done at highway speeds with no variation. But expressways also led to bumper-to-bumper backups, which are much easier with an automatic.

I'm not sure how you'd prove this, but it is plausible that the type of driving that prevails would be reflected in the type of cars purchased.

kenobi 65

07-26-2011, 06:45 PM

The effort of driving in heavy traffic -- especially one point when I was on a two-mile uphill incline in bumper-to-bumper traffic -- made us give it up forever.

I think that's a big reason why sticks have fallen out of favor with all but auto enthusiasts in the U.S. If you're driving on the open road, and enjoy the driving experience in general, a stick shift can add to that experience. If you're driving to get from Point A to Point B, and you're creeping along in a traffic jam to get there (as many Americans do today), a manual transmission is a pain in the tuchus -- or, more precisely, the left foot and ankle...my wife's old car had a stick, and a half-hour in heavy traffic made my left ankle very unhappy.

CanvasShoes

07-26-2011, 06:51 PM

Dunno, but I was required (by my dad) to learn to drive a stick before I could get my license. I don't get the appeal, it's irritating and painful (for those of us with physical issues) to constantly have to up and downshift in traffic (open road joys aside).

chiroptera

07-26-2011, 06:57 PM

The easy answer - Americans are lazy. :) Also most American cars are automatics, Americans don't learn how to drive them because they are so rare here.

I'm an American who grew up overseas; I learned very early to drive a stick and vastly prefer it. I mourn the demise of the stick shift, I do.

Rebuild or replace a slush-box: $1,000-$3,000. Replace a clutch and all its components: $600-800. Standard shift = better gas mileage and better performance. Standard shift = better control and handling. Caveat - I understand that some modern slush-boxes are more intuitive and better than days of yore.

IMO - people who say that standard-shift vehicles are too difficult or cumbersome to drive in traffic or whatever aren't proficient with them. I drove a truck over the road for a few years - 18-speed with overdrive - to this day and forever I would rather drive that than a slush-box. My daily driver is a stick-shift and I don't give the process any more thought than breathing. I don't get that it's an "effort' for a proficient driver.

When I travel overseas I love that I can pay less for a stick-shift rental!

BDoors

07-26-2011, 06:58 PM

I think that's a big reason why sticks have fallen out of favor with all but auto enthusiasts in the U.S. If you're driving on the open road, and enjoy the driving experience in general, a stick shift can add to that experience. If you're driving to get from Point A to Point B, and you're creeping along in a traffic jam to get there (as many Americans do today), a manual transmission is a pain in the tuchus -- or, more precisely, the left foot and ankle...my wife's old car had a stick, and a half-hour in heavy traffic made my left ankle very unhappy.
There must be more to it than that, because parts of Europe, particularly the stretch from Britain to Germany, have extremely high population densities and hence absolutely appalling traffic. And yet people are still mostly driving manuals.
It's true that at highway speeds it makes little difference. With no traffic you can drive for hundreds of miles without ever changing gear.

jz78817

07-26-2011, 07:12 PM

Not many Americans have a car with a manual transmission, or want one. Their loss.

if they don't want one, then it isn't "their loss."

There must be more to it than that, because parts of Europe, particularly the stretch from Britain to Germany, have extremely high population densities and hence absolutely appalling traffic. And yet people are still mostly driving manuals.

a big part of it is that the average car in Europe has a much smaller engine with a lot less power than we're used to in the US. Even though the efficiency penalty of an automatic is vanishingly small now, they can still "feel" sluggish when tied to a 1.6 liter gas or 2 liter diesel. When you've got a V8 with a fat-ass powerband, it's not such a big deal.

The easy answer - Americans are lazy.

:rolleyes:

I'm an American who grew up overseas; I learned very early to drive a stick and vastly prefer it. I mourn the demise of the stick shift, I do.

I for one am impressed.

Rebuild or replace a slush-box: $1,000-$3,000. Replace a clutch and all its components: $600-800.

disingenuous. a much better comparison would be comparing the cost of a clutch replacement to the cost of a torque converter replacement. There's a ton of other stuff inside a manual transmission which can break or wear out too.

Standard shift = better gas mileage and better performance.

not true anymore. Ever since manuals and automatics reached forward gear parity, the difference is minimal. in some cases, the automatic wins (see Ford Fusion.) This might have been true in the '80s when you were comparing a 3-speed non-lockup non-OD automatic to a 5-speed manual with OD, but it's not true anymore.

Further, even in the case where the sticker shows (slightly) better mpg with a manual, that doesn't mean anything unless you drive the car exactly the same way the operator for the EPA test did. Manuals allow way, way too much variability for one to legitimately claim they get better fuel economy these days.

Standard shift = better control and handling.

BS.

chiroptera

07-26-2011, 07:14 PM

I think that's a big reason why sticks have fallen out of favor with all but auto enthusiasts in the U.S. If you're driving on the open road, and enjoy the driving experience in general, a stick shift can add to that experience. If you're driving to get from Point A to Point B, and you're creeping along in a traffic jam to get there (as many Americans do today), a manual transmission is a pain in the tuchus -- or, more precisely, the left foot and ankle...my wife's old car had a stick, and a half-hour in heavy traffic made my left ankle very unhappy.

I don't know about that...I've driven in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Cairo, Istanbul, London, Barcelona, Glasgow, San Jose CR, Mexico City, Colorado in the mountains and flat-land Michigan and points in between...all places with utterly horrendous traffic and also places where most people are driving stick shifts. Also, I drove a semi with an 18-speed manual transmission, like most truckers, all over the USA. Also and most importantly, twitching my left leg up and down is really no big deal, absent physical limitations.

I still prefer a stick-shift, hands-down and wherever. People like me are anachronisms in the USA though.

chiroptera

07-26-2011, 07:19 PM

You mean this Ford Fusion, (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2011_Ford_Fusion.shtml)or some other one?

in some cases, the automatic wins (see Ford Fusion.) This might have been true in the '80s when you were comparing a 3-speed non-lockup non-OD automatic to a 5-speed manual with OD, but it's not true anymore.

.

jz78817

07-26-2011, 07:19 PM

I don't know about that...

oh drop it, will you? if people in this country wanted manual transmissions, they wouldn't be so rare. Manuals used to be called "standard" transmissions. Car buyers voted with their wallets and said they wanted autos.

I've driven in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Cairo, Istanbul, London, Barcelona, Glasgow, San Jose CR, Mexico City, Colorado in the mountains and flat-land Michigan and points in between...all places with utterly horrendous traffic and also places where most people are driving stick shifts.

good for you. we're still not impressed.

Also, I drove a semi with an 18-speed manual transmission, like most truckers, all over the USA. Also and most importantly, twitching my left leg up and down is really no big deal, absent physical limitations.

I still prefer a stick-shift, hands-down and wherever. People like me are anachronisms in the USA though.

yes, and people like you bask in that uniqueness.

Odesio

07-26-2011, 07:21 PM

Rebuild or replace a slush-box: $1,000-$3,000. Replace a clutch and all its components: $600-800. Standard shift = better gas mileage and better performance. Standard shift = better control and handling. Caveat - I understand that some modern slush-boxes are more intuitive and better than days of yore.

The people I've known with standard transmissions have had to replace them more often than I have with my automatic transmissions. Though, to be fair, I suspect that a lot of them just weren't very good at driving a standard.

IMO - people who say that standard-shift vehicles are too difficult or cumbersome to drive in traffic or whatever aren't proficient with them.

But that doesn't answer the question of why the standard in American switched from standard to automatic. When I was looking to purchase my first car in 1997 the only one I looked at with a standard transmission was a jeep. There must have been some point where those raised on standard transmissions decided to switch to automatic.

jz78817

07-26-2011, 07:21 PM

You mean this Ford Fusion, (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2011_Ford_Fusion.shtml)or some other one?

yes. what difficulty are you having?

chiroptera

07-26-2011, 07:24 PM

Yes, but that wasn't the question. Clearly people want slush-boxes in this country. The question was why.

oh drop it, will you? if people in this country wanted manual transmissions, they wouldn't be so rare. Manuals used to be called "standard" transmissions. Car buyers voted with their wallets and said they wanted autos.

Eva Luna

07-26-2011, 07:27 PM

My first car was a stick shift. I had to replace it when I spent the bulk of a three-year period without the use of one leg. It's awfully difficult to drive a stick shift, especially in a dense urban area, with one leg.

I HATED that stick shift, but it was cheap when I bought it. I can drive stick in a pinch, but prefer not to, even though I did for years with no problems. To each his own.

jz78817

07-26-2011, 07:34 PM

Yes, but that wasn't the question. Clearly people want slush-boxes in this country. The question was why.

because people who are not you have different priorities. rowing their own in their daily travels is not high up on their lists of priorities. Is it really that hard to understand?

chiroptera

07-26-2011, 07:46 PM

Not at all hard to understand - and the OP skirts the boundaries between IMHO and GQ. So if anything I am guilty of giving an IMHO response to a GQ question...my question to you is: why are you so bothered and defensive about my responses?

because people who are not you have different priorities. rowing their own in their daily travels is not high up on their lists of priorities. Is it really that hard to understand?

Dr. Strangelove

07-26-2011, 07:47 PM

I'm an American who grew up overseas; I learned very early to drive a stick and vastly prefer it. I mourn the demise of the stick shift, I do.

I, on the other hand, am an American who drove only slushboxes for the first few years, but when I finally got my own car (a $200 Hyundai Excel with a 4-speed manual) I realized just how far superior stick shifts are.

I agree with the comments that driving in traffic shouldn't really be a problem. Sure, if you have a disability or something, that's a different story. That doesn't argue against the general case.

These days, I would say the primary advantage of manuals is that an automatic can never anticipate your intentions.

Want to pass someone on a 2-lane highway? In an automatic, you floor it as you move over, but there is a lag of half a second or so as the car realizes you need extra oomph. In a manual, you can downshift before moving over, and minimize your exposure to oncoming traffic.

Taking a hard turn and want to maintain the best possible control? Downshift in advance, keep a light throttle, and accelerate out. Who knows if an automatic is going to shift on you in the middle and break traction. It doesn't know what you're doing.

Doing a long downhill? Shift into a gear with the appropriate amount of engine braking. You can do this to some extent in autos but most have only a 1 and 2 setting at best, which is too low for highway speeds on gentle slopes.

There are lots of other advantages, and it is still possible to get better mileage on a manual with correct technique, but again, I would say it's the lack of an automatic's knowledge of intention that is its greatest flaw.

Some new automatics, like the double-clutch types, have advantages a manual can never match (shift speed, in particular). These make some of the manual's other advantages irrelevant, but they aren't universal yet.

GreasyJack

07-26-2011, 07:52 PM

I really do think it's mostly a cultural preference. Fuel economy was perhaps once an issue, but the thing is that even European luxury cars were mostly manuals until very recently. I seriously doubt someone driving one of those huge V8-powered Benz saloons is really all that worried about the couple deciliters per 100km he's saving with a manual. Also consider Japan, where fuel prices are just as high, but automatics are near-ubiquitous.

I think it's just that the driving culture in Europe encourages more actively engaged driving. It's the same reason why you see things like the ridiculously complex headlight switches-- drivers just like more control. It's the same reason really why manuals persist in the US, despite there no longer really being any practical advantage whatsoever. Given the reliability of modern automatics and the remaining certainty of clutch changes, I would venture to say your long-term cost of ownership is probably higher with a manual even these days.

chiroptera

07-26-2011, 07:59 PM

Some new automatics, like the double-clutch types, have advantages a manual can never match (shift speed, in particular). These make some of the manual's other advantages irrelevant, but they aren't universal yet.

As I alluded to earlier...from my understanding some of the newer automatics allow for much more sophisticated handling; I just haven't driven any cars newer than about three years old in the last five or so years.

jz78817

07-26-2011, 07:59 PM

Want to pass someone on a 2-lane highway? In an automatic, you floor it as you move over, but there is a lag of half a second or so as the car realizes you need extra oomph. In a manual, you can downshift before moving over, and minimize your exposure to oncoming traffic.

Taking a hard turn and want to maintain the best possible control? Downshift in advance, keep a light throttle, and accelerate out. Who knows if an automatic is going to shift on you in the middle and break traction. It doesn't know what you're doing.

Doing a long downhill? Shift into a gear with the appropriate amount of engine braking. You can do this to some extent in autos but most have only a 1 and 2 setting at best, which is too low for highway speeds on gentle slopes.

you're talking like an enthusiast. for every person like you there are several hundred who are just going to work or taking their kids to school. They don't give a shit about hard turns, or anything else. You don't matter. They do.

Given the reliability of modern automatics and the remaining certainty of clutch changes,

heh. in one of my cars, I just had to have the transaxle pulled for clutch service. The clutch was still OK, but the release fork was worn out so I frequently had problems getting it into gear. but manuals are bulletproof, so that must have all been in my head.

california jobcase

07-26-2011, 08:14 PM

I bought a new car and a new truck back in '08-'09. I specifically chose manual transmissions for one reason- $800 to $1000 cheaper price tag. The better gas mileage on these two models because of this choice is pretty small, but there. Besides, automatics behind four-cylinder engines just seem to sap too much power to me.

aerodave

07-26-2011, 08:20 PM

Standard shift = better control and handling.
BS.

There's a reason that automatics are absent from most forms of motorsport. And even in those rare areas where they exist, do not resemble passenger-car slushboxes in design or function. The reason is mentioned just upthread...that an unexpected shift in the middle of a maneuver can upset the balance of a car with sometimes disastrous results. Racers have to know exactly what state their car is in now and will be in next. Cars that do things--like shift gears--unexpectedly are not conducive to performance.

I know you may not be a racer...but that doesn't change the point that if control and handling are paramount, you don't choose an automatic.

leftfield6

07-26-2011, 08:21 PM

My Dad always said that if you have an automatic you're not really a driver, you're just a "steerer". :p No one is allowed to question my Dad, hear me???:D

To the original OP's question, I think most don't know how because they don't have to. We are lazy drivers, IMHO. Just point the front end and push on the gas pedal. Pure point A to point B. I think the disengaged nature of a lot of our drivers is part of our problem. People more into their cellphone conversations than driving.

FWIW, I drive a 5-speed Honda Element to work in Atlanta traffic everyday. Except on those days I drive my motorcycle, also a manual shift, for those not familiar with bikes.

BTW, I've gone well over 200K on previous manual cars without a clutch replacement. A good manual driver does not wear out a clutch any faster than a automatic will need repairs.

Dr. Strangelove

07-26-2011, 08:30 PM

you're talking like an enthusiast. for every person like you there are several hundred who are just going to work or taking their kids to school. They don't give a shit about hard turns, or anything else. You don't matter. They do.

I don't deny any of that. I only deny the claim that manuals do not have better control and handling.

Yes, Americans drive automatics because we are lazy. There's nothing inherently wrong with that--we also have indoor plumbing because we're lazy. But while indoor plumbing has very few practical downsides compared to the alternative, the same cannot yet be said of automatics.

chiroptera

07-26-2011, 08:33 PM

BTW, I've gone well over 200K on previous manual cars without a clutch replacement. A good manual driver does not wear out a clutch any faster than a automatic will need repairs.

The vehicle I own with the highest miles on it currently is a 1995 Nissan truck with 255, xxx miles that I have owned since new. Original clutch, plate, everything...but it's starting to get a bit "sticky"and hard to shift at times. My Euro mechanic's quote for everything to get it 100% functional forever: $680, give or take.

aerodave - right on.

medicated

07-26-2011, 08:51 PM

Anecdotal and thus worthless, but what the hell:

Until about a month ago, I had never driven a manual car. After a fair amount of research, I determined that it would be a bad idea to get an automatic (there have been some issues with the transmissions in the model year I wanted to buy). Having driven a manual for a month now, I much prefer it to an automatic. I feel as though I'm actually doing something. If you're the fidgety sort anyway, that's nice. Driving an automatic now feels very, very strange and disorienting.

kunilou

07-26-2011, 08:51 PM

All of you are overlooking the obvious. It's because back in the 1950's, American stickshifts were crap.

Back then, the basic American family sedan held six passengers (station wagons could hold eight or nine), was about 17 feet long, weighed more than 3,000 pounds and probably came equipped with a 2-bbl carbureator, manual steering and non-power assisted brakes. It had a 3-speed manual transmission, mounted on the steering column, with a throw you could measure in feet. The clutch was stiff, hard to push down and had a friction point that changed every time you stepped on it.

It shifted like a truck transmission, probably because it WAS a truck transmission. The manufacturers could give a car fancy upholstery, soft springs and even air conditioning, but it was NOT fun to drive.

THAT was the U.S. environment the automatic transmission was introduced into. It didn't matter that automatics were bigger and heavier, because the cars themselves were already big and heavy. It didn't matter that it got poor gas mileage, because gas was cheap and cars had huge gas tanks. And it didn't matter that the 2-speed Ford and GM transmissions had no torque, because the only performance measure that Americans cared about was how fast you could ultimately get the car to go.

The only thing a manual transmission had going for it was price, and it didn't take long for Americans to decide the savings weren't worth it.

TriPolar

07-26-2011, 08:53 PM

But expressways also led to bumper-to-bumper backups, which are much easier with an automatic.

This is the reason I've heard most often from people who say they don't want a stick, among those who say they know how to drive one. Traffic never bothered me much, but I learned to drive with a stick and it's all pretty automatic to me now. The funny thing is when I drive an automatic I'll sometimes stomp on the floor with my left foot when I come to a stop.

RaftPeople

07-26-2011, 08:59 PM

IMO - people who say that standard-shift vehicles are too difficult or cumbersome to drive in traffic or whatever aren't proficient with them.

Dang. And all this time I thought I was proficient with a manual transmission and that the problem was traffic - little did I know I was doing something wrong.

Help me identify my problem:
Typically, when accelerating I will shift from a lower numbered gear to a higher numbered gear in sequence
And when decelerating I will typically shift from a higher numbered gear to a lower numbered gear in sequence

What can I do differently that will make heavy traffic a breeze in my manual transmission? Please assist me, I want to learn the secret.

ChickenLegs

07-26-2011, 09:04 PM

I drive a manual transmission, and always will. People who drive automatics are missing one of the finer things in life, and I pity them.

I also shave with a straight razor, and roll my own cigarettes, which I light by rubbing two sticks together. My telephone is two tin cans and a string. I revel in my superiority.

thelabdude

07-26-2011, 09:09 PM

Perhaps too many of you are young to remember the god awful 3 on the tree and a V-8 with little low rpm torque. What a miserable combination. I had a 68 Chevelle with the 3 on a tree and a 307 V-8. It would have permanently turned me on manuals but for my 64 TR-4.

Gas was cheap, V-8's had enough power to over come the drag of the auto, and most of what manuals and engines were available made for a marriage made in Hell. Also, the auto was one more option to pad the price and dealer profit. Who needs it? Once we raised a generation that never drove a decent manual shift, a comeback was tough. Cell phones aren't helping. Oh a few of us ferreted out nifty devices like the 92 Grand Am sedan we had with the HO Quad 4 and 5 speed. It would lay rubber in third gear an still get over 30 mpg.

Onomatopoeia

07-26-2011, 09:11 PM

BTW, I've gone well over 200K on previous manual cars without a clutch replacement. A good manual driver does not wear out a clutch any faster than a automatic will need repairs.I have a little over 280K on my manual transmission Toyota Solara, and have never had to replace the clutch. On the other hand, I had two clutch replacements on the Honda Civic I owned before it.

I've lived in other countries, but have only driven in the States. I've owned 4 cars, and each have had manual transmissions. I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've driven an automatic, and I dread ever having to again.

My mind is wired for manual transmissions. I don't think about the clutch pedal or the shifter; I just drive. Highway, or stop 'n' go traffic, it is all the same to me. Put me behind the wheel of an automatic, however, and I'm a bloody accident waiting to happen. After almost 30 years of driving a stick, my body automatically performs the combination of moves required for a manual transmission vehicle, so when I drive an automatic, I reach for a non existent clutch, sometimes hitting the gas, or both feet hit the gas and break simultaneously, or I attempt to shift as I'm braking. Yeah, I'm an absolute mess in an automatic.

I've noticed that, with each new car purchase, it has become progressively more difficult to find a car in the US with a standard transmission, and I'm very nervous that I won't be able to find one at all when I'm ready to trade in my Toyota.

dropzone

07-26-2011, 09:13 PM

Rebuild or replace a slush-box: $1,000-$3,000. Replace a clutch and all its components: $600-800.My slush-box bought lunch. I haven't even inquired what the repair will cost, figuring it would be cheaper to get my daughter's Focus 5-speed out of repo and claim it as me own. (She didn't. TFB.)

I'm dangling the Taurus in front of another daughter who shoulda started paying rent years ago, but she's not as stupid as her sister and would rather get a car that wasn't shit to begin with. She shoulda hung out with the car repair guys in high school, with whom fluttered eyelashes could do wonders.

aruvqan

07-26-2011, 09:18 PM

This is the reason I've heard most often from people who say they don't want a stick, among those who say they know how to drive one. Traffic never bothered me much, but I learned to drive with a stick and it's all pretty automatic to me now. The funny thing is when I drive an automatic I'll sometimes stomp on the floor with my left foot when I come to a stop.

I do that when I change between the standard 2002 jetta and my auto 2006 jetta.

I really wish I could bash the 2 together and get my perfect car, a diesel manual jetta.

[actually my dream is a diesel manual Ford Kuga like we rented last summer in Germany. *swoon* just with the rear doors changed to suicide doors to make schlepping a wheelchair easier for me to do solo.]

etv78

07-26-2011, 09:21 PM

One thing I'll mention: If you need hand controls, you NEED automatic transmission.

pulykamell

07-26-2011, 09:26 PM

dropzone

07-26-2011, 09:28 PM

The funny thing is when I drive an automatic I'll sometimes stomp on the floor with my left foot when I come to a stop.Merging onto an expressway while driving my MIL's Buick: Where's the clutch? WHERE'S THE FUCKING CLUTCH?!?!?

Given that particular on-ramp, for one Mafia Princess it was more like, "Why is there a bomb? WHY IS THERE A FUCKING BOMB?!?!?" Pushing my foot where there was nothing was an improvement.

Y'know, Chicagoland used to be interesting, if you know what I mean.

jackdavinci

07-26-2011, 09:37 PM

When I was a kid (80s) in the US (mostly NY) my parents had a stick shift, and I generally thought of cars as being 50/50 auto/standard. By 1990 my parents and people in general seemed to be slowly heading more towards auto.

When I visited my grandparents in the mountains of Vermont, they would let me practice driving on their stick, which I found quite daunting. Especially when I ended up in a ditch and had to try to reverse uphill out of it :eek:

My first car (1996) was auto, but my second car was a stick. I got the hang of it after a few days, in general, although it took me a while to get the hang of steep hills. And parking on the slippery ramp of the ferry was a whole other challenge altogether. I might have had a tougher time, but I had a Suburu, which is constructed with some special feature that makes shifting into first on a steep hill less challenging than a standard... standard.

I wouldn't have wanted to take my drivers test on a standard, but I found it to be fun. When I drove an auto again it felt weird, and my left foot kept pressing the phantom clutch.

In my case, I've always bought cars second hand from people I've known (neighbor, grandparents, friend, Mom's friend), so I haven't really had choice in transmission.

Now that there's not any real advantage to stick, I don't have a preference. Auto is easier but stick is more interesting.

Exapno Mapcase

07-26-2011, 10:06 PM

All this love for sticks. And I understand it: I enjoyed the physical act of driving a manual, even though the cars were cheap, awful compacts. I can only imagine what driving a great sports car with a stick might have been like. I stopped buying sticks when I developed carpal tunnel and it got too painful. I'll never be able to go back.

What if you don't care about the physical act of driving a car, though? That doesn't mean you're lazy, with or without a smilie. Shifting is a pain at times, and many people legitimately see no need for a pain to interfere with driving.

I also note that almost everyone who is throwing out love for sticks are guys. Automatics were always pushed to women. I don't know if that was a deliberate "the little lady can't handle a stick" or just an acknowledgment that women weren't culturally indoctrinated to love cars. But the correlation of more women drivers driving more often and the rise of automatics is pretty high.

Arrendajo

07-26-2011, 10:33 PM

When I went to buy a Fit I really wanted a manual. They are just more fun to drive. You can mate the power and rpm to the driving situation, and it gives you better control. Believe it or not. Dr. Strangelove elucidated the pleasures of driving a stick very clearly and accurately upthread. I grew up driving standards, and never had any trouble with them (never had to replace a clutch on any car I owned). It also seems better suited to a small 4 cylinder engine. And then there's better gas mileage... But when I looked at the Fit, all the reviews showed better mileage on the automatic. Plus my wife would not be able to drive the car if it were automatic. And my son who was just learning to drive had never even seen a standard, AFAIK. So I sucked it up and got the automatic. If I ever get a sporty car, though, it will be a stick.
I understand about heavy traffic and stick shifts, though. There is no doubt in my mind, because I have driven both in bumper to bumper stop and go Seattle traffic, that an automatic is easier in that situation.

Bytegeist

07-26-2011, 10:38 PM

I think it's just that the driving culture in Europe encourages more actively engaged driving. It's the same reason why you see things like the ridiculously complex headlight switches-- drivers just like more control.

All right, I'll bite. How do European car headlight switches work?

pulykamell

07-26-2011, 10:39 PM

Oh, I'll be the first to admit there is very little, if any, advantage to a stick shift in normal driving conditions. Hell, even with high performance cars and clutchless paddle-shifters, they're becoming even more like driving an automatic in a way. However, besides the fact that I think it's fun and it does well to kill the boredom, knowing how to drive a stick has proven to be a useful skill. No matter where I am in the world, I don't have to worry about finding an automatic gearbox, since I could drive a stick. That was my impetus for first learning how to drive stick. I was sick of being places where I couldn't drive the cars. Once I learned, I just fell in love with it. I understand why most people wouldn't be bothered, but it's just a joy to drive a stick.

The flip side is, when I need somebody to drive my car, it's very difficult for me to find someone who can. Luckily, my SO was a quick learner the one time she had to drive my drunken ass home from the bar. I, for one, was impressed, especially given that was her first time driving stick.

Dr. Strangelove

07-26-2011, 10:48 PM

What if you don't care about the physical act of driving a car, though?

More power to them. But I'd still call it lazy, because they are giving up genuine performance (and possible safety) benefits for a savings in effort. There's nothing wrong with that--all of us make similar tradeoffs in different situations--but it's still lazy.

Anecdotally, you seem to be right about women. It's certainly not the case that they can't handle manuals--in my experience, they pick it up as well as anyone. I think it's just the case that they view cars as much more of a "point A to point B" device than men do, and care very little about the situations where manuals have an advantage (handling at the edge of traction, etc.).

Dr. Strangelove

07-26-2011, 10:49 PM

One more advantage to driving a stick shift in America: not too many people ask to borrow your car :). This is even more of a benefit for pickup trucks...

GreasyJack

07-26-2011, 10:55 PM

All right, I'll bite. How do European car headlight switches work?

For example, here (http://www.benzworld.org/forums/attachments/w124-e-ce-d-td-class/181645d1212621519-88-w124-300d-turbo-question-picture.jpg)'s a picture that was posted in another thread. The US-spec version of this car (which I used to own) has a regular old "On-Park-Off" switch and the fog lights come on in "park". The Euro version has, lets see here.... left parking lights, right parking lights, off, both parking lights, headlights on, fog lights on low, fog lights on high and the whole business with the aiming control. Now, I'm sure people are going to post impassioned responses as to how each function is vitally useful, but I'd have a hard time seeing many situations where giving the driver that extra control really helps at all. Ditto with a manual transmission-- there's really no reason why a driver needs that extra degree of control, but it drives some people crazy not to have it (including myself).

Alley Dweller

07-26-2011, 11:00 PM

In my state, when I was growing up at least, most people learned to drive by taking a high school "Driver Ed" course. The state required all public high schools to make the course available and even required them to accept students from private high schools located in the district. The courses were relatively short. They didn't have the time or the facilities to train anyone on two types of cars. Everyone learned how to drive on an automatic. If you were interested in learning stick, you either had to have a parent or a friend that was willing to teach you, usually after you got your license and could drive their car.

Is the situation similar in the rest of the world? Is driving elsewhere more of a skill passed down from parent to child rather than a short course at school?

R. P. McMurphy

07-26-2011, 11:45 PM

My Dad always said that if you have an automatic you're not really a driver, you're just a "steerer". :p No one is allowed to question my Dad, hear me???:D

Yea, and power windows and air conditioning are for woosies. What the auto world needs is vent windows. That would be everyone's salvation.

Your Dad is probably a good guy but he's also a fool. An F1 driver is not really a driver? Have your Dad tell them that to their face. No F1 car has a manual clutch. Real drivers (those that make their living at high performance driving other than cab drivers in third world countries) haven't relied on manual clutches for decades. In real, modern, high-tech race cars it's paddle shifters where there is no clutch pedal. Why, because they are better. The computers and the automatic shifting is far better that what a human can be expected to do. A modern automatic transmission is not only better and easier but it is more efficient. The way manufacturing has evolved, they are now actually cheaper.

The thing about the manual transmissions is a debate that rises on a regular basis. It's amazing how stodgy people can be. Yea, "I'm a real driver if I have a clutch." BFD, take it to your grave. Start your car with a crank. Rip out your power window motors and install window cranks. Cut the hose to your air conditioner. Disable your power seats. Why would anyone need power steering (or rack and pinion steering) and power disk brakes (real drivers have drum brakes). Those things are for girls that are afraid to drive. Take a shotgun to your sound system and install an AM radio. Those were the good old days (when cars were cars and were built like total pieces of shit).

And yes, I learned to drive on a stick shift. I've had many of them. I have no problem driving one. I also have a high performance sports car with paddle shifters. It's a beauty. Throw the clutch in the junk pile along with the manual crank starter and the rest of the ancient crap. Also, I kind of like the GPS but I guess if I admitted that to your Dad he would assume I was gay. Ah. well . . . I'm not, but if that's what he's going to think anyway, so what.

suranyi

07-26-2011, 11:52 PM

My Dad always said that if you have an automatic you're not really a driver, you're just a "steerer". :p No one is allowed to question my Dad, hear me???:D

My Dad doesn't know how to drive a stick either. Without him, who could have taught me? The driving course at the school only had automatics.

Measure for Measure

07-26-2011, 11:53 PM

Real men ride horses.

Throatwarbler Mangrove

07-26-2011, 11:57 PM

Yea, and power windows and air conditioning are for woosies. What the auto world needs is vent windows. That would be everyone's salvation.

Your Dad is probably a good guy but he's also a fool. An F1 driver is not really a driver? Have your Dad tell them that to their face. No F1 car has a manual clutch. Real drivers (those that make their living at high performance driving other than cab drivers in third world countries) haven't relied on manual clutches for decades. In real, modern, high-tech race cars it's paddle shifters where there is no clutch pedal. Why, because they are better. The computers and the automatic shifting is far better that what a human can be expected to do. A modern automatic transmission is not only better and easier but it is more efficient. The way manufacturing has evolved, they are now actually cheaper.

The thing about the manual transmissions is a debate that rises on a regular basis. It's amazing how stodgy people can be. Yea, "I'm a real driver if I have a clutch." BFD, take it to your grave. Start your car with a crank. Rip out your power window motors and install window cranks. Cut the hose to your air conditioner. Disable your power seats. Why would anyone need power steering (or rack and pinion steering) and power disk brakes (real drivers have drum brakes). Those things are for girls that are afraid to drive. Take a shotgun to your sound system and install an AM radio. Those were the good old days (when cars were cars and were built like total pieces of shit).

And yes, I learned to drive on a stick shift. I've had many of them. I have no problem driving one. I also have a high performance sports car with paddle shifters. It's a beauty. Throw the clutch in the junk pile along with the manual crank starter and the rest of the ancient crap. Also, I kind of like the GPS but I guess if I admitted that to your Dad he would assume I was gay. Ah. well . . . I'm not, but if that's what he's going to think anyway, so what.

The only thing worse than snotty manual transmission elitists is the crank who cites race cars as a reason why automatics are superior. Plenty of race cars have clutches, even the ones with paddle shifters. None of these things work the way you think they work, and do you drive an F1 car to work? No? Then what difference does it make to you what F1 cars use?

Boyo Jim

07-27-2011, 12:15 AM

I'm gonna go with the "public school driving course" meme. Not only does it take longer to learn to drive a stick, the schools didn't want large numbers of untrained kids tearing up their transmissions. It was cheaper and faster to shove kids through the system with training on automatics.

Me -- I drive a stick. Chicks love it. :)

dzeiger

07-27-2011, 12:17 AM

The only thing worse than snotty manual transmission elitists is the crank who cites race cars as a reason why automatics are superior. Plenty of race cars have clutches, even the ones with paddle shifters. None of these things work the way you think they work, and do you drive an F1 car to work? No? Then what difference does it make to you what F1 cars use?

Perhaps you should be asking that question to Aerodave upthread, as he is the one who introduced motorsport as eveidence of the superiority of manual transmission.

In any case, back to real cars--my Acura has an automatic transmission, which includes a mode where I can slide the shifter to the right of Drive and upshift and downshift as I wish. Exactly what am I missing by not having to press a clutch pedal?

And as to the original question--as I understand it, automatics were embraced by Japan and the US, but not so in Europe, right? So if you take these cultures and ask yourself which ones are more likely to embrace Progress for the sake of Progress and Newness for the sake of Newness on the technology front, I think you might have another piece of the puzzle.

It's not the answer, because there's not likely to be a single answer, just several different factors.

Throatwarbler Mangrove

07-27-2011, 12:40 AM

Perhaps you should be asking that question to Aerodave upthread, as he is the one who introduced motorsport as eveidence of the superiority of manual transmission.

And Aerodave is correct is his statement.

In any case, back to real cars--my Acura has an automatic transmission, which includes a mode where I can slide the shifter to the right of Drive and upshift and downshift as I wish. Exactly what am I missing by not having to press a clutch pedal?

What are you missing? Unless you have one of the very newest Acuras that just came out a few months ago, your automatic is a 5 speed, compared to the manual version which would have 6, so you're missing a gear ratio. Most "tiptronic" manu-matic type gearboxes won't hold gears up to red line, and cannot be shifted out of sequence. The torque converter saps engine power so less power gets to the wheels, and the gearbox itself is heavier than an equivalent manual transmission which hurts handling and speed. But if you don't miss anything, you don't miss anything. Different things are important to different people.

And as to the original question--as I understand it, automatics were embraced by Japan and the US, but not so in Europe, right? So if you take these cultures and ask yourself which ones are more likely to embrace Progress for the sake of Progress and Newness for the sake of Newness on the technology front, I think you might have another piece of the puzzle.

It's not the answer, because there's not likely to be a single answer, just several different factors.

In terms of likelihood to embrace progress, I would rank Europe as being on top followed by the US and Japan a distant third. In any case, the manual trans is being rapidly superseded by newer technologies outside the US too, principally CVTs in Japan and dual clutch automatics in Europe. At the end Europeans are really no more enthused about cars or masochistic than anyone else, and since dual clutch transmissions mostly offer an automatic experience with the light weight and low power loss of a manual, that's probably going to be the way forward.

However manual transmissions will still be offered as an option in Europe, definitely for higher performance type cars. This is more problematic in the US because the US regulations are much more onerous - the EPA requires separate, expensive certification for every single powertrain combination that essentially makes it prohibitively expensive to offer any engine/transmission combo that doesn't sell 20,000 units per year. This is why cars in the US will come with 1 or 2 engines, with maybe a manual transmission as an option on one engine but not the other, while the same car sold in Europe will have 6 petrol and 6 diesel engines, all with either a manual or automatic.

Maastricht

07-27-2011, 01:28 AM

What BDoors said. It is a chicken and egg situation, and stick shifts stay the standard here in the Netherlands for much the same reasons most people stick to the Querty keyboard.

It is the EU's loss. I was trained to use a stick, and I didn't know any better. But like other posters said, it is a pain in the tuchus when driving in a traffic jam or in an urban situation. When we bought our Toyota Prius, which only comes in automatic, it took me less then an hour to get used to and I haven't looked back once. Now when I borrow a car and it is a stick, I get annoyed at how much extra work a stick is.

AK84

07-27-2011, 01:35 AM

Ok why exactly is a stick "work"? If you know how to drive properly it is instinctive.

My own WAG that the ones who find it difficult and work are those who learnt to drive in automatics; those who learnt to drive in manauals do not have that problem.

Me; I live in the Himalayas. I have yet to find a hill climb mode in an auomatic that I can trust.

Leo Bloom

07-27-2011, 01:53 AM

Yea, and power windows and air conditioning are for woosies....
wussies, or wusses, or wussys

BigT

07-27-2011, 02:48 AM

Not at all hard to understand - and the OP skirts the boundaries between IMHO and GQ. So if anything I am guilty of giving an IMHO response to a GQ question...my question to you is: why are you so bothered and defensive about my responses?

In general, people don't respond well to being called lazy. You were obviously joking, but this is a pretty contentious issue. Despite the U.S. vastly preferring automatics, quite a lot of us have grown up with car people who insist they are so much better than us because they drive stick.

Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if that sort of attitude has hastened the decline of manual. The demographic that tends to care about raw power and likes to do things the old-fashioned way are the same demographic that absolutely hate elitism of any kind.

Jim's Son

07-27-2011, 02:50 AM

As for the question about America having fewer manual transmission cars than Europeans, keep in mind that we are richer. Even poorer states like Alabama and Mississippi have a higher standard of living than most European countries.

When I learned to drive 40 years ago, my family had both a station wagon with an automatic and a Beetle with a stick. One thing my friends said that when you took the driver's test you should use an automatic because the tester could flunk you for "riding the clutch". I don't know how true that is but I used the wagon. Incidentally, the women my age would advise each other to "wear a skirt because the tester doesn't like girls wearing pants."

I have owned both manual and automatics and I prefer automatics. It's just not worth the hassle of shifting every few minutes in traffic. So I'm lazy..shouldn't we be trying to make life as enjoyable as possible as long as it doesn't hurt things? If you need to have three copies made of a letter you wrote, would you use carbon paper or a photo copier? If others don't share my views, you are welcome to it and I hope you can find a standard in your next car.

Incidentally, I talked recently to someone who runs a business rental high performance cars to people for a day or several days. He says that he no longer stocks manual-only cars, just automatics or also paddle shifters. He says that even if people can't use a manual, they lie about it and repair bills result.

Dr. Strangelove

07-27-2011, 02:54 AM

No F1 car has a manual clutch.

Who here claimed that manual clutches were necessary? The point of a manual transmission is direct control over which gear you're in, and avoiding the losses of torque converters. Fancy systems like dual-clutch automatics achieve both of those with the added benefit of inhumanly fast shifting.

The debate here is about typical, modern-day manual transmissions vs. slushboxes. I'll miss clutches when DCTs become more common but that's just sentimentality--I'll be happy as long as I retain as much control as I have with my normal manual.

I'd like to see a manual CVT--just one smooth lever with the endpoints marked "0" and "1" :).

MarcusF

07-27-2011, 03:53 AM

Much higher gas prices in Europe. For a long time automatics had a substantial fuel-efficiency penalty, so stick shifts were substantially cheaper to operate.

All of you are overlooking the obvious. It's because back in the 1950's, American stickshifts were crap.

Back then, the basic American family sedan held six passengers (station wagons could hold eight or nine), was about 17 feet long, weighed more than 3,000 pounds and probably came equipped with a 2-bbl carbureator, manual steering and non-power assisted brakes. It had a 3-speed manual transmission, mounted on the steering column, with a throw you could measure in feet. The clutch was stiff, hard to push down and had a friction point that changed every time you stepped on it.

It shifted like a truck transmission, probably because it WAS a truck transmission. The manufacturers could give a car fancy upholstery, soft springs and even air conditioning, but it was NOT fun to drive.

THAT was the U.S. environment the automatic transmission was introduced into. It didn't matter that automatics were bigger and heavier, because the cars themselves were already big and heavy. It didn't matter that it got poor gas mileage, because gas was cheap and cars had huge gas tanks. And it didn't matter that the 2-speed Ford and GM transmissions had no torque, because the only performance measure that Americans cared about was how fast you could ultimately get the car to go.

The only thing a manual transmission had going for it was price, and it didn't take long for Americans to decide the savings weren't worth it.Surely together these two posts explain the divergence between Europe and America. In Europe with smaller cars and less powerful engines plus high fuel priices there was a large disincentive for the majority of people to buy automatics. In the States with big, powerful cars and low fuel prices these disincentives are much reduced. If American stick shifts were half as bad as kunilou says it was no wonder people started buying automatics. Once the trend starts there is positive feedback - more automatics -> more drivers learn on automatics -> more people want to own automatics -> manufacturers built yet more automatics and so on.

glaeken

07-27-2011, 04:36 AM

I think really its a matter of once one system becomes dominant it keeps itself in the dominant position due to all learners then learning on it.

Why manual became dominant in Europe and automatic in the US just seems to be to do with the different driving environments. Simply put Europe has lots of old narrow roads having to twist around ancient boundary lines and so I think the control you get with a manual is more required. The US has in general big wide straight roads where a manual really does not give you any benefit.

I do expect manual to probably slowly die off now though even in Europe with the newer double clutch type systems giving you manual levels of control but still with the benefits of an automatic for things like driving in heavy traffic. These systems are still fairly new but as they make there way down the market to entry level cars I see no reason why they won’t supplant manuals in a few years.

BDoors

07-27-2011, 04:36 AM

Same deal in Australia. This article gives some numbers (http://www.theage.com.au/national/its-automatic-demand-for-manual-cars-has-shifted-down-20100605-xlxx.html).
The interesting thing is, though, that that article talks of automatics rapidly becoming more popular in Australia. I suspect that the same thing will happen in Europe (although we'll probably bypass old-school slushboxes and prefer the double clutch boxes mentioned by Dr. Strangelove). In fact, my impression is that it is already happening - DCT transmission is already a feature offered on many quite ordinary cars. Just look around Ford UK's website, for example.

I think any economic arguments against automatics have faded and it's now just inertia that's holding them back. I wouldn't be surprised if, in ten or twenty years' time, DCTs outsell manuals in Europe. I don't like slushboxes but would be perfectly happy with a DCT. And Europeans are just as "lazy" as Americans :D.

BDoors

07-27-2011, 04:46 AM

And glaeken sneaks in seconds before me to make almost the same point...

AK84

07-27-2011, 05:10 AM

F1 cars do not have clutchs but are manual in that it is te driver who decides what gear to use.

Fake Tales of San Francisco

07-27-2011, 05:37 AM

Help me identify my problem:
Typically, when accelerating I will shift from a lower numbered gear to a higher numbered gear in sequence
And when decelerating I will typically shift from a higher numbered gear to a lower numbered gear in sequence

What can I do differently that will make heavy traffic a breeze in my manual transmission? Please assist me, I want to learn the secret.

Learn when it's best to skip gears, makes things a lot smoother. And just practice a tiny bit, soon it will all become second nature and you wont be overly conscious of what you're doing. If you don't have any physical infirmities then you shouldn't have any physical problems with moving your feet constantly.

aruvqan

07-27-2011, 05:42 AM

One thing I'll mention: If you need hand controls, you NEED automatic transmission.

All this love for sticks. And I understand it: I enjoyed the physical act of driving a manual, even though the cars were cheap, awful compacts. I can only imagine what driving a great sports car with a stick might have been like. I stopped buying sticks when I developed carpal tunnel and it got too painful. I'll never be able to go back.

What if you don't care about the physical act of driving a car, though? That doesn't mean you're lazy, with or without a smilie. Shifting is a pain at times, and many people legitimately see no need for a pain to interfere with driving.

I also note that almost everyone who is throwing out love for sticks are guys. Automatics were always pushed to women. I don't know if that was a deliberate "the little lady can't handle a stick" or just an acknowledgment that women weren't culturally indoctrinated to love cars. But the correlation of more women drivers driving more often and the rise of automatics is pretty high.

More power to them. But I'd still call it lazy, because they are giving up genuine performance (and possible safety) benefits for a savings in effort. There's nothing wrong with that--all of us make similar tradeoffs in different situations--but it's still lazy.

Anecdotally, you seem to be right about women. It's certainly not the case that they can't handle manuals--in my experience, they pick it up as well as anyone. I think it's just the case that they view cars as much more of a "point A to point B" device than men do, and care very little about the situations where manuals have an advantage (handling at the edge of traction, etc.).

Let me 'splain. No, let me sum up I am not going to sift through an assload of posts to find shit to quote.

Female, 50 in October. I learned to drive in a ferrari and a 73 chrysler new yorker. I drive really fast, and can parallel park a carrier. My preference is for manual transmission cars. I learned to drive in a western NY winter. Snow, ice, slush. The preference for a manual comes because I can hit the clutch and stop the drive going to the wheels and *drift* gently across black ice. There are driving in winter conditions that I can go through that people with automatics can't. I can in good weather pick and choose to do certain things like downshift and have passing/acceleration when I absolutely need it. You can avoid accidents that way. I am more vested in paying attention when I drive, I have only gotten road hypnosis when driving an automatic.

And people don't like borrowing my car =)

robcaro

07-27-2011, 06:43 AM

I am an American living in Colombia where the standard is manual transmission for cars. But, my wife learned to drive with automatic in the USA, so we have automatic. She doesn´t want to learn to drive with manual transmission. The reason here for the manual transmission being the standard is the original cost and gas cost. I find it much easier to drive automatic because of some mountain driving with lots of traffic. I can drive either manual or automatic though.

Keeve

07-27-2011, 07:21 AM

What can I do differently that will make heavy traffic a breeze in my manual transmission? Please assist me, I want to learn the secret.Learn when it's best to skip gears, makes things a lot smoother. And just practice a tiny bit, soon it will all become second nature and you wont be overly conscious of what you're doing. If you don't have any physical infirmities then you shouldn't have any physical problems with moving your feet constantly.Both RaftPeople and I want to know why you think a manual would be easy in heavy traffic.

Here's how I handle heavy traffic in my automatic: When I'm stopped, my right foot is on the brake. When the car in front of me moves a few feet, I let go of the brake, roll forwards a bit, and then use the brake again. Repeat until the traffic clears up.

Here's my memory of how to handle heavy traffic in a manual transmission: Right foot is on the brake, and shift is in neutral. When the car in front of me moves a few feet, my left foot presses the clutch, my right hand puts the car into first gear, and my left foot lets up on the clutch. At this point, if I am going uphill, it is especially important to keep the right foot on the brake until the clutch is fully engaged, to prevent rolling backwards. The right foot can now move from the brake to the gas. A few seconds later, when you've caught up to the car in front, do it all in reverse.

Those are a lot of steps one must use on the manual transmission. I believe that people are being sincere when they say that it becomes second nature after a while. But reaching that point requires a heavy investment of time and effort, and I cannot imagine any "Point A to Point B Steerer" who would consider that investment worthwhile. Where is the payoff? I've never been on a highway and said to myself, "I don't like the gear that the car chose; I wish I could force it up or down."

(Actually, most automatics can be forced down, if I'm not mistaken. Most automatic drivers simply put the car in "drive" and never think about what the "2" and "3" on the shift refer to. If I understand correctly, the "2" prevents the car from going higher than second gear, and the "3" prevents it from going higher than third. And some cars have a button labeled "O", which prevents the car from going into Overdrive, i.e., no higher than fourth. I suppose these would be good when going down a very steep hill, to prevent the car from going too fast. But I have no idea what other sort of situations I'd use them for.)

Machine Elf

07-27-2011, 07:26 AM

Ok why exactly is a stick "work"? If you know how to drive properly it is instinctive.

It is work because it requires attention, something most Americans don't want to give to the driving task. Having to clutch-in before coming to a dead stop, or put it in gear before the light turns green, or shift your way up through the gears as you accelerate means you have to be paying attention to one more aspect of driving. Most Americans want to be absolved of that responsibility. They don't derive any satisfaction from having direct control over the transmission, and since automatics have pretty much achieved parity with manuals in terms of MPG and reliabilty, the choice for them is obvious.

(As a side note, it's interesting to see why automatics and manuals these days deliver roughly the same highway MPG on the same model of car: the top gear on an automatic is usually slightly higher than the top gear on a manual. Why? So the people with manuals don't have to downshift so often to accelerate/pass at highway speed. Apparently even the manual-trans enthusiasts don't want to work as hard as they used to. :D)

My wife has absolutely no interest in a manual transmission. I have an '03 Maxima with a manual trans, and maybe 7 years ago I gave her a couple of lessons in a parking lot followed by short, stop-free drives on public roads. She did not enjoy the experience, and in fact found the whole thing anxiety-provoking. She doesn't like the idea of accidentally stalling it at a traffic light and drawing the ire of the people behind her, is fearful of doing damage (by stalling it or selecting the wrong gear) and does not want to be saddled with decisions about when to shift up or down. She is bothered that she can't help with the driving when we go on long car trips together, but ever since those first lessons she has steadfastly refused to learn. :(

Machine Elf

07-27-2011, 07:31 AM

A few seconds later, when you've caught up to the car in front, do it all in reverse.

If you're repeatedly catching up to the car in front of you, then it's not just heavy traffic, it's stop-and-go traffic. Which is indeed a hassle, but IME it rarely lasts long. In those cases (and at 4-way stops with loooong lines) I typically let a gap open in front of me before idling forward in first gear. Allowing that gap to grow a bit reduces the frequency with which you need to clutch-in/clutch-out. Watch the big-rigs, and you'll see this is pretty much what they do.

Baracus

07-27-2011, 07:38 AM

I can't believe nobody has mentioned how difficult it is to text while shifting a manual.

Prelude to Fascination

07-27-2011, 07:40 AM

I've driven both automatics and sticks all my life (30+ years since I got my license), and I love driving a stick. One of the funnest cars I owned was a 1987 Toyota Corolla FX16 with a 5-speed stick. I also had a 1986 Hyundai Excel GLS with a stick (owned it for 5 years, so it wasn't a total piece of shit).

No cite for this, but I heard many years ago that at least one reason automatics became popular in the US was because of returning WWII vets. It was much easier for disabled vets to drive an automatic than a stick. It makes a certain amount of sense, and I'm not saying that's the only reason, or even a major reason (I believe post-war prosperity had something to do with it as well -- why do for yourself when you can afford a car that can do it for you?), but I think the vet explanation has at least a grain of truth in it.

Martini Enfield

07-27-2011, 07:43 AM

I learnt to drive in New Zealand, where (at least where I was growing up) automatic transmissions were regarded as largely being for old people who were just tootling down to the shops or the bowls club.

Most cheap cars (ie the sort a high school student could afford) were manual transmissions as well, so I learnt to drive a manual and it's been my preference ever since.

I have to say I've never understood the "Complicated to drive in heavy traffic" or "Distracting" arguments- as AK84 mentioned earlier, it's almost instinctive so I just change gears without even thinking about it, regardless of whether it's crawling along in city traffic or heading down the motorway.

Of course, I don't think automatics are "worse" than manuals- I just prefer a manual. But I did wonder why automatic was so prevalent in the US (at least from what I've observed on my visits there) so it's an interesting thread all the same...

Anaamika

07-27-2011, 07:46 AM

You know, with posts like these, I am not exactly convinced to run out and buy a stick. :dubious: I'm sure everyone else loves being patronized to, though, and I'm sure those tactics will work wonders.

I've driven a stick and an automatic, and I definitely prefer the automatic. Who cares about any of those things you guys said? I just want a car to get me from point A to point B with the minimum of fuss. I am the average car driver, except I don't have a bunch of kids in the back. If sticks were the predominant car, I'd get a stick; I wouldn't go against the herd in this respect.

Hell, if I could, I'd probably go to a car that steered itself. I am anxiously awaiting for the Google line of cars that will drive me to my destination. And I like driving...I just am not madly in love with it.

Fake Tales of San Francisco

07-27-2011, 07:47 AM

Here's my memory of how to handle heavy traffic in a manual transmission: Right foot is on the brake, and shift is in neutral. When the car in front of me moves a few feet, my left foot presses the clutch, my right hand puts the car into first gear, and my left foot lets up on the clutch. At this point, if I am going uphill, it is especially important to keep the right foot on the brake until the clutch is fully engaged, to prevent rolling backwards. The right foot can now move from the brake to the gas. A few seconds later, when you've caught up to the car in front, do it all in reverse.

Those are a lot of steps one must use on the manual transmission. I believe that people are being sincere when they say that it becomes second nature after a while. But reaching that point requires a heavy investment of time and effort, and I cannot imagine any "Point A to Point B Steerer" who would consider that investment worthwhile. Where is the payoff? I've never been on a highway and said to myself, "I don't like the gear that the car chose; I wish I could force it up or down."

For me, I feel much safer in a manual transmission car. Maybe the feeling of more control is an illusion, but it's definitely there. I think you're underestimating what people can do, it's not really that much more investment of time. If you don't pick it up quickly though, maybe it just isn't for you. I didn't take me long to learn, but I wont claim that it's the same for everyone. The investment/payoff ratio is irrelevant in other words.

And then there's that I just enjoy the act of driving. I'm not a motor head or anything, I don't know the first thing about car brands or engines etc.

However, your steps are a bit wrong. There are a few possible uphill scenarios.

1. You were parked uphill. In this case your handbrake would be on. Get your clutch and accelerator sorted out, release handbrake and go.

2. You were moving then reached a hill that you need to pause briefly on. In this case there's no need to even use your brake (seriously, braking on a hill?), just find the biting point and wait until things start moving.

3. You were moving then reached a hill and need to pause for a long time. Come to a halt, then use your handbrake to remain stationary. You can't be using your brake pedal whilst using the clutch, because you need some 'gas' to find the biting point again.

I disagree with the people who say automatic is being lazy. I use a netbook at university to take notes - the reason being it's faster and my handwriting is atrocious (always has been, even before I started using computers, I get wrist ache very, very quickly from it too). Maybe it's more lazy if you remove the connotations of 'lazy' being a bad thing, but unfortunately that word comes loaded with the idea that it is somehow wrong or inferior.

And on a motorway, I have wished several times that it has changed gear faster.

Candyman74

07-27-2011, 07:58 AM

It is work because it requires attention, something most Americans don't want to give to the driving task.

I don't think it does, really. Like many things, it becomes second-nature; like walking or cycling. You're not really consciously aware of doing it a lot of the time.

In other news - man, some folks in this thread are really angry about car transmissions!

Sailboat

07-27-2011, 09:47 AM

Several people have mentioned manual transmissions are "uncommon" in the US. I have a stat on how uncommon:

The ability to drive a car equipped with a manual transmission is becoming a dying art. The sales numbers tell the story: In 1985, according to Ward’s Communications, 22.4% of all vehicles sold in the United States came with a manual transmission. By 2007, the number had plummeted to 7.7%.

A quick check of vehicles for sale on AOL Autos tells a similar story. Of the 4,391,747 vehicles recently [2010] listed for sale, only 241,560 -- or 5.5% -- came with a manual.

From this article (http://autos.aol.com/article/stick-shift-love-affair/).

Exapno Mapcase

07-27-2011, 09:49 AM

AK84

07-27-2011, 09:51 AM

Both RaftPeople and I want to know why you think a manual would be easy in heavy traffic.

Here's how I handle heavy traffic in my automatic: When I'm stopped, my right foot is on the brake. When the car in front of me moves a few feet, I let go of the brake, roll forwards a bit, and then use the brake again. Repeat until the traffic clears up.

Here's my memory of how to handle heavy traffic in a manual transmission: Right foot is on the brake, and shift is in neutral. When the car in front of me moves a few feet, my left foot presses the clutch, my right hand puts the car into first gear, and my left foot lets up on the clutch. At this point, if I am going uphill, it is especially important to keep the right foot on the brake until the clutch is fully engaged, to prevent rolling backwards. The right foot can now move from the brake to the gas. A few seconds later, when you've caught up to the car in front, do it all in reverse.

Those are a lot of steps one must use on the manual transmission. I believe that people are being sincere when they say that it becomes second nature after a while. But reaching that point requires a heavy investment of time and effort, and I cannot imagine any "Point A to Point B Steerer" who would consider that investment worthwhile. Where is the payoff? I've never been on a highway and said to myself, "I don't like the gear that the car chose; I wish I could force it up or down."

(Actually, most automatics can be forced down, if I'm not mistaken. Most automatic drivers simply put the car in "drive" and never think about what the "2" and "3" on the shift refer to. If I understand correctly, the "2" prevents the car from going higher than second gear, and the "3" prevents it from going higher than third. And some cars have a button labeled "O", which prevents the car from going into Overdrive, i.e., no higher than fourth. I suppose these would be good when going down a very steep hill, to prevent the car from going too fast. But I have no idea what other sort of situations I'd use them for.)

My God you make it sound like flying the space shuttle. KIf you really know how to drive a manual; the clutch and the gears are just additional controls. If you are parked in heavy traffic on a flat surface, you can just as easily put the car in neutral, pull up the handbrake and thats that.

By the way you are doing it wrong WRT to a hill. Have the clucth semi depressed and give it s bit of gas and the car in first. That should be sufficient to prevent any roll backs.

Smeghead

07-27-2011, 10:04 AM

Speak to me Maddie!

07-27-2011, 10:12 AM

If you're repeatedly catching up to the car in front of you, then it's not just heavy traffic, it's stop-and-go traffic. Which is indeed a hassle, but IME it rarely lasts long. In those cases (and at 4-way stops with loooong lines) I typically let a gap open in front of me before idling forward in first gear. Allowing that gap to grow a bit reduces the frequency with which you need to clutch-in/clutch-out. Watch the big-rigs, and you'll see this is pretty much what they do.You must live in small town. For the millions of people who live in cities like Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, and LA stop-and-go traffic is traffic. Whether one is going down the street to the store, taking the kids to school, or commuting to work it is in stop-and-go traffic. I have an hour and fifteen minute commute to work (repeat to come home). 45 minutes of it is stop-and-go; it is unavoidable. This is the norm for most commuters in Houston.

I learned on a stick because my father made me. After my first car I switched to automatic and never looked back. I find that people who like driving manuals like driving in general. I hate driving. I simply can't understand people who enjoy it at all, but each to their own tastes. For me driving is a terrible chore, a necessary evil. If there were public transport that could get me around I'd use it. If I won the Powerball lottery one of the first luxuries I would indulge would be hiring a full time chauffeur. I beg for the day cars will drive themselves. As for now I welcome whatever can be done to make driving less work me.

Wasting time and energy on something that is not important to you isn't laziness. An automatic transmission is a small but noticeable luxury in my daily driving. I'd do fine without it. But an extra nano-second of acceleration isn't worth the effort. People who aren't car enthusiasts seem to do perfectly well without the near-mythical performance advantages of manual transmissions. Funny that.

AK84

07-27-2011, 10:16 AM

Surreal

07-27-2011, 10:17 AM

I don't know about Europe but here in the US manual transmissions are often associated with proles. It's not simply because manual transmissions are cheaper and capable of being push-started and therefore more appealing to the blue-collar crowd, it's also the machismo and bragging rights associated with insisting on driving a stick shift.

Acsenray

07-27-2011, 10:23 AM

My Dad always said that if you have an automatic you're not really a driver, you're just a "steerer".

You ain't a real driver unless you know how to harness a horse.

Scratch that. You ain't really driving unless you're standing next to an ox trying to persuade it to move forward. That's when having a stick is a huge advantage. Otherwise, all you can do is yell.

I've driven a stick and an automatic, and I definitely prefer the automatic. Who cares about any of those things you guys said? I just want a car to get me from point A to point B with the minimum of fuss.

Damn straight. I'm much more concerned about the quality of the seats, the air conditioning, and the built-in Ipod controls. Who gives a fuck about the transmission?

No umlaut for U

07-27-2011, 10:30 AM

I learned stick in a Rambler Classic. In college, I had to drive drunken yahoos home in a Ford Mustang. In a job I drove an old object similar to a Chevy Suburban. All 3 had different configurations. Strike one.
Not everyone in the US lives in the Flatlands. Learning stick in any of the hilly terrains is either suicidal or homicidal. Strike two.
The US is becoming more urban. Yonks ago, kids learned stick in the farm pickup truck on lanes and gravel roads. When they got their first car, they already knew stick. Dying lifestyle, strike three.
I also suspect that as even the healthiest person ages they know someone, or heard of a FoaF, that was essentially unable to get to work/stranded because they had a stick shift car and injured a foot/wrist/back. Stick shifts don't seem attractive after having that happen.

Krouget

07-27-2011, 10:36 AM

More power to them. But I'd still call it lazy, because they are giving up genuine performance (and possible safety) benefits for a savings in effort. There's nothing wrong with that--all of us make similar tradeoffs in different situations--but it's still lazy.
Isn't it a bit condescending to characterize anyone who doesn't drive a clutch-manual as lazy? We don't use cranks to turn engines, anymore, and we don't use chokes...a clutch-driven manual is inefficient in most modern cars, these days, just like devices of old.

For much of the major cities in America, we exist as a car culture, where we use our vehicles for many tasks. Keeping your engine within it's powerband isn't critical to achieving those tasks. The goal is to get the task done, not necessarily how, especially in A to B travel situations, which even in a clutch-manual, is what the majority of us do. The development and proliferation of autos, pretty much reinforces this.

So far as traffic is concerned, I drive both a manual performance car and an auto/clutchless manual performance car. For anyone who actually has driven a manual for quite a period of time, they'll know that it's largely secondary, and doesn't require much effort-- for me, that means it's no more fun or exciting in most of my daily commuting, just as I don't get excited about pedaling a bike or breathing while walking. If you're bored while operating a car in traffic, it's largely because traffic sucks, in whatever you drive. Traffic = junk driving, period.

As to safety, any day of the week, the auto is more practical for daily driving needs, and leaves considerably less room for error. That's leagues safer than letting the human side of people get the better of them, potentially missing a shift or stalling at an inopportune moment, which I've seen happen a number of times to drivers. If the idea is that under performance driving, that manual control is safer, then I really question the idea behind someone arguing safety, while "performance driving" on the street.

As to genuine performance, the clutch-manual loses there, too. Lifting off the throttle mid-turn, then reapplying, is a greater detriment to consistent performance, than is the ability to shift mid-turn, while staying on throttle. This is especially the case when you include the fact that modern autos shift faster, and never "miss" a shift. At least in my autoX/course experience, I've always preferred my clutchless auto, as it's far more precise, quick, and allows me to focus on my heading, brake points, and other important details which help reduce lap times, which in the end, determines if I'm getting better or not. In my opinion, controlling a car should be easy and predictable as possible. Micro-managing details which don't directly add to performance, hurts this.

Does driving a clutch-manual feel good? It sure does, but the advantages are either minor, selective/situational, or largely subjective.

I think it's just the case that they view cars as much more of a "point A to point B" device than men do, and care very little about the situations where manuals have an advantage (handling at the edge of traction, etc.).
Again, most people drive conservatively and will over-brake long before they get to the edge of traction. You then have car makes which dial in a measure of understeer, in even most track oriented performance cars. Though I'm honestly interested in which advantages you're talking about, there are many more at or below the level of traction loss, which favor the auto, making it a moot point if quantifying advantages.

And as a funny side thought, most people don't really take care of their tires, so I REALLY hope they aren't pushing traction limits, while relying on the gearbox to somehow have much influence. I'd say most are inclined to panic, and so realistically, any gearbox advantage is a non-starter.

Bytegeist

07-27-2011, 10:37 AM

(Actually, most automatics can be forced down, if I'm not mistaken. Most automatic drivers simply put the car in "drive" and never think about what the "2" and "3" on the shift refer to. If I understand correctly, the "2" prevents the car from going higher than second gear, and the "3" prevents it from going higher than third. ... I suppose these would be good when going down a very steep hill, to prevent the car from going too fast. But I have no idea what other sort of situations I'd use them for.)

I believe you're meant to use those special "gears" in slippery conditions, so you can rev the engine a bit while constraining it to a low gear. On a couple occasions I've had to drive through ice patches, while going up a sloping driveway or street, and using the "D2" setting did seem to help.

Having a car with four-wheel drive would be even better for that, of course, but that's a different matter.

Hampshire

07-27-2011, 10:42 AM

I drove sticks for the first 19 years of my driving career (I guess that puts me in the cool kids club huh?). Sure you got better traction control, acceleration control, blah, blah, blah. But let's face it, for 95% of your daily driving you're not out there on a road rally course.
I switched to automatics about 6 years ago and I'll never go back. They are just way more practical for daily driving situations.
Try drinking a daily cup of coffee on the way to work in a manual. It's a pain in the ass. You have to essentially hold the bottom of the cup with your right hand thumb and index finger and shift with the other 3 fingers trying not to dump hot joe over your hand.
And driving stick in stop-n-go traffic sucks balls. It's non-stop footwork working that clutch up and down and jostling between the gas and brake with the other foot. Way, waay easier to just ease up on the brake and creep forward in an automatic.
Sure, sticks are the "FUN" way to drive but practicality wise they just don't cut it.

Small Clanger

07-27-2011, 10:43 AM

Ok why exactly is a stick "work"? If you know how to drive properly it is instinctive... My God you make it sound like flying the space shuttle... Done any trips round the M25 in the last ten years?

I spent 20 years driving manuals and I know what you mean by instinctive, gearchanging becomes a completely unconscious action. If the clutch is light it's pretty much effortless. However, on a bad* day a fifty-plus mile trek on the British motorway system can require hundreds of stop/start cycles. I now drive an automatic, not going back.

* that is to say, typical.

Acsenray

07-27-2011, 10:43 AM

If the idea is that under performance driving, that manual control is safer, then I really question the idea behind someone arguing safety, while "performance driving" on the street.

Much of Dr. Strangelove's essay on performance driving sounds like stuff that shouldn't come up at all in normal traffic.

Prelude to Fascination

07-27-2011, 10:53 AM

Speaking only for myself, of course, here's my justification: I just don't care about driving. It's not an experience, it's not a feeling, it's not a thrill. It's a chore. It's something I must do to get from here to there, "here" and "there" being the places where my life occurs. So. I have two major options in how to do this. One requires an extra foot, an extra hand, and a whole lot of fiddly adjusting more than the other option. I choose the option that's simpler. Why add all those extra steps to something when I don't have to? I have yet to hear a justification that I find at all compelling.

Bolding mine.

I think this is a common feeling, and I'm not making a judgment, but it's a point of view I don't share. In fact, I'm the opposite--while driving certainly is a something I do to get from here to there, to me, it is a thrill. I love driving. I love the command and control I have to go where I want. (It's not a power game over others when I say "command and control," but I have control over where and when I go.)

Even though I drive a 4-cylinder Camry with over 200,000 miles, I often think of the picnic scene in The Hustler when I'm driving. The one where Eddie's talking about how he and the cue stick are one...the stick's a piece of wood, but it's got nerves in it, and he has ball bearings in his shoulder. That's how I often feel when I'm driving.

When you get used to a car, and know its nuances, how it handles (whether it's a Porsche or Chevy), what it can and can't do, and you enjoy the experience of driving, then all I can say is driving a stick just enhances the experience that much more.

Keeve

07-27-2011, 11:08 AM

My God you make it sound like flying the space shuttle. If you really know how to drive a manual; the clutch and the gears are just additional controls.My point is that even if a manual is even slightly harder than an automatic, it's still not worth it. Except for the price, I just don't see the advantage. I don't understand what the car guys are referring to when they say that a manual gives better "control". My accelerator works, my steering wheel works, and my brakes work; how much more control do I need?

For example, you yourself wroteMe; I live in the Himalayas. I have yet to find a hill climb mode in an automatic that I can trust.I really don't get it. I'm driving up a mountain, and sometimes I want to go faster, and sometimes I want to go slower, and I have no trouble doing that with a automatic, provided it isn't 10 years old and dying. Why don't you "trust" them?

By the way, everyone, the opinions being expressed here have tempted me several times to suggest that this thread be moved to IMHO. But I don't because we really are trying to get some factual information here. Speaking purely for myself, an admitted "Point A to Point B Steerer" (who DID buy a manual about 25 years ago, but then gave up on it), I really would like to know what sort of driving advantages people find using a manual in everyday city driving. Again, don't tell me that using a stick becomes easy and natural; tell me what the advantages are.

Anne Neville

07-27-2011, 11:10 AM

svd678

07-27-2011, 11:17 AM

Speak to me Maddie!

07-27-2011, 11:21 AM

^
Come to any city in South Asia. Or London or Paris even. The traffic there is worse than any I have seen anywhere. Yet most people do well with manuals.

I also hate driving. I however pefer manuals; because they give me control over the vehical. At least there is a semi-sentinent human being telling the car what to do, not the machine.I was responding to Machine Elf not really making a statement about driving in general. Yes, excepting the disabled, everyone would do just fine with manual transmissions if that is all that existed. We'd all do just fine without most of the convenience features on modern automobiles. That's not the point.

The reason this argument gets people fed up is that manual transmission aficianados tend to accuse automatic users as being lazy, ignorant, and now according to you, inhuman :rolleyes:. The fact is that we have different values. You have a deep need to feel in control over the gear shifting portion of your automobile. I don't. I perfectly fine letting "the machine" do the shifting, especially since it does a great job at it. I'm also fine letting the machine control a number of other features in my car's operation. It is a personal preference. My previous post just listed why I have that preference.

BDoors

07-27-2011, 11:21 AM

By the way, everyone, the opinions being expressed here have tempted me several times to suggest that this thread be moved to IMHO. But I don't because we really are trying to get some factual information here.
Well, I think the question is really "How come Europeans drive stick shifts", and that question has been answered - it was originally for economic reasons, which led to a feedback mechanism which made and continues to make manuals more popular in Europe..

All things being equal, I thing most new drivers would opt for some kind of automatic transmission. But things weren't equal back when car ownership was taking off, and here we are. I don't think the points from enthusiasts about better control and so on is relevant. Most people aren't enthusiasts, automatics are not hugely inferior to manuals in those regards, and most driving is mundane anyway.

jz78817

07-27-2011, 11:38 AM

Bolding mine.

I think this is a common feeling, and I'm not making a judgment, but it's a point of view I don't share. In fact, I'm the opposite--while driving certainly is a something I do to get from here to there, to me, it is a thrill. I love driving. I love the command and control I have to go where I want. (It's not a power game over others when I say "command and control," but I have control over where and when I go.)

I don't think anyone is taking issue with your mindset. In fact, I'd wager that the majority of people who drive a manual-equipped car are like you. The bristling and backlash is against the loud minority who go on and on about how they "can't understand" why other people don't like manuals, or the other put-downs about "laziness" or whatever.

it's kind of like Jeff Foxworthy said (paraphrased) "southerners are no dumber overall than the rest of the country, it's just that we can't keep the dumbest of us off of the TV."

For what it's worth, both of my cars are stick shift, and I made the conscious choice to go that way with both of them. One wasn't even offered with an automatic, and the other I ordered with a stick. But at least I have the honesty to say there are situations here and there where I would prefer to have an auto. stop and go traffic is the big one. or when traffic's just barely crawling along, slower than I can idle in first gear. then it's constantly clutch-in/clutch-out.

Krouget

07-27-2011, 11:38 AM

I don't understand what the car guys are referring to when they say that a manual gives better "control". My accelerator works, my steering wheel works, and my brakes work; how much more control do I need?
A manual, both clutch and non-clutch driven ones, will offer more control, in the sense that the driver can better relay their intentions to the car. On a course, where the drivers intentions, demands, and rate of speed/environmental change are typically faster than a normal auto gearbox, it makes perfect sense to be able to have manual control, so that you can preempt the oncoming situation.

The thing is, in most daily driving, it's just not necessary, and most people try to overextend the manual advantage, by creating situations where it's unique. You're 100% right-- your pedals, steering, and gearbox all work great, within the realm of what they'll most likely be used for. By design, most US roads and traffic systems are designed to be predictable and consistent, to meet the majority demand. So again, the proliferation of autos simply makes sense and is expected.

I believe the other major breakdown, is people somehow relate car control to overall driver skill, which while related, should have a clear distinction in these types of debates. It's a given, than in today's market, most people who opt to drive clutch-manuals, are probably driving enthusiast, and so the relationship lends to a more attentive and dedicated driver.

However, control over gear selection, by itself, doesn't make them skilled or even good drivers. Again, most seasoned manual drivers can shift as easily as they walk. These same drivers would easily be in over their heads under actual performance demands, though, which is when the distinction above, comes into play.

jz78817

07-27-2011, 11:42 AM

that's the other thing. for spirited driving or driving on the track, a manual (or at least full manual control e.g. a manumatic or DCT/DSG) is absolutely the way to go. an experienced driver knows the car well enough to be able to know what gear to be in at pretty much any point.

but for non-performance driving, the PCM/TCM are far, far better than any human at knowing what gear to be in for optimum fuel economy.

Rain Soaked

07-27-2011, 11:50 AM

Slightly off topic but a funny true story.

A friend was coming to the US from Spain and had only driven manual stick shift cars. (This was about 1990). He had never driven an automatic. When he rented the car over the phone, he specifically mentioned several times he wanted a manual.

When he arrived to pick up the car at the rental agency, he found that it was an automatic transmission. He then noticed, on the the passenger side seat, was carefully placed the Owner's Manual.

I now return you to your regular AUTOMATIC Best - No, MANUAL Best argument currently in progress.

Dahnlor

07-27-2011, 12:27 PM

I learned to drive in high school using an automatic transmission. I don't think any driving schools in America even have manual transmission cars (I could be wrong). The advantage of learning on an automatic is that you can focus more on the rules of the road rather than the particulars of using the clutch and stick shift correctly.

My parents taught me how to drive a stick after I got my learner's permit. When I sold my old manual transmission Honda to a friend, I needed to teach him how to drive it.

Bytegeist

07-27-2011, 12:31 PM

To me, driving is at best a chore, on a par with vacuuming or cleaning the cat box.

If only Roombas would also clean cat boxes.

kenobi 65

07-27-2011, 12:44 PM

I don't think any driving schools in America even have manual transmission cars (I could be wrong).

Few, if any, "elementary" driving schools (i.e., those which teach 16-year-olds the fundamentals, in order for them to obtain a driver's license) probably do anymore. Performance or racing schools undoubtedly do still have cars with manual transmissions, but the reasons for that have already been beaten to death in this thread. :)

Prelude to Fascination

07-27-2011, 01:45 PM

I don't think anyone is taking issue with your mindset. In fact, I'd wager that the majority of people who drive a manual-equipped car are like you. The bristling and backlash is against the loud minority who go on and on about how they "can't understand" why other people don't like manuals, or the other put-downs about "laziness" or whatever.

it's kind of like Jeff Foxworthy said (paraphrased) "southerners are no dumber overall than the rest of the country, it's just that we can't keep the dumbest of us off of the TV."

For what it's worth, both of my cars are stick shift, and I made the conscious choice to go that way with both of them. One wasn't even offered with an automatic, and the other I ordered with a stick. But at least I have the honesty to say there are situations here and there where I would prefer to have an auto. stop and go traffic is the big one. or when traffic's just barely crawling along, slower than I can idle in first gear. then it's constantly clutch-in/clutch-out.

I may have been pre-emptive with someone taking issue with my mindset. :D

But I'll say those who "don't understand" why others prefer to drive a stick probably won't understand no matter how it's explained. Just as I'll never understand, no matter how rationally it's explained, how someone can like/appreciate rap music.

For the record, I don't put down those who prefer automatics. My Camry is an automatic, and every car I've had for the last 10-15 years has been an auto shifter. But if I were getting a new car that's not a family car (is the term "family car" still used? If not generally, it still is as far as I'm concerned), I'd seriously consider a stick. But I realize I'm in the minority, and that's okay by me.

aruvqan

07-27-2011, 02:08 PM

Try drinking a daily cup of coffee on the way to work in a manual. It's a pain in the ass. You have to essentially hold the bottom of the cup with your right hand thumb and index finger and shift with the other 3 fingers trying not to dump hot joe over your hand.
.

*cough*cup holder*cough*

Hampshire

07-27-2011, 02:14 PM

*cough*cup holder*cough* = Pain in the ass.

Pick up cup, sip, set down, shift, pick up, sip, set down, shift..... wow this really sucks.

Machine Elf

07-27-2011, 02:27 PM

= Pain in the ass.

Pick up cup, sip, set down, shift, pick up, sip, set down, shift..... wow this really sucks.

The scenario you're describing is a lot of shifting, which implies city driving. I'm all for grabbing sip of something while cruising the highway with sparse traffic, but in the city, we'd all appreciate it if you'd just focus on the driving task, thank you very much. This is true regardless of whether you're driving a stick or an auto.

Is there really no time before or after your drive to drink that coffee? Must the coffee be consumed while you drive? It's awfully hard to simultaneously hit the horn and steer through an evasive maneuver when there's a cup of coffee in one hand.

Throatwarbler Mangrove

07-27-2011, 02:32 PM

To me, driving is at best a chore, on a par with vacuuming or cleaning the cat box. It's something that has to get done, and that I'd rather do with the least possible effort.

I wouldn't welcome any change to vacuuming or cleaning the cat box that required me to expend more effort to get the same result. Why would I want driving to require more effort? I don't care about having control over those chores, either. I just want them to be done. If someone else did them, thus depriving me of all control over them but making it so I don't have to do them, I'd be happy.

I'll be one of the first in line for a self-driving car, when they come out. If one of you people who enjoyed driving would be willing to volunteer to drive people like me around, that would be fine, too.

I guess I can pity you in the same way that I pity everyone who ends up doing mindless chores from which they derive no enjoyment. I don't enjoy driving in bumper to bumper traffic, so I never do it. I bike, walk, or take public transportation for that. My car is only for the fun drives and I can't remember the last time I wasn't having fun with my car.

Yet apparently the world is filled with people who buy cars, drive them every day, use up valuable non-renewable resources and pollute the air, all under protest. :(

Speak to me Maddie!

07-27-2011, 02:39 PM

Yet apparently the world is filled with people who buy cars, drive them every day, use up valuable non-renewable resources and pollute the air, all under protest. :(I know right. What people will do to not end up destitute and homeless. :rolleyes:

Acsenray

07-27-2011, 02:40 PM

Yet apparently the world is filled with people who buy cars, drive them every day, use up valuable non-renewable resources and pollute the air, all under protest. :(

What world do you live in? The vast majority of Americans live in circumstances in which we couldn't hold jobs, or go to school, or run errands, or go where we want to go to have fun without cars. Cars are a utility to us, not a toy.

Keeve

07-27-2011, 02:48 PM

I bike, walk, or take public transportation for that. My car is only for the fun drives and I can't remember the last time I wasn't having fun with my car.I'm guessing that your job is reasonably close to home, and I envy you for that.
I'm also guessing that your family is small enough that a trip to the supermarket can come home with you on the bus. I envy the bus system in your area, but I'll keep my opinions about living alone to myself.

suranyi

07-27-2011, 02:56 PM

I guess I can pity you in the same way that I pity everyone who ends up doing mindless chores from which they derive no enjoyment. I don't enjoy driving in bumper to bumper traffic, so I never do it. I bike, walk, or take public transportation for that. My car is only for the fun drives and I can't remember the last time I wasn't having fun with my car.

Yet apparently the world is filled with people who buy cars, drive them every day, use up valuable non-renewable resources and pollute the air, all under protest. :(

Driving is never fun for me. I get a backache if I sit in the driver's seat too long.

Dr. Strangelove

07-27-2011, 05:23 PM

Again, don't tell me that using a stick becomes easy and natural; tell me what the advantages are.

I gave some of them in post #25. Here are a few more.

- The engine braking effect is stronger in general. In fact, for some kinds of dense traffic (the usual claimed weak point for manuals), this leads to an easier driving experience. When traffic is slow, but not complete stop-and-go, I can often stay in 2nd gear, vary my speed between around 8 and 30 mph, and never have to touch the brake. If I leave a decent gap ahead of me, I can handle a little bit of stop-and-go.

- Manuals allow you to accelerate more quickly without (necessarily) increasing fuel consumption. Engines are most efficient at wide-open-throttle, but are less efficient at high RPMs. With an automatic, if I floor it, the transmission will decide to increase my shift points, leading to a decrease in efficiency. With a manual, I can floor it but still shift at the normal RPM, which means that I am achieving peak acceleration for a given level of efficiency.

- Driving up hills in an automatic is often a recipe for constant shifting. This is not only hard on the transmission, but gives unpredictable throttle response.

- Manuals force people to learn how to drive with one hand. The two-handed 10-and-2 monkey grip that everyone was taught to use is, IMHO, terrible--you lose the fine precision that your fingers have. Its only place is parking-lot driving where you need fast hand-over-hand turning.

- I can push-start my manual in a pinch :).

My accelerator works, my steering wheel works, and my brakes work; how much more control do I need?

When shopping for a car, did you pay any attention at all to the horsepower? If so, why? I'm sure the lower-powered car "works" when it comes to acceleration. Of course, you recognize that there are many situations where high acceleration is important, and even utterly critical to safety, such as merging into traffic or passing a car. Maybe you got the low-powered car anyway for other reasons, but surely you recognized that high power is an advantage on its own.

The same goes for manuals. You have every right to dismiss their advantages as being unimportant compared to their subjective difficulty disadvantage. But to essentially say that their advantages are zero is a statement of ignorance--the advantages are there even if you don't know about them.

It's likely that you've been on hairy the edge of control more often than you know about. Maybe you didn't spot that patch of black ice or oil, or maybe you were hydroplaning and didn't notice. Extra control is always useful even if falls below your awareness.

Irishman

07-27-2011, 05:28 PM

Not caught up, but jumping in before going home.

I learned to drive in an auto, but also in a '65 Chevy pickup: 3 on the column. Plus, this particular truck had a less than stellar repair where the steering wheel had about 160 deg of free float without affecting steering. And manual non-power steering to boot. My first personal car was an auto, but the car I bought after college was a manual, in part due to cost. I drove it for ~8 years. Then I switched to an automatic.

Primary drivers to going to an automatic transmission was the hassle of gear shifting and clutchwork in traffic, especially stop and go - like the times I'd get caught on a freeway in creep mode. That kind of workout for the legs was unpleasant.

I also wanted a cruise control.

The observed disadvantage of the manual is the car doesn't anticipate my needs. When I want to accelerate quickly to, say, merge traffic onto the interstate around all the crazy drivers who don't give much space, I have to hit the accelerator and wait for it to spool up. That requires some timing to get right. It's not particularly more complicated than manual shifting, though, or otherwise timing your intercept. Just sometimes it would be nice to have a little more finesse on the gear.

But hey, it's a trade off, and one well worth avoiding the hassles of shifting/clutchwork.

As far as why Americans prefer autos over manuals while Europeans prefer manuals over autos, I think the big pressures have been addressed. Differences in car styles and fuel costs, differences in attitude about what the cars meant, and licensing differences. The US does not distinguish on licenses between the two. Perhaps they should, but they don't.

I think motivationally, yes it is a challenge to learn a manual. Sure, it becomes more second nature with practice, but it takes a fair amount of practice to become proficient, and all that practice time gives lots of negative feedback. Once Americans were learning primarily in automatics, there's little incentive for most to take on the burden of manuals. So it is a self-feeding practice. More people learn first on autos, autos are more prevalent, fewer people take the time/effort to learn manuals, manuals become rarer, leads to fewer people learning manuals.

Ok why exactly is a stick "work"? If you know how to drive properly it is instinctive.

It's work to pump a clutch, to switch between brake and accelerator in combo with clutch, to wiggle the shifter in synch with the pedals. In a trip down the street with a handful of stoplights, it's not that bad, but if you find yourself stopping frequently or creeping in a line, it gets to be murder quickly.

And has been mentioned, anyone with physical ailments has discovered just how much work it is. Have a bum left knee and you'll have a real chore getting anywhere.

My own WAG that the ones who find it difficult and work are those who learnt to drive in automatics; those who learnt to drive in manauals do not have that problem.

Your WAG is incorrect, at least for me. I learned simultaneously on both types. As I said, I have driven as my primary vehicle a manual. An auto is easier. Takes less coordination, less contemplation of what gear you are in vs need to be in, less use of arms and legs. It is much easier to, for instance, drink coffee or a soda in an automatic than a manual.

Oh yeah, those mentioning using a handbrake - the first truck I learned in didn't have a hand brake - the parking brake was a foot pedal as well. With the release by your left knee, requiring a pull and twist. Yeah, that's easier than using the regular brake pedal. (Also, the brights switch was a foot button on the floorboard.)

Keeve

07-27-2011, 05:46 PM

Thank you, Dr. Strangelove. I'm starting to understand what you're talking about.But to essentially say that their advantages are zero is a statement of ignoranceI don't recall saying that. What I've tried to say is that to a person such as myself, who uses the car only to get from Point A to Point B, the advantages are not worth the investment of time that is needed to learn how to use the manual transmission in the ways that you've described.

Again, so I'm not misunderstood: You've raised some very interesting examples of where a manual transmission is clearly a good thing. But in my opinion, those examples don't happen often enough, or make a big enough difference. to justify the time and practice that are required to reach a level of proficiency where it would make a big enough difference.

chiroptera

07-27-2011, 05:49 PM

To amplify a couple of Dr Strangelove's points:

Brakes. When driving an automatic, you use the brakes more heavily, and go through brakes more frequently.

Mountain driving: I used to live at over 10,000 feet and commuted daily to much lower elevations. I am sure that today's slushboxes are infinitely better, but in 1985 I purchased a Chevy Blazer manual...l.except there was this STUPID little light that told you when to shift. My thought at the time and still is: if you need a nanny-light to tell you when to shift, drive a freaking automatic.

Mountain driving part deux: I loathed that Blazer for many reasons - but one notable reason was because the stupid thing would lug up hills unless you ignored the nanny. Which I always did.

True story: my ex-husband got a speeding ticket going up highway 24 and successfully fought it by telling the judge there was no way he could have been going the speed claimed because the car "woudln't let him" go that fast.

That said - although I am mildly alarmed at the number of people who view their vehicles as "A to B machines" or "appliances" because your possibly crappy driving habits influence my safety, the safety of people I care about as well as my insurance rates, I accept that living in the real world means living with people I'd rather not live with.

Candyman74

07-27-2011, 06:04 PM

Again, don't tell me that using a stick becomes easy and natural; tell me what the advantages are.

Why? I don't think anybody here is trying to sell you one. It appears that admitting a preference for a manual gets people angry at you round here. Explaining why we like it gets people accusing us of all sorts of things.

Not worth it. Just drive the car you like, so will I, so will everybody else.

Dr. Strangelove

07-27-2011, 06:16 PM

Thank you, Dr. Strangelove. I'm starting to understand what you're talking about.I don't recall saying that.

I was paraphrasing--perhaps poorly. What you said was this:

My point is that even if a manual is even slightly harder than an automatic, it's still not worth it.

Normally, when we do a cost/benefit analysis, we subtract the cost of a thing from the benefit and if the answer is negative, we conclude that the thing is not worth it. What you're saying is that even an arbitrarily small cost makes manuals not worth it, and the only conclusion I can take from that is that you see the benefit as zero.

But in my opinion, those examples don't happen often enough, or make a big enough difference. to justify the time and practice that are required to reach a level of proficiency where it would make a big enough difference.

That may well be true, and everybody is going to have different weighting factors on their cost/benefit analysis. But that's a somewhat different statement than the one you made earlier. If you think those situations aren't too common for your mode of driving and you think manuals are therefore too much work in comparison, I wouldn't question it (though I still think everyone should try).

One more thing, but somewhat tangential:
Like chiroptera, I am somewhat distressed at the number of people who view their cars as mere A-to-B machines. I think this is a self-fulfilling prophecy to a large extent: you hate driving, therefore you do everything in your power to turn driving into a task that you pay as little attention as possible to, therefore you hate driving even more due to it being so unstimulating. Rinse and repeat.

I think these people wouldn't be so unhappy if they bought a car that didn't maximize practicality at the expense of all else, maybe used a manual to keep things more interesting, didn't always take the exact same (shortest) route to work every day, occasionally just went for a drive to someplace new, and so on. If you start off by viewing driving as a chore, then it will always feel like one, but it doesn't have to be that way.

chiroptera

07-27-2011, 06:22 PM

Hello Again

07-27-2011, 06:35 PM

Like chiroptera, I am somewhat distressed at the number of people who view their cars as mere A-to-B machines. I think this is a self-fulfilling prophecy to a large extent: you hate driving, therefore you do everything in your power to turn driving into a task that you pay as little attention as possible to, therefore you hate driving even more due to it being so unstimulating. Rinse and repeat.

I think these people wouldn't be so unhappy if they bought a car that didn't maximize practicality at the expense of all else, maybe used a manual to keep things more interesting, didn't always take the exact same (shortest) route to work every day, occasionally just went for a drive to someplace new, and so on. If you start off by viewing driving as a chore, then it will always feel like one, but it doesn't have to be that way.
I don't hate driving because it's boring I hate driving because it's stressful. You know what you REALLY don't want sharing the road with you? Me, stalled out in 4 lanes of fast-moving traffic, weeping.

Dr. Strangelove

07-27-2011, 06:45 PM

I don't hate driving because it's boring I hate driving because it's stressful. You know what you REALLY don't want sharing the road with you? Me, stalled out in 4 lanes of fast-moving traffic, weeping.

Well, that is unfortunate. Driving doesn't stress me out at all, though admittedly I've never had to deal with a stalled car in heavy traffic.

Are you stressed in less extreme situations? If so, I wonder if training would help. I know a couple of drivers that become stressed in traffic, but it's because their skill level is simply not very high. They aren't dumb, but for whatever reason they just never got a good handle on common maneuvers like merging into traffic. So they end up always being stressed because they are always a step or two behind where they should be.

Automatics simplify the process of driving but they also have the effect of isolating the driver from the road. This may be a net negative in the long run if it means the driver never perceives the car as a natural extension of the body.

GreasyJack

07-27-2011, 06:58 PM

- The engine braking effect is stronger in general. In fact, for some kinds of dense traffic (the usual claimed weak point for manuals), this leads to an easier driving experience. When traffic is slow, but not complete stop-and-go, I can often stay in 2nd gear, vary my speed between around 8 and 30 mph, and never have to touch the brake. If I leave a decent gap ahead of me, I can handle a little bit of stop-and-go.

Firstly, this is a bug, not a feature. Your brakes are what are SUPPOSED to stop the car. Driving around in a too-low gear to stop your car just around town is dreadfully hard on your drivetrain. Furthermore, this exact same effect could be achieved on an automatic by shifting down into a lower gear.

- Manuals allow you to accelerate more quickly without (necessarily) increasing fuel consumption. Engines are most efficient at wide-open-throttle, but are less efficient at high RPMs. With an automatic, if I floor it, the transmission will decide to increase my shift points, leading to a decrease in efficiency. With a manual, I can floor it but still shift at the normal RPM, which means that I am achieving peak acceleration for a given level of efficiency.

This is utter nonsense. This short shifting technique you describe is worse both for acceleration AND fuel economy.

- Driving up hills in an automatic is often a recipe for constant shifting. This is not only hard on the transmission, but gives unpredictable throttle response.
Again, simply downshifting an automatic will solve this problem. In doing so, you're doing the exact same thing you'd do with a manual-- namely you're just leaving it in the lower gear.

- Manuals force people to learn how to drive with one hand. The two-handed 10-and-2 monkey grip that everyone was taught to use is, IMHO, terrible--you lose the fine precision that your fingers have. Its only place is parking-lot driving where you need fast hand-over-hand turning.
I think this is a sort of bizarre point. What exactly is wrong with this so-called "monkey grip"? Two hands on the wheel are almost always better than one in an emergency situation and really I'd argue forcing you to drive with one hand is a major disadvantage of the stick (assuming you wouldn't otherwise just have a cup of coffee or a cell phone in the other hand).

- I can push-start my manual in a pinch :).

Not necessarily. Most modern cars say roll starts are a no-no because they can damage the catalyst.

The same goes for manuals. You have every right to dismiss their advantages as being unimportant compared to their subjective difficulty disadvantage. But to essentially say that their advantages are zero is a statement of ignorance--the advantages are there even if you don't know about them.

Manuals once had many clear advantages, but this is simply no longer the case. I drive nothing but manuals, but I admit it's simply because I think they're fun to drive. When not trying to justify manual transmissions to spouses and employers, we must be honest with ourselves and eschew pseudo-rational justifications and embrace the stick for the irrational joy it is!

chiroptera

07-27-2011, 06:58 PM

I have, more than once.

Still trying to figure out why stalling out in traffic = weeping, though. Wouldn't a more effective strategy be: figure out problem , then contact someone who can help?

Weeping as an automatic, go-to response to something as mundane as stalling in traffic seems to me a pretty helpless and weak response.

Well, that is unfortunate. Driving doesn't stress me out at all, though admittedly I've never had to deal with a stalled car in heavy traffic.

.

Dr. Strangelove

07-27-2011, 07:25 PM

Firstly, this is a bug, not a feature. Your brakes are what are SUPPOSED to stop the car. Driving around in a too-low gear to stop your car just around town is dreadfully hard on your drivetrain. Furthermore, this exact same effect could be achieved on an automatic by shifting down into a lower gear.

The drivetrain is designed to handle these stresses, and engine braking is a perfectly legitimate way to slow the car. Now, I don't advocate intentionally downshifting to slow down, the way some teach--it does add to the clutch wear--but sticking to a single gear is no problem.

This is utter nonsense. This short shifting technique you describe is worse both for acceleration AND fuel economy.

You may have misunderstood what I'm claiming. Or I wasn't clear. Let's go through some possibilities:
1) Normal, casual driving in a manual: easy on the accelerator, shift at 3k (or whatever)
2) More aggressive driving in a manual: hard on the accelerator, still shift at 3k. Better acceleration than 1 without significantly increased consumption.
3) Very aggressive driving in a manual: Hard on the accelerator, shift at redline. Better acceleration than 2, at the expense of consumption and engine wear.
4) Normal driving in an automatic: Easy on the accelerator. Roughly the same as 1.
5) More aggressive in an auto: Harder on the accelerator. Better acceleration, but the transmission alters shift points, increasing wear and consumption (including losses from the torque converter).
6) Very aggressive in an auto: Similar results to 3, though with slightly more losses from the torque converter.

I'm claiming just that option 2 is better than 5.

Again, simply downshifting an automatic will solve this problem. In doing so, you're doing the exact same thing you'd do with a manual-- namely you're just leaving it in the lower gear.

Most autos don't have enough flexibility. In particular, virtually none allow you to force the transmission to stay at the highest gear.

I think this is a sort of bizarre point. What exactly is wrong with this so-called "monkey grip"?

I'll grant that his is purely an IMHO point, and to be honest, it's something that came out of my flying lessons. My instructor showed me that the lightest touch is almost always the best touch, and that for most situations, you should be able to fly "with two fingers". I feel that this translates to cars as well.

Perhaps I am mixing causation with correlation, but it sure seems like the worst drivers I know keep an iron grip on the wheel, as if that somehow helped their technique. The wheel doesn't require much strength--it's precision that counts. Fingers have high precision, but arms don't.

Two hands on the wheel are almost always better than one in an emergency situation

It depends on the emergency, but sure, I'll grant that there are some cases. I'll just say that I can (and will) move my hand back to the wheel in less time than it takes to consciously process a given event.

Not necessarily. Most modern cars say roll starts are a no-no because they can damage the catalyst.

Like I said--in a pinch. Last time I had to do that, the integrity of the cat was the last thing on my mind.

Manuals once had many clear advantages, but this is simply no longer the case.

Well, I can't agree. But they are definitely fun. And I think having fun has a definite positive effect on overall skill (and probably safety).

R. P. McMurphy

07-27-2011, 07:29 PM

Yah this.

In most (not all) vehicles, gas mileage will be better with a stick.
Operating costs -brakes, clutch v transmission, etc: typically much cheaper with a stick.
Some people prefer the "control" they get with a manual trans; apparently this is not important to the majority. And that is OK.

So, get what you like, enjoy it and don't feel you need to justify a darned thing.

Technology is changing all of this. Almost all car manufacturers are moving towards a hybrid system. To operate most efficiently and get best fuel economy a hybrid has to have an automatic transmission, sometimes an infinitely variable transmission. A hybrid system saves on brake wear because the system uses the braking to regenerate the batteries.

People can hang on to their manual transmissions but the the fact is that there are a whole lot of situations where an automatic is better than a manual. You can always cite those few circumstance as an excuse but in the real world it doesn't hold up. Like seat belts, there is always the situation where a seat belt caused a problem. (I had the horror of witnessing such a case but that didn't make me quit wearing a seat belt.) Is that a reason to ignore the thousands of lives that have been saved?

Generally, people tend to think they are better drivers and better lovers than they really are. Sometimes a reality check is in order.

Dr. Strangelove

07-27-2011, 07:38 PM

Like seat belts, there is always the situation where a seat belt caused a problem.

This is a very odd comparison. The analogy works far better in reverse: "seat belts are inconvenient and I almost never encounter situations where they are helpful; therefore I'll stick to not wearing one."

That said, you are correct that hybrid and other advanced systems will make the current style of manual style of transmission obsolete. But they also make the current style of automatics obsolete. There are a variety of types on the market today that don't resemble either standard type.

GreasyJack

07-27-2011, 07:46 PM

You may have misunderstood what I'm claiming. Or I wasn't clear. Let's go through some possibilities:
1) Normal, casual driving in a manual: easy on the accelerator, shift at 3k (or whatever)
2) More aggressive driving in a manual: hard on the accelerator, still shift at 3k. Better acceleration than 1 without significantly increased consumption.
3) Very aggressive driving in a manual: Hard on the accelerator, shift at redline. Better acceleration than 2, at the expense of consumption and engine wear.
4) Normal driving in an automatic: Easy on the accelerator. Roughly the same as 1.
5) More aggressive in an auto: Harder on the accelerator. Better acceleration, but the transmission alters shift points, increasing wear and consumption (including losses from the torque converter).
6) Very aggressive in an auto: Similar results to 3, though with slightly more losses from the torque converter.

I'm claiming just that option 2 is better than 5.

You're wrong about the effects of option 2, though. The reason why stomping on the gas increases fuel economy isn't because the engine revs higher, it's because you're running more air and fuel through the engine. Shifting before you hit the optimum shift point only makes the car accelerate slower.

Most autos don't have enough flexibility. In particular, virtually none allow you to force the transmission to stay at the highest gear.

Baloney. The reason why automatics "hunt" is because the next gear up is just barely too high. There is never a situation where you would solve a hunting problem by upshifting. The solution is always to leave it in the lower gear. That's why they usually recommend leaving overdrive off while towing.

Hey, and speaking of towing, automatics are vastly superior at that because they give much more and much smoother low-end torque. Shop around for pickups-- the automatics have at least double the towing capacity in most cases. It's the same reason why they're superior off-road and on-snow (despite the utterly irrational claims to the contrary by manual apologists). And yet having an automatic off-road rig simply never occurs to me, because off-roaders are fun and fun cars have manuals gosh darnit!

Acsenray

07-27-2011, 07:48 PM

TI'll grant that his is purely an IMHO point, and to be honest, it's something that came out of my flying lessons. My instructor showed me that the lightest touch is almost always the best touch, and that for most situations, you should be able to fly "with two fingers". I feel that this translates to cars as well.

Do you do most of your driving on clouds?

I think these people wouldn't be so unhappy if they bought a car that didn't maximize practicality at the expense of all else, maybe used a manual to keep things more interesting, didn't always take the exact same (shortest) route to work every day, occasionally just went for a drive to someplace new, and so on. If you start off by viewing driving as a chore, then it will always feel like one, but it doesn't have to be that way.

I have to chuckle, because all your posts create the impression in my mind that you do most of your driving in car commercials. The experiences you allude to seems to have nothing in common with the roads and streets I drive on

Nor does it seem you drive for the reasons I do. There are really too many things to do in my life, both mandatory and pleasurable. Driving is merely what facilitates those things. I also have to do the laundry and clean the toilet. Day-to-day driving is among those tasks.

R. P. McMurphy

07-27-2011, 08:02 PM

This is a very odd comparison. The analogy works far better in reverse: "seat belts are inconvenient and I almost never encounter situations where they are helpful; therefore I'll stick to not wearing one."

That said, you are correct that hybrid and other advanced systems will make the current style of manual style of transmission obsolete. But they also make the current style of automatics obsolete. There are a variety of types on the market today that don't resemble either standard type.

I don't think there is any problem in the analogy. I'm saying that there are unusual situations where the overall inferior system can be show to be superior to the overall superior system. That's not adequate reason to become wedded to the inferior system.

And yes, auto technology is rapidly advancing. The old 2-speed automatics that were in the old luxary cars is laughable to the transmissions that are in the econobox's of today. (Aside: Ever drive a manual without synchromesh? What a mess.)

thelabdude

07-27-2011, 08:04 PM

In conflict with a previous poster, I have felt that the old ('50s) engines had a broader range of torque; newer ones with narrow range require a closer match with gear. I used to get into 2nd as soon as possible, using it for various conditions, sharp corners, hills, until reaching road speed. Autos want to be shifting constantly. Expert manual shifting: when you change gears, while you're in neutral in between, change the engine speed to match the speed needed in the new gear. Making the clutch moderate between parts going different speeds causes clutch wear and a jerky ride. (If you do this perfectly you don't need the clutch - don't try this at home!)

I think the straight 6's and maybe even the old flat head V-8's did have better torque at low RPM. It was the OHV V-8's that sucked with the 3 speed transmissions. Besides, the example I used was a '68. One of the worse things I ever drove was a Volare six with a 4 speed. Pure Trash. The first decent American drive train I remember was the 81 Phoenix with the V-6 and 4 speed I had.

Dr. Strangelove

07-27-2011, 08:10 PM

You're wrong about the effects of option 2, though. The reason why stomping on the gas increases fuel economy isn't because the engine revs higher, it's because you're running more air and fuel through the engine. Shifting before you hit the optimum shift point only makes the car accelerate slower.

There are two ways to increase air/fuel through the engine: remove restrictions in the airflow (throttle plate), or increase RPM. Opening the throttle decreases pumping losses, while increasing RPM increases frictional losses. Therefore, doing the former is preferable (from an efficiency perspective) if maximum acceleration is not required.

I can cruise at the same speed in 4th gear @ 6k RPM or 2nd gear @ 3k RPM. Which do you think is more efficient, and why?

Baloney. The reason why automatics "hunt" is because the next gear up is just barely too high. There is never a situation where you would solve a hunting problem by upshifting.

I never said upshifting--I'm talking about not downshifting. Suppose I'm climbing a small hill, and it's perfectly acceptable to me to slow down by a few miles per hour (which I'll make up on the more gentle slope ahead) for the benefit of not kicking down to a lower gear. Sure, I could have stayed in the lower gear the whole time, but that's more wear on the engine.

Hey, and speaking of towing, automatics are vastly superior at that because they give much more and much smoother low-end torque.

That's true. Torque converters actually multiply torque at stall--manuals don't. So, one gold star for autos.

Dr. Strangelove

07-27-2011, 08:21 PM

Do you do most of your driving on clouds?

No, but I do drive mostly on smooth streets. Except in parking lots, almost zero steering force is required.

I have to chuckle, because all your posts create the impression in my mind that you do most of your driving in car commercials. The experiences you allude to seems to have nothing in common with the roads and streets I drive on

I commute like anyone else, and I'm not in the Himalayas. But I like cars with decent acceleration so I can merge into traffic properly, and can take off-ramps at a decent speed, and so on.

I had a 45-minute straight-line commute once and I hated it, so I did everything I could to make it more interesting. I'll spend an extra 5 minutes just to have some variety. And while the car was a POS, its 4-speed manual certainly helped.

Nor does it seem you drive for the reasons I do. There are really too many things to do in my life, both mandatory and pleasurable. Driving is merely what facilitates those things. I also have to do the laundry and clean the toilet. Day-to-day driving is among those tasks.

When I do mandatory things that are boring, I try to make them less boring. If I could get a vacuum cleaner with a zillion knobs and buttons to fiddle with while vacuuming, I would, just to make the experience less mind-numbing. A vacuum which was fully automatic but somehow occupied my time anyway would be of zero interest to me.

I may be in a minority on this point.

Dr. Strangelove

07-27-2011, 08:27 PM

I don't think there is any problem in the analogy. I'm saying that there are unusual situations where the overall inferior system can be show to be superior to the overall superior system. That's not adequate reason to become wedded to the inferior system.

You're begging the question. You started by assuming manuals were inferior, and concluded from that that manuals are inferior.

Again: both types have advantages (in typical drivetrains) and disadvantages, and what an individual chooses is up to personal weighting factors. The factors themselves have an objective truth value, though.

Dr. Strangelove

07-27-2011, 08:29 PM

I can cruise at the same speed in 4th gear @ 6k RPM or 2nd gear @ 3k RPM. Which do you think is more efficient, and why?

Missed the edit window on this: of course I meant to compare 4th gear @ 3k vs 2nd gear @ 6k.

jasonh300

07-27-2011, 08:40 PM

not true anymore. Ever since manuals and automatics reached forward gear parity, the difference is minimal. in some cases, the automatic wins (see Ford Fusion.) This might have been true in the '80s when you were comparing a 3-speed non-lockup non-OD automatic to a 5-speed manual with OD, but it's not true anymore.

That's pretty deplorable mileage whether it has an auto or a stick. There's no excuse for any 4-cylinder to get under 30 mpg regardless of transmission.

pulykamell

07-27-2011, 08:51 PM

No, but I do drive mostly on smooth streets. Except in parking lots, almost zero steering force is required.

Yeah, sounds like you don't have potholes to contend with. Drive a bit in Chicago with your fingertips and see how good an idea that is.

jz78817

07-27-2011, 08:51 PM

That's pretty deplorable mileage whether it has an auto or a stick. There's no excuse for any 4-cylinder to get under 30 mpg regardless of transmission.

oh, please do explain why.

Keeve

07-27-2011, 09:16 PM

I think these people wouldn't be so unhappy if they bought a car that didn't maximize practicality at the expense of all else, maybe used a manual to keep things more interesting, didn't always take the exact same (shortest) route to work every day, occasionally just went for a drive to someplace new, and so on. If you start off by viewing driving as a chore, then it will always feel like one, but it doesn't have to be that way.I do vary my routes to work, but there's traffic on all of them.

I also occasionally drive somewhere on the weekend to some distant new place. But that doesn't make trips to work or the supermarket any less of a chore. I'll concede that I might learn something new about the car, or about driving, or about the roads, while on such a trip, but again - that won't make the traffic going to work any less nerve-wracking.

JoelUpchurch

07-27-2011, 09:41 PM

Yes, but that wasn't the question. Clearly people want slush-boxes in this country. The question was why.

I agree with the poster above. My first two cars had manual transmissions, but it became tiring holding in the clutch when stopped in traffic. I'd never go back to a manual transmission.

Frankly I think the people who talk about enjoying driving are deranged. I can't wait for the day when we have robocars and I don't have to drive my car at all.

Keeve

07-27-2011, 09:45 PM

When I do mandatory things that are boring, I try to make them less boring. If I could get a vacuum cleaner with a zillion knobs and buttons to fiddle with while vacuuming, I would, just to make the experience less mind-numbing. A vacuum which was fully automatic but somehow occupied my time anyway would be of zero interest to me.This is an excellent analogy to illustrate our differences. Me - I don't want silly knobs on my vacuum. I'd make the vacuuming experience less mind-numbing by focusing on the job of vacuuming. I'd keep my eyes out for pieces of dirt that I missed, for example. That's a much better use of my time than making sure that the vacuum's motor is running efficiently. Similarly, when I drive, I focus on where the other cars are, and where the pedestrians are, and where the potholes are, and I let the automatic transmission worry about the gearbox.

GameHat

07-27-2011, 09:47 PM

just weighing in as an American, and a manual transmission lover.

"Stick" really is rare in America these days. I learned to drive on an auto tranny; my parents have only driven auto trannies for at least twenty years.

I learned only because I wanted to buy a Mustang GT, and because I wanted a better "sports car" experience.

I hope not to go back. Driving manual is just more fun. I got my license on an auto at 16 but learned stick at age 26, it wasn't hard at all. I don't find it to be a bother in traffic; and I go through major Chicago traffic regularly.

But for most Americans, auto is the standard, manual means performance car, and only a fraction of the "performance car" drivers opt for stick. It's a pity that more of us don't realize that manual means a much more intimate and fun relationship between car and driver.

Oh well.

jz78817

07-27-2011, 09:49 PM

It's a pity that more of us don't realize that manual means a much more intimate and fun relationship between car and driver.

more of that elitism.

RaftPeople

07-27-2011, 10:05 PM

Learn when it's best to skip gears, makes things a lot smoother. And just practice a tiny bit, soon it will all become second nature and you wont be overly conscious of what you're doing. If you don't have any physical infirmities then you shouldn't have any physical problems with moving your feet constantly.

My first 3 cars were manual transmission. In my camaro I could skip any 2 gears I felt like, I could start in 3rd, just had to give it some gas. I assure you, driving a manual transmission is about as second nature to me as anyone else driving one, including you.

But just because something is second nature doesn't mean my brain isn't capable of a proper analysis of a situation. My 30 to 40 minute commute with constantly and rapidly changing speeds requires more effort in a manual transmission than in an automatic.

It's as simple as that. You may enjoy shifting constantly, but that doesn't mean it isn't more physical activity.

If you still want to argue that a manual transmission is not more effort than an automatic in heavy traffic - then I will be forced to add up the leg and arm movements - surely you can predict how that math exercise is going to turn out - right?

Keeve

07-27-2011, 10:05 PM

more of that elitism.Let's remember that this is GQ, not GD. If some people like to have an intimate relationship with their car, and other people like to have a practical relationship with their car, that's okay. We are looking for WHY, not to judge them.

Acsenray

07-27-2011, 10:11 PM

When I do mandatory things that are boring, I try to make them less boring. If I could get a vacuum cleaner with a zillion knobs and buttons to fiddle with while vacuuming, I would, just to make the experience less mind-numbing. A vacuum which was fully automatic but somehow occupied my time anyway would be of zero interest to me.

I may be in a minority on this point.

So now I'm to be pitied not only for failing to be an automobile enthusiast but also for not being a vacuum cleaner enthusiast? If I pick and choose my own enthusiasms -- fountain pens, sushi, and superheroine action figures -- am I a miserable human being?

Look, there are some things I love about driving. The most important one is listening to public radio programs. Is it a fair exchange of value do you think for me to get a cooler radio than it is to get a cooler transmission, which does all kinds if things that I really am not interested in learning?

suranyi

07-27-2011, 10:20 PM

Siam Sam

07-27-2011, 10:34 PM

I simply never learned to drive a stick. By the time I was old enough to borrow the family car, my father was only buying automatics. Both of the cars I have ever owned were automatic. I did have a roommate with a stick-shift car, and he offered to teach me. I tried driving around a big parking lot in it but did not do too well. Probably could have gotten the hang of it, but he lost interest in teaching me after that first outing.

Dr. Strangelove

07-27-2011, 10:40 PM

So now I'm to be pitied not only for failing to be an automobile enthusiast but also for not being a vacuum cleaner enthusiast? If I pick and choose my own enthusiasms -- fountain pens, sushi, and superheroine action figures -- am I a miserable human being?

Not at all. We only have so much time to spend on our interests. But for things that I have to do, and aren't particularly exciting on their own, I don't personally understand the idea behind avoiding any possibility of making it more interesting.

Look, there are some things I love about driving. The most important one is listening to public radio programs. Is it a fair exchange of value do you think for me to get a cooler radio than it is to get a cooler transmission, which does all kinds if things that I really am not interested in learning?

Absolutely. But these aren't mutually exclusive things; certainly not in terms of dollars.

As I've said before, everyone is free to make their own subjective cost/benefit analysis and I don't begrudge anyone for coming to a different conclusion. But while I accept "manuals are a literal pain in the leg, and I hardly do any driving on hills or roads with sharp corners, so they're just not worth it for me", I don't accept "I hate driving, and don't want to have to think about it, so I'll get an auto".

FWIW, I am an enthusiast, and probably an elitist. And there are a number of roads in the area that make me feel like I'm in a car commercial :).

GameHat

07-27-2011, 10:43 PM

more of that elitism.

Guy, I don't know if you're trolling or have a legit beef.

I never said anything about about which is better, manual or auto. I merely said I've driven both and prefer manual (because it's more fun.)

Keeve

07-27-2011, 10:53 PM

Guy, I don't know if you're trolling or have a legit beef.

I never said anything about about which is better, manual or auto. I merely said I've driven both and prefer manual (because it's more fun.)Wrong. You said more than just that. In fact, jz78817 even quoted it for you when he made that comment. I'll repeat it:It's a pity that more of us don't realize that manual means a much more intimate and fun relationship between car and driver.You are pitying us for not realizing that manual means what you say it means. That's what he considers elitism. And so do I.

dzeiger

07-27-2011, 10:53 PM

I don't think there is any problem in the analogy.

Eh, I think anti-lock brakes may be a better analogy, though I'm not sure that even that one is all that good. Still, it at least includes the better road feel/control that the stick/automatic debate has.

I've seen the reliability question come up several times--but how relevant is this, really? I can't think of anyone I know who has had transmission problems in the past, say, decade or so, I'm suspecting it's not that huge of an issue now.

I get the feeling that the car enthusiasts that make this point might be the types who keep a car forever and thus have reason to think about expenses 20 years down the line or whatever, while a cursory Google search seems to indicate that new card buyers in the US keep the car for an average of around 5.5 years--I'm willing to be surprised, but I just don't think that modern automatic transmissions break that fast, even if some acceleration behaviors are more stressful in an automatic than a manual.

Colibri

07-27-2011, 11:12 PM

I think this is well past GQ territory. Let's move it over to IMHO.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

R. P. McMurphy

07-27-2011, 11:40 PM

Eh, I think anti-lock brakes may be a better analogy, though I'm not sure that even that one is all that good. Still, it at least includes the better road feel/control that the stick/automatic debate has.

I've seen the reliability question come up several times--but how relevant is this, really? I can't think of anyone I know who has had transmission problems in the past, say, decade or so, I'm suspecting it's not that huge of an issue now.

I get the feeling that the car enthusiasts that make this point might be the types who keep a car forever and thus have reason to think about expenses 20 years down the line or whatever, while a cursory Google search seems to indicate that new card buyers in the US keep the car for an average of around 5.5 years--I'm willing to be surprised, but I just don't think that modern automatic transmissions break that fast, even if some acceleration behaviors are more stressful in an automatic than a manual.

The modern automatic transmission is a very sophisticated, reliable, efficient piece of engineering. They don't fail like they did in the past. They normally last the life of the car. Any car you buy today is controlled by the computer which regulates everything from braking (including traction control), the fuel injection system, the climate control, the GPS and most importantly, operating the transmission for optimal shifting points. In modern high-performance cars there are paddle shifters (without a manual clutch) yet, the computer will not allow you to do something stupid. I'm talking about Ferrari's, Lamborghini's, Aston-Martin's, Jaguar's and the rest. If you try to go from 5th to 1st it won't let you even if you are in manual drive mode. The computer is sophisticated enough that the human brain can't make a decision fast enough to make a better decision even though you may think that you are making the decision. The computer won't let you fuck up the engine. That's why modern race cars utilize paddle shifters and no manual clutch. Everything needs to be instantaneous and in synch. The computer will override arrogance and stupidity.

If the average driver, and even the above average driver, was better at shifting than the computer then there would be no need for traction control. The fact is that when traction control takes over, those drivers are already on a path to wreck the car. Even in the '60's it was recognized that it took an exceptionally skilled driver to outperform an automatic (as primitive as they were). Drag racers were utilizing the old Chrysler button shifters because they were better than the lever and clutch.

Thank Dog for the technology. I got my first lesson when I was driving down Berthoud Pass in the winter with a car that had a manual transmission and I downshifted at the wrong time and put the car in a snowbank. The downshift spun the rear end of a rear wheel drive car. Thankfully, shortly after, someone came by and pulled me out. Oh yea, if I had been Parnelli Foyt that wouldn't have happened. So these guys are telling me that they are Graham Fittipaldi? Oh yea, they got driving lessons from Dale Schumacher. Now I understand. Also, the babes are just lining up because they are so irresistible and they know every right move at every right time. If that's so, why aren't you earning Schumacher type money? It's so easy.

Incubus

07-27-2011, 11:43 PM

For me, automatics were so common (in the US), I never learned. I really wanted to learn to drive a stick, because for me culturally it really felt like a rite of passage and not knowing how to drive a stick didn't make me feel masculine enough (stupid and irrational, but that's how teenagers can be). The problem I had was that nobody who had a stick shift wanted to teach me/let me figure it out because I guess they were afraid I'd ruin their clutch or something.

How did I learn? Video games :p but really, I learned initially on my brother's dirtbike. Honestly the only tricky thing about it [for me] is putting it in gear from a stopping position. I learned on a car through deceptive means; I'm a bus driver and we often start/end our shifts out in the middle of the route; drivers often bring their cars to the relief point out of convenience. I heard, "Do you know how to drive a stick?" and enthusiastically said yes.

I lied. I liked through my freakin teeth I knew how to drive a stick. I didn't, but the deception was really the only way for me to learn. While I don't think I ruined anyone's car, it gave me the opportunity to get the hang of it and teach myself.

Stick shifts are fun, but I'd only be up for it if I was driving a fun car. When I commute, I put the car in cruise control on the highway and let the car do the work. I'm too busy being a lazy american to fiddle with some weird joystick with numbers and a third pedal to bother getting from point A to B ;)

GameHat

07-27-2011, 11:57 PM

Wrong. You said more than just that. In fact, jz78817 even quoted it for you when he made that comment. I'll repeat it:You are pitying us for not realizing that manual means what you say it means. That's what he considers elitism. And so do I.

Eh, more power to you both.

Throatwarbler Mangrove

07-28-2011, 12:28 AM

The modern automatic transmission is a very sophisticated, reliable, efficient piece of engineering. They don't fail like they did in the past. They normally last the life of the car. Any car you buy today is controlled by the computer which regulates everything from braking (including traction control), the fuel injection system, the climate control, the GPS and most importantly, operating the transmission for optimal shifting points. In modern high-performance cars there are paddle shifters (without a manual clutch) yet, the computer will not allow you to do something stupid. I'm talking about Ferrari's, Lamborghini's, Aston-Martin's, Jaguar's and the rest. If you try to go from 5th to 1st it won't let you even if you are in manual drive mode. The computer is sophisticated enough that the human brain can't make a decision fast enough to make a better decision even though you may think that you are making the decision. The computer won't let you fuck up the engine. That's why modern race cars utilize paddle shifters and no manual clutch. Everything needs to be instantaneous and in synch. The computer will override arrogance and stupidity.

I know I've already attempted to correct this poster, with no response, but for the benefit of others reading, I'll point out again that almost every single statement made here is completely wrong, and the poster has no understanding of how transmissions or race cars. This is ironic for someone attempting to belittle people who prefer manual transmissions by way of the supposed technological superiority of automatics.

FordTaurusSHO94

07-28-2011, 12:54 AM

installLSC

07-28-2011, 01:19 AM

Here's a theory I've heard:
Until well after WW2 most Europeans tended to use cars for sporting/Sunday drive purposes--if they needed them at all. In contrast, pretty much since the days of the Model T Americans have thought of cars as near necessities that should be able to be operated by all adult members of the family. Rightly or wrongly, it's assumed women and teenagers will pick up driving a automatic quicker than a stick. It's certainly easier to eat a burger/yell at the kids/change the tape in the stereo while driving a auto than a manual. Anyone want to poke holes in this theory?

R. P. McMurphy

07-28-2011, 02:07 AM

I know I've already attempted to correct this poster, with no response, but for the benefit of others reading, I'll point out again that almost every single statement made here is completely wrong, and the poster has no understanding of how transmissions or race cars. This is ironic for someone attempting to belittle people who prefer manual transmissions by way of the supposed technological superiority of automatics.

OK, Mr. Expert, why don't the most sophisticated, fastest, most advanced cars in the world, whether they are race cars or high performance sports cars have a manual clutch? Geez, you would think that if it was better it would be there. Cost is no object in these cars. Some of those high performance sports cars offer the clutch as an option but not because it is better, it is to satisfy people like you who live in a dream world. Tell us. Give us the reasoning behind the engineering and design of these cars and why they are built that way. Do they get rid of the clutch because the drivers are lazy and don't know how to get the best performance out of an automobile?

I'm not belittling anyone, you are.

BDBoop

07-28-2011, 02:09 AM

My sister and I both know how to drive sticks. Mom insisted.

R. P. McMurphy

07-28-2011, 02:21 AM

Paddle shifters in true performance cars still use a clutch, even if you don't have to push it. That's nothing like an automatic. They still have engine breaking that aids you in slowing through turns. Modern automatics may claim to have "engine breaking" but until I see them start to win at auto-crosses and in road course racing, I'll pass. The only place an automatic can be superior is drag racing, and that's only to a point. The fastest level of cars still use a clutch.

Automatics have their place, but they aren't for me.

Paddle shifters in true performance cars still use a clutch, even if you don't have to push it.

You don't have to push it? Well, huh???? You're ignoring the whole point. Of course there is a clutch but it's electronically controlled and not by a foot pedal.

The point is that the manual nuts get their jollies from having to push a clutch. That's the thing that makes them feel like they are "driving" the car. There's no need for a manual clutch in a high performance car (or any other) and therefore they've been designed out.

Enjoy your tranny but be sure to use a manual crank to start your car because electric starters are for people that really don't know how to drive. While you are at it rip out your electronic fuel injection system and replace it with a carburetor because that is what NASCAR does and they are the penultimate in motor racing.

Dr. Strangelove

07-28-2011, 03:11 AM

The point is that the manual nuts get their jollies from having to push a clutch.

If this is your premise, it is no wonder you come to such ridiculous and false conclusions. A manually operated clutch is very far down on the list of things I like about manual transmissions, and I suspect the same is true for the others here.

jz78817

07-28-2011, 04:58 AM

Paddle shifters in true performance cars still use a clutch, even if you don't have to push it. That's nothing like an automatic.

I assure you, planetary automatics still have clutches. obviously you don't have to push them.

They still have engine breaking that aids you in slowing through turns. Modern automatics may claim to have "engine breaking" but until I see them start to win at auto-crosses and in road course racing, I'll pass.

"engine breaking" is not a feature I want in a car.

The only place an automatic can be superior is drag racing,

Or the day-to-day drudge driving that most people do. hardly anyone races.

The fastest level of cars still use a clutch.

so what? nobody worth mentioning owns one of those cars.

Acsenray

07-28-2011, 07:28 AM

I'm talking about Ferrari's, Lamborghini's, Aston-Martin's, Jaguar's and the rest.

Nitpick: AAAAAAAAAGGGGHHH! Cut it out with the apostrophes, please?

Machine Elf

07-28-2011, 07:50 AM

Primary drivers to going to an automatic transmission...

I also wanted a cruise control.

My car has a manual transmission and a cruise control; the two are not mutually exclusive.

The observed disadvantage of the manual is the car doesn't anticipate my needs.

Funny, that's my complaint about the automatic. If I know I'm going to need to accelerate to hit a gap, I can downshift a couple of seconds before I nail the accelerator. Along similar lines, I can delay an upshift until I know I won't need to accelerate.

I can push-start my manual in a pinch .

I can't. 2003 Nissan Maxima, 6-speed manual transmission. Last year I tried it, and the engine refused to run. Cruising about 40 MPH, I went to neutral and turned the key off. Turned the key back to the "run" position, selected 3rd gear, and eased the clutch out. I had the engine revving up to about 2000 RPM, but as soon as I pushed the clutch in, the revs fell to zero. I'm guessing this is deliberate, i.e. the ECU is refusing to run the engine (i.e. refusing to administer spark/fuel) unless the key has been turned (at least momentarily) to the "start" position.

Keeve

07-28-2011, 07:59 AM

My car has a manual transmission and a cruise control; the two are not mutually exclusive.I never knew that. How does it work? Suppose you are on a flat road, with no traffic, in a high gear, and then you start going uphill. Without cruise control, you'd go into a lower gear to get more power for the hill, right? But now you have a manual transmission that won't change gears without your okay, and the cruise control is flooring the acceleration to maintain speed. What happens? (My guess is that the cruise control disengages, just as if you had tapped the brakes, in order to force you to take control.)

jz78817

07-28-2011, 08:33 AM

I never knew that. How does it work? Suppose you are on a flat road, with no traffic, in a high gear, and then you start going uphill. Without cruise control, you'd go into a lower gear to get more power for the hill, right? But now you have a manual transmission that won't change gears without your okay, and the cruise control is flooring the acceleration to maintain speed. What happens? (My guess is that the cruise control disengages, just as if you had tapped the brakes, in order to force you to take control.)

I don't know, good question. There aren't enough hills where I live to test that on my car. I just assumed it'll do what it can in the gear it's in. if it can't maintain speed, so be it.

ETA: consulted the manual for my car ('12 Mustang): "If the vehicle speed decreases more than 10 mph (16 km/h) below your set speed, your speed control will disengage."

So there you have it.

Krouget

07-28-2011, 09:06 AM

Modern automatics may claim to have "engine breaking" but until I see them start to win at auto-crosses and in road course racing, I'll pass.
Though I'd chalk up any actual race win to the driver, before I would any part of the car, autoX and course racing certainly don't have the same demands as the street. Again, for most who prefer manual because it feels good, they'd have a tough time reproducing their perceived skill on the track. The gearbox doesn't make them better or worse drivers by default.

I never said upshifting--I'm talking about not downshifting. Suppose I'm climbing a small hill, and it's perfectly acceptable to me to slow down by a few miles per hour (which I'll make up on the more gentle slope ahead) for the benefit of not kicking down to a lower gear. Sure, I could have stayed in the lower gear the whole time, but that's more wear on the engine.
How would staying in lower gear create more wear on the engine? It's doing nothing different than it normally would (operating across its normal RPM range). Furthermore, over the life of the car, why would that be a concern?

If I know I'm going to need to accelerate to hit a gap, I can downshift a couple of seconds before I nail the accelerator. Along similar lines, I can delay an upshift until I know I won't need to accelerate.
This really depends on the car, and again, driver. Everything from the cars gearing, to TCU programming, engine powerband, or throttle input, etc. will determine how readily the car will pass from any cruising speed. In my experiences with most modern autos in moderately powerful cars, you can get a good feel for when the car will downshift, depending on the RPM and amount of throttle you input. As the driver, it's something you can establish-- most cases, you just hit the throttle sooner and with more "intent" (but I stress, it varies by car). :)

As to delaying upshifts, I completely agree. That much can only marginally be controlled by throttle input, and again, really falls back on how the gearbox and car were designed. I've driven cars where staying on the throttle, but not varying RPM, is enough to maintain the current gear.

I never knew that. How does it work?
Well, if you think about it, the purpose of cruise control is to maintain your current speed. For the most part, once set, you shouldn't be shifting or have much need to stray from your setting, including most inclines and turns.

If you do go up a hill and need to change gears, cruise disengages after hitting the clutch, exactly as it would the brakes, as you assumed.

Anne Neville

07-28-2011, 09:27 AM

I think these people wouldn't be so unhappy if they bought a car that didn't maximize practicality at the expense of all else, maybe used a manual to keep things more interesting, didn't always take the exact same (shortest) route to work every day, occasionally just went for a drive to someplace new, and so on. If you start off by viewing driving as a chore, then it will always feel like one, but it doesn't have to be that way.

I think I'd be less unhappy if I didn't have to drive as much. Then I'd have more time and money to do things that are more interesting to me, and gas prices would go down for those of you who actually want to drive. If I want a hobby, I'll pick something less expensive and dangerous than driving. Video games, for example, did not directly kill more than 30,000 Americans in 2010. If you screw up while playing a video game, it's not likely to result in your death in real life. The games I like to play don't cost $30 per week for gas (some online games may cost more).

At best, driving is boring for me. At worst, such as when something goes really wrong, it's stressful. Not something I enjoy at all. I don't even want to enjoy it more, I want to do it less.

Machine Elf

07-28-2011, 09:31 AM

I never knew that. How does it work? Suppose you are on a flat road, with no traffic, in a high gear, and then you start going uphill. Without cruise control, you'd go into a lower gear to get more power for the hill, right? But now you have a manual transmission that won't change gears without your okay, and the cruise control is flooring the acceleration to maintain speed. What happens? (My guess is that the cruise control disengages, just as if you had tapped the brakes, in order to force you to take control.)

Don't know for sure, but I suspect my car is like JZ78817's, i.e. the cruise control will disengage if the speed drops by more than X MPH. My car has a decent engine (3.5-liter V6) and I live at low altitude in a relatively flat region (southern Michigan). I've never driven in a place (e.g. I-70 across western Colorado) where the car was unable to maintain speed without downshifting. Those places exist, but they're uncommon; moreover, the roads there tend to be curvy and littered with slow-moving vehicles, so I probably would not use cruise control in such situations even if the car were capable of it.

FWIW my motorcycle (manual trans) also has a cruise control.

kunilou

07-28-2011, 11:45 AM

Now that we're officially in IMHO territory I'll throw this out. Back in 2005 I needed a car -- just a little commuter car to get me to and from work. It was the final year for the Pontiac Sunfire, and the dealer was extremely anxious to get them off his lot. My wife claimed to be more comfortable with a stick (something about having better "control" over the driving), so I bought it.

The Sunfire has big tires and a spoiler, but it is not in any way a sports car, even with a manual transmission. Still, it looks better than our other car (a minivan.)

At the time, our two sons were in college, and whenever they were home, they wanted to drive. They had learned to drive on an automatic, so both my wife and I offered to teach them to drive the stick.

"It's easy to learn," we said. "It'll take just 30 minutes," (20 to figure out the clutch, and 10 more to learn when to downshift.) "It's not a problem. It's good to know just in case."

They both turned us down. Repeatedly. Two 20-year old American males, who, despite the active encouragement of both parents, were AFRAID to try to drive a manual transmission! Two young American men who would rather drive a freakin' minivan than attempt to drive a stick.

Six years later we still have the Pontiac (and the minivan.) Whenever my sons come home and need to borrow the car, my wife and I still offer to teach them how to drive a stick. They still don't want to try.

And despite the fact that they have to admit that their mother and father can do something they can't do, they will never, ever learn to drive a stick.

Cat Whisperer

07-28-2011, 12:55 PM

I don't get that either, kunilou. I wanted to learn to drive a stick very badly; if someone had made is so easy for me, I would have jumped all over it. As it was, I had to do the time-honoured tradition of buying one and jumping in the deep end. :) (Years later, I still drive a stick and still enjoy it tremendously.)

Hampshire

07-28-2011, 01:37 PM

Realted question maybe suitable for a seperate thread:

Anybody out there who knows how to drive a motorcylce yet can't drive a manual automobile?

thelabdude

07-28-2011, 01:46 PM

suranyi

07-28-2011, 01:47 PM

At best, driving is boring for me. At worst, such as when something goes really wrong, it's stressful. Not something I enjoy at all. I don't even want to enjoy it more, I want to do it less.

That is how I feel exactly.

Anne Neville

07-28-2011, 02:03 PM

Yeah, strange. Part of it may be not wanting to be dependent on a parent, fear of failure, or not wanting to take the time.

It might not help if you're implying to them that someone who can't drive stick is somehow less masculine that someone who can. Then you're adding some extra anxiety- not only might they not be able to learn stick, but their parents will think they're less masculine because they can't learn stick. Extra anxiety generally doesn't help with learning things related to driving.

Or it's possible that their experience learning driving from you was not something they wish to repeat, for whatever reason. It's also possible that they don't want to get back into the parent-child dynamic with you, where you as the parent teach them as the child. My parents and I get along well, but not when they're trying to teach me to do something. I generally avoid those kinds of situations with them, because I know it's very likely to end with everybody upset and frustrated.

Personally, I think it speaks well for their masculinity that they do not feel that driving a minivan threatens it in some way. I've never understood men who think that something they wear or something they drive can somehow make them less masculine.

Irishman

07-28-2011, 02:20 PM

When traffic is slow, but not complete stop-and-go, I can often stay in 2nd gear, vary my speed between around 8 and 30 mph, and never have to touch the brake. If I leave a decent gap ahead of me, I can handle a little bit of stop-and-go.

Around here, if you leave a decent gap ahead of you, someone will pull into it. Even on surface streets, not just the interstate. So you'd be stopping anyway.

That said - although I am mildly alarmed at the number of people who view their vehicles as "A to B machines" or "appliances" because your possibly crappy driving habits influence my safety, the safety of people I care about as well as my insurance rates, I accept that living in the real world means living with people I'd rather not live with.

Viewing your automobile as an "appliance" or an "A to B machine" does not equate to crappy driving habits. Someone can treat a car as a tool and still give driving the requisite level of attention to detail and judgment. And some people who view automobiles as "fun toys" do so by engaging in unsafe practices like street racing. Or weaving through traffic. Safety isn't about enjoying driving, it's about paying attention and treating other drivers with respect.

Why? I don't think anybody here is trying to sell you one. It appears that admitting a preference for a manual gets people angry at you round here. Explaining why we like it gets people accusing us of all sorts of things.

This right after a post where someone accuses people who like automatics of being unsafe. People aren't reacting negatively to a stated preference for manuals, they are reacting negatively to statements that prefering automatics is inferior. Besides, the statement you quoted was a sincere request for factual information about the advantages of a manual transmission over automatics. As in, "What do I not know?"

My car has a manual transmission and a cruise control; the two are not mutually exclusive.

On my automatic, if I brake from cruise because of traffic, then get open lane, I hit "resume" and my car will accelerate to restore the cruise point. I don't see cruise on a manual doing that. But yeah, I found out that manuals could have a cruise feature. Still, I had other desires for automatic.

Funny, that's my complaint about the automatic. If I know I'm going to need to accelerate to hit a gap, I can downshift a couple of seconds before I nail the accelerator. Along similar lines, I can delay an upshift until I know I won't need to accelerate.

Oops, I transposed what I meant. Yeah, I meant automatics don't anticipate my needs. Grrrr.

kunilou

07-28-2011, 02:33 PM

It might not help if you're implying to them that someone who can't drive stick is somehow less masculine that someone who can. Then you're adding some extra anxiety- not only might they not be able to learn stick, but their parents will think they're less masculine because they can't learn stick. Extra anxiety generally doesn't help with learning things related to driving.

The only thing ever implied to them was that if the minivan wasn't available for some reason, they could then use the other car.

Or it's possible that their experience learning driving from you was not something they wish to repeat, for whatever reason. It's also possible that they don't want to get back into the parent-child dynamic with you, where you as the parent teach them as the child. My parents and I get along well, but not when they're trying to teach me to do something. I generally avoid those kinds of situations with them, because I know it's very likely to end with everybody upset and frustrated.

If it were just me, or just their mother, I might say you had a point. But we had entirely different styles when we were teaching them how to drive. Also, they still ask us for advice in other areas.

Personally, I think it speaks well for their masculinity that they do not feel that driving a minivan threatens it in some way. I've never understood men who think that something they wear or something they drive can somehow make them less masculine.

Before I had the Sunfire, I drove a Ford Taurus. As "middle-age" as a Taurus might seem, that was ALWAYS their preferred choice to drive. They reacted to driving the minivan exactly the way you'd stereotypically expect a 20-year old male to react. I seriously doubt their masculinity evolved that much between July, when I drove a Taurus, and August, when I drove a Sunfire.

Nope, they just don't want to learn to drive a stick. Of course by now they've probably decided they'll never need to know how, except for the almost unimaginable time when they're back home, and the other car isn't available.

enipla

07-28-2011, 02:36 PM

Good lord.
I’ve owned both manuals and autos. I drive have be driving over the freeking continental divide every damn day for 18 years. 11,500 feet. I go into 4 wheel drive every damn day for 6 months out of the year. Every Day. Yes the manual does give you a little bit more control. The worst thing that the auto does is up or down shift on an icy road when you may not expect it. But if you are in any way a decent driver, it just is not a problem.
I don’t really care. Pretty much all cars are autos now. My Pathfinder has LIFETIME fluid in its trany and I don’t have to mess with it at all.

Death of Rats

07-28-2011, 02:49 PM

Good Lord, this is almost as ugly as a Mac v. PC thread! :)

Machine Elf

07-28-2011, 02:51 PM

On my automatic, if I brake from cruise because of traffic, then get open lane, I hit "resume" and my car will accelerate to restore the cruise point. I don't see cruise on a manual doing that.

Why not? :confused:

It does exactly that. The cruise control has no idea what gear the transmission is in (that's true for a manual or an automatic); it only knows what speed it's supposed to shoot for. Just like your automatic, the cruise control on my Maxima (and on my motorcycle) "remembers" what its previous set speed was even after I've tapped the brake (or even pulled in the clutch and downshifted), and I can hit "resume" and get back to that same set speed.

The cruise control on my previous car (an '88 Acura Legend with a manual trans) behaved the same way.

Hilarity N. Suze

07-28-2011, 03:02 PM

The cruise control on my manual does that as well.

But I never use cruise (my husband uses it). I'm a control freak, that's why I have a manual.

I'll give you one advantage: I don't have to worry about my teenager or his friends stealing my car to joyride. They couldn't get it out of the driveway.

Dr. Strangelove

07-28-2011, 03:08 PM

Around here, if you leave a decent gap ahead of you, someone will pull into it. Even on surface streets, not just the interstate. So you'd be stopping anyway.

The same is true here. But it isn't a continuous flow of cars filling up every available space; it's often 30 seconds or a minute before someone decides to fill the gap--possibly a lot longer if the lane next to me is going the same average speed, and the cars that happen to be next to me don't feel like changing lanes. So I can sometimes maintain a gap for minutes at a time.

Patty O'Furniture

07-28-2011, 03:19 PM

Skimmed the thread but this may have been addressed already: Is there an equivalent to popping the clutch in an automatic? That little trick saved me a few times back in the 90's when my battery went dead.

This is probably similar to the circumcision debate in that you're probably going to like whichever option you learned to play with as you were growing up, and the other option just seems alien.

Dr. Strangelove

07-28-2011, 03:30 PM

I think I'd be less unhappy if I didn't have to drive as much. Then I'd have more time and money to do things that are more interesting to me, and gas prices would go down for those of you who actually want to drive.

That's all completely reasonable, but the fact is that we don't yet have automated, electric, high-speed personal transportation devices quite yet. Or Star Trek transporters, for that matter. In the meantime, we all have to sit behind the wheel from time to time. Why not enjoy it?

Terraplane

07-28-2011, 03:50 PM

That's all completely reasonable, but the fact is that we don't yet have automated, electric, high-speed personal transportation devices quite yet. Or Star Trek transporters, for that matter. In the meantime, we all have to sit behind the wheel from time to time. Why not enjoy it?

What exactly are you doing that you enjoy? Taking a new route and seeing new scenery? Ok, I'll admit that can be fun the first few times you take that route. But after the first dozen or so times, then what? You only have so many routes to work. There are speed limits, there are other people on the road, it's not like you can race the thing.

I'm not trying to be smart, but I don't get it (I think this is where the fundamental disconnect between 'car people/not car people' comes in). When I was younger I could have a lot of fun with a fast, decent handling car. But all the fun I had came at the expense of breaking the law and behaving recklessly. It was dangerous to me and to others and I don't do it anymore. How much fun can you really have with a car on a public road before you're breaking the law or being irresponsible? For me the answer is 'not a lot.'

Dr. Strangelove

07-28-2011, 03:51 PM

How would staying in lower gear create more wear on the engine? It's doing nothing different than it normally would (operating across its normal RPM range). Furthermore, over the life of the car, why would that be a concern?

To a first approximation, engines wear out because you have parts rubbing up against each other, and lubrication isn't perfect. An engine at twice the RPM has twice the "rubs per second" and (again, very roughly) wears at twice the rate, even if it's producing a similar amount of power.

Piston powered airplanes require engine maintenance every X hours, but this isn't a true measure of time--it's calculated based on a fixed cruise RPM, so in fact the maintenance cycle is based on the number of turns the engine completed. Car engines are no different, but because safety is less critical, their maintenance cycles are based on cruder measures.

That's not to say there isn't a time or place for using the full RPM range--if you need the power, then use it--but it will cause extra wear.

Machine Elf

07-28-2011, 03:51 PM

Skimmed the thread but this may have been addressed already: Is there an equivalent to popping the clutch in an automatic? That little trick saved me a few times back in the 90's when my battery went dead.

Modern cars require electrical powerbefore the engine starts; the ECU needs power to know when to fire the spark plugs and fuel injectors, and the fuel pump needs power to deliver fuel pressure to the injectors. If your battery is completely flat, bump starting your manual-trans car won't work. If your battery still has some life in it, then it might work, or (if it's like my car) it might not, due to some peculiar interlock.

As for automatics, I've never heard of bump-starting being possible.

Vihaga

07-28-2011, 03:52 PM

In the meantime, we all have to sit behind the wheel from time to time. Why not enjoy it?

For those of us who don't really like driving, making it so it requires more thought and more effort is the opposite of making it better. I pay attention to the road because I need to, but that leaves a lot of mental room for listening to NPR or planning my day. Since I enjoy that more than I enjoy thinking about driving, any extra mental thought I have to give to the drive makes it less enjoyable.

It's like taking someone who doesn't like to mow the lawn and giving them a push reel mower. They still get the lawn mowed, but it's more effort to do so. Why would anyone who doesn't enjoy something want to spend one iota more effort on it than they need to, when it gets the same result? (With driving that means I get from point A to point B safely and comfortably, which is all I want from a car.)

/edit: I'm not saying a manual isn't great for someone who likes to drive, but it's probably not for those that don't. In fact, the only people I know who still own cars with manual transmissions are "into" cars.

Corner Case

07-28-2011, 03:56 PM

I learned to drive in a '67 Volkswagen with a stick. Actually, before that I was in the passenger seat and mom would let me steer a bit. After I was expert with that I started learning the stick. Imagine first learning to use a stick left handed from the passenger seat! Then I got a few times of learning to press the accelerator from the passenger seat. That was just a few times, to get the feel of how little you had to move the pedal to accelerate. It was much to hard to do it more than a few times.

When I was finally in the driver seat learning, it was strange using my right hand on the stick, but I adapted quickly. Back when Blue Laws had shopping malls closed on Sundays we would go to the empty lot and I would practice. I learned how to idle stopped on this 3 foot 45-degree "curb" (pretending it was a 4-way stop) before starting into a turn. Fun times! It served me well later when I had to make it up a 20 foot ice covered hill onto an icy two-lane blacktop. After one experimental drive halfway up to get the feel of the traction, I popped up without a slip.

After transmission and clutch started to fail I often had to start driving from 2nd gear. Decades later, brother-in-law had a stick shift and I hadn't driven one in ... decades. The feeling came back immediately and it was no problem at all.

Dr. Strangelove

07-28-2011, 04:10 PM

But all the fun I had came at the expense of breaking the law and behaving recklessly. It was dangerous to me and to others and I don't do it anymore.

I'd never advocate driving recklessly, but hot-rodding it a little bit can be safe, legal, and fun. Take those turns a little bit faster. Floor it when hitting the onramp onto the highway. Whatever.

Or, try different driving styles. See if you can time each traffic light perfectly. If your car as a real-time meter, try to minimize fuel consumption. Put a ball on the passenger seat and see just how smoothly you can drive.

And if you have a manual, just practice your shifting in different regimes. Although anyone can learn to shift easily in the common case, it can be a challenge even after several years to shift quickly and smoothly from a high RPM. I've been driving stick for over a decade and even I can't do it perfectly every time, so there's always room for a little practice. Not to mention that there are tradeoffs; a very fast shift will never be perfectly smooth, so you can explore that space with varying technique.

Anyway, I'd be the last to say that all my commutes are fun-filled joyrides. But surely there's a difference between "a small amount of fun" vs. "no fun at all".

Acsenray

07-28-2011, 04:20 PM

Yes, the "small amount of fun," as we're trying to tell you comes from something other than having to pay more attention to the mechanics of driving. Two of us have mentioned listening to NPR for example.

I'd never advocate driving recklessly, but hot-rodding it a little bit can be safe, legal, and fun. Take those turns a little bit faster. Floor it when hitting the onramp onto the highway. Whatever.

Or, try different driving styles. See if you can time each traffic light perfectly. If your car as a real-time meter, try to minimize fuel consumption. Put a ball on the passenger seat and see just how smoothly you can drive.

To me, this all reads like a list of completely unnecessary ways to make driving more dangerous.

This is how I translate what I quoted from your post: "I'd never advocate driving recklessly, but I'm suggesting that you drive a little more recklessly, for reasons that don't appeal to you at all."

Is it impossible for you to understand that some people have zero interest in this stuff?

Dr. Strangelove

07-28-2011, 04:22 PM

It's like taking someone who doesn't like to mow the lawn and giving them a push reel mower.

I never had to use a push reel mower, but as a kid I used a non-self-propelled mower quite a lot. Of course I bitched and moaned about not having a self-propelled model, especially given our hilly backyard, but it wasn't until I was almost moved out to college and the old mower gave up the ghost that they upgraded.

And you know what? I liked the old mower better. The new one didn't take any less time--in fact, it took a bit longer, because it always went at the same speed. It was definitely easier, but on the other hand a little extra exercise is a very good thing. And the old mower kept my interest by always being on the verge of sputtering out.

Anyway, as I said, I may be in the minority here (though i doubt I'm unique).

BTW, I'm also a "stairs elitist"--I turn my nose at any healthy adult that takes the elevator for less than 5 stories or so when stairs are available.

Acsenray

07-28-2011, 04:23 PM

You're really not making a good case for the pro-manual side. Really.

Vihaga

07-28-2011, 04:27 PM

...And the old mower kept my interest by always being on the verge of sputtering out.

...

BTW, I'm also a "stairs elitist"--I turn my nose at any healthy adult that takes the elevator for less than 5 stories or so when stairs are available.

That's fine, but do you get that other people prefer to think about something interesting while they mow the lawn (more interesting to them than whether it's going to quit), or prefer to get exercise at home or the gym rather than pumping up 5 flights in work clothes? It's fine for you to have a preference, but you seem to have trouble with the idea that others have different ones. Why turn up your nose at someone for preferring a different way?

Making something that I already find stupid and boring more difficult does not make me enjoy it more. It just raises it from "mild inconvenience" to "unnecessary pain in the ass."

Dr. Strangelove

07-28-2011, 04:39 PM

Is it impossible for you to understand that some people have zero interest in this stuff?

I find it difficult in general to understand how people can find anything at all completely uninteresting.

Relative interest I get--everyone has different preferences. But truly zero interest? I'm not sure there's a subject anywhere that I have zero interest in.

To me, this all reads like a list of completely unnecessary ways to make driving more dangerous.

None of that stuff is in any way dangerous unless taken to an extreme.

Dr. Strangelove

07-28-2011, 04:49 PM

You're really not making a good case for the pro-manual side. Really.

I already made the practical case many posts ago. It is no skin off my back if these points happen to be less important than other factors for some people, and that therefore autos are the best choice for them.

IMO, the topic has moved on to a question of whether, for a generally boring activity, you're better off minimizing how much mental share you give that activity vs. making an effort to make the activity more interesting and engaging.

For the most part, I prefer the latter approach, and this applies to more than just manual transmissions. Obviously, people's preferences differ, but the difference in attitude seems to go deeper than that. It may be a more general personality trait.

Fake Tales of San Francisco

07-28-2011, 04:58 PM

You may enjoy shifting constantly, but that doesn't mean it isn't more physical activity.

If you still want to argue that a manual transmission is not more effort than an automatic in heavy traffic - then I will be forced to add up the leg and arm movements - surely you can predict how that math exercise is going to turn out - right?

Ooooh, hold on a minute, you didn't say anything about physical activity in that post I quoted, didn't realise that was the actual issue! You talked about the sequence as if paying attention to what you're doing with the gears was the issue. Sorry.

If you don't like moving your feet and stuff, then I guess that's that. I would never claim it's not more physical effort - but physical effort isn't something that would occur to me. I like to run, and I walk everywhere that would take 15/20 minutes or less to drive to anyway.

I never realised people actually have a problem with moving their arms and legs whilst driving. :eek:

Acsenray

07-28-2011, 05:07 PM

I find it difficult in general to understand how people can find anything at all completely uninteresting.

Then this has nothing to do with driving at all, but is really a discussion about someone who either is incapable of or is unwilling to see things from other people's point of view.

Relative interest I get--everyone has different preferences. But truly zero interest? I'm not sure there's a subject anywhere that I have zero interest in.

How long is your day? How much time do you have to devote interest to every damn thing? I don't get enough time to give attention to the things I really am interested in. I have zero interest in giving additional time to what to me is the minutia of auto mechanics.

None of that stuff is in any way dangerous unless taken to an extreme.

Let's look at it again:

Take those turns a little bit faster. Floor it when hitting the onramp onto the highway. Whatever.

Driving while taking "those turns a little bit faster" and flooring it "when hitting the onramp onto the highway" are inherently more dangerous than not doing them.

Unless you admit this obvious truism, it's difficult to take you seriously at all. Especially since you are advocating spending the time and effort to learn how to do them safely.

You're introducing an increased risk to driving where it otherwise would be lower and then saying that we should all have interest in training ourselves to the point that we can mitigate some of that increased risk.

kunilou

07-28-2011, 05:11 PM

I never realised people actually have a problem with moving their arms and legs whilst driving. :eek:

Remember when I mentioned my wife a few pages back -- the one who likes driving a stick because it gives her more "control" (her word)? She has one artifical knee, shot cartilege in the other and arthritis in both her elbows.

So, yeah, there are people who'd prefer to minimize unnecessary movement while driving. Even people who might otherwise prefer to drive a stick.:(

Bosstrain

07-28-2011, 05:12 PM

Because we like to hold our cellphone in one hand and a cig in the other with our bong between our legs Jack Daniels in the cupholder and we got to have our nose free to change the channel on the radio when the commercial comes on :smack: . Jeeze, don't you realize we've got to keep the highway death toll up, we got a reputation to uphold :cool: .

RaftPeople

07-28-2011, 05:15 PM

Ooooh, hold on a minute, you didn't say anything about physical activity in that post I quoted, didn't realise that was the actual issue! You talked about the sequence as if paying attention to what you're doing with the gears was the issue. Sorry.

True.

My post, was in response to a poster saying that it's not more "cumbersome" than an automatic, but I didn't specifically say anything about "cumbersome" or physical activity in my post. I just listed the sequence of events that don't disappear regardless of how proficient one is with shifting.

Dr. Strangelove

07-28-2011, 05:33 PM

Then this has nothing to do with driving at all, but is really a discussion about someone who either is incapable of or is unwilling to see things from other people's point of view.

The ability to see things from another's point of view is something I've never been accused of :).

How long is your day? How much time do you have to devote interest to every damn thing? I don't get enough time to give attention to the things I really am interested in. I have zero interest in giving additional time to what to me is the minutia of auto mechanics.

We're talking past each other here. Of course I don't have the time to devote my interest to every possible thing. As I said: relative interest I get, which is why given the choice I will read an article about astronomy over one about some bug in the Amazon. But if I'm waiting at the doctor's office and the only magazine is a 14-year-old National Geographic special about bugs in the Amazon, I'm going to read it and probably find it interesting.

But perhaps I see some of the confusion here: you're talking about devoting additional time to these things. But for the most part, the things I'm talking about (certainly not a stick shift, aside from a trivial amount of "training") don't require significant additional time. They aren't even a real distraction from NPR or whatever, since they occupy different parts of your brain.

Unless you admit this obvious truism, it's difficult to take you seriously at all. Especially since you are advocating spending the time and effort to learn how to do them safely.

Ridiculous. Under typical conditions, your car has a large safety margin. There's a good chance, depending on your car, that you couldn't break traction on launch if you tried.

You're introducing an increased risk to driving where it otherwise would be lower and then saying that we should all have interest in training ourselves to the point that we can mitigate some of that increased risk.

No, you misunderstood. The things I cited as ways to increase the enjoyment of driving were not dependent on each other. I don't advocate driving on the edge of traction under any conditions, but on dry asphalt most cars are nowhere near that limit.

Driven correctly, manuals increase control under all conditions, but this should only come into play when you're already closer to the control limit than usual--inclement weather and so on. I certainly don't advise "spending" the extra control on speed here; I'll take the enhanced safety margin instead.

Acsenray

07-28-2011, 05:47 PM

Driven correctly, manuals increase control under all conditions

Manual driven correctly?
Manual driven incorrectly?
Automatic driven correctly?
Automatic driven incorrectly?

We're talking a about a country in which tens of millions of people take tens of millions of cars on the road every day. To what extent are you going to adhere to the theoretical outcomes of perfect operation of a car? Can you see that by eliminating unnecessary options, we are, in the bigger picture, increasing safety outcomes?

but this should only come into play when you're already closer to the control limit than usual--inclement weather and so on. I certainly don't advise "spending" the extra control on speed here; I'll take the enhanced safety margin instead.

This has very little meaning at all to me. Again, all I see is that you are advocating that the entire world be enthusiastic in learning an otherwise unnecessary skill for extremely arcane and unlikely benefits in outcomes.

Hilarity N. Suze

07-28-2011, 06:23 PM

Modern cars require electrical powerbefore the engine starts; the ECU needs power to know when to fire the spark plugs and fuel injectors, and the fuel pump needs power to deliver fuel pressure to the injectors. If your battery is completely flat, bump starting your manual-trans car won't work. If your battery still has some life in it, then it might work, or (if it's like my car) it might not, due to some peculiar interlock.

As for automatics, I've never heard of bump-starting being possible.

My car is a modern car (2001--kind of old, but I think it still falls within "modern") and it can be started by popping the clutch. There's another advantage I'd forgotten, until somebody mentioned it. We had a habit, a couple of years ago, of somebody not quite shutting the door. I could roll the car out of the garage, pop the clutch, and it would be running before I got to the street.

I know it's possible to start a manual by giving it a push but I think you have to get it going a hell of a lot faster, if that even still works, and it may not.

Dangerosa

07-28-2011, 06:32 PM

My first two cars were sticks.

I hate to drive. Hate it in an automatic. Hate it more in a manual.

chiroptera

07-28-2011, 06:55 PM

I know I posted early on in this thread giving some the impression I was a manual elitist....and I still am.

Looking at accident and death rates comparing the USA with Europe here (http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-multicountry-percapita-2004.htm), it seems that death rates due to traffic fatalities in the USA are pretty damn high, despite our high-tech, slush-box loving, first-world roadways, etc and blah blah....according to that, we utterly suck as a nation of drivers. Bulgaria, the Slovak republic, Azerbeijan and a shitload of other countries do better than the USA in terms of vehicle deaths per thousand.

Incidentally, this has been my experience when driving in Mexico, the middle east, Europe and Costa Rica. Overall, drivers in the USA are really sloppy and really bad. Last time I drove down into Mexico, the insurance agent told me that Mexico-side claims were way, way lower than USA-side claims. Mexican insurance is really cheap.

I was looking for more recent emprical evidence one way or another and this was the best I could do. Please feel free to rebut or update. My belief is that the USa, being a car-dependent country, has many residents who regard automobiles as boring appliances and don't give much thought to the social or community aspect of driving a car: they don't give a shit about anyone else as long as they get to wherever they want to go.

You lacksadaisical, bad, horrible, "it's just an appliance" drivers - it's your sort that crippled my mother. It's your sort that make my insurance go up. It's your sort that makes my commute a nightmare.

Dr. Strangelove

07-28-2011, 06:56 PM

Can you see that by eliminating unnecessary options, we are, in the bigger picture, increasing safety outcomes?

No. It's been established that manuals continue to be popular in Europe while being almost nonexistent in the US. However, US lags behind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_safety) in automotive safety:

The sizable traffic safety lead enjoyed by the USA since the 1960s had narrowed significantly by 2002, with the US improvement percentages lagging in 16th place behind those of Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Great Britain, Iceland, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland in terms of deaths per thousand vehicles, while in terms of deaths per 100 million vehicle miles travelled, the USA had dropped from first place to tenth place.[30]

Now, obviously there are a zillion other factors at play here. The point is just that you can't conclude from the data that automatics lead to better safety outcomes. At least, not unless you can provide more detailed data.

This has very little meaning at all to me. Again, all I see is that you are advocating that the entire world be enthusiastic in learning an otherwise unnecessary skill for extremely arcane and unlikely benefits in outcomes.

Driving in hard rain, or on windy roads, or on ice is arcane? Sure, it's not the typical case for most daily commutes, but it's also not so uncommon to be "arcane".

BDoors

07-28-2011, 07:09 PM

Looking at accident and death rates comparing the USA with Europe here (http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-multicountry-percapita-2004.htm), it seems that death rates due to traffic fatalities in the USA are pretty damn high, despite our high-tech, slush-box loving, first-world roadways, etc and blah blah....according to that, we utterly suck as a nation of drivers. Bulgaria, the Slovak republic, Azerbeijan and a shitload of other countries do better than the USA in terms of vehicle deaths per thousand.
You've probably got to take levels of car ownership into account, though, and that's obviously going to be way higher in the USA than in Azerbaijan. That said, there's no way that there are three times as many cars per person in the USA than there are in the Netherlands or Sweden.

[edit] and actually a similar point is made in the comments below the table in the link

chiroptera

07-28-2011, 07:16 PM

You've probably got to take levels of car ownership into account, though, and that's obviously going to be way higher in the USA than in Azerbaijan. That said, there's no way that there are three times as many cars per person in the USA than there are in the Netherlands or Sweden.

That's exactly why I put out the call to others to update or refute.
As it stands, appliance drivers in the USA are terrible and cost everyone else money.

BDoors

07-28-2011, 07:28 PM

chiroptera

07-28-2011, 07:42 PM

It seems to depend which measure one uses. If we look at the "VMT/VKmT Rate" column in your link (vehicle deaths per x miles/km travelled, it seems), the figure for the US is comparable to those for Western Europe, and far better than Slovakia. But the comments below discuss whether VMT is really that much better a measure.

My brain falls apart with this sort of scientificamal mathy-mathy stuff, which is why I invited others to chime in with a better set of stats. :)

artemis

07-28-2011, 07:56 PM

As it stands, appliance drivers in the USA are terrible and cost everyone else money.

No, BAD drivers are costing everyone else money. Whether or not you regard the car as an appliance has nothing to do with how good or bad a driver you are.

I regard my car as an appliance. I just want it to get me safely from Point A to Point B. And a big reason I prefer automatic transmissions in my car is that they allow me to pay less attention to the car and more attention to the road.

Siam Sam

07-28-2011, 10:31 PM

Realted question maybe suitable for a seperate thread:

Anybody out there who knows how to drive a motorcylce yet can't drive a manual automobile?

Yes and no. The time my roommate tried to teach me his manual car was before I came to Thailand. In my early days in Thailand, I did learn to drive a motorcycle upcountry. Haven't touched one in more than 20 years now though -- no way I'm driving one in Bangkok -- and not sure I'd remember right away. I'm sure it would come back.

R. P. McMurphy

07-29-2011, 12:14 AM

I know I've already attempted to correct this poster, with no response, but for the benefit of others reading, I'll point out again that almost every single statement made here is completely wrong, and the poster has no understanding of how transmissions or race cars. This is ironic for someone attempting to belittle people who prefer manual transmissions by way of the supposed technological superiority of automatics.

No response? Completely wrong? "Every single statement here is completely wrong"? Pull your head out of where your brain is. The jist of the thread is that somehow, in some people's minds a manual transmission is superior to an automatic transmission.

I define a "manual" transmission as a drive train where a manually operated clutch and a manually operated lever determines what gear the car will be in, no matter what. There are very sophisticated, paddle shifted cars that give the driver that control but, there is no manual clutch and, because of computer overrides will not allow the driver to do something that is utterly stupid.

So how is the manual system inherently better? "Every single statement?", get a clue.
The manual transmission is like the carburetor. It's essentially obsolete based on what is available in the cheapest cars. Give it up.

Dr. Strangelove

07-29-2011, 02:33 AM

I define a "manual" transmission as a drive train where a manually operated clutch and a manually operated lever determines what gear the car will be in, no matter what.

""When I use a word," R. P. McMurphy said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

Feel free to define "manual" that way, but it has very little to do with this thread. No one here is absolutely wedded to the idea of a manual clutch. What we want is control and responsiveness. Fancy paddle-operated dual-clutch systems offer this, and are thus a viable upgrade from conventional manual systems. Typical slushboxes do not offer this.

Throatwarbler Mangrove

07-29-2011, 03:21 AM

""When I use a word," R. P. McMurphy said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

Feel free to define "manual" that way, but it has very little to do with this thread. No one here is absolutely wedded to the idea of a manual clutch. What we want is control and responsiveness. Fancy paddle-operated dual-clutch systems offer this, and are thus a viable upgrade from conventional manual systems. Typical slushboxes do not offer this.

I'm wedded to the idea of a manual clutch. If it doesn't have a clutch pedal it's not a manual transmission. A high end slushbox can offer all the control and responsiveness you state, e.g. Any Mercedes 5G-TRONIC since the late 90s will rev match, hold gears to red line, and shift faster than you can move the shift lever, and yet it's a regular slushbox with a torque converter (some of the newer 7 speed ones have substituted a dry clutch), valve body, planetary gearsets, and all that jazz.

Dr. Strangelove

07-29-2011, 04:09 AM

I'm wedded to the idea of a manual clutch. If it doesn't have a clutch pedal it's not a manual transmission.

Well ok, we have one person here :).

What do you think about dual clutch systems? The very epithet "slushbox" implies to me a torque converter, since that is the source of the weird disconnect between engine RPM and speed.

leftfield6

07-29-2011, 05:33 AM

I'm not going to force anyone to drive a manual if they don't want to. It's not nearly as hard, and doesn't require nearly the amount of effort that some on this thread have implied, bu to each his own.

I drive a 5-speed Honda Element to work 38 miles each way in Atlanta traffic. Lot's of stop and go, a few starts on hills, etc. I can assure you I do not get to work with an over-tired left leg from the clutch, and an exhausted right arm from rowing the shifter.

I know some of the posters in this thread will not agree, but the manual transmission is not an anachronism. It is not a relic from a bygone era. It is simply a different way to do something. I (speaking for myself and no one else) enjoy driving a manual transmission, I do not enjoy driving an automatic. Simple as that.

For those of you casting manual transmission drivers as resistant to change or technology, you're wrong. I don't hang on to a manual transmission because I'm unwilling to move on. Not at all, my Element has a built-in GPS, bluetooth, ipod control, power everything (windows, locks, etc), four wheel drive, etc.

Machine Elf

07-29-2011, 07:11 AM

My car is a modern car (2001--kind of old, but I think it still falls within "modern") and it can be started by popping the clutch. There's another advantage I'd forgotten, until somebody mentioned it. We had a habit, a couple of years ago, of somebody not quite shutting the door. I could roll the car out of the garage, pop the clutch, and it would be running before I got to the street.

I know it's possible to start a manual by giving it a push but I think you have to get it going a hell of a lot faster, if that even still works, and it may not.

As long as you push it up to enough speed so that the engine revs high enough when you pop the clutch, then the engine should start, assuming the battery has enough juice, and also assuming the ECU cooperates. The ECU on my car does not cooperate; I don't know if that's unique or not.

However, no car can be bump-started if the battery is dead flat.

Anne Neville

07-29-2011, 07:41 AM

I'd never advocate driving recklessly, but hot-rodding it a little bit can be safe, legal, and fun. Take those turns a little bit faster. Floor it when hitting the onramp onto the highway. Whatever.

That moves driving away from "boring" and toward "scary". Sorry, I'd rather have boring than scary.

leftfield6

07-29-2011, 07:50 AM

That moves driving away from "boring" and toward "scary". Sorry, I'd rather have boring than scary.

Sure, I'd rather have boring than scary, but there's a lot of gray between those two black/and white extremes. Not sure exactly where on that boring-to-scary continuum it falls, but I'll take "involved" over boring.

artemis

07-29-2011, 08:07 AM

I'm not going to force anyone to drive a manual if they don't want to.

Yes, but you're sensible. :D

Some people (like you) prefer a manual transmission. Others (like me) prefer an automatic. Either will get the job done just fine. It's only an issue if you find yourself driving in a part of the world where your preferred transmission is rare (which brings us back to the start of this thread).

Unintentionally Blank

07-29-2011, 08:54 AM

It's a bullshit grinder debate topic (http://growabrain.typepad.com/growabrain/2008/05/bullshit-grinde.html) by that I mean: people take great delight and effort to debate something that does not matter. You might as well debate which is better: Red or Green?

Sticks are more involving, the let you do fiddly things like rev-matching and force the car to do what you tell it to do, without intervention, for better or worse.

They can be cheaper, they can get better gas milage, but those things are irrelevant if you just want to row the gears (a movement that surprisingly approximates using a bullshit grinder).

I can slam the automatic lovers by saying they have no confidence in their skills, I can say they want to concentrate on a potentially violent act (driving a car) as little as possible, I can say "if using a clutch in heavy traffic is too much effort, perhaps you should exercise more", but those are just foils in the debate...they're irrelevant because you're trying to come up with a mathematical reason for an emotional preference.

You don't WANT a stick? The car you Really Want isn't available with a stick? Both good reasons. A stick is Better Than an auto (or CVT)? Not as defendable a stance.

Terraplane

07-29-2011, 09:13 AM

It's a bullshit grinder debate topic (http://growabrain.typepad.com/growabrain/2008/05/bullshit-grinde.html) by that I mean: people take great delight and effort to debate something that does not matter.

Browse through all the thread titles in IMHO or MPSIMS. What do you think is done here? Very little discussed here matters in any meaningful way but people enjoy discussing things anyway so here we all are.

You might as well debate which is better: Red or Green?

Green is the color of grass and cows like to eat it and then the cows taste good but red is the color of fire and sunburn and both of those things hurt so green is the obvious choice.

MacTech

07-29-2011, 09:22 AM

Well ok, we have one person here :).

What do you think about dual clutch systems? The very epithet "slushbox" implies to me a torque converter, since that is the source of the weird disconnect between engine RPM and speed.

Make that TWO people here, no clutch pedal = not a true manual, I've driven a DSG equipped VW Jetta, the DSG did shift well, but any transmission you can put into "D" and let the transmission shift for you is not a real manual transmission

The DSG is nothing more than an automatic with a fancy manual override mode, IOW, a "manumatic", it may have a dual clutch system instead of a torque converter, but since it can shift on it's own, it's not a real manual

Krouget

07-29-2011, 09:33 AM

To a first approximation, engines wear out because you have parts rubbing up against each other, and lubrication isn't perfect. An engine at twice the RPM has twice the "rubs per second" and (again, very roughly) wears at twice the rate, even if it's producing a similar amount of power.
Assuming most everything else is maintained reasonably well, a good deal of mechanical wear on an engine will take place during cold starts, when the oil isn't warm enough to best lubricate the motor. Along with this, it's the heat from the friction that causes premature wear, among other factors. Wear while driving across your normal rev range, under most daily driving demands, is negligible, and in a number of cases, it's not unhealthy for the engine to be taken/ran in the upper RPMs.

Having performed regular used oil analysis, where you can detect various wear metals in the motor to determine engine health, it's been determined that even increased wear from years of stop and go city traffic, results in a near negligible reduction in longevity (at least in my experiences, and a number of others I can account for).

That's not to say there isn't a time or place for using the full RPM range--if you need the power, then use it--but it will cause extra wear.
I've seen people track their vehicles using full synthetics, as well as daily drive the vehicle, and the UOA didn't show any abnormal wear that would raise concern (meaning, the car would surpass 100k miles, reliably, or whatever the current expected service life is, these days).

Relating this more to the topic, in a nutshell, it's just far easier to drive the car normally, as opposed to trying to use a manual gearbox and such habits, to extend the engine's life. Just the opposite, there isn't much evidence that such driving habits do extend the life by anything substantial, if at all.

Vihaga

07-29-2011, 09:35 AM

My belief is that the USa, being a car-dependent country, has many residents who regard automobiles as boring appliances and don't give much thought to the social or community aspect of driving a car: they don't give a shit about anyone else as long as they get to wherever they want to go.

You lacksadaisical, bad, horrible, "it's just an appliance" drivers - it's your sort that crippled my mother. It's your sort that make my insurance go up. It's your sort that makes my commute a nightmare.

Do you have even a shred of data that supports this assertion? There are so many factors involved in a country's death rates, including safety features, speed limits, training, traffic patterns, the age of drivers, and the amount of drunk driving, among other things, that I have a hard time believing that you can make the logical leap required to blame it on people who don't enjoy driving.

If we're pulling assertions out of the air, my anecdotal evidence tells that none of the "appliance" drivers in my family has ever been in an accident, while those that enjoy driving more (and drive manuals more often) have had several accidents and many, many more speeding tickets. So drivers of cars with standard transmissions must be worse, right?

control-z

07-29-2011, 09:46 AM

As far as automatics in the USA, I think part of the American dream is cruising, just driving a big-ass car with a plush seat down a big-ass road, one arm around your sweetie, the other arm holding a drink/cigarette and the steering wheel. But more realistically the USA has a lot of open highway, which lends itself to automatics, and a lot of city/suburbs, and driving in traffic lends itself to automatics. Multitasking (drinking, shaving, talking on the cell phone, putting on makeup) lends itself to automatics too. Many Americans have a busy life.

I think people are generally better off driving a manual, it's a bit more physical effort (and most of us need more exercise), it keeps the driver more alert and involved, and it can be more efficient than an automatic. But hey, that's their choice. If the market didn't want automatics then the majority of cars wouldn't be automatics.

I wonder what the correlation of rural dweller to manual transmission fans is? I live in a rural area with twisty hilly roads and prefer manuals.

Siam Sam

07-29-2011, 10:27 AM

Green is the better color. At least over red.

BDoors

07-29-2011, 10:30 AM

the USA has a lot of open highway, which lends itself to automatics.
We touched on this before, but I don't understand this point. Open highway is one place where the disadvantages of manuals don't matter, because you rarely need to change gear.

Krouget

07-29-2011, 10:44 AM

Make that TWO people here, no clutch pedal = not a true manual, I've driven a DSG equipped VW Jetta, the DSG did shift well, but any transmission you can put into "D" and let the transmission shift for you is not a real manual transmission
I'm one for the "other" camp. I drive both a clutch driven manual car, and an auto/clutch-less manual car w/ locking converter.

I love them both, for different reasons, but in being honest, the first carries a longer list of subjective merits. In most other situations, especially objective ones, I'd take the latter gearbox EVERY time, and transplant the gearbox into the former vehicle in half a heartbeat, if I could.

I'm not so much worried about being "true/real", as that's usually influenced by ego, or simply varies by who you ask. Manual control, for me = driver motivated decision/intention. If I want to control my gear selection, independent of a pre-programmed TCU, I can do it in either car.

To add, both cars come with somewhat similar safeguards; the most obvious being the gear lockout to prevent over-revving from high speed downshifts. The only real difference, is the clutch-less vehicle only disables full manual control in overheating situations, and obviously prevents stalling. I don't desire either, as they certainly aren't beneficial traits.

Kevbo

07-29-2011, 11:10 AM

Older automatics in particular were less efficient and heavier. This mattered little when you put one in a 2-1/2 to 3 ton land yacht with a V-8 burning cheap fuel. The extra cost isn't so much when you are already paying for a huge car with a huge engine, on easy credit terms.

It matters a lot when you have a small, light economical European car, with an engine so small that air conditioning was not the norm until the last couple of decades. Imagine a 1960's VW beetle saddled with a 1960s automatic transmission...it wouldn't have been able to get out of it's own way, yet was passable transportation when equipped as sold.

Further, a lighter car takes a fair amount less finesse on the clutch than a big heavy vehicle, and the clutch pedal will require far less pressure as well. Especially as the normal manual transmission only had three forward gears, so first was pretty tall. A torque converter allowed a very low effective gear ratio, so made for better initial acceleration in the day.

The upshot is that until recent decades, automatics worked better in big cars, and manuals worked better in little cars. Further, American women started driving in large numbers far sooner than their European sisters, in a day when women were still expected to wear heels. The clutch pressure and travel needed for the large V-8 in the station-wagon that 60's moms drove really was too much for many women to manage. American auto makers pretty well had to supply automatics if they wanted to sell more than one car to each household, while European makers were still dreaming that maybe 1 in 5 households might buy a single car. To sell more cars European makers had to make them cheaper. To sell more cars American makers had to make the sexier and easier to drive.

The main reason that Americans prefer automatics is that Americans prefer larger cars. And the reasons for that are pretty simple: Much lower fuel prices, affluence, easy credit, lack of tax penalties for larger heavier vehicles, vastly longer distances to be covered, and cities that were largely designed after cars were invented, so have wide streets and parking spaces, and a driving population that didn't mostly live in cities anyway. There is a lot of truth in the saying that a European is someone who thinks 100 miles is a long distance, and an American is someone who thinks 100 years is a long time.

Now most of what has been said of modern automatics is true, but there is strong cultural inertia. Europeans still see automatic transmissions as frivolous luxury, and Americans still see a clutch as something for people who can't afford a proper car.

A second reason is that American driving licenses require far less training than European standards. The typical American teenager is turned loose with perhaps 1/4 the training that a European would have, and that European would most likely be a decade older. There really isn't time to learn how to drive a clutch in the time devoted to American driver education.

As for me I hate driving slush boxes, have never owned one, and find it wonderful that I can actually rent a car with a standard transmission in most of the rest of the world. Honestly, if you are not willing to drive a clutch, it is significantly harder to hire a car in Europe.

BDoors

07-29-2011, 11:27 AM

I was out walking today and decided to discreetly check out if the parked cars I passed by were manuals or automatics. I have to say, I was surprised at how many of them were autos. It seemed like about a quarter of them, including quite a few little hatchbacks. Maybe automatics are more popular here (UK) than I thought.

Throatwarbler Mangrove

07-29-2011, 11:40 AM

Well ok, we have one person here :).

What do you think about dual clutch systems? The very epithet "slushbox" implies to me a torque converter, since that is the source of the weird disconnect between engine RPM and speed.

Does it have a clutch pedal? No? Then it's an automatic.

The advantage of a dual clutch over a conventional automatic is greater fuel economy, less pumping loss from the torque converter and lighter weight, while still being somewhat smoother and less clunky at low speeds than a single clutch automated gearbox like Ferrari F1 or BMW SMG. Another important advantage for European cars is that since a DSG (or SMG) is essentially a manual box, it can be adapted to engine start/stop systems without much difficulty. Current engine start/stop systems have only been widely adopted on manual transmissions and DSG, because a conventional automatic relies on the engine idling to keep hydraulic fluids circulating and don't work well with the engine shutting down at every stop.

They don't have any real advantage over an SMG type gearbox, or even a modern planetary gearset auto, in terms of performance. They are heavier than a single clutch gearbox and most importantly, having 2 clutches instead of 1 increases the weight of the rotating assembling and has an effect on engine performance. This mostly isn't an issue on regular road cars which already have heavy flywheels and modest redlines - VW and Ford's first applications of DSG were on their small diesel cars for this reason, but on some new supercars like the Lexus LFA and Lamborghini Aventador, the choice of a single clutch gearbox was an engineering decision (both cars are pretty much in the "cost is no issue" category) where it was decided that removing weight from the rotating assembly to maximize engine response was a worthwhile tradeoff for somewhat clunky and less smooth shifting in the parking lot.

These types of cars cannot really use a regular clutch pedal manual for the same reason. The rotating assembly is so light, and the engine so revvy, that trying to make it work with a manual results in a car that is almost undrivable on the street. The Porsche Carrera GT was the last car of this type to have a manual trans, and while it was very fast in the right hands, I wouldn't want to try driving it up a hill in traffic.

But guess what? The engine in my car isn't from a Carrera GT or Lexus LFA so the technical problems faced by those cars are of no concern to me. Maybe when I get one of those cars I'll consider the merits of an automatic gearbox, but until then they are not a solution for which I have a problem that needs solving. Maybe they taste like pumpkin pie, but I ain't eating them.

BDoors

07-29-2011, 11:47 AM

The typical American teenager is turned loose with perhaps 1/4 the training that a European would have, and that European would most likely be a decade older.
I'm not sure about that. The minimum driving age here is 17, and most of those kids are desperate to get their licence. It's something of a rite of passage.

Siam Sam

07-29-2011, 11:55 AM

I'm not sure about that. The minimum driving age here is 17, and most of those kids are desperate to get their licence. It's something of a rite of passage.

I got my license at age 16 in Texas, but you had to have taken Driver's Ed to qualify for that. (And I still wrecked my father's car, twice, but not too seriously either time.) At age 15, I had a Learner's Permit in which I could drive if a fully licensed driver was in the front seat next to me. And IIRC, it was possible for a 14-year-old to get a Hardship License if he or she had to help support the family; it allowed the kid to drive only between home and work.

Irishman

07-29-2011, 12:18 PM

Why not? :confused:

It does exactly that. The cruise control has no idea what gear the transmission is in (that's true for a manual or an automatic); it only knows what speed it's supposed to shoot for. Just like your automatic, the cruise control on my Maxima (and on my motorcycle) "remembers" what its previous set speed was even after I've tapped the brake (or even pulled in the clutch and downshifted), and I can hit "resume" and get back to that same set speed.

I can take my car to a full stop. Then press resume and it will go back up to speed. I doubt a manual will do that well.

Anyway, I'd be the last to say that all my commutes are fun-filled joyrides. But surely there's a difference between "a small amount of fun" vs. "no fun at all".

For someone who doesn't enjoy something, paying more attention to it isn't more fun. YMMV. Making it more fiddly doesn't make it easier.

However, no car can be bump-started if the battery is dead flat.

Why not? The point of a rolling start is to engage the alternator, so it is cranking out juice. A car should run just fine without a battery at all assuming the alternator gets spinning.

I'm not so much worried about being "true/real", as that's usually influenced by ego, or simply varies by who you ask.

Then you missed the point. That comment was about what makes a manual transmission a manual, vs an automatic, not which transmission type you prefer.

Manual control, for me = driver motivated decision/intention.

Perhaps that terminology issue an element of this conversation. I think the majority of the people in this thread are envisioning "automatic transmission" to equal what some are deploring as "slushboxes" and "manuals" to equate to the old "standard", i.e. lever shift and foot clutch. The newer paddle shifters and "autosticks" that allow you to select your gear without requiring manual clutch operation are hybrid systems that don't fit in either category. We've been individually categorizing them as one or the other based upon preferences and personal opinions, and then talking past one another.

I am somewhat interested in trying out an autostick or paddle shifter, assuming it doesn't require manual clutch operation. I'm less interested in a transmission that requires two separate foot clutches. Unless you're telling me those foot pedals are provided but unnecessary, which seems weird. Why put something in the floorboard in the way of my legs if I don't have to use them?

thelabdude

07-29-2011, 12:34 PM

Green is the color of grass and cows like to eat it and then the cows taste good but red is the color of fire and sunburn and both of those things hurt so green is the obvious choice.

Ah, but the cows convert the green grass to red meat.

I wonder what the correlation of rural dweller to manual transmission fans is? I live in a rural area with twisty hilly roads and prefer manuals.

It is a big factor for me. Yes I get tired of this little podunk town and putting up stop signs wherever somebody that knows the mayor wants one, but if I had to fight city congestion every day, I might once again buy an automatic.

I once got caught behind an old guy in pickup truck on a rural road that had a series of small hills and dips. When I came up to the top of one hill, I could see the next 3 valleys were clear. I dropped into second and gave it the gas. I caught third as I went by him and was out of sight long before high.

brewha

07-29-2011, 01:23 PM

Krouget

07-29-2011, 01:24 PM

Then you missed the point. That comment was about what makes a manual transmission a manual, vs an automatic, not which transmission type you prefer.
They were specifically discussing what they preferred, starting with the following comment: "I'm wedded to the idea of a manual clutch."

When a person uses "real" and "true" as words to establish a distinction between a clutch driven unit, and one without, in this context, it most definitely falls into the realm of subjectivity. The definition I prefer to use, focuses on the actual intent behind manual control, which in both daily and track driven performance, differs from an automatic in all the same ways. I think that's at least respective of the times and progression of technology.

Perhaps that terminology issue an element of this conversation. I think the majority of the people in this thread are envisioning "automatic transmission" to equal what some are deploring as "slushboxes" and "manuals" to equate to the old "standard", i.e. lever shift and foot clutch. The newer paddle shifters and "autosticks" that allow you to select your gear without requiring manual clutch operation are hybrid systems that don't fit in either category. We've been individually categorizing them as one or the other based upon preferences and personal opinions, and then talking past one another.
You're exactly right, and prior to the claim that "anything that doesn't have a manually controlled clutch = auto", I didn't raise the counterpoint. Gearboxes have evolved to the point, where they don't have to follow convention, in order to deliver a manual experience to the driver...I applaud this. For most any purpose, there exist support for just why clutch-less manuals are a suitable and relevant evolution of their clutch-driven counterparts (not that I really need to do so, as above all, the market and current trends speak for themselves).

I am somewhat interested in trying out an autostick or paddle shifter, assuming it doesn't require manual clutch operation.
You really should try it out, then (what do you have to lose?). While I also enjoy driving my car with three pedals, I don't miss the manual-clutch at all, when using my paddle shifted car. It's one less car operation I have to micro-manage, and one less source for error, which detracts from my being able to focus on my heading. It makes actual course driving a lot easier (so far as vehicle control goes), as well.

pulykamell

07-29-2011, 01:46 PM

Is the actual question in the OP even valid? There's a lot of argument over which is better or which is preferred, but every person who is debating the topic seems to be able to drive a manual.

Is there any evidence that "so few" Americans can drive a stick? Or that Americans are especially inept at manual transmissions as opposed to other countries?

I don't know that I know a single person that can't drive a stick. And I do know that everyone in my family is quite proficient at manual transmissions. As is my wife and everyone in her family.

I suspect it makes a difference where you grew up. As I said in my post above, my car is manual transmission. I only know of two non-European persons in my local group of friends and family who knows how to drive a stick. I was at a wedding not too long ago where somebody needed to drive my car and nobody in the wedding party or within earshot of the wedding party admitted to knowing how to drive a stick. Until I bought my car, hell, I didn't even know a single person with a manual transmission automobile, except for one roommate back in college (from Wisconsin.) Hell, I was 20 years old before I sat in a car with a stick shift.