This is what bothers me the most about my current manual transmission car. It’s a 2011 BMW 335i. Despite having plenty of low-end torque and a very flat torque curve, the gears on the 6-speed manual are spaced so close together. When I’m cruising down the highway at 70 MPH, the engine is doing about 2500 RPM, not racing but certainly more audible than at lower speeds. I had my car in for service and got a 2014 328i with the 8-speed automatic as a loaner; doing 70 MPH in that car, the engine is turning about 1900 RPM. And that’s a 4-cylinder. I wish the gears in my car were spaced father apart with 6th gear being taller. Fine with me if I had to downshift every time I wanted to accelerate.
Not quite. “Standard” in auto industry lingo doesn’t necessarily mean “what most cars come equipped with.” It means “what the base model of this car comes equipped with, without extra-cost options.” Now, this has been somewhat obviated in that many models are no longer available with a manual transmission at all. But for models in which both manuals and automatics are available, the manufacturers mostly still bill the manual as “standard” and the automatic as an extra-cost option (even when 95% of said models sold have the automatic.)
^ (ETA: Agreed) In my experience, “standard” means manual transmission, despite the fact that almost nobody I know owns a “standard” transmission. I don’t know about this “1980” cutoff, either, as I was 5 in 1980, and I have never heard anyone in my life use the word “standard” to mean “automatic.”
I’ve driven both manual and auto transmissions in difficult traction situations such as gravel, ice, snow, mud, and wet clay. Both worked well provided that I had the proper tires/tread pattern for those conditions and I didn’t do anything stupid. However, the only mixer that worked on wet hard clay were stick shifts because I could stick it in 4th (greatly reduced torque) and feather the clutch almost to the point of stalling the engine. We weren’t moving fast but we were moving forward. Sure beats pushing in clay that would suck your shoes right off your feet.
As far as getting better mileage, I usually manually shifted at higher rpms than the autos would. My mileage was usually worse with a stick shift. YMMV.
When talking to people born in the US, I never hear standard used to refer to a manual - people typically say stick or stick shift if they don’t say manual transmission.
As for the 1980 cut-off, that’s just my own extended family (about 70-some people). As our family’s designated speed-junkie, I’ve heard grousing about my manual-shift cars for years from the younger set wanting a test drive. The only automatics I’ve owned were a 1966 Rolls-Royce and a 2007 Smart Fortwo, neither of which they were keen to try.
In a sign of our cultural decline, my last trip home someone wanted to know why I didn’t have any automatic transmission motorcycles. Truly, the end of days is nigh…
Yeah, “stick” tends to be the word here, although I could swear I’ve heard “standard” before. Regardless, I’ve never heard anyone, US English or otherwise, use “standard” to describe a slushbox.
Yeah, there aren’t really any slam-dunk functional reasons to go with the manual anymore. That said, the act of driving is shitty enough with all the stupid fucks on the road; at least we have one thing left to keep driving fun. It still makes me smile when I nail that perfect heel-and-toe downshift. I don’t even mind driving my manual in traffic - I love the feel and the sound of the shifter popping into the gate. So satisfying.
Pet peeve of mine when Americans justify getting an auto with traffic - like we’re the only ones that have any, or shifting is this huge effort. I’ve made it thru awful Chicago traffic for years just fine driving manuals, same as the rest of the world.
There was a motorcycle, Ducati of Buell, can’t remember which, that was notorious for have a 26-lb pull on the clutch lever. Now that would be a hassle in bad traffic!