Which cars perform better; manual or automatic?

In My Humble Opinion
1

So I’m a 20-something guy who is in the process of learning how to drive. I have no serious problem in driving cars with either manual or automatic transmissions. However in order to master the handling of a manual car, it will take me a considerably longer time – perhaps as much as 50% longer.

So I want to know – which type of car has the performance edge when it comes to driving?

In order to make this clearer I will split up those things that I consider being “performance-related” into two groups; “pure performance” and “costs”. Then I will list suggestions so as to help you consider different possible performance/cost variables.

Okay, so:
PURE PERFORMANCE

· Fuel economy – how many miles can it go to the gallon?
· Power/Acceleration
· Braking
· Manouverability – the types of “tricks” it can do, the physical ability of the car to move around in different directions, the places where manual/automatic cars have an edge

Etc. (try to think up your own criteria as well as that listed above)

COSTS

· Maintenance – the expenses incurred over the life of the car to keep it running
· Repairs – via damage to the car caused for whatever reason
· “Tooling-up” the car – adding bits and pieces to the car such as a new bodywork/frame, CD player/electrical equipment, and the sorts of technological gizmos as that seen in movies like “Too Fast Too Furious”
· Cost of the car itself

Obviously the manual/automatic cars in question must be comparable. So if you have a specific car in mind please stick to isometric versions of the manual/automatic transmissions. A Ferrari is hardly likely to come up short to a Datsun.
Also note that this discussion is purely on the technical details and schematics of the car. There will inevitably pop up one guy with the answer “manual cars are more fun to drive than automatics”, and other such nonsense. It is worth remembering that I have no such inclination either way. Those people who consistently assert that “automatic driving isn’t really driving” or “the real skill is in driving a manual” are (IMO of course) losers with too much time on their hands. I don’t give a flying rats hoot about learning any “new skill” or driving “how my daddy drove”. My only interest is in those “performance-related” factors mentioned above.

I am particularly interested in how the different types of transmission affect manoeuvrability. I have heard that in a manual system, you can achieve more physical output than in an automatic. For example, you can do a controlled slide rear-ending the car (spinning it from front to back 180 degrees) in a shorter stop of time and more precisely. And other such things. But the only reason given for this apparent advantage is that, “if you can control the clutch, you have more control over the car”. That seems a little too general for me. Anyone who can further illuminate me on such matters, please do.

Which also brings me to another set of points. Please explain (in as much detail you feel is necessary) any point you wish to expand on. Also if you wish to include any websites or books on the matter then please feel free to mention/link them.
To re-iterate, only those types of technical matters alluded to above are to be discussed, not those concerning tradition.

Okay, so let’s discuss.

2

When driving in icy conditions, standards have the edge because you can slow down using just the engine, or the engine plus brakes. The other side of this, however, is that standards can be harder to control on ice when changing gears unless you have a really good touch with the clutch/gas. Rev it a little high when changing gears, and you can get a fishtail.

You can warm up a standard engine quicker when it’s cold by undershifting. This is probably not recommended. :smiley:

Automatics have the edge in city driving, when you’re clutching all the time, or in tight parking situations, or in hilly areas.

Standards have better gas mileage, and get more power out of a smaller engine. If the car you’re looking at is known to be slightly underpowered, get a stick version.

Standards cost less. Standard transmissions cost less to fix. However, chances are very good you’ll be replacing a clutch/clutch cable at some point.

Standards can have automatic car starters, but they can be more iffy than an automatic.

(By the way, if you don’t want people’s opinions, don’t post in “In My Humble OPINION.” In my opinion, if you drive stick and automatic and you don’t prefer stick just because it’s more fun, you’re not driving stick right. :smiley: )

3

I would add to featherlou’s reply that standards don’t overheat if you blow a coolant hose/throw a belt. Automatics need to have total fluid flush and replacement ASAP if you ever lose coolant.

The fluid might look nice and bright red and not smell “burnt” right after an engine overheat, but if you don’t immediately flush that fluid you’ll probably suffer a sudden transmission failure within 6 months.

You can buy a transmission cooler that mounts ahead of the radiator and set the fluid flow up to bypass the coils in your radiator to eliminate this possibility. But before you buy the vehicle, make sure ther’s room for it as many cars that still come with sticks are small and have limited room under the hood.

4

The power difference is significant.

Last year we dyno tested several 2003/04 Toyota Matrix vehicles for tuning purposes. My baseline in my 6 speed manual 180 HP vehicle was 164.9 WHP.

The exact same vehicle with a 4 speed auto made 132 WHP.

So for me, I paid $1000 (CAN) less, got 30+ more HP and have less maintance to perform than an auto.
There’s no question that in terms of material costs, manual is always better. The advantage with auto is with effort. Autos are easier to drive at a cost.

5

if you think about it logically, there;s a reason manuals are more efficient and overall just plain better (hey, i admit i’m biased), just look at the physical design

to put it in the simplest terms possible, for the manual…

take 2 flat metal plates, cover them with sandpaper and put a ring of retractable hooks on both sides, one plate is connected to the crankshaft of the engine, the other to the transmission, when the clutch is disengaged, the two sandpaper plates and hooks are locked together, there is a direct physical connection between the engine and tranny

when you push in the clutch pedal, the hooks disengage and the sandpaper disks pull away from each other, disconnecting the crankshaft from the tranny, now the clutch is engaged, the connection between the engine and tranny is broken, allowing you to change gears

(remember this is an extremely simplified description, the tranny’s a lot more complicated than the above description, here’s a better example)

automatics are different, take a household fan blade and connect it to the crankshaft, take another fan blade and connect it to the tranny, the blades should face each other, then submerge both blades into a viscous fluid (tranny fluid), the front fan is spun by the crankshaft, and in the process, spins the tranny fluid, which then spins the tranny fan, there is no physical contact between the fans, this type of tranny is always slipping, it’s designed that way, that’s why you get a 25-30 HP drop with an automatic, this is called the torque converter, and it’s the automatic’s version of a clutch

a better description of how automatics work

personally, i hate automatics, but that’s just me

6

featherlou, every manual I’ve driven has the option to manually downshift (usually to 2nd and 1st gear). Certainly not good for the transmission, but if you need it in an emergency, it’s there.

From a performance standpoint, manuals are better, although I don’t know what ‘tricks’ you’ll be performing. The majority of drivers are incapable of creating controlled slides (not too many places to learn/practice, especially under a variety of road and environmental conditions).

Most of my driving is in traffic, though, and in traffic, automatics win from a convenience standpoint.

7

Auto.

Despite all the pointless manual technobable people spout, you want better performance. Unless you are one of the 10 most skill-handed men in the world you probably won’t handle a manual any better than the car can do an auto. Most sports cars have CVT autos anyways and will react with shifts, etc. based on how agressive you are being. Even motorcycles, F1, etc use semiauto gearboxes that are sequential. Hands down, a modern car with an auto is the best route.

8

Simply not true. There is less power loss in a manual transmission compared to an automatic, so more of the vehicle’s engine power can be used for accelerating. It doesn’t take a lot of skill to drive a manual quickly (in a straight line anyway).

Autos for convenience, manuals for lower cost and performance.

9

I’ll jump in here and hopefully offer a little clarity.

  1. While many manufacturers are pursuing CVTs (continuously variable transmissions), they are not available on top line sports cars(i.e. Ferrari, Porsche, etc.). For the most part, CVTs are currently limited to lower horsepower cars - but I think Audi has introduced or will be introducing a CVT in their TT.

  2. While the top line sports cars are abandoning the conventional manual, they are not adopting automatics. What they are adopting is a clutch less manual transmission where a computer and actuators control the clutch for you – which can significantly reduce the time required to change gears. Many of these do offer an “automatic” mode where the driver has no input on the shifting, but fundamentally they are not automatic transmissions (i.e. no torque converter).

  3. Many cars with automatics, have the ability to adjust shift points based on a drivers style, or paddles on the steering wheel. While these may offer additional control over the shift points, deep down these are just a fancy version of a traditional automatic.

10

Better gas mileage? More horsepower? Less costly? You’re calling these pointless features?

11

I think UnPossible has pointed out one of the ironic terminology quirks that ultimately makes this type of discussion confusing.

One would think, on first hearing the terms, that “manual” and “automatic” transmissions would differ primarily in how the shifting is ordered: on the driver’s instruction in a “manual”; well, automatically in an “automatic.”

Perhaps once, but no longer. “Manual” transmissions exist that require no driver input in the shifting whatsoever (electronically controlled clutching and shifting) - and these are often referred to as “automatics”, which confuses some and enrages others. Similarly, the driver-controlled shifting in Tiptronic and similar drivetrains do not change the fact that it’s an “automatic.”

As I understand it, “manuals” have a clutch that engages/disengages the transmission from the engine; “automatics” have a torque converter. These are the defining characteristics, are they not? How shifts are ordered doesn’t really figure into it.

Kinda odd, but language is like that sometimes, I guess. :smack:

12

As others have said, stickshifts are tops in both power/acceleration and fuel economy.

For the reasons MacTech explains, when you’re driving a stick, and you step on the gas, you go. When you’re driving an automatic, there’s that slight mushy delay.

And with a stick, you just shift, but with an automatic, you’ve got to wait around for it to take a meeting on whether it wants to get over the hump now, or wait another 10 seconds. Zzzzzzz.

Strictly using the brakes, they brake the same. But as featherlou said, with a stick, you can brake by downshifting - and just as important, you can shift to a lower gear in advance, to ‘keep a leash’ on your speed in touchy situations, like curves, slick roads, or complicated traffic, so when you brake, it won’t be as sudden. It’s worth driving a standard just for this property alone.

I’ll reiterate what others have said about cost (IIRC, automatics tend to run $800 - $1000 more than standards) and maintenance/repair (automatics have automatic transmissions; automatic transmissions have problems, and when they do, they aren’t cheap). I will take exception to what featherlou said about replacing a clutch or clutch cable; in 18 years of driving standards almost exclusively, I’ve never needed to do so. And I’m not gentle on my cars, shift a lot, and ride the clutch probably a bit more than most.

And I would second featherlou that, aside from big-city, stop-and-go traffic, driving a stick really makes driving a lot more fun. And I say that as someone who didn’t learn to drive a stick until I was 36, so I have a standard of comparison.

13

That was 32, not 36. Minor detail.

14

I kinda wondered about replacing the clutch/clutch cable. I’ve replaced them on just about every standard I’ve driven, but this might truly be a “mileage varying” thing.

Yeah, I guess you can shift down in an automatic; I forgot about that, because most people just don’t.

15

I’ve had two cars with standard transmissions & have never had to replace a clutch or clutch cable. I sold the first after 120,000 miles. My current is at 95,000.
YMMV. :smiley:

16

True, few drivers I’ve seen ever use those gears. I use the lower gears and downshifting on bad road conditions (snow and ice). I don’t think downshifting will offer any greater stopping distance in an emergency than my antilock brakes…but I’ve never driven a manual with antilock to compare.

17

yep, the delay you’re experiencing there is thanks to the torque converter taking time to spin up or spin down to the proper shifting speed, a manual is a direct physical connection, when the clutch is disengaged, the tranny and crankshaft are essentially one piece

perfect example, i have a basic, bare bones '02 Dodge Neon, with a manual, of course, and it puts out decent performance for what it has to work with, it’s no performance car, but then again it’s not meant to be, i’ve driven the same car with a sludgebox and the difference was dramatic, the car felt like it had half the power of mine, and the power delivery system had a mushy, imprecise feel to it, i hated it

whenever i’m forced to drive an automatic, i end up shifting it manually…

18

one other thing, the best way to feel the difference between auto and manual is to drive the same model car with each transmission, in the example above, drive a manual Neon first, then drive the automatic, the difference will surprise you

a manual tranny Neon is typically a 16 second car in the 1/4 mile
a sludgebox Neon is in the high 18’s, low 19’s, 3 seconds in the racing world is an eternity…

19

I rented an auto Neon once, and the thing was forever between gears and utterly unresponsive to throttle inputs. Simply awful. Most autos are like this to some degree, but that Neon was just atrocious.

That’s the area where I think manuals have the biggest performance advantage - rolling acceleration. When you’re coming out of a corner, or changing lanes into a faster lane, or whatever, in the manual you just kick it down a gear and voila, instantly into the power band. In every auto I’ve ever driven, there’s some delay between hitting the gas and the tranny deciding to downshift, and while you’re waiting the cars picks up speed terribly sluggishly.

20

Heh, even the Neon fans on Neons.org make fun of the automatic neons, the Neon’s not meant to be a fast car no matter how you slice it, but the slushbox is absolutely pathetically horrible, even the “high-tech” 4 speed slushbox on the 2nd gen Neons (2000 and up) is horrid