That’s weird, I took my 1998 baseline automatic Neon (not turbo, no improvements,) past 100 several times and once, took it up to 120 MPH. I wouldn’t say that was the smartest thing to do, but I daresay a manual Geo Metro might not be capable of that 
The days of the manual being superior versus the automatic are just about over.
Time was you could take 98% of the manuals and rank them higher than the autos in performance, but there is so much variety now, it might be a 50/50 shot depending on the car, mfgr, and engine/tranny combo.
When many autos were less robust, you could have got a detuned engine and fewer gears. Now, you get as many gears, faster shifts and it is unlikely you’ll get a detuned engine.
Well, I certainly wasn’t talking about top speed. The car I drove (probably a '97) was completely incapable of accelerating from typical street speeds. At ~60kph, it would be in 3rd gear (it was a 3 speed), hopelessly out of the tiny 4-cyl engine’s power band, and it wouldn’t downshift to 2nd. So its rolling acceleration was simply awful.
Erm… yes and no.
The days of manuals having superior mileage performance are nearly over. And by nearly, I mean we still may be ten or twenty years out before the average suburban Joe has a mass-produced car which is more efficient in automatic form than manual, although the high-end auto box technology is just about there now. By then they’ll probably be all CVT anyhow. After that, maybe electric vehicles with no tranny at all.
It goes like this:
For reasons described more than adequately by others in this thread, auto boxes have inherent slippage in them (due to the torque converter mainly), and this has traditionally cost up to 10% power loss compared to an identical manual. A manual, OTOH, also suffers some power loss (“wastage” would be a better word) as a driver of average ability takes time with the clutch (engine spinning away unused revs), and may re-engage the clutch at the wrong point leading to loss of revs or slight unwanted slowing of the car. This disadvantage in a manual has always been very slight compared to the higher disadvantage of torque converter slip you get in an auto.
Fast forward to the present, and auto box technology is catching up through things such as direct mechanical connection torque converter locks for travelling in top gear, more advanced computer technology controlling shifts, and the like. This will never be perfect, but automatic enthusiasts say that the point is very close at which, whilst the technology will not provide the absolute minimum loss of power that a manual does, it will beat a manual unless that manual is being driven by a professional racing driver. The average driver’s shifting will put the manual behind.
But that day is not here yet, and I think the auto crowd are being a leetle hopeful about it’s arrival date.
Manuals are superior in my opinion because:
- All this advance in technology in autos comes at a cost. You are paying hundreds or thousands of dollars extra for all this whizzbangery. Manuals use the human brain.
- That same human brain can do one thing an auto can’t, and that is anticipate. A manual never “hunts” gears, and a manual driver can see a corner coming up. No matter how advanced the auto box is, it still can only respond to events. It isn’t so hot at preparing for them. The very number one reason I dislike autos is that spongy, floating roll they seem to have into tight corners. Manuals seem to squat into the corner nicely.
- Manuals are more fun.
Hey, with a manual you can rev to 5000, drop the clutch, and get a great holeshot.
You can even do that a few times before something breaks!
You have to be careful with car magazine reviews of cars, especially the agressive ones like Car and Driver. Those outstanding numbers they post are from doing things like this, which you don’t want to do routinely on the street.
Still, you can do it with a manual. In an automatic you can do a brake-stand to get the revs up for a fast launch, but it’s not going to be as extreme.
But really, if you’re interested in real performance, get a manual. Forget the numbers - with a manual you are connected to what the car is doing in a much more visceral way than you are with an automatic. You’ll get a feel for the power band, learn when to shift properly, and when it all comes together, driving is a hell of a lot more fun.
It’s hard to believe, but automatic versions of cars like the Mustang and Corvette sell very well. I can’t imagine owning a Vette and wanting an automatic in it. You buy a car like that to DRIVE.
If you want to actually race a car:
-
Get the fuck of the street and onto a racetrack.
-
You should not be driving a Dodge Neon.
Dread Pirate Jimbo (aka My Husband) had a '96 Neon Ex (standard, with low-profile tires), and I tells ya, that was one fun car to drive. We took it through the mountains, and I was extremely surprised at what that car could handle.
If you’re talking purely about cost over the life of the car, it’s probably a wash. Most people will in mixed city/highway driving get around sixty to seventy thousand miles out of a clutch. It will probably cost you around the same amount as the difference between what they cost new to get your clutch replaced(unless you do it yourself). The auto transmission should last 200k miles if you service it often. Remember though, if something does go wrong with your manual transmission it will probably cost as much if not more to repair. As far as racing goes, most people who drag race around here do bracket racing, and you’d be a fool to try and compete with a manual transmission in that.
TheLoadedDog:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philster
The days of the manual being superior versus the automatic are just about over. .
TheLoadedDog:
Erm… yes and no
Your post is a stretch to justify the ‘perceived’ advantage of a manual.
Launching a powerful car that had a six speed manual versus a 5 or 6 speed auto of the same type will probably result in faster times for the automatic. Ultimately, with trial and error, you would find a way to launch the manual for an optimal run.
Additionally, a true ‘manual’ set up would never take advantage of auto-tricks such as traction control. If you are a hard core ‘manual’ fan, you don’t stand a chance against someone who has an auto-tranny and traction control.
Look at a company like Ferrari. They’d laugh their ass off if you started talking about dropping in a weenie clutch/manual set up. Their ‘manual’ is a paddle shifter, which is so far removed from a ‘manual’ set up as to further drive home the point: The old fashioned manual is at its best when it comes as close as possible to a modern automatic.
Can you give a cite for this
? I question that manuals are more efficient than automatics. In the bad old days I think any inefficiency was more in the torque converter or other fluid coupling vs. a mechanical clutch. I’m not so sure that’s true any more.
In manual transmissions all the gears are meshed with another gear and are turning all of the time with the exception of the reverse idler. In an automatic in high gear the whole gear assemply turns as a unit with the gears not turning with respect to each other. I would think the latter arrangement would have fewer losses.
Quite a bit of discussion about this here, but the consensus is that there is greater power loss from an automatic (or CVT) transmission. Further down the page, there are lots of examples of performance data from the same car fitted with a different transmission.
BMW Mini.
PERFORMANCE, FUEL CONSUMPTION
AND CO2 EMISSIONS
MINI One: 1,598cc manual: 0-60: 10.6 seconds; top speed: 115mph; combined mpg 43.5; CO2 emissions 158g/km; Emissions Class EU4; Insurance Group 5
MINI One: 1,598cc CVT auto: 0-60: 12.4 seconds; top speed: 106mph; combined mpg 36.7; CO2 emissions 187g/km; Emissions Class EU4; Insurance Group 5
Quite a big difference. This site gives the performace figures for just about every car available in the UK. I don’t think you’ll find one where the auto model has better figures than the manual.
Exact same car or same type of car?
The manual could be less lossy but I’d like to see dynamometer tests using the exact same engine to drive both transmissions before I concede. One thing the automatic has to do is pump hydraulic fluid for shifting and that could affect performance during acceleration.
One thing you won’t see: In testing the manual trannies, they launched those puppies over and over again. Some launches are disasters, with wheel spin killing the trap speed, or conversely, with too little throttle, killing the take off.
After getting it just right, they nail the amount of clutch needed, and start to post good times. In the autos, they get it right on or near the first launch.
When racing a performance car for quarter mile TIME the automatic rules. It’s not debatable. It’s also not the same automatic found in today’s cars. A modern automatic has multiple computers that talk to other computers. Break one of these transmissions and you will cry great big " I want my mommy" tears of financial pain.
There are no financial benefits to an automatic. They cost more up front, provide poorer gas mileage, and are more expensive to repair. You will lose more than 15% of engine hp (to the wheels) vs around 7% with a manual.
The upside to an automatic is that they perform WAY better than 20 years ago. The advantage of a computer-controlled transmission is an incredibly smooth shift and an increase in fuel mileage (over older automatics). My 2000 Saturn econobox gets 33 mpg around town and 36 on the highway. I’m not shy about driving so those are real numbers. I get a kick out it every time it shifts because it is sooooo smooth. What’s amazing is it seems to understand braking going down hill because it downshifts and stays downshifted until I resume speed. I’ve driven manuals for 30 years and have come to like modern automatics for their precision.
On the flip side is my “other car”. It is designed to transmit as much hp to the pavement without breaking. Putting a modern automatic transmission behind it would be insane.
Bottom line, if you are buying a sports car with 250 or more hp and plan on driving it like a sports car then I would recommend a manual transmission. You can’t pave the street with rubber and expect an automatic to hold up.
One particular advantage a auto has over a stick is a situation when an engine’s power comes at higher RPM and the car is heavilly loaded, or traveling up a steep hill. The auto’s slip will allow the engine to spin up to a higher RPM range sooner and stay there longer delivering more power to the wheels.
Also someone mentioned that they tested 2 cars, 1 AT one stick (which belonged to the poster) Besides the bias of the poster (meaning he most likely got every ounce of power out of his car, while just dropping a brick on the AT car’s accelerator), I would say his peak HP, though a lot higher, was for a much shorter duration, while the AT held the HP for a longer time.
I’ve owned a total of 10 cars so far. I tend to keep most of them 10 to 14 years. All but one have had manual transmissions. I’ve only ever had to replace the clutch on one manual transmission car. That one being a 1966 Volkswagen Beetle that I bought in 1971 (I blame clutch abuse by the prior owner(s)). If you have to replace a lot of clutches in your car buying lifetime, you’re probably doing something wrong or abusing the clutch somehow (like letting the clutch in and out on a hill to hold position, for example, instead of using the brake, or emergency brake until you can move off). I’ve had to replace the clutch cable on two (2) cars over the years (not that hard to do yourself).
Automatic transmissions require more maintenance, and are therefore more costly to maintain. The owner’s manual in each of the two cars I presently own recommend changing the oil in the manual transmission every 30,000 or 60, 000 miles or so, but I’ve never changed oil in a manual. Mechanics tell me it’s not really necessary, and I tend to believe them.
This may have changed with improvements to auto transmissions in the years since I owned a 1981 Oldsmobile Omega with an automatic, but to check the transmission fluid on that car, I was directed by the owner’s manual to have the engine running, the tranny in drive and the parking brake on. I had to stand in front of the car to get to the dipstick (with the car in drive, at idle, trusting to the emergency brake to keep it from rolling over me). Seemed like a really bad idea to me, but this wasn’t peculiar only to the Omega, or other General Motors cars - the procedure I’ve described above was true for all cars with auto transmissions back then.
A couple of additional points for manuals I haven’t seen posted yet - Cars with manual transmissions can be push started if the battery dies or something goes wrong with the starter. Cars with manual transmissions are less likely to be damaged when they’re towed.
I have a Honda Accord with 189,000+ miles on it, manual, and never replaced the clutch. I cannot stand the feel of a auto, but am resigned to the fact that as cars go gas-electric, and, ultimately, electric, manual gearboxes are a thing of the past.
I’m a manual type, but I really like what I’ve read about Audi’s dual-clutch automatic. It essentially eliminates the gap between gear shifts. Of course more complex = more to break.
Some of Ferrari’s transmissions have a computer controlled hydrolically shifted ‘manual’ transmission; best of both worlds!
Read my post again. I suspect you didn’t read it through properly the first time.
I’m not trying to “justify” anything. Firstly, I have openly admitted to simply liking manuals because they are more fun. Secondly, I have not actually disagreed with you - at least not in the sense of dismissing your earlier post out of hand. Modern automatics are very good indeed, and they are getting better all the time. I am simply stating that manuals still have the edge for the average person. You say “look at a company like Ferrari”? Well, actually I did say that auto boxes at the high end of the market are already out-classing manuals in performance. However, for the average schmoe who is driving a Dodge, the manual is still a superior tranny. I believe it will be for a few more years. Take my car for example as a typical suburbanite’s machine: it’s a manual '96 Corolla. Bog standard. It absolutely thrashes its automatic equivalent (I’ve driven both).
You don’t have to believe me if you don’t like, but you may want to believe the millions of professional couriers etc who choose to drive manuals (they are hard-nosed businessmen and don’t do it for fun). And once again, you are paying a significant price premium for an automatic. All that traction control, economy and sports mode, overdrive, torque converter locks etc do not come cheap.
The day will come when automatics can truly claim superiority. With this I have no argument. However, for the average driver, that day is not here yet.
No, they didn’t change the transmission in the exact same car for the tests, but I don’t think thats relevant. They make 'em off a production line you know, so they are pretty near identical. 
Somewhere in that thread I linked they have done just that. Anyway, look at the MPG figures, they are a dead giveaway. The autos are burning more fuel to drive the car at the same speed for the same distance, clear evidence that they are less efficient.