Yes, but that wasn’t the question. Clearly people want slush-boxes in this country. The question was why.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My Dad always said that if you have an automatic you’re not really a driver, you’re just a “steerer”. 
No one is allowed to question my Dad, hear me???
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.