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.
Missed the edit window on this: of course I meant to compare 4th gear @ 3k vs 2nd gear @ 6k.
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.
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.
oh, please do explain why.
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.
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.
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.
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.
more of that elitism.
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?
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.
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?
The kind of “intimate and fun relationship between car and driver” I’d like to have would be one in which I could sleep through my commute to work, and the car would drive itself.
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.
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.
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 :).
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:
[QUOTE=GameHat]
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.
[/quote]
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, 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.
I think this is well past GQ territory. Let’s move it over to IMHO.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator