I used to have an '82 Vanagon, with a diesel engine (45 hp?) and a 4-speed. What a terrible ride… it had a top speed of 67 MPH, and reached the top of the I-90 hill at about 35 MPH. It was a camper conversion, though, so it made up in character what it lacked in cojones.
Maybe you had a different transmission. I shifted to reverse by pushing the gear shift down toward the floor, then going to the far left and up.
Anyway, I’m a stick snob. When I was learning to drive, the driver’s ed car was an automatic, and I hated driving my parents’ stick-shifts. But once I got the hang of a stick, I was hooked - every car I’ve owned has been a manual. I taught one of my friends to drive a stick because he had his eye on this manual RX-7 turbo, and now he insists on a stick as well.
Had a friend how tried to push start his car. When he released the clutch he found out the battery was fine, his engine had siezed and thats why it didn’t start. His 3 friends pushing the car were not exactly happy at the outcome.
Any way I may one day own an automatic, but I will never not own a stick.
I swear to Og, the reverse gear and 1st gear were almost in the same spot. You HAD to go through 1st to get to reverse. Idiotic idea.
Plus, that specific vehicle went through 4 motors that I know about. The original owner blew one out, I blew one out, sold it to my BIL, who blew one out, sold it back to me a new motor which I then blew out. I was later told there was a design flaw in the model. There was a design flaw in my brain for buying it back from my BIL, I can tell you THAT.
FWIW, I’d have to agree with Mr2001 with regard to the reverse gear in Volkswagens. I don’t have a lot of experience with the older VW van, but almost all VW’s I’ve ever driven have the reverse to the left of first gear. You have the car in neutral, move the stick to the left (but not up!) until you’re between 1st and second, then you press down on the lever whilst pushing it leftwards some more. Once it’s moved to the left, reverse is straight up.
It’s a ridiculous system, but there you go.
And don’t get me started on Opels, where reverse is in the same spot, but can only be accessed after pulling up a lever on the stick, activated by a ring that runs around it. Madness. But that’s GM for you.
What the hell is wrong with a reverse gear “under” 5th, I ask these idiots.
I drove an Opal Astramax for a year, and I quite liked the ring-lift reverse thing. Entirely prevented accidental graunching of the gearbox.
On the subject, my Morris Marina (mentioned earlier), the worst car on the face of the entire fucking planet, and the ugliest too - but only cost me £30 - lost its gear-shift gate. The stick just flopped around, and when I wanted to change gear, I had to guess whereabouts the correct gear might be, push and hope. It was like stirring porridge.
jjimm, the only reason you liked the ring-lift thing on that Astra is because the rest of the car is even worse. Place that ring-shift thing in a normal car, and you’ll see how stupid it really is. But I guess Opel drivers need to be protected from busting their gear boxes. Judging by the idiots that drive them (not you, just in general), I’d have to concur.
Oh, Peugeots always have dodgy reverse gears. Even if the car is brand new, you WILL grind it every now and then, especially on a cold engine. The Citroën I have now is slightly better, which can only be coincidental, as it has a Peugeot gear box.
I think that a few people may be using the stick transmission to drive in the snow and ice a little incorrectly. The idea is to quickly shift into the highest gear possible - always drive one gear up in snow. ’
The reason for this is that you limit the available torque at the wheels, and stop them from spinning. Traction control will do something similar (although I believe they generally are more feedback based).
A typical automatic will peel out in the snow very easily. A stick in a lower gear will as well, but upshift and you’ll do much better.
I’m a stick snob (but not overtly). I took my driving test in the UK where you either get an automatic license or a manual license (which allows you to drive automatics too). I find it amazing when people don’t know how to drive a stick - it’s really something you can pick up in a few afternoons.
Other than the fun of driving, I guess the only advantages to a manual transmission are the increased performance, fuel efficiency, reduced cost for repair and lower initial purchase price.
I agree they suck in bumper to bumper traffic, but driving in bumper to bumper traffic sucks regardless.
I learned to drive in the '60’s when men were men and women were glad of it. Although automatics were beginning to take over, most cars still came with stick shifts as standard equipment, usually a three on the tree although four speed floor shifts were becoming more common especially on high performance cars. My impression is that sticks outnumbered automatics at least 3 to one in that era.
Anyway, in my high school, automatics were strictly for girls. Real men didn’t drive automatics. If you had any * cojones * at all, you wouldn’t be caught dead driving an automatic, and if you could you got a four on the floor rather than a three on the tree (the exception being pickup trucks which for some reason were considered manly no matter what kind of transmission they had). Five speeds were exotic critters, and their owners were much envied. Of course, the vast majority of my schoolmates were poor or working class white Southerners for whom NASCAR was slightly above Jesus in their hearts and slightly below football.
We were proud of our sticks. We loved our sticks. Nobody could take away our sticks. We loved the feel of a stick in our hands, and we played with our our sticks constantly.
I don’t how we reached such a sorry state that 95% of all cars now come with automatic trannies. I blame the damn gay libbers.
Well, I had the starter go bad on my 97 VW Cabrio stick shift a few weeks back when I was about 25 miles from home. I got my client to give me a push, pop started it, drove home and the next day did the same to get it started an take it to the machanic to have the starter replaced.
Prolly saved me over $100 in towing charges.
To be fair, the downside is that the clutch is going, I’ve been babying it until I get the $600 or so I’ll need to get that fixed, but I still would have been stuck with an automatic.
[Nitpick]With Mercedes-Benz automatics of 60’s vintage, a shift into drive from neutral while coasting delivered the same function as a manual transmission for pop-starting. I won several bets with my '63 300SE. :D[/Nitpick]
Perhaps stick snobs behave so because they have achieved mastery of eye, ear, hand, and foot coordination that shushbox operators cannot comprehend.
Even among stick aficionados there are different levels: the neophyte can easily master the 3, 4 or 5 speed synchromesh transmission. Next is the 5 speed hi-lo, followed by a 12 or 13 speed Roadranger. Ultimate skill is demonstrated with the 15 speed twin stick, ala Brockway. Those who can operate these, up and downshifting without a clutch are akin to 3rd degree black belt holders, IMHO.
A friend of mine recently went on a trip to India. For a few weeks, him and his sister rode around there on Royal Enfield motorcycles. This was interesting, because:[ul][]RE bikes have the shift lever on the right side, and the rear brake pedal on the left - whereas “Western” bikes are the other way round;[]An RE bike’s gear change is “neutral-1down-2down-3down-4down”, whereas a “Western” gear change is “1down-neutral-2up-3up-4up-5up(-6up)”.[/ul] Black belt in bike riding, if you ask me, to tour THAT across India for 3 weeks. :eek:
It’s an absolute lie that Hondas last forever and never require maintenance! Our '86 Accord pooped out at a mere 254,000 miles, and we twice had to have major work done on the A/C. And our 2000 Accord, with 82,000 miles on it - we recently had to have the master cylinder cap replaced. Set us back a whole $50! I just don’t get where Honda has this incredible reputation for durability.
I don’t think anyone ever claimed Hondas are tops in performance, but IME they are very good relative to their size, with the expectation that smaller cars should handle better. Our '86 Accord, which was a small car, was kick-ass fun to drive on winding mountain roads. The 2000 is a mid-sized sedan, so its handling isn’t close to that of the '86, but that’s true of mid-sized sedans as a class. It handles well for a largish car. I feel comfortable driving it on winding mountain roads, but it isn’t fun to drive on them, the way the '86 was.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Coldfire *
**A friend of mine recently went on a trip to India. For a few weeks, him and his sister rode around there on Royal Enfield motorcycles. This was interesting, because:[ul][li]RE bikes have the shift lever on the right side, and the rear brake pedal on the left - whereas “Western” bikes are the other way round;[]An RE bike’s gear change is “neutral-1down-2down-3down-4down”, whereas a “Western” gear change is “1down-neutral-2up-3up-4up-5up(-6up)”.[/ul] Black belt in bike riding, if you ask me, to tour THAT across India for 3 weeks. :eek: **[/li][/QUOTE]
And to add insult to injury, they were forced to ride on the wrong side of the road, too!
but I still would have been stuck with an automatic.