Manual or Automatic transmission..which do you prefer?
 

Can an Automatic be as much fun as a manual?



http://jalopnik.com/5952570/a-manual...o-deal-with-it



Car enthusiasts have been bemoaning the lack of manual transmissions in cars for what seems like an eternity. Every time a new car comes out and it doesn't offer a manual gearbox, it gets shunned by every card carrying member of the enthusiast community.

But guess what? The manual transmission is outdated technology and there are better things out there. It's time to get over it and say bye bye.
Before I get yelled at by all of you, I want to say that we're not too different. I love a good manual gearbox. If a car has one, I'm instantly more interested in it. And let me tell you, nailing a perfectly rev matched downshift instantly makes me smile. I'm absolutely for putting manual transmissions in everything. When I have a little Travis or Travisette running around I'm going to find a way to stick one in his or her Cozy Coupe.

But I am totally against the notion that having a manual is the only way to properly enjoy a car. That is bullshit. Complete bullshit.

'Manual elitists,' as I call them, will shirk the notion that a car without a third pedal can be engaging to drive. They say that it isn't pure, it isn't as much fun, they don't feel connected.

Bull. Take a current Nissan GT-R to a race track and drive it as fast you can. Then tell me it would be better with a manual gearbox. It just wouldn't be. Your corner speeds will be slower, your straight-line speeds will be slower, and your lap times will be slower.

But you say you don't feel engaged? The point of driving a car quickly, either on a race track or a road, is to make it from the start to finish as fast as humanly possible. If you drive a GT-R on track and don't feel engaged, well, then you just aren't going fast enough.

For a long, long time, a manual gearbox was the best way to do just that, to be the fastest.

It just isn't the case anymore. Times have changed, and we enthusiasts need to adapt to it as well. Everyone dislikes someone who repeatedly refers to the past and says "in my day, we did it this way."

That's what we in the enthusiast community are becoming. Nostalgia is our enemy, technology is our friend.

Funny thing is, a bunch of manual elitists probably own an iPod, subscribe to Netflix, and own a smart phone. The rest of their lives evolved, yet they just can't let the manual tranny go.

I see the manual gearbox like a film camera. When digital first hit the scene, it was terrible. People stuck with film. However, over time, digital got better and better and more and more people started switching. It got to a point where the pros and the stubborn were the only ones with film.

And guess what? Now even the pros use digital. And much like how they could manipulate film better than the average person, their digital pictures are that much better.

It's the same case here. Give a Porsche 991 with a PDK gearbox to two drivers, one great, one not so great. The double clutch transmission will not suddenly make the bad driver a God. He'll still be a mortal. The good driver will be able to manipulate the gearbox better and get the most out of it. He'll still be faster.

And that's where I think a lot of manual defense comes from: fear and snobbery. People think they're members of an elite club just because they know how a clutch works and can heel and toe. Guess what? You're alienating possible enthusiasts by being that way.

As enthusiasts, we should want to welcome everyone, not be scared of others suddenly being better at driving than us. First off, they won't be. Secondly, more competition for the fastest time is better. It's more fun. And having people interested in driving faster makes more enthusiasts. Giving them access to the tools to be quick breeds enthusiasm.

With people caring less and less about cars, we need to make more enthusiasts. We aren't helping by lambasting anyone that can't drive a manual gearbox.

By making exciting cars more accessible to people that may not be as skilled creates passion. Passion builds bonds. Bonds create friends. That's what we need in the enthusiast community.

What we don't need is snobbery and fear of the new.

Hard to text and drive when driving a manual so I prefer an automatic.

It's hard to hold your beer while your trying to steer and shift. Manual trannys cause more wrecks !

When I was a teenager I learned to drive using a Volkswagen that had a 4-speed manual transmission. I had no problem driving a car with a manual transmission. The first time I drove a car with an automatic, I thought "Why the **** would ANYONE ever choose to buy a car with a manual transmission?"

The only reason I could ever figure out was to discourage your wife from asking to borrow your car.

Auto for the daily driver, but any kind of sports car is better in a handshaker.

Manual more fun in a sports buggy, but auto way more practical for today's commutes.

Manual is more fun, Auto is for the lazy. I drive an automatic now! :D

Manual for kids, Automatic for when they are old enough not to destroy it.

I insisted both of my kids at least learn how to drive a stick...but it's becoming more irrelevant every day.

Manual is much more fun.

manual ....saves on gas and doesn't wear on your brakes as much (if you downshift).

it's more fun to drive too. sucks though if you're trying to eat and drive around town like on the way to work or something.

Automatic for me. I like the freedom and constant use of my hand if I need it. Such as holding onto a drink because they don't always fit in my cup holders.

I just bought a new Mazda 3 hatchback with a manual.

Real men row their own.

That being said, I'll give a pass to suv/truck drivers as a manual is really just a pain in that type of vehicle.

Real men drive a stick, besides a manual transmission is more efficient.
Even with today’s multispeed automatics there is still less parasitic horsepower loss in a manual than an automatic transmission.

A manual can actually be handy for holding a gear down hilling, but for most other situations automatics rule off road.

Manual

You asked "can an automatic be as much fun as a manual?" The short answer to that question is no.

However, if the question was different such as "which do you prefer" then you will see a lot of answers similar to those that you have already gotten.

Automatics are obviously more convenient and easier to drive than a manual. Manuals were known as a great way to create torque from an engine that may have been lacking or a great way to play with one that wasn't.

My opinion is that if you have plenty of torque and power to put to the pavement (ie my blown 67' Chevy II Nova) then I can create that driving on glass experience without the need of a manual transmission. Therefore, the car is "fun" to drive. However, if I did not have that kind of power and I was looking to create the feeling I was driving a fun sports car then I would most likely look for one with a manual transmission.

Automatic = convenience (unless you have lots of power).

Manual = more possibilities to have that sports car feeling.

Haven't driven a stick in over 10 years, and don't care to anymore.

For you guys spouting how "manly" and "more fun" it is to constantly yank on a gearshift, why not just beat off at home?

Strange that you would think one is a substitute for the other. :hmmm:
The only vehicle in my garage with an automatic transmission is Mrs. Radar’s Jeep Liberty. It’s fine for her but on the few occasions I’ve driven it, it gets on my nerves. I’ll downshift when I don’t want it too and takes too long to downshift when I do.
Recently drove a Dodge Caravan with an auto-stick transmission and I liked that I could hold a gear and downshift when I wanted but upshifting was still sending a request to an electronic nanny as the transmission wouldn’t actually shift up into the next gear until it felt like it.

This is wrong.

Manual transmissions don't actually do much (if anything) to save on gas anymore. In fact, very few people are good enough with their shift points to keep them from getting worse MPG. Either they shift too late and run the RPMs up or they shift too early and dog the motor. Either way, they're not as precise as the manual that's been computer engineered to shift at the exact right time depending on your acceleration and power needs.

Manual transmissions tend to be on shitty econoboxes that get good gas mileage, but an automatic tranmission with overdrive will easily get just as good MPG unless the motor is so underpowered that it has to downshift to stay at speed.

With engine technology allowing people to get decent power even from fuel sippers, and with computer adjustable shift points on modern automatics, there is next to no distinction between automatic and manual transmissions in terms of MPG.

That argument for manuals is dead and has been for a decade+.

As to the brakes arguments - brake pads cost $60 and over the life of your car, if you were to downshift at every single point coming up to every single stop light you might save yourself the cost of one set of brake pads. However, by using engine compression to slow your car as you downshift, you're adding wear to the seals, etc... in your motor and thus making your motor less efficient over time.

Is a manual more fun? Yeah, when you want it to be. The easy compromise situation is an auto-stick transmission paired to a flappy paddle gear shift on your steering wheel. When I want to do nothing but go home, it stays in auto. When I want to run the shit out of it, I knock the knob to the left and shift on the steering wheel.

Done and done.

Sorry but this is just incorrect.
Parasitic Horse Power Loss, everything run by the engine is taking horsepower to make it work.
Plainly put, it takes more horsepower to run an automatic transmission than a manual one.
Take two cars with equal weight, engine, gearing and aerodynamics, the only difference being that one has an automatic and the other has a manual and the manual transmission with get better gas mileage because it’s not spending horsepower to spin fluid pumps or to power shift servos.
This is why “shitty little econo boxes” are still running manuals.

The brake wear argument is that when you push in the clutch you’re mechanically disconnecting the engine from the rest of the drive line so the engine isn’t still trying to push the vehicle forward while brakes are applied.
I’m sure the extra engine RPM’s could accelerate engine wear but mostly using engine compression for braking just wasteful of gas as you’re spending money in the form of gas to decelerate when the brakes are perfectly capable of doing the same job.

I drove a vehicle recently with an AT that had an option to manually shift 1-6.

In my car (small convertible), it seems like a person should have a manual. Plus, it seems like a manual may be a little more flexible in snow and stuff. But in stop and go traffic, an automatic is sure nice.

I've never understood why manual is considered "fun." I'm not a car guy obviously.

I see those in rental cars but I'm never sure what to do with them.

That’s what I meant by “auto stick”. It’s an automatic but it has a mode that allows the driver to select the gear by moving the shifter either forward or back to up or downshift.

Grab a sports car and hit a windy canyon road. Stick wins everytime

Stuck in bumper to bumper traffic on 405. Auto wins everytime

I think DJ is right here. The difference in parasitic loss is what 18% for an auto and 15% for manual, that measly 3% is easily made up by a computer controlled trans. This argument was true 25 years ago when the auto's were power glides and TH400's. Today's autos are VERY efficient, If manuals truly were more efficient you would see them in cars like the Prius that ONLY come in an auto.

I like them both, and have both.

I think it depends on the driving you plan on doing. Not sure I would really want a stick for everyday driving in traffic anymore, but used to love it. Driving a stick becomes muscle memory and automatic after a while.

When I ordered the Challenger, I ordered it with the 5 speed automatic so Mrs. HemiEd could drive it, as she refuses to learn how to drive a stick.

Well the Challenger is 50 months old now, and she still hasn't driven it, and says she won't until I get the first dent, so I should have gotten the stick.

Our 4wd Dodge Ram has a 5 speed stick and it is a lot of fun. I honestly don't think an automatic would handle backing the boat up the hill into the garage like the stick does. Forward yes, but not backing up. Low lock rocks!

I think it is funny when you take it to a car wash or a valet, and they have to go get the guy that knows how to drive something with three pedals.

Do those get any of the aforementioned benefits of using a manual (while in manual mode?)

Manual.

Never owned an automatic...

Depends on the car. Some cars should never be produced with an automatic transmission.

Even today, manuals tend to be faster than their equivalent automatic counterparts. Manual is more fun, but automatic is better in 99% of daily driving situations.

I don’t necessarily disagree with that. If an engine is making enough power the difference in parasitic loss is negligible, and modern transmissions have become much more efficient than they used to be.
With the Prius you’ve got a lot of things going on other than just delivering power to the wheels. Like when you first hit the brakes in a Prius you’re not actually putting brake pad to disk, it’s actually connecting the electric motor in reverse as it spins it is charging the batteries. This is how they get their fantastic mileage in stop and go traffic. That’s also something I don’t think would be easy to accomplish with a manual transmission.

I prefer a manual transmission myself. Driving through inclement weather, I feel that I have more complete control over the vehicle than with an AT. Also, from a practical standpoint, I think a MT is cheaper to maintain than an automatic and less prone to breakage. Another plus for me is that I feel I could probably fix a problem with my MT myself, but an AT, probably not.
Posted via Mobile Device

That is interesting, things must have changed, I hadn't thought of that.

I know back in my drag racing days, one of the advantages of putting a 'glide in my Mopar (other than the tranny brake :p) was that it only took about 48 hp to run it, and the 727 took about a 100.

I am sure torque converter technology has helped a lot with the gas mileage and the efficiency situation as well. The early "lock up" converters were a real problem source, but I haven't heard anything about them in years now.

In a Vette or something like that, stick all the way. In your commuter box, who wants to mess with a clutch.

It’s still the same transmission spinning all the same parts, but you’ll have more control over when it shifts. This could be good or bad for gas mileage. With me behind the wheel, mostly bad.

I havent driven a stick in years, but i remember it being alot of fun.

It just wouldnt work for me today, (wife) and the stop and go traffic i drive in nearly everyday to and from work.

I think a big part of the efficiency with modern auto transmissions comes from having electric servos do the shifting instead of fluid pressure. At least that’s the main difference between something like a TH700R4 and a 4L60E. They’re both GM 4 speeds but one is electronic controlled and the other still requires fluid pressure to sense when to shift and provide the power to shift.

It just makes you feel like you have more control of the car......almost like the racecar feel.

I dunno JMO....

All I know if that my first car was a 5-spd manual...and i miss driving it LOL.

Give me manual or give me death.

I’m just a shade tree wrench but I’ve been through a few manual transmissions now, once you learn the basic operation of one they’re actually pretty simple beasts. Still wouldn’t touch an automatic though. There’s some voodoo going on inside of one and I’d just prefer to take it to someone that knows what they’re doing.

You got one point correct, including "this is wrong" in your bullshit post.

People never consider the EPA's mandatory driving style when getting MPG figures. Does the EPA hit neutral on a huge hill? When they see a red light a block ahead do they drop it into neutral? When driving a car with a lot of torque do they alter their shift points? Do they alter which gear they're in at certain speeds? The answer is no, they have to follow a strict set of guidelines. I drove a 2001 Maxima 5-speed that had a city MPG rating of 19, I was always near 30 just by dropping neutral when appropriate (live in CO, tons of huge hills, places I coast for miles) and by going to 5th at around 35mph since the engine had 217 of torque in a fairly small package. This is all I did, I actually am a pretty spirited driver, not a hyper-miling douche that takes an hour to get up to 50mph.

I currently have an auto Xterra, while I don't think I'd want it in a stick, there are so many situations where I would just pop it in neutral where the RPMs are 3k or more.

Also to the dumbasses that engine brake: You are burning a shitload of gas by keeping your RPMs up that high instead of idle and last time I checked brakes were about a hundred bucks. Why the hell would you wear out your engine/tranny over a part that costs a hundred bucks and if we are talking years of ownership, hundreds in gas. Simply stupid.

That makes sense, thanks.

I have a "Diablo Sport" programmer that will actually change the shift points and firmness on the Challenger, and that would have to be electronic like you say.

When you go into "Auto Stick" mode the MDS system is turned off.

I'm in the same boat. There's scary things happening inside an automatic. I would end up becoming a cautionary tale about why you always bring your transmission problems to a professional if I tried to fix one myself.
Posted via Mobile Device

Doesn't mopar drive you nuts with the constant slushboxes? I like so many of the SRT8 models (particularly the 300) and it makes me insane that every single god damn one is an auto (challenger excepted I guess). One thing I like about GM is they only made the CTS-V in manual, I wish Chrysler/Dodge would get on board. I would hope anyone buying a SRT vehicle would only want stick. My old man had a SRT Grand Cherokee, while it was definitely fast as shit, it got old so fast just smashing the gas pedal and feeling the front end "hover".

Real Men don't need to give their car a handjob to feel like real men.

Paddle shift FTW.

Its not just the sports enthusiasts that prefer manual transmissions. Sticks are more efficient and save gas money as well in most instances. Having an automatic transmission also adds to the sticker price.

The author is simply dead-ass wrong.

If someone doesn't really care about "having fun" or feeling like they are in control and driving the car, thats fine. I have nothing against automatics and if you have a brutal stop and go commute and don't want to clutch for an hour, I can see reluctantly giving up the manual.

But thats not the author's point, he is saying there's no difference in fun, control, or efficiency between the two. Bullcrap. If you don't have a brutal stop and go commute and if you aren't a lazy person who cant be bothered with doing much while driving, then drive a stick. Its cheaper on the lot, saves money on gas, and is more fun to drive.

I just spent a few weeks in Ireland and England where I rented a car in each place. They charged almost double for an Auto Transmission car. So I got manual transmission cars. They were both Diesels one a Vauxhall Astra and the other a BMW 1 series. Both were fun to drive and got great gas mileage up around 50 MPG.

I have to admit my stress levels were a bit elevated driving on the wrong side of the road shifting gears with my left hand all the while trying to figure out their road signs not knowing where the hell I was going.

At home I have an FJ Cruiser with a 6MT I got for the fun factor. This is my first offroad vehicle and I never thought I would be out rock crawling in it. Had I known I would have got an Auto.

Right.

At best, it's a completely negligible difference that's almost entirely offset by the fact that people aren't machines and if they aren't timing their shifts perfectly, they give back whatever mechanical gains they may make up.

In the real world, automatic transmissions have become so advanced that they have overcome the mechanical simplicity of the manuals.

dead battery?

manual saves the day...

I knew a guy with an s10 who could upshift without the clutch...:eek:

including cost and repairs

Not with efi.

Then your transmission is ****ed up.

My goddamn camaro doesn't idle above 800 and its 45 yrs old. If you're just rolling down a hill an automatic, the engine is going to be either idling or if you're on cruise it may downshift to keep you from accelerating past your target speed. It's not going to sit at 3k if you're not on the gas at all; it's going to coast down to idle speeds.

Oh, and you're wrong on the engine breaking thing - you don't use more gas when the RPMs come up during engine breaking. The RPMs are only rising due to the compression in the motor and the motor spinning down. It's not actually using any more fuel; it's the transmission turning the motor in the absence of fuel, rather than the motor turning the transmission. The RPMs come up because there's no place for the energy that the transmission is imparting on the motor to go (i.e. the engine compression) so the RPMs spin up and the compression finally peters the acceleration out. If you were actually feeding the motor fuel to create those RPMs, it wouldn't decelerate.

And while Radar and Hemi can speak to this more than I can, the last automatic I was fortunate enough to look at the guts of had some kind of slipping interlock in it where at lower RPMs it was barely engaged, so it's not like your breaks are having to work very hard to keep the car in place. At higher RPM the 'disks' in the transmission synch together and pull harder, so it's actually able to apply the power better. However, at low RPMs, the transmission isn't doing much work at all and as a consequence your brakes aren't doing much work.

And if you're spending a couple hundred dollars on brake pads - you're an idiot. If you had to replace the brake assembly altogether, it's because you were an idiot for a prolonged period of time, burned through your pads and ****ed up your rotors. That's when you start spending a couple hundred dollars. Brake Pads for your daily commuter are dirt cheap.

I reiterate, at it's very best, sitting in neutral at a stop light is going to do nothing more than save you a set of brake pads over the life of your car. Brake pads are cheap and easy to replace on your own. But hey, maybe you're right on those XTerras that idle at 3K.

To start out by calling my post bullshit and then excoriate people for burning fuel while engine breaking and then chirping about $200 brake pads is...interesting.

As long as I have to commute through rush hour traffic, I doubt I will ever own a manual. Love ‘em though.

What's efi?


I'd totally forgotten about starting the car with the clutch. My dad did that a few times with older cars when I was a teenager, and I thought it was magical. How did that work exactly?

Yeah, this whole "coasting down hills in neutral saves gas" thing is apparently a myth. I used to believe it but I've read too many articles by car guys who knew what they were doing saying that the RPM difference in that situation was deceptive. Most of the insane hypermiler techniques that work don't depend on a manual. There might be a small benefit with idling in neutral at a stop.

I still prefer manuals, they are cheaper and more fun to drive, but most of the gas savings come from efficient shifting, not throwing it in neutral.

In a modern car, when you coast in gear (like to slow down or go down a hill), the ecu cuts out the fuel and the engine is driven only by the wheels (down to about 20 mph or so). I agree that it's harmful to slam the tranny down several gears to slow down in the hurry, but done right, it's a big gas savings.

I always try to slow down when I can by just letting off the gas and coasting down in gear. If I need to slow a little quicker, I might drop it a gear. Yeah, it bumps up the rpm's a little because of the lower gearing but you aren't using more gas. Coasting in neutral or with the clutch in saves fuel but is still uses some to maintain the idle plus you don't have the engine braking to maintain speed down a hill (I refuse to risk a speeding ticket in the name of mpg).

Also, you mention people that take forever to get to 50. People that do that are stupid. Any time you accelerate, your gas mileage sucks, so it makes sense to get up to an even speed as quickly as possible (within reason) to minimize the distance accelerating and maximize the distance driving at constant, even speed. About 60 - 70% throttle is the best trade-off.

For myself, I much prefer a manual. If you know what you are doing, it's much easier to manipulate the gas mileage with a manual over an automatic. I also like that you can engine brake down the steep mountain roads I drive sometimes rather than riding the brake all the way down. I also prefer to drive in snow with a manual. If I lived in a city, though, I would probably stick with an auto.


EDIT: DJ's Left Nut is a much faster typist than I.

Electronic fuel injection.

I didn't know that either. I've hill-started my motorcycle a few times by popping the clutch and I know it's an EFI bike, so it must be exclusive to cars.

I have a Scan Gauge II, which is a diagnostic device that plugs into the OBDII port of the car and can give you real time feedback as you drive. One of the things you can get is instantaneous gas mileage.

I have found with several different cars that going from driving in gear to coasting in neutral at speed can make the mileage more than double (it would go up to around 60 - 70 mpg in the car I was testing). If you coast in gear, the mileage readout would say "9999", which basically meant I wasn't using any gas at all.

I've hill started a manual 2001 Prizm (same as a Corolla). It has EFI, so I don't see why that's a problem. I haven't tried it with my manual '09 Forester.

The only thing I want to manually shift is my motorcycle.

I don't care to own a manual transmission car. There is nothing fun about driving in every day traffic with speed regulations.

I don't know Brock well enough to call him a liar. Evidently you don't harbor such consternation.

Thanks for taking the time to make an intelligent reply.

My X doesn't idle at 3k, but it sure as shit will hold at least that when I am coming down the Mtn at a 6-8% grade (I told you I live in CO for a reason).

Are you really going to argue the point that if the same two cars are driving at 3500 rpm and one hits neutral, and the other slowly winds down that there will be no benefit of one engine being at 800 rpm vs 3500-3000-2500- for a period of time? The savings may be fairly minimal and the new trannys may help with this, but no way does that not burn more fuel. It may be semantics at this point, but even that point of releasing the gas vs an almost immediate drop to idle on auto vs manual will create a minimal savings. Remember you are arguing that if I have an s2000 at 9000 rpms and engine brake to a complete stop vs neutral it will be the exact same. Bullshit, you seem to be an intelligent individual, surely you can admit that even though the savings might be minute, a manual is definitely more efficient in this scenario.

I twice said pads were a hundred bucks, a hundred is pretty much standard for any shop to swap the front pads. You're really grasping with that. I have owned several performance vehicles that have been taken to the race track (a real road course, not a parking lot SCCA or circle track). I don't need brake repairs explained to me thank you very much.

Auto with clutchless manual mode. Two of our vehicles have it. Only time I've used the manual shift is for fun. Even in snow the auto works better.

The way I understand it (and I'm not a car guy, this is the dumbed-down explanation I remember), the car always has to remain above a certain RPM to keep the engine going. When you coast downhill in neutral, the car has to burn gas all the way down. When you coast down in gear, as long as the car is above a certain RPM (unclear to me how the RPM happens if not burning fuel), the car doesn't have to use gas.

I use the manual mode on my car almost exclusively. I can get better and quicker acceleration when I manage the gears myself. I only use automatic when my right hand isn't free (like when I'm eating something).

It may be lying to you when coasting downhill in neutral.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...l-fuel-economy

I'm saying that you're looking at 1 of 2 possibilities here.

1) The car isn't going to stay at 3500 rpm - it's going to simply idle down. Unless you're referring to the second it will take for the computer to realize that you're not accelerating (and if you were in overdrive, it shouldn't even take that long), there's no practical difference there. Take your foot off the pedal and your ECU will get to work keeping your mileage up - it's a cheap and easy way for Ford, etc... to improve fuel economy without drastically changing the motor design. Now, the other possibility is what I think you're referring two and thats when you're coasting down the hill (foot not on the gas) and your RPMs have come up to keep you from going 100 mph - in other words, 'involuntary' engine breaking.

2) Again, engine breaking does not have any impact on fuel economy. You may be right, on your steeper grades in Colorado your manual might be pushing 3500 going down the hill. But that's not a true 3500 - it's an idle speed that your transmission is running up to 3500. You're not using any more fuel there than you would if you stepped on the clutch. The fuel isn't what has you at 3500 - the wheels are.

The only difference in MPG would come from the fact that by engine breaking, you're reducing the distance you travel. If it takes you 5 seconds to stop, you will have used the exact same amount of fuel over those 5 seconds as you would have if you'd have just stepped on the clutch - but if you just step on the clutch you'll still be traveling, so your MPG goes up. Presuming, however, that you're stopping for a reason, you're just going to use your brakes to stop at the same point there's no actual travel gain.

I wasn't calling anyone a liar. I was just relating my experience.

FWIW, some hyper-milers do something called "pulse and glide". This is where you speed up to about 10 mph over the speed limit and then throw the car in neutral and coast until your speed drops to about 10 under. Rinse and repeat (it works but is a huge pain in the ass).

In more extreme cases, they will actually turn their cars off during the glide part and bump start it just by dropping the clutch while in gear. This is in modern cars, so it doesn't seem like there is any issue there.

You use no fuel if you stay in gear. The rub, though, is that you can coast farther in neutral than you can in gear so you have to take that into consideration.

That's right. I may have misunderstood your point. I thought you meant coasting in neutral gives you better mileage (over just driving) is a myth.

He's right that it's not exact but point is the large increase, not the exact amount.

Cool, sounds like we're on the opposite end of the deal. I mainly drive highway though, maybe that's where we differ. I'm up to merging speed quick fast in a hurry in auto, that's about all the acceleration I need.

There is a very surprising lack of information about this on the net, I read the popmechanics article which basically seemed to just say it's unsafe to be in neutral. I am surprised frankly, I know nobodies lives depend on this but I would think there would a definitive test done at some point.

I am basing most of this on my personal CO driving experiences which are not typical for sure, situations where I just hit neutral (exceeding the speed limit and coasting distance certainly come into play here) and coast for miles then the road evens out and I definitely would have had to get back on the gas earlier in an auto. This is mostly what drives me crazy about now being in an automatic here.

Oh, and I was basically talking a little point 1 and 2. I know #1 savings would be minuscule but they are savings none-the-less, #2 is interesting to me as if this actually held up that neutral at 800rpm would burn more fuel than the entire drivetrain spinning at high rpm. It makes sense until you engine brake an s2000 down a mountain road at 8000 rpm and realize it might be more efficient than sitting quietly at idle at 800 rpm. Know what I mean?

Automatic transmissions are for women. And minivan drivers.

I'm saying that the idea that coasting in neutral saves gas over coasting in gear, is a myth. You should coast in gear.

too old for "fun"

just give me an automatic so i can still drive with my knee while i eat.