Manual or Automatic transmission..which do you prefer?

[Deberg_1990]

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 The manual transmission is outdated technology and there are better things out there.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.

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by COchief

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.

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

[Dayze]

Manual

[FRCDFED]

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.

[mikey23545]

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?

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by mikey23545

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.
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.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

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.

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.

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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+.

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.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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.

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.

[Saulbadguy]

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

[Rain Man]

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.

[Dr. Johnny Fever]

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

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

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

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

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

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

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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.

[L.A. Chieffan]

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

[L.A. Chieffan]

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

[MIAdragon]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

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.

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.