Why do people like manual transmissions?

[xtknight]

Why do people like pain?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
so all I'm getting out of it is a 'control' issue that people seem to have. I'd rather be able to focus on the road ahead of me and have 2 hands on the wheel at ALL times

You've obviously never even driven a manual.

Psh. I agree with Accipiter22. Far too much dicking around in cars these days. Inattentiveness is at an all time high.

It's very possible I've driven manual transmissions more miles than the last 3 posters.

I love my auto trans car.

I seriously doubt that.

 

[Eos]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
so all I'm getting out of it is a 'control' issue that people seem to have. I'd rather be able to focus on the road ahead of me and have 2 hands on the wheel at ALL times

You've obviously never even driven a manual.

Psh. I agree with Accipiter22. Far too much dicking around in cars these days. Inattentiveness is at an all time high.

It's very possible I've driven manual transmissions more miles than the last 3 posters.

I love my auto trans car.

I seriously doubt that.

Lets have any 3 posters PM you with their totals. I'll do the same.

 

[compguy786]

I have a 86 truck, which basically is a hand me down from my dad as of right now, its manual, and i love it, i have pride in myself that i can do something that alot of people cannot do =)
plus it means you can basically drive ANY car thats on the road today, so you wont have a problem. I learned manual so i could drive my truck. Manual is way more fun
you feel like your driving a sports car all the time, and yet i drive a truck.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
so all I'm getting out of it is a 'control' issue that people seem to have. I'd rather be able to focus on the road ahead of me and have 2 hands on the wheel at ALL times

You've obviously never even driven a manual.

Psh. I agree with Accipiter22. Far too much dicking around in cars these days. Inattentiveness is at an all time high.

It's very possible I've driven manual transmissions more miles than the last 3 posters.

I love my auto trans car.

I seriously doubt that.

Lets have any 3 posters PM you with their totals. I'll do the same.

You said the last 3 posters...of which I am one. How many miles have you driven manual transmission cars total? I've owned 3 cars that had manual transmissions. I can tell you year, make and model as well as how many miles the cars had on them when I purchased them and how many miles they had on them when I got rid of them. Oh, and I'm the only one who drove those cars while I owned them.

I won't count the numerous other manual cars I've test driven over the years or rented [cough] Lotus Elise [/cough].

 

[Eos]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
so all I'm getting out of it is a 'control' issue that people seem to have. I'd rather be able to focus on the road ahead of me and have 2 hands on the wheel at ALL times

You've obviously never even driven a manual.

Psh. I agree with Accipiter22. Far too much dicking around in cars these days. Inattentiveness is at an all time high.

It's very possible I've driven manual transmissions more miles than the last 3 posters.

I love my auto trans car.

I seriously doubt that.

Lets have any 3 posters PM you with their totals. I'll do the same.

You said the last 3 posters...of which I am one. How many miles have you driven manual transmission cars total? I've owned 3 cars that had manual transmissions. I can tell you year, make and model as well as how many miles the cars had on them when I purchased them and how many miles they had on them when I got rid of them. Oh, and I'm the only one who drove those cars while I owned them.

I won't count the numerous other manual cars I've test driven over the years or rented [cough] Lotus Elise [/cough].

When I replied, I was not looking at the most recent poster (meaning you, Mr. President).

Manual trans cars?!? Now that's different. I said manual transmission. First car was a Beetle. Next car was an auto (2 speed Hydramatic), then manual, then auto, then manual, then manual, then auto, auto, auto.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
so all I'm getting out of it is a 'control' issue that people seem to have. I'd rather be able to focus on the road ahead of me and have 2 hands on the wheel at ALL times

You've obviously never even driven a manual.

Psh. I agree with Accipiter22. Far too much dicking around in cars these days. Inattentiveness is at an all time high.

It's very possible I've driven manual transmissions more miles than the last 3 posters.

I love my auto trans car.

I seriously doubt that.

Lets have any 3 posters PM you with their totals. I'll do the same.

You said the last 3 posters...of which I am one. How many miles have you driven manual transmission cars total? I've owned 3 cars that had manual transmissions. I can tell you year, make and model as well as how many miles the cars had on them when I purchased them and how many miles they had on them when I got rid of them. Oh, and I'm the only one who drove those cars while I owned them.

I won't count the numerous other manual cars I've test driven over the years or rented [cough] Lotus Elise [/cough].

When I replied, I was not looking at the most recent poster (meaning you, Mr. President).

Manual trans cars?!? Now that's different. I said manual transmission. First car was a Beetle. Next car was an auto (2 speed Hydramatic), then manual, then auto, then manual, then manual, then auto, auto, auto.

Understood. Honestly, if I drove as much as you do I'd want an automatic too. Hell, the reason I got rid of my last manual transmission car was because of my commute. I'm fortunate that I work close to home now.

Manual transmission cars suck in stop and go traffic.

 

[Phokus]

My motto: Manuals are for Morons

AUTOMATICS REPRESENT!

 

[Eos]

I have a 65 minute commute now (2 days a week) and the auto is great. A stick would be great. Bacon? Great. Pork chops? Good. Wait. Where am I?

 

[mc866]

FWIW I just wanted to mention that funner is in fact not a word. I think the term would be more fun.

Now that we got that out of the way I enjoy my Manual profusely and wouldn't go back to an auto unless I had to.

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: freebee
I don't like them. All the people that posted above have never driven a truly powerful auto tranny car. "Control" is not necessary when you have torque. Drive a high horsepower/torque motor with quick shifting auto. ie MB E55 (now E63, etc).
These cars are like space ships. They don't need to downshift to pass, there is no lag or hesitation. There is no "appropriate" gear. Every gear will blow your pants off.

My Oldsmobile was like that. It'd spin the tires in 3rd at 60mph if I stepped on it hard, and it Just Went. God I miss that car. Oh yea, it had a shift kit on the turbo350 "slush" box that'd outshift the best manual driver in this thread.

There are very very few cars in which the automatic transmission is faster than a well driven manual of the same make and model. Your oldsmoboat isn't one of them...assuming you could even get it with a manual transmission.

It could be had with a 4 speed. The very same 4sp that lived behind the Chevelle's big block 396 in '68. And the transmission had been rebuilt with a shift kit to shift as hard and fast as possible under full throttle, and it did it well.

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
But if you get a releltively old car, go with a manual so you don't have to worry about the transmition dying requiring a $2000 rebuild.

Manual trans rebuild on my 1988 Honda Accord was going to be around $1800-2000. Cheapest I could have gotten it was $1600, and that was with the "my friend's friend owns the shop" discount.

 

[CFster]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
There are very very few cars in which the automatic transmission is faster than a well driven manual of the same make and model. Your oldsmoboat isn't one of them...assuming you could even get it with a manual transmission.

Tell that to the drag racers.

 

[SpanishFry]

I've been driving a manual while my car's in the shop (A/C Evaporator).

My friend was kind/brave/awesome enough to let me use his babied 2001 Corvette 6speed while I was sans car. He bought it new and it has ~ 10K miles.

The manual is fun for right now, and I would love to have one for those perfect weekend afternoon drives, but for an everyday car give me the slushbox.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: CFster

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: CFster
What are people talking about here when they say "control"?

What can you do with a standard that you can't accomplish with an automatic?

And the dorks who rev match while downshifting can stay quiet.

Have you ever driven a manual? You have so much more control over the vehicle, especially towing, and in hilly country, and towing in hilly country It's a different world i tell ya.

I own several.

As for towing, I've driven many tow trucks in my day, and most were automatics.

I'm curious what makes you think you have more control over a vehicle with a standard trans vs. auto.

If you say you can use the engine to help slow the car by downshifting spare me. Brakes are cheaper to replace than a new clutch disc and pressure plate.

There is no wear on a clutch disc or pressure plate when it is fully engaged or disengaged as in zero, zip, nada. The cost per mile of replacing a clutch is very very low on manual transmission cars assuming the driver knows how to properly drive it.

When engine braking, you downshift. Unless you can somehow rev match perfectly, with robotic precision, it slips. And downshifting through all those gears puts wear on a lot more than just the clutch...

Please, the amount of stress put on the drivetrain during engine braking is nothing compared to the stress of accelerating. Again, I've been driving sticks for decades and never noticed any greater wear on other drivetrain parts (driveshaft, differential, u-joints etc.) between a stick and an automatic.

Downshifting is something I may do once or twice when approaching a stop light simply because I like to be in the correct gear in case I need to accelerate or when going downhill to keep from riding the brakes. If done properly the additional wear on the clutch/drivetrain is miniscule and not even worth mentioning...certainly not worth worrying about or counting fractions of a penny over.

Indeed.

I've driven on loose gravel with both autos and manuals, and for towing, and indeed any driving the manual felt far more controlled. Not to mention, for hilly country on the gravel i've tried holding autos in the lowest gear they'll let me, and it always seems to be so incredibly tall that it provides no engine braking at all, for any hill descent work on gravel you want to have the engine doing most of the work, and the brakes just to rein it in and provide the finer control.

 

[Googer]

8 speed automatic > 6 speed manual

 

[theblackbox]

why do people drive cars with 4 cylinders?

 

[skace]

I think the manual -> linux comparison works pretty damn nicely. They are both cheap. Both require you to do a bunch of extra work that your average person is going to see as needless. Both claim to give you more control and run better (linux users will often point to how they can run it off any piece of sh!t 386 they find lying around despite the real world truth to the matter). And both have been known to create a massive elitist community that is not so much based in logic as it is pride of knowledge.

The real beauty is taking something cheap that requires you to do more work and make it seem like a priveledge and wear it like a badge. Both have accomplished this to some degree.

The main difference between the 2 is that linux justifications have saved businesses millions of dollars. Manual will only ever save someone a thousand dollars or so.

Edit: Oh and for the record, I have nothing against manual, I just don't like the attitude that follows it around, just like the attitude that follows linux around.

 

[CFster]

Originally posted by: dug777
Indeed.

I've driven on loose gravel with both autos and manuals, and for towing, and indeed any driving the manual felt far more controlled. Not to mention, for hilly country on the gravel i've tried holding autos in the lowest gear they'll let me, and it always seems to be so incredibly tall that it provides no engine braking at all, for any hill descent work on gravel you want to have the engine doing most of the work, and the brakes just to rein it in and provide the finer control.

Will somebody.

Please.

Tell me why they think engine braking is better than using the brakes. Not how if feels to them. I want to know the mechanics of it.

Considering that by downshifting into a given gear you are now putting a set load on the drivetrain because you have a given gear ratio, you have in fact less control than if you simply used the brakes. They are much easier to modulate. That's what they're there for. A lot of people who downshift in the snow don't realize that they've actually lost traction and are actually sliding down a hill. And to make matters worse, if they hit the gas there is an increased chance of spinning the wheels because of that lower gear ratio.

I'm an ASE tech for 20 years and don't understand it. The ONLY situation where I find it necessary is in road racing driving a rear wheel drive car, where while turning into a corner engine braking will in most cases force the nose to tuck into the apex. And really that only happens because either there is a resultant LOSS of traction at the back end that causes the car to rotate or you're already in an understeer situation. If done correctly this is roughly akin to "threshold braking", which is applying the brakes enough to reduce wheel speed to less than what it should be as a result of contact with the pavement, but not a full lockup. The drive wheels haven't fully lost traction.

I believe a lot of people learned to drive with downshifting and just feel comfortable with it. I think that sense of "control" is misguided though. Most haven't mastered fine control with the brake pedal.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: CFster

Originally posted by: dug777
Indeed.

I've driven on loose gravel with both autos and manuals, and for towing, and indeed any driving the manual felt far more controlled. Not to mention, for hilly country on the gravel i've tried holding autos in the lowest gear they'll let me, and it always seems to be so incredibly tall that it provides no engine braking at all, for any hill descent work on gravel you want to have the engine doing most of the work, and the brakes just to rein it in and provide the finer control.

Will somebody.

Please.

Tell me why they think engine braking is better than using the brakes. Not how if feels to them. I want to know the mechanics of it.

Considering that by downshifting into a given gear you are now putting a set load on the drivetrain because you have a given gear ratio, you have in fact less control than if you simply used the brakes. They are much easier to modulate. That's what they're there for. A lot of people who downshift in the snow don't realize that they've actually lost traction and are actually sliding down a hill. And to make matters worse, if they hit the gas there is an increased chance of spinning the wheels because of that lower gear ratio.

I'm an ASE tech for 20 years and don't understand it. The ONLY situation where I find it necessary is in road racing driving a rear wheel drive car, where while turning into a corner engine braking will in most cases force the nose to tuck into the apex. And really that only happens because either there is a resultant LOSS of traction at the back end that causes the car to rotate or you're already in an understeer situation. If done correctly this is roughly akin to "threshold braking", which is applying the brakes enough to reduce wheel speed to less than what it should be as a result of contact with the pavement, but not a full lockup. The drive wheels haven't fully lost traction.

I believe a lot of people learned to drive with downshifting and just feel comfortable with it. I think that sense of "control" is misguided though. Most haven't mastered fine control with the brake pedal.

Engine braking is a constant, smooth decelerating/braking effect once engaged (and even the gear change should be far smoother than a brake engage if you've got any skill with a clutch), that nobody could equal with a brake pedal on a smooth road, let alone a bumpy, shifting gravel downhill. You use the engine to control your descent, as a baseline, and you then augment that controlled position with the brakes as needed. Make sense to you?

Add to that you've then got complete throttle control of the vehicle (touch the accelerator and you'll be instantly able to make a controlled change in direction, let it off and the engine is braking again for ya, smooth as can be), and i think its a pretty persuasive argument.

I'll leave you with one final question, how do off-roaders go down a steep, slippery hill? Yeah, that's right, they use an extremely low gear AND the brakes. You should always use them both, and nobody is advocating just using engine braking

EDIT: just a thought, how do you think trucks stop in non-emergency fashion? If you are correct, they should only use the brakes to stop, no down shifting at all

EDIT11tybillion: just out of interest, what do you suggest one does with the gearbox while braking, if engine braking of any form is teh debil?

You should NEVER coast in neutral, so that's out, but leaving it in gear will reduce the effectiveness of your braking (we're assuming scrubbing off a reasonable amount of speed (dropping from say a comfortable speed in 3rd to a comfortable speed in 2nd), not just mildly decreasing your speed within a comfortable single gear speed, in which case you obviously use the brakes), while ironically putting more strain on the drive train & engine as you slow both the car & the engine with your brakes. Not exactly an efficient outcome is that?

If you're really suggesting you should leave the car in neutral under braking, you're a bigger fool than i think you are

 

[CFster]

Originally posted by: dug777
Engine braking is a constant, smooth decelerating/braking effect once engaged (and even the gear change should be far smoother than a brake engage if you've got any skill with a clutch), that nobody could equal with a brake pedal on a smooth road, let alone a bumpy, shifting gravel downhill. You use the engine to control your descent, as a baseline, and you then augment that controlled position with the brakes as needed. Make sense to you?

Nope.

EDIT: just a thought, how do you think trucks stop in non-emergency fashion? If you are correct, they should only use the brakes to stop, no down shifting at all

Must be why more and more trucks (big rigs) are coming through with automatics these days.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: CFster

Originally posted by: dug777
Engine braking is a constant, smooth decelerating/braking effect once engaged (and even the gear change should be far smoother than a brake engage if you've got any skill with a clutch), that nobody could equal with a brake pedal on a smooth road, let alone a bumpy, shifting gravel downhill. You use the engine to control your descent, as a baseline, and you then augment that controlled position with the brakes as needed. Make sense to you?

Nope.

EDIT: just a thought, how do you think trucks stop in non-emergency fashion? If you are correct, they should only use the brakes to stop, no down shifting at all

Must be why more and more trucks (big rigs) are coming through with automatics these days.

All trucks of any serious size compression brake as their preferred method of controlling a long descent, or a controlled (non-emergency) stop (unless local noise regulations prohibit it, and even then they usually do anyway ). If they have an auto-box, it would be designed to allow this (you can hold downshifts on many boxes remember).

Your responses suggest that you're in no mood to be reasonable or listen to what i'm trying to explain (as am i happy to see why i'm wrong). I've put up plenty of other questions and examples i'd love to see you rebut

Peace man :beer:

 

[CFster]

Fine then.

 

[iversonyin]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
what's the big F'in deal? So you save a mile or two per gallon on gas. Most people here that can afford a nice car with a manual don't need to worry about money. And automatic transmissions are so advanced now that you barely get any extra gas mileage out of them. I know some people think they're funner....but why? You move a stick a few times on a car ride and that makes it funner? Shouldn't you be paying complete attention to the road...I can't think of a single objective reason why ANYONE should or would want to drive a manual instead of an automatic

People who drive manual pay more attention to the road. We don't have the other hand to DRINK, HOLD A CELL PHONE, HOLD A BURGER OR TWO.

We drive what we want to drive and how we want to drive, what's you big F'ING deal?!

 

[Regs]

Better control over the car. Though I do have a 98 Honda Accord. So I don't have a manual nor do I have a "advanced" auto to be fair.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: CFster

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
There are very very few cars in which the automatic transmission is faster than a well driven manual of the same make and model. Your oldsmoboat isn't one of them...assuming you could even get it with a manual transmission.

Tell that to the drag racers.

Drag racers are specially made cars built just to go fast in a straight line for short distances. They aren't very good road going cars and the faster you can get your car to go in the 1/4 mile the worse it is as a daily driver.

I'm talking production cars here (you know, the cars we all drive day in and day out-the kind you can go down to your local car dealership and buy?) and I stand by my statement. There are very very few cars in which the automatic version is faster than a well driven manual.