[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Less control.

There are cars now that shift automatically but you select the gear yourself by pressing buttons on the steering wheel or by pushing a stick up and down. I have not yet driven such a car but it sounds like best of both worlds.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

We covered this already with Athen's boneheaded posts. DO NOT DO THAT. Brakes are designed to stop your car, and they should be MORE THAN ABLE TO DO SO. Downshifting puts extra wear and tear on your transmission, clutch, and teh entire drivetrain. Here's what I wrote to Athens:

" It boils down to whether or not you care how the care performs at 100k miles, and when you want to replace your clutch. The clutch is basically a big metal disc with another disc covered with sandpaper. The sandpaper eventually wears out, and hten your clutch slips. The more you use it, the sooner it wears out. If you can't understand this, I don't know what to tell you. Also, you have a 2000 lb car!? Wow. That's a seriously light car... what kind is it? And again, you show your ignorance a few more times in this paragraph. You call the brakes, "breaks", which is something 2nd graders do. You refer to saving the brakes, and again, you've missed the point of EVERY ****ING PERSON telling you that it puts more wear and tear on the engine and transmission. And then, to put a cherry on this big ignorant heap of crap you've spouted, you say that imports must have better clutches than domestics. Please don't reproduce. "

What an abusive post that was! I'm surprised you want to resurrect it.

I know quite well how a clutch works, thx, and yes, downshifting will wear it out a little faster. Exactly how much faster, I'm not sure, though I don't buy the argument that it's twice as fast (due to my own experience, and also because I don't always downshift through every gear every time.) As this link explains:

"You have more control over the vehicle. This is the fallback contention of most downshifters once they realize how feeble the conserve-the-brakes argument is. By downshifting you're always in the appropriate gear for the speed you're traveling. Suppose you were a brakes-only type of guy doing 40 miles per hour in fourth gear. You see a red light ahead and brake down to 20. Suddenly in the rearview mirror you notice a runaway concrete truck bearing down on you. You want to accelerate out of harm's way, but you lose precious time shifting from fourth to second and get creamed. Whereas if you'd been downshifting and were in second already, you could accelerate immediately and plow into the car in front of you. All right, so maybe this isn't the ideal illustration. But you see what I'm getting at." (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a980227.html)

Contrast this with the argument the Car Talk guys make:

"Tom: So the best procedure is to just leave the car in whatever gear you're using, and use the brake to slow down. Then, when you're almost at a stop (when you get down to 10 or 15 mph, just before the engine starts to buck), push in the clutch and leave it in, while putting the gearshift in Second (just in case you need to accelerate). And when you've come to a complete stop a few seconds later, shift into Neutral and take your foot off the clutch." (http://www.cartalk.com/content/colum...anuary/03.html)

Perhaps these guys don't live in rural areas stoplights on 55 MPH highways, as I do, but I'm not going to leave it in 5th when I'm decelerating down the freeway with coal trucks all around me. Having to guess which gear to shift into in order to get out of the way of those things when they're barreling down on me (or when the light turns green) is not something I want to do.

Anyway, if you don't agree -- and I'm sure you don't -- spare me the abuse you heaped on Athens. Even if it really is wearing it out twice as fast, I'll pay the $1000 replacement costs for the added safety and control. (And I drive an automatic now anyway, so it's a moot point I suppose.)

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

There are cars now that shift automatically but you select the gear yourself by pressing buttons on the steering wheel or by pushing a stick up and down. I have not yet driven such a car but it sounds like best of both worlds.

That's been around for decades. Chrysler had the 'slapstick' automatic back in the 1970s musclecars. It isn't the same as a manual, it's just a regular inefficient automatic transmission with a bit more on the input side. It still has less gears, it's still less efficient, and it's still slower than a manual.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by strictlyplaid

I WILL LISTEN TO MY FATHER AND ONLY HIM AND DAMN WHAT EVERYONE ELSE SAYS AND EVIDENCE THEY PROVIDE!!!!

Okay. Go you.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

I KNOW EVERYTHING BUT NO ONE WILL OBEY ME THAT'S WHY I GET BANNED ALL THE TIME FROM TEH INTERWEB!!!!

Okay. Go you.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

That's been around for decades. Chrysler had the 'slapstick' automatic back in the 1970s musclecars. It isn't the same as a manual, it's just a regular inefficient automatic transmission with a bit more on the input side. It still has less gears, it's still less efficient, and it's still slower than a manual.

I think Tetenal was on about something like the Ferrari F1 box, which is a manual.

Still, I prefer having full control over the clutch - as I like to be able to cut power to the engine when I want to.

[Jellytussle]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

That's been around for decades. Chrysler had the 'slapstick' automatic back in the 1970s musclecars. It isn't the same as a manual, it's just a regular inefficient automatic transmission with a bit more on the input side. It still has less gears, it's still less efficient, and it's still slower than a manual.

Actually, the transmissions that TETENAL is referring to, eg the Magneti Marelli robotised shift used by Ferrari and Alfa Romeo, have a conventional manual box and clutch, with a solenoid operated shift; other systems may use pneumatics. I played with one a lot when i bought my last Alfa 156, and it was pretty neat, doing things like full-throttle upshifts. I found the slight hesitation a bit offputting, though; and i'd heard bad things about the reliability. Anyway, my current Alfa is the 6-speed diesel, and they don't offer a selespeed version.

here's some info:

http://www.selespeed.info/selespeed.htm

[Troll]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

No, you got it backwards. The lower rpm you drive with the less fuel us burned. It's simple logic since with every round a certain amount of fuel is used. So if you can drive the same speed in a higher gear with lower rpm you use less fuel overall.

Nope, wrong. An engine is at its most efficient when it is turning at a certain number of rpm (usually around 2400 - 3200 rpm for a petrol engine). Too fast and the engine is inefficient and too slow and its inefficient too. The whole point of a transmission is to allow the engine to turn constantly at the rpm that it operates most efficiently at.

If you've got a manual, try driving up a steep hill in 5th gear at 40km/h and then try it in 3rd gear. Note the position of the accelerator (which is what determines how much fuel you're putting into the engine). You will be have your pedal to the metal in 5th - muc more so than in 3rd because the engine is not efficient at such low revs.

[Troll]

Continuously Variable Transmissions are the future for cars that are focussed on efficiency. Direct Shift Gearbox (and to a lesser extent, Tiptronic) is the future for more sporty applications.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

You're making it too complicated. Don't shift at redline. Don't shift so early that the next gear makes your engine bog. The end.

This is precisely why the manual is important; it should tell you WHAT RPM IS OPTIMAL for upshifting. This takes into account the engine's torque characteristics and the specific ratios in each gear. Without at least a clue about this, you're shifting in the dark.

Further, there are different shift points for different driving situations. Accelerating in city traffic requires a different performance characteristic than accelerating onto a freeway; you should be shifting at lower RPMs in city traffic than when entering a freeway because you need to get up to speed quickly on the freeway, but you need more discrete speed control on city streets.

[Zenbone]

I've never understood people who prefer manual. Seems the next step down from that would be a Fred Flintstone car.

[TETENAL]

I want this one:




(images by spiegel.de)

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Jellytussle

Actually, the transmissions that TETENAL is referring to, eg the Magneti Marelli robotised shift used by Ferrari and Alfa Romeo,

Sure, but the vast majority of these 'sportshift' transmissions in the majority of cars (chryslers, bmws, audis, chevys, fords, etc etc etc etc) are just an automatic transmission with a different way to change gears.

The VERY HIGH END cars use an electronically controlled manual transmission, or something along those lines, but you're talking about a very very very very very very small minority. My post was talking about the kinds of cars that most of us will actually be driving, not the ones you see in magazines.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by ghporter

This is precisely why the manual is important; it should tell you WHAT RPM IS OPTIMAL for upshifting. This takes into account the engine's torque characteristics and the specific ratios in each gear. Without at least a clue about this, you're shifting in the dark.

Further, there are different shift points for different driving situations. Accelerating in city traffic requires a different performance characteristic than accelerating onto a freeway; you should be shifting at lower RPMs in city traffic than when entering a freeway because you need to get up to speed quickly on the freeway, but you need more discrete speed control on city streets.

No offense, but I've never needed a manual to tell me that. Just drive the car around a bit, and you get to know at what RPMs the engine is torquey, what RPMs are kinda low, what RPMS the power starts to die off a little, etc etc etc. Having a manual would be fairly retarded, as almost every driving situation is different.

I don't need a manual for that type of crap because I have common sense, something that seems to be getting quite scarce lately.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

The new charger isn't even available with a manual.

Pathetic.

You are kidding me?

That is all I will ever own.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You are kidding me?

That is all I will ever own.

Nope. Neither is chrysler's upscale quasi expensive Crossfire SRT6. Automatic only. I like the car, but I'd never buy one because it's an auto. My SVX is an auto and it pisses me off to no end.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Zenbone

I've never understood people who prefer manual. Seems the next step down from that would be a Fred Flintstone car.

You obviously didn't read this thread.

Automatics get worse MPG (less efficient), they're slower and usually have less top speed (less gears), and you have less control.

[Kevin]

Even my GF bought a 5spd.

Its a 97 Mercury tracer 4door. Boring car. But since it has a manual, it's a bit more fun to drive.

[OB1]

To pull away - squeeze the accelerator pedal, raise the clutch to the point where you feel the engine begin to engage (the bite point. Hold the clutch there. Release the hand-brake and squeeze the accelerator slightly more as the car begins to move. Balance your release of the clutch with your increasing pressure on the accelerator. - Soon this will all be one fluid movement.

As a very general guide, shift up at around 3500 rpm. There is no correct point at which to change gear. It depends on the gradient of the road and how you want the car to perform. Your Dads an experienced driver, he'll know.

No point in shifting down through the gears while slowing down - instructors haven't taught this method for over 20 years. Apply the clutch as late as possible before coming to a stop but before the car begins to 'grumble' before stalling. Experiment. Don't worry about stalling, it will only happen a couple of times.

As someone stated earlier, manual gearboxes require you to be more involved with driving process, but that's why he bought a manual right?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by Troll

Continuously Variable Transmissions are the future for cars that are focussed on efficiency. Direct Shift Gearbox (and to a lesser extent, Tiptronic) is the future for more sporty applications.

Yuck city. CVT is the worst idea ever. That is, of course, if you actually enjoy driving a car not just riding around in one. Even an expensive sports car with CVT feels like driving a bloody minivan. The CVT simply neuters the car in the worst possible way.

Which brings me to my point with this whole discussion: some of us don't prefer a manual gearbox because its "safer" or more "effecient". We prefer it beause it is entirely and utterly part of really driving a car--really driving it and not just riding around in it.

I'll admit that if I'm just sitting in city traffic or commuting, an automatic has a real upside. But when I want to actually go for a drive, a manual shift is absolutely the only thing.

[Gene Jockey]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

Yuck city. CVT is the worst idea ever. That is, of course, if you actually enjoy driving a car not just riding around in one. Even an expensive sports car with CVT feels like driving a bloody minivan. The CVT simply neuters the car in the worst possible way.

Uh, except for the many situations where you do just want to ride around in your car. Not everyone dreams of being Mario Andretti every time they slip behind the wheel. Sometimes you just need to haul a bunch of crap home from the store or bring your dog to the vet and a CVT in your vehicle will do the job just fine and save you money on gas.

Right tool for the right job. I wouldn't want the CVT from our Freestyle in my Mustang GT, and I wouldn't want the 5-speed manual from my Mustang in the Freestyle. I own them for vastly different reasons. I drive them in very different ways. It's just a choice, that's all.

[phantomdragonz]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

No, you got it backwards. The lower rpm you drive with the less fuel us burned. It's simple logic since with every round a certain amount of fuel is used. So if you can drive the same speed in a higher gear with lower rpm you use less fuel overall.

OK, cash is right about newer cars and their computer controlled engines, but the throttle is basically a proportional valve.... the more you push, the more fuel it lets out... so basically there is no exact way to do it (lower rpm's is better) it's a balance on how far you push down on the pedal and how fast you end up going...

I have looked down the carburetor on my old jeep wrangler and and played with the throttle, and the more you push the more fuel gets dumped into the carb, it's really quite interesting to see how much fuel actually gets used, Just think of it as a valve, and your gas milage will go up with some practice...

Zach

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by Gene Jockey

Uh, except for the many situations where you do just want to ride around in your car. Not everyone dreams of being Mario Andretti every time they slip behind the wheel. Sometimes you just need to haul a bunch of crap home from the store or bring your dog to the vet and a CVT in your vehicle will do the job just fine and save you money on gas.

Right tool for the right job. I wouldn't want the CVT from our Freestyle in my Mustang GT, and I wouldn't want the 5-speed manual from my Mustang in the Freestyle. I own them for vastly different reasons. I drive them in very different ways. It's just a choice, that's all.

Um, I'd agree with you except that having a CVT in your car means means the absense of choice. You have no alternative to driving your car (no matter what it is) like a mini-van. Want to wind it up on some great, twisting road? Sorry. Want to blast around grandma driving 25 mph in her 1969 Caddy on a two-way road? Good luck. Want to use the engine to break going down a huge mountain so you don't fry your brakes? Nope.

So unless you have multiple vehicles to provide you with alternate "tools" for the job....

No offense. Really. Some people probably have extremely limited driving conditions that never require anything but stop-n-go around town. But it really does neuter the car in a brutal and unforgiving way.

Besides, I think the supposed mileage advantage of CVT is vastly, vastly over-estimated. It might help on long-distance, highway driving but it will do nothing for you around town.

By the way, I don't drive fast at all. I never speed. Going fast isn't all there is to going for a great and thrilling drive in a car with a manual gearbox on a nice road. Its a zen thing. You get into a groove and its all about you, the car, the road and trying to get those 3 things in total harmony.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

Um, I'd agree with you except that having a CVT in your car means means the absense of choice. You have no alternative to driving your car (no matter what it is) like a mini-van. Want to wind it up on some great, twisting road? Sorry. Want to blast around grandma driving 25 mph in her 1969 Caddy on a two-way road? Good luck. Want to use the engine to break going down a huge mountain so you don't fry your brakes? Nope.

So unless you have multiple vehicles to provide you with alternate "tools" for the job....

No offense. Really. Some people probably have extremely limited driving conditions that never require anything but stop-n-go around town. But it really does neuter the car in a brutal and unforgiving way.

Besides, I think the supposed mileage advantage of CVT is vastly, vastly over-estimated. It might help on long-distance, highway driving but it will do nothing for you around town.

By the way, I don't drive fast at all. I never speed. Going fast isn't all there is to going for a great and thrilling drive in a car with a manual gearbox on a nice road. Its a zen thing. You get into a groove and its all about you, the car, the road and trying to get those 3 things in total harmony.

Actually, the CVT audi uses has a selectable option to make it perform like a 5spd transmission. They found the 'never shifting' freaked some people out, so they made it able to 'pretend' to be a normal transmission. Since it can constantly change it's ratios, it just goes from one ratio, to another, and so on. It'd be basically like driving an automatic. Sure, there isn't a clutch, but the CVT does have an advantage over a manual: It can actually be FASTER. Adjustable gearing on the fly= high gearing for acceleration, and then low gearing for cruising. It's really quite spectacular. Right now hte problem is they can't make CVTs that can withstand a lot of power, but in time, that will soon happen. Imagine having a ferrari that allows you to shift, just like a manual, but instead of snapping shifts it just quickly adjust ratios. It'd be great. It'd be faster than a manual (at no point would you be coasting between gears), it'd offer superior acceleration, and it'd offer super low cruising RPMs when you're on the highway. CVTs have been around for a long time, Subaru used one in it's old Justy econobox..... but the problem was they couldn't withstand much power at all. Now audi has developed one that can be used on a fullsize car, and soon we'll see them on higher powered cars. I think the future of CVT transmissions are really bright. Infinitely adjustable gearing, better performance, shifting capabilities, and if you get stuck in traffic you can throw it in auto. It'd be fantastic.

[macroy]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Sure, but the vast majority of these 'sportshift' transmissions in the majority of cars (chryslers, bmws, audis, chevys, fords, etc etc etc etc) are just an automatic transmission with a different way to change gears.

The VERY HIGH END cars use an electronically controlled manual transmission, or something along those lines, but you're talking about a very very very very very very small minority. My post was talking about the kinds of cars that most of us will actually be driving, not the ones you see in magazines.

Yes many (i.e. tiptronic) are just "glorified" automatics... (my TL has one) - However, BMW and Toyota has the true "clutchless" manuals similar to the ones used on the F1's. My experience is with BMW's Sequencial Manual Gearbox or SMG. The transmission is no different from their manual counterparts with the exception of a actuator that drives the clutch. The SMG II version on the current M3's shifts gears in ~80 milliseconds (faster than their Ferrari counter parts). The ones coming out for the M5 and M6 will be in the 60 millisecond range...

some more info (a bit dated.. .but still good)

http://www.bmwworld.com/models/config/m3_smg.htm
http://www.m3smg.com/

I don't know the specifics for Toyota - but you can get one for the MR2 (or could)... I don't think MR2's are offered anymore.

[jcadam]

Sometimes I have to drive for long periods of time down the Autobahn (work related). A manual transmission allows me to have a bit of fun while doing so. An automatic just makes me fall asleep behind an 18-wheeler.

Since this is a mac/geek board let's consider the following:

1.) A computer is a tool, I know I need one; but I don't care how it works, give me Windows XP.
2.) I want to experience the full joy of the computing experience, give me Mac OS X.

now consider again 'automatic vs. manual' and how it relates to the 'driving experience.'

[Gene Jockey]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

Um, I'd agree with you except that having a CVT in your car means means the absense of choice. You have no alternative to driving your car (no matter what it is) like a mini-van. Want to wind it up on some great, twisting road? Sorry. Want to blast around grandma driving 25 mph in her 1969 Caddy on a two-way road? Good luck. Want to use the engine to break going down a huge mountain so you don't fry your brakes? Nope.

Well, the Freestyle basically is a minivan, so I'm forced to drive it like one anyway; e.g. very little driving on twisty roads. It does, however, have a low gear setting for forcing lower RPMs and engine braking. So, yeah, I guess I do have good luck there. As for "blasting around grandma", I really blast around very little in a Freestyle. I smoothly pass

So unless you have multiple vehicles to provide you with alternate "tools" for the job....

I do. Three of them, each suited for its task. I know not everyone can have three cars, but in any one-car situation you have to make an analysis of what will be most useful to you.

No offense. Really. Some people probably have extremely limited driving conditions that never require anything but stop-n-go around town. But it really does neuter the car in a brutal and unforgiving way.

I would say probably most people, actually. In any case, it doesn't "neuter" the car any more than a regular auto. I notice very little difference between the CVT in the Freestyle and any other car with an auto that I've driven, aside from their lack of obvious shift points and more workmanlike acceleration. It still cranks up the RPMs when you stamp on the gas. Hell, I've managed to squeal the tires on the thing. Really, maybe Ford's CVT implementation differs from whatever you've driven and found horribly wanting, but there it is.

Besides, I think the supposed mileage advantage of CVT is vastly, vastly over-estimated. It might help on long-distance, highway driving but it will do nothing for you around town.

By the way, I don't drive fast at all. I never speed. Going fast isn't all there is to going for a great and thrilling drive in a car with a manual gearbox on a nice road. Its a zen thing. You get into a groove and its all about you, the car, the road and trying to get those 3 things in total harmony.

Well, in my case 90% of the miles on the Freestyle are long distance, highway miles. Both our parents live 350+ miles away, so that was a consideration. Of course, YMMV

In any case, I never mentioned driving fast or said manuals are stupid (I own one, remember?) Taking my Mustang out on a nice day is, I agree, a pretty Zen experience. Getting stuck for an hour in bumper-to-bumper barely-moving traffic with a five speed manual is pretty frickin' far from Zen though.

Point being, CVT may be a piss-poor choice for your vehicles. That does not mean it's a horror to be contained, as others with different needs will probably (and in my case, do) find it quite useful.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by sixandout

step one rent a stick driven car
step two practice like the other people said
step three go back to your car, please don't learn to drive a manual while breaking in the engine. it makes me want to cry.

Oh, and DON'T downshift to help slow the car down. This increases the pressures on the engine parts and will ruin your compression (I THINK that's what Tony told me) and here's the bottom line...

Replacing brake pads is less expensive than an engine overhaul.

BRAKE WITH THE BRAKES.

I may have been ill-advised (but I doubt it!) so someone who can prove he (she) knows different, please speak up.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Actually, the CVT audi uses has a selectable option to make it perform like a 5spd transmission......

Interesting. The Audi is the the CVT I was thinking most of when I posted how much I hate them. This was a few years ago and don't recall any "manaul" option so I might be behind the times. At any rate, that was quite possibly the worst driving "sports car" I have ever been in. Dreadful.

I suppose the tech exists to make CVT not suck. At some point, however, you gotta wonder why you need millions of dollars of technology to make your car feel like it has a manual transmission. Know what I mean?

I'll take a real manual over a simulated or triptronic any day. I really don't care how "realistic" they manage to make it. I just don't see the point in adding more shyte to break, need service or routine maintenance, etc. Sometimes the best technology is the simplest.

edited to add: a manual is an absolute must for anyone buying an old "beater" car. I can't even count how many times a push-start has saved my arse from being stranded in the middle of nowhere.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mojo2

BRAKE WITH THE BRAKES.

Unless it's snowing.

[mojo2]

There ARE some times when an automatic is, well, handy. It's great when you're in a car (yeah, probably a Dino-saur...think Rat-Pack) with a bench seat or even leather buckets and a smooth (lo-rise) center console and your baby ridin shotgun...on a loooooooonnng stretch of road, like Highway 15 out of Vegas goin towards the City of the Angels on a warm summer evening and Sammy, Frank or Dino on the stereo.

God bless America!

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by mojo2

There ARE some times when an automatic is, well, handy. It's great when you're in a car (yeah, probably a Dino-saur...think Rat-Pack) with a bench seat or even leather buckets and a smooth (lo-rise) center console and your baby ridin shotgun...on a loooooooonnng stretch of road, like Highway 15 out of Vegas goin towards the City of the Angels on a warm summer evening and Sammy, Frank or Dino on the stereo.

God bless America!

Yeah, working the clutch tends to knock your date's head out of your lap.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Unless it's snowing.

Yes. Even if you can drive moderately and appropriately enough in the snow to use only the brakes most of the time, yes, there will still be some times when downshifting to help reduce the speed is a necessary tactic. And you should be practiced on how to do it and what the advantages are to doing it so when the NEED arises you will be able to possibly save yourself the hassle and expense of an accident or ???

[karent]

Alright Guys, After reading/skimming most of this thread, I have these observations.
1. I've been driving stick since '77.
2. In my mind, stick is for "little" cars, while automatic is for big ones, like my minivan. I wouldn't want to drive a manual minivan. Whenever I get into my friend's car, it's little so I'm constantly punching a hole in the floor where the clutch should be. This is the same friend who insists on renting an automatic car when we travel to europe, but won't pay the diff between that and manual cars.
3. I downshift to slow down on corners and stop lights, and for power on hills.
4. I get better mileage with a stick, I got 70 mpg once on a trip from Washington to Richmond in my Honda Civic. 'Course I was draughting a truck part of the way.
5. Driving at a constant speed, whether manual or auto, gives better mileage, I use cruise control all the time.
6. Driving stick is just plain fun.

k-

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

Yeah, working the clutch tends to knock your date's head out of your lap.

And if you happen to need your right hand for "any little thing" it's usually best to have it free of working your CAR'S gears...if you know what I mean.

Yes, even on the highway. The shift knob, the clutch, you never know when you need to slow down unexpectedly then resume freeway speeds...there ARE advantages to having an auto!

TF knows!

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by mojo2

And if you happen to need your right hand for "any little thing" it's usually best to have it free of working your CAR'S gears...if you know what I mean.

Yes, even on the highway. The shift knob, the clutch, you never know when you need to slow down unexpectedly then resume freeway speeds...there ARE advantages to having an auto!

TF knows!

LOL

Not to derail the thread but I had a girlfriend in college who actually had a real kink for vehicle sports. Fooling around while driving was honestly her biggest turn-on.

Being an understanding and supportive man I facilitated her happiness by putting about 50K miles on my car in the few months we dated.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

LOL

Not to derail the thread but I had a girlfriend in college who actually had a real kink for vehicle sports. Fooling around while driving was honestly her biggest turn-on.

Being an understanding and supportive man I facilitated her happiness by putting about 50K miles on my car in the few months we dated.

A TRUE humanitarian, you are!

[thunderous_funker]

I'm a giver.

[Jellytussle]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Sure, but the vast majority of these 'sportshift' transmissions in the majority of cars (chryslers, bmws, audis, chevys, fords, etc etc etc etc) are just an automatic transmission with a different way to change gears.

The VERY HIGH END cars use an electronically controlled manual transmission, or something along those lines, but you're talking about a very very very very very very small minority. My post was talking about the kinds of cars that most of us will actually be driving, not the ones you see in magazines.

The 156 selespeed was about £20000 list when i looked at it, i think it was about £1500 more than the manual equivalent. Not a supercar cost, by any means.

[macaddict0001]

He's starting to get the hang of it, he's only stalled the engine twice(when I've been with him) and he has put on about 400 kms, mostly city.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

I learned to drive with a manual, but I don't think I'd ever go back. Unless you are a racing driver, manual transmission makes as much sense to me as a manual choke. There is no reason on a modern car why the driver should be worrying about mechanical functions under the hood. It's an automobile, not an engineer's project. Next we'll be going back to manually advancing the spark.

Interestingly, European cars generally came with manual chokes a couple of decades after ordinary American cars came equipped with automatic ones. I heard the same justifications well into the 1980s about how manual chokes were superior to automatic, when in reality the cars being sold simply had stripped down specifications to keep the cost down. It's amazing how people will accept inferior technology if you convince them that wrestling with it makes them somehow smarter. But I suppose, that's how Norton makes its fortune with Microsoft products.

Cars with manual transmission are usually more fuel efficient and are slightly quicker in acceleration. Over the last few years, automatic transmissions seem to have caught up (like VW's DSG with two clutches).

Also, manual transmissions are far easier to drive in the winter (with lots of snow, obviously), although this is just my personal opinion.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by jcadam

Since this is a mac/geek board let's consider the following:

1.) A computer is a tool, I know I need one; but I don't care how it works, give me Windows XP.
2.) I want to experience the full joy of the computing experience, give me Mac OS X.

now consider again 'automatic vs. manual' and how it relates to the 'driving experience.'

I would reverse that.

1. My computer requires me to worry about how it works and fiddle with things like registries and the like. I use Windows.

2. My computer is properly designed, I don't need to know how it works. I use OS-X.

#1 is like driving manual. It requres you to worry about clutches, gears, and RPM. #2 is like driving a modern automatic. You don't need to worry about the technical stuff, it just works.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Cars with manual transmission are usually more fuel efficient.

So is walking.

You know, I have heard all the arguments, and I really don't care. A car is a convenience. I see no reason in 2005 to be changing gears manually, except on a sports car. I'm not a racing driver, I'm a commuter. I don't care about saving .001 cents a mile, and I don't care if it is .01 seconds faster on a 0-60 course. I don't drive that way. I drive in traffic, and a clutch in traffic is a pain.

In addition, having taken a car out on the skid pan I know that manual transmissions in an emergency are more distracting than they are worth. You are safer with an automatic, and a heck of a lot more comfortable. Now, you may feel differently. Maybe you like old fashioned technology that requires you to use two extra limbs while driving (which also takes one of them off the steering wheel where it belongs). Fine, that's up to you. But spare me the myths.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

So is walking.

No need to get cynical. Just check out the facts.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

I suppose the tech exists to make CVT not suck. At some point, however, you gotta wonder why you need millions of dollars of technology to make your car feel like it has a manual transmission. Know what I mean?

But that's just it. The CVT is relatively simple. Look at the top of a drill press. Or a snowmobile transmission. It's just two cones with chain. It's pretty ingeniously simple, actually. WE just didn't have the technology to make one to withstand the output of regular car engines. Now we do.

And again, the reason WHY invest $ into CVT tech is that it will OUT PERFORM a manual transmission. With adjustable gearing, you can gear it to out accelerate a manual's fixed gears. With adjustable gearing, you can then gear it to deliver really low RPMs on the highway, thus boosting your gas mileage considerably. Also, when you shift in a manual, you're going from 'gear ratio one', then into nuetral, then into 'gear ratio 2'. Imagine shifting like you do now, only instead of nuetral between gears, it'll just be 'adjusting' the ratio. That means even faster 0-60 times, and less chances of losing control due to an instant change in traction.

CVTs of the future are going to rock.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

I would reverse that.

1. My computer requires me to worry about how it works and fiddle with things like registries and the like. I use Windows.

2. My computer is properly designed, I don't need to know how it works. I use OS-X.

#1 is like driving manual. It requres you to worry about clutches, gears, and RPM. #2 is like driving a modern automatic. You don't need to worry about the technical stuff, it just works.

You forgot the speed difference. Manuals are faster, and more fuel efficient.

It's the choice between a 1ghz apple laptop with only 1 hour of battery life and nothing is adjustable...

or a PC laptop that's 2ghz with a 2 hour battery life and everything is adjustable.

[thunderous_funker]

Meh.

Still won't be as fun as driving a stick.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

You forgot the speed difference. Manuals are faster

No, I don't care about it. That's not how I drive.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

You forgot the speed difference. Manuals are faster, and more fuel efficient.

The difference is becoming negligible. Nissan's 350z with 6MT is a few milliseconds faster 0-60 than the manual-matic.

And the F360 Spider I walk past every week on my way to the office most certainly doesn't have a "stick".

[Kevin]

Take for example a Porsche 928.

The auto version does the 1/4 mile in 13.9 second.

The 5spd does it in 12.9 .

Big difference.