Auto or Manual?

[Kaligraphic]

Shoo, you drive an SL2? That's the same model as myself, oddly enough - though mine is an auto.

I prefer auto because I'm lazy about that sort of thing.

[shooraijin]

Yeah, it's a 2002 SL2, last model year of the line. -_-

What year is yours?

EDIT, just noticed ST2M's post ...

As for the manual being more fuel-efficient than automatics, that's beginning to change. Automatics are steadily becoming as fuel-efficient as their clutch counterparts.

What I'd really like is an auto-manual. Best of both worlds.

Becoming *more* fuel efficient, I'll grant you, but I still haven't seen an auto that matches most manual transmissions for fuel economy. Part of the problem is that auto transmissions are still mostly optimized for torque, and so they delay badly compared to a typical manual transmission driver in lower gears where power is higher but gas consumption is also correspondingly higher. Economy auto trannies get around this either with smaller, more efficient engines (though I'd still assert a stick driver can get more out of this under manual control), or faster upshifting. Either approach will truly yield increased MPG, but can really rob low end torque.

So, this is back to manual drivers having the choice. If I really, really wanted to take someone off the line, I'd just stay in low gears and rev high. On the other hand, since most of the time I don't want to do that, I get into 5th gear as quick as I can. But it's nice that I can pick.

There were some "shift autos" out there, mostly in luxury or higher-end "sports coupes" and so on, that had an automatic transmission with a manual control option (over and above the P-R-N-D-(O)D-3-2-1 business). These actually tended to be the worst of both worlds, oddly. They combined the worst features of automatic trannies (bad MPG, uneven distribution of torque over the acceleration curve) with a strange shifting mechanism that was alien to manual drivers, who disliked the feel. I'm not surprised they never caught on.

[Alice]

Neither.

*wants to learn to drive*

[Kaligraphic]

I drive a '96, a bit older. Still looks good, and runs strong. My father drives an '02 SL2, also an auto, and I get better gas mileage than him. (Both are green, coincidentally - though we really weren't trying to coordinate.)

I usually get ~28-29 mpg, and, as I recall, he gets something like 24-26.




Alice: If you want to learn to drive, here's what you do: you round up a Scotsman and find a golf course...

[Scribs]

I just found out that I will have to learn to drive a standard before christmas. curses!

[Fsiphskilm]

[quote="Ing

[ShiroiHikari]

I hate standards because they take too much work to drive. If I can't pay attention to the road because I'm trying to shift the right way, that's bad for me and whoever else is on the road. Sorry. I prefer automatic because how much control do you REALLY need in day-to-day driving? As long as the thing is working properly, that's all the control I need.

[Animom]

Wonderful poll! Learned on manual, drove it for years, on the steering wheel and on the floor. Now I drive automatic all the time -- but, I would love to have a little Honda with 5 on the floor!!! My Dad was wise to get me manual transmission -- it's easier to learn automatic. So now I am ambi-transmission female driver. )

[~Natsumi Lam~]

Manual,

I have a 5 speed, ca18det [turbo] engine... nissan 240sx.

~NL~

[Felix]

I haven't driven but a tad *just starting drivers ed* But I'm with the manual. Control is good.

[Fsiphskilm]

neigh

[Warrior4Christ]

Manual, for the reasons shooby mentioned. Although, I've moved farther away from where I work, and I get caught in traffic a bit more now. shifting all the time in rush hour is just a pain. Maybe I'll make my next car an automatic - but not for a few years, at the earliest.

I hear that complaint from other manual drivers, but I don't find it annoying myself at all.

I've trained my eyes to 'automatically' skip over any classified car ads that contain the word 'auto'. I always skim though an ad for that word, if it doesn't contain it, I read it, if not I skip it. This has the unfortunate side effect of missing any insanely good deals like a Ferrari 2002 auto for $5000*.

Oh and as to the hill things...some manual cars come with a device called a hill hold that keeps the car in place while stopping and starting, though I've learned to drive without it, since mine is blown out (several thousand consecutive holds getting out of my driveway will do that eventually (yay for having a house on a street like a bobsled run!)).

I have a hill holder valve on my car too! When I first got it, I was thinking it had an unusually large amount of friction when I was trying to gently roll back with the clutch in. I thought something would have to be lubricated or something (...like the brake pads ) Then I found the section about the hill holder valve by chance in my car's service manual, and then it all made sense.
One day I was teaching my mum to use the hill holder:
Me: Put your clutch in, then put it in 1st. Then press the brake hard.
Mum: (does it, releases brake pedal to test) It's rolling back.
Me: Press the brake HARD.
Mum: (does it, releases brake pedal to test) It's rolling back.
Me: Press the brake H-A-R-D.
Mum: (does it, releases brake pedal, it rolls back.) Do you think I should press harder?

*Hypothetical insanely good deal.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

uhmmm... people tell me that Manual is generally better... (for performance I believe) what are the reasons?

[Mave]

It doesn't matter to me because I don't care for cars except that its sole purpose is to take me from one place to another in one piece.

It's compulsory for everyone to take the driving test on a designated manual car back home. I currently drive an auto, though. I can drive a manual if necessary but for me, it's annoying because you have to get the timing on the clutch/brake right.

I think I'm pretty contented knowing that I wouldn't accidentally kill the engine in the middle of a heavily congested roundabout of 3 lanes or have my car slide backwards unto some poor chap on some 30 degree angle slope. XD;;;

[boerseun]

I don't mind automatic, but I prefer manual. It takes getting used to, but in the end you have more control and after a while the whole clutch-brake thing becomes a breeze.

[desperado]

the thing is manual IS cool and all but on a long trip or everyday it just becomes annoying. i mean if i had a weekend car i would want it manual but my everday driver? auto. less hassle for a car that is ment to be driven lightly

[Shao Feng-Li]

I can drive a manual- well I know how, but so far I like autos better. I have myself a little '93 Honda Civic waiting for me.

[shooraijin]

I seriously advise you not to do this. As you'll wear out the ball bearing that lets the inner disc of the clutch spin while you're shifting. That's exactly what happened to the car we were replacing the clutch on.

True of older clutches, but newer ones are built to take it (theoretically you shouldn't have the clutch down even when you're stopped -- you should be in neutral and off the clutch because the clutch is still spinning even when you idle -- but modern clutch assemblies are rated for those kinds of RPM mismatch, even large ones between engine RPM and the actual revolutions of the tires). Where this could get you in trouble is if your manual tranny is considerably lower geared because correspondingly higher RPMs will be transmitted to the clutch disc while coasting, no matter what the engine tach says, and this may exceed its rated capacity.

[Steeltemplar]

I have never driven manual, so I really don't know. lol.

[V8Tsunami]

These days you don't have much choice, because most new vehicles are auto. Hence why my last 2 cars have been auto, even though I enjoy stick much more. To answer some of the questions:

Only use engine braking when you feel that your brakes may overheat, such as with a heay load, or driving downhill for several miles. Why? Slowing down the car with the engine puts strain on the drive line, plus you can damage things or lose control if the wheels slow down too quickly. This is why automakers moved brakes from the driveline to the wheels in automotive's early years.

In modern cars, the mileage & performance of both transmissions are extremely close, or even identical. Modern automatics use gearing, electronics and lightweight parts to keep the engine in the proper rpm range. Whether you talk 0-60 or mpg, it's down to driver preference anymore. Race cars run all kinds of transmissions. The auto can be strengthened quite easily and they're consistent, which is why many drag cars use them. However the control offered by manuals is preferred by roadracers. F1 cars and high-end exotics use a manual box that is hydraulically shifted & electronically-controlled to get the mileage advantages of an auto with the fun of a stick.

[shooraijin]

In modern cars, the mileage & performance of both transmissions are extremely close, or even identical. Modern automatics use gearing, electronics and lightweight parts to keep the engine in the proper rpm range. Whether you talk 0-60 or mpg, it's down to driver preference anymore. Race cars run all kinds of transmissions. The auto can be strengthened quite easily and they're consistent, which is why many drag cars use them. However the control offered by manuals is preferred by roadracers. F1 cars and high-end exotics use a manual box that is hydraulically shifted & electronically-controlled to get the mileage advantages of an auto with the fun of a stick.

But by their very definition, automatic transmissions are going to be jacks of all trades and masters of none. They have to balance performance versus MPG, unless tuned for a specific application, and auto trannies are still at the mercy of the torque converter which will always do a poorer job compared to a manual clutch (and a fair bit of energy will always be wasted as heat during the conversion no matter how hard you try, even with locking systems -- I'll get to that in a sec).

As far as dragsters driving auto trannies, yes, that's true, but they're also driving it in a very limited, atypical situation. Plus, those sorts of automatic trannies are keyed to generate slippage until the engine is at maximum RPM (i.e. a very high stall speed) because those sorts of engines are heavily modified to generate high-end torque only -- not the kind of engine you would find in a consumer car. While they deliver maximum power when they do get in the right RPM range, they stink at the low-end because they're not built for it. You could never use such a engine, let alone the correspondingly tuned transmission, in a general purpose application.

What about lock-up clutches? While a lock-up clutch will definitely improve your MPG by taking slippage out of the picture when you're at cruising speed, even this step doesn't bring the transmission efficiency to parity with an equivalently configured manual. I will concede that this will get you close to it, but the price paid is a significantly more complex transmission *and* poorer responsiveness when engine RPMs change (there has to be a mechanical change to the torque converter to resume normal operation).

[Fsiphskilm]

The new

[Maledicte]

In any case I like manual cars. I just don't like my dad's car Stupid Nissan...

It took me nearly a year to use the clutch properly. And yet my friend, after driving an automatic, learned how to drive a stick after 2 tries. Her car is a new Corolla.

Hence, I blame my dad's Nissan.

[Mangafanatic]

It's my hopes that my husband will drive an manual. He can then teach me how to use one. Until then, I'm drivin' my trust automatic.

[Fsiphskilm]

The

[Alice]

Alice: If you want to learn to drive, here's what you do: you round up a Scotsman and find a golf course...

*doesn't get it*

Basically I have to find someone outside my family to teach me. :/;;;

[Warrior4Christ]

F1 cars and high-end exotics use a manual box that is hydraulically shifted & electronically-controlled to get the mileage advantages of an auto with the fun of a stick.

I thought it was the other way around - it has the mechanics of a manual box (for best performance and economy), but electronically controlled to shift automatically or by pressing the gear up/down buttons (for lazyness).

This idea that AUTO is almost or equal to the Gas Milage of MANUAL is completely FALSE and will NEVER be true, unless some sort of incredible AI is invented that can see the road with a camera and be able to judge accordingly.

I have seen some rare case of an auto getting a tiny bit better economy (eg 10.4L/100km manual to 10.3L/100km auto), but in these cases, the manual gear ratios were not optimised for economy, and the auto must have been. But that means the performance gap between them would be larger than normal.

[indent]AUTO is like Apple OSX, and MANUAL is like Windows XP.
OSX doesn't allow access to a even a fraction of the Options that winXP allows you, but OSX is more stable, and by keeping you out of the control panel, you can't mess anything up.

WinXP allows access to everything, but if you don't know what you're doing, you can crash your crap. Yes you get more control, but there's always that chance that you'll do something wrong while having access to all those options.[/indent]

HAHA , good analogy!

If you're on a hill, and you'r car's battery is out, with a MANUAL you can put it in neutral, let it start rolling, while holding the clutch and in first gear, quickly release the clutch and it'll start your motor, and even with a dead battery you can get home. You'll never be able to do this with AUTO.

I've done this several times, but it is advisable to use a higher gear, like third, not first.

[shooraijin]

I've done this several times, but it is advisable to use a higher gear, like third, not first.

I agree, because if it turns over, you'll be able to keep the RPMs better in a higher gear (in first it'll go into an effective engine brake ... oops ). On a smaller engine, though, second gear might be a better compromise.

And haven't you OS X people ever heard of Terminal.app? I guarantee you someone who knows enough Unix to be dangerous and has your password can crash your "crap" as well Ah well, it's off topic anyway.

[Linksquest]

Ehh... <<;;; i think i voted "manual," But i really prefer the Automatic better. My friend argued that because he is learning the manual, he will be able to drive both manual and automatic cars, while i will only know how to drive automatics. m3h. it makes sense... but i really think it's one less thing to think about when you are driving. I think an automatic is also a lot less stressful for new drivers, as i am one of them! ^^

[Galant]

Manual. More control. Better petrol consumption. Safer - in that you can make use of the gear shifting to slow you down if your brakes fail - not as easy on an auto. Cheaper to repair. Automatic transmissions are more complex and cost more to fix if they screw up.

The thing about manuals is you really have to learn them, and practise until your master them. It's a skill. Once you get it you don't have to worry about rolling backwards, being slow off the mark or otherwise.