Let’s Admit It: Manual Transmissions Need to Go


Recommended Posts

FloatingFatMan
1 minute ago, adrynalyne said:

Re jump starting: I think he meant the rolling/ pop the clutch method of getting the engine started. I wasn't aware that worked still on modern day manuals but I've never been in a situation to try it either.

I do, and it does still work.  Rarely needed, but sometimes we get a cold cold day that just nukes your battery if it's getting on in years.

 

And last time I checked, automatics are STILL less fuel efficient than manuals under ideal conditions. Obviously driver style can and will affect that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
adrynalyne
6 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

I do, and it does still work.  Rarely needed, but sometimes we get a cold cold day that just nukes your battery if it's getting on in years.

 

And last time I checked, automatics are STILL less fuel efficient than manuals under ideal conditions. Obviously driver style can and will affect that.

Nah.

 

MPG estimates (or whatever measure you prefer) are lower for manual because autos are programmed for the most efficient shift points.  You can of course override these between drive modes, manual shifting, tunes, etc, but if  you let the car do what its designed to do, it will be more efficient than a manual. There are almost no (if any)  drivers that can match the consistency of a computer. Not to mention that autos use zero fuel on a downhill grade. I am unsure if manuals are the same.

 

Not knocking manuals, but its just a fact.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Tomo

Personally I think manual gearboxes are better, much more control, much more engaging. I find automatics a joyless experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
adrynalyne
5 minutes ago, Tomo said:

Personally I think manual gearboxes are better, much more control, much more engaging. I find automatics a joyless experience.

Sometimes they are a joyless experience, especially if the vehicle is underpowered.

 

They are much more enjoyable in hp/tq heavy vehicles, especially with higher gear ratios.

Link to post
Share on other sites
tsupersonic
13 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

And last time I checked, automatics are STILL less fuel efficient than manuals under ideal conditions. Obviously driver style can and will affect that.

When did you last check? 10-15 years ago? Driver style will obviously affect MPG on ANY car regardless of transmission choice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan
1 hour ago, FloatingFatMan said:

In the EU, only really expensive cars have flappy paddles, and those that do are usually godawful, especially for parking. As for fuel efficiency, EU models are almost universally far more fuel efficient than US ones, so I'd be surprised if that was the case over here.

 

 

So in your case, quite literally a crutch because of your dodgy ankle! :p

 

Most automatics has a 3rd gear setting you use for engine braking down hills. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan
6 minutes ago, tsupersonic said:

When did you last check? 10-15 years ago? Driver style will obviously affect MPG on ANY car regardless of transmission choice. 

Late last year, actually. My 7 year old Astra gets way better mileage than the 1 year old company Kia automatic with the same engine size, based on my own driving experience with both of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
adrynalyne
2 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Late last year, actually. My 7 year old Astra gets way better mileage than the 1 year old company Kia automatic with the same engine size, based on my own driving experience with both of them.

Some (all) of that is what you compared.  I don't know Vauxhall obviously, but Kia and Hyundai (both owned by same parent company) are far less fuel efficient than many other brands. My Genesis Coupe got the same gas mileage with a  3.8L engine that my Mustang gets with a 5.0. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan
12 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

Some (all) of that is what you compared.  I don't know Vauxhall obviously, but Kia and Hyundai (both owned by same parent company) are far less fuel efficient than many other brands. My Genesis Coupe got the same gas mileage with a  3.8L engine that my Mustang gets with a 5.0. 

Kinda difficult for me personally to compare all the cars available, dude. :p

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
adrynalyne
6 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Kinda difficult for me personally to compare all the cars available, dude. :p

 

I know ;)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan
31 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

Some (all) of that is what you compared.  I don't know Vauxhall obviously, but Kia and Hyundai (both owned by same parent company) are far less fuel efficient than many other brands. My Genesis Coupe got the same gas mileage with a  3.8L engine that my Mustang gets with a 5.0. 

Forgot to mention, there's another reason why US cars get crappy mileage, those engine sizes! YIKES!!

 

Only really really expensive cars over here have engines that big! The average is between 1L & 2L... My Astra, for example, is a 1.6L engine...

Link to post
Share on other sites
conna

What is good for the OP is good for everyone? Where is this mentality coming from? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Biohead

This whole auto's being more fuel efficient - can't say that's true from what I've been looking at. Yes I appreciate it's more down to driving style, but hear me out...

 

Just bought a new car, and was looking at both auto's and manuals. Yes the auto was nice to drive, yes it would make a good commuting car - but the published MPG figures were much much worse for the auto than manual (46 MPG auto, 58 MPG manual). Which in the UK basically means it cost more to tax - £130 for the manual, £225 for the auto. Needless to say I can move my left leg about to save £95 a year and probably even more in fuel.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
tsupersonic
39 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Late last year, actually. My 7 year old Astra gets way better mileage than the 1 year old company Kia automatic with the same engine size, based on my own driving experience with both of them.

You have to make like comparisons (apples to apples) - a specific make/model that is available in both manual and automatic options. You can't compare cars from different manufacturers. 

 

A good comparison:

2016 BMW 340i automatic - 22/33 mpg (city/highway)

2016 BMW 340i manual - 20/30 mpg (city/highway)

 

2016 Honda Civic 2L CVT- 31/41 mpg (city/highway)

2016 Honda Civic 2L manual - 27/40 mpg (city/highway)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
adrynalyne
15 minutes ago, Biohead said:

This whole auto's being more fuel efficient - can't say that's true from what I've been looking at. Yes I appreciate it's more down to driving style, but hear me out...

 

Just bought a new car, and was looking at both auto's and manuals. Yes the auto was nice to drive, yes it would make a good commuting car - but the published MPG figures were much much worse for the auto than manual (46 MPG auto, 58 MPG manual). Which in the UK basically means it cost more to tax - £130 for the manual, £225 for the auto. Needless to say I can move my left leg about to save £95 a year and probably even more in fuel.

What car was it? Maybe in the UK they use shorter gearing for automatics, which will not help gas efficiency.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan
Just now, tsupersonic said:

You have to make like comparisons (apples to apples) - a specific make/model that is available in both manual and automatic options. You can't compare cars from different manufacturers. 

 

A good comparison:

2016 BMW 340i automatic - 22/33 mpg (city/highway)

2016 BMW 340i manual - 20/30 mpg (city/highway)

 

2016 Honda Civic 2L CVT- 31/41 mpg (city/highway)

2016 Honda Civic 2L manual - 27/40 mpg (city/highway)

 

 

 

Like I said, I can only compare what I've driven. You're comparing manufacturer numbers and they are NEVER correct for real world usage.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
adrynalyne
1 minute ago, FloatingFatMan said:

 

Like I said, I can only compare what I've driven. You're comparing manufacturer numbers and they are NEVER correct for real world usage.

 

Mine are higher than manufacturer numbers ;)

 

 

I average 22 in the city, when its rated at far less.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan
Just now, adrynalyne said:

Mine are higher than manufacturer numbers ;)

 

 

I average 22 in the city, when its rated at far less.

Like I said, they're never correct.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
troysavary
On ‎2016‎-‎03‎-‎24 at 4:44 PM, BinaryData said:

I agree, the general populace should drive automatics. Then again, I've never met anyone who could drive a manual in the snow without screwing something up. Seattle people are notorious for wrecks where I live. They think driving in the rain means they can drive in snow. Not the case :p

 

I'll always love my manual, burn outs are so much more fun.

Driving in snow isn't hard at all. I do it all the time, I've done it with autos, stick-shifts, FWD, RWD, AWD. Living in Canada, it is kind of part of growing up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
troysavary
1 hour ago, adrynalyne said:

Nah.

 

MPG estimates (or whatever measure you prefer) are lower for manual because autos are programmed for the most efficient shift points.  You can of course override these between drive modes, manual shifting, tunes, etc, but if  you let the car do what its designed to do, it will be more efficient than a manual. There are almost no (if any)  drivers that can match the consistency of a computer. Not to mention that autos use zero fuel on a downhill grade. I am unsure if manuals are the same.

 

Not knocking manuals, but its just a fact.

The engine doesn't shut off during a downhill, so it does NOT use zero fuel. If the engine shuts off, you would lose hydraulics for the power steering and power breaks, as the belt would no longer be driving the pump. Don't try to present "facts" if you have no clue what you are talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Thayios
On 3/24/2016 at 2:37 PM, Brandon said:

Manuals give you a lot more control over slowing down than an auto does. Going down a hill with snow, I can down-shift to 2nd and engine brake. Most people in an automatic would just slam on their brakes and slide all over. Seen it happen probably a dozen times a year on the road/hill by my house. Also, especially in small 4-cyl cars, a manual usually has better acceleration, not to mention, I can keep it in 3rd gear at highway speeds to pass where an automatic would have to sense me flooring it to downshift and get the pickup I need.   

 

Although this topic has been beat to death among enthusiasts, so I usually stay out of them, I have to correct this:
 

Most automatics in modern vehicles are using engine braking in combination with a quick timing adjustment to enhance deceleration; the automatics that don't use engine braking were in the late 80's to early 90's. I, instinctively will flip my shifter to sport mode in a panic situation when decelerating because it automatically drops it from 6th to 4th and then I'll hammer it down gears (which is much faster than me clutching in, rev matching and downshifting) - but this habit comes from being a manual enthusiast back in the day. 

 

Also, the ECU/PCM in modern vehicles are MUCH more intelligent now than they used to be with the highway situation you mentioned. 

 

As far as 4 cylinder goes, you wouldn't catch me in one in the first place, but those will be quicker to accelerate (manuals) because they are econoboxes and the added drivetrain loss of the torque converter is there (coupled with it being a cheap car in the first place which means they usually don't optimize for race car status shifting, heh).

Link to post
Share on other sites
adrynalyne
19 minutes ago, troysavary said:

The engine doesn't shut off during a downhill, so it does NOT use zero fuel. If the engine shuts off, you would lose hydraulics for the power steering and power breaks, as the belt would no longer be driving the pump. Don't try to present "facts" if you have no clue what you are talking about.

I didn't say it shut off. The transmission keeps the engine running. Fuel is cut off. To say zero was extreme, but it uses almost none. It uses less than if it was in neutral. 

Edited by adrynalyne
Link to post
Share on other sites
chrisj1968
On 3/24/2016 at 10:15 AM, Steve B. said:

Having driven both a reasonable amount, manual gives a greater level of control over the vehicle, and auto boxes just don't have the same grunt when you need to get going. Maybe I've only driven naff auto boxes, but I find when I put my foot down the car takes a moment to think and then goes "Oh you actually want go go NOW" and then changes and then you've moving. By then the once large gap is a heck of a lot smaller.

 

My next car will be manual, partly for that and partly for the price.

there are some pluses and minuses to manual transmission. Manual transmissions, if your battery is low, you can push your car, pop the clutch and start your car, drive it for some time to charge the battery, if you left your lights on let's say. Auto transmissions can be pushed by another car to get a similar effect. But Auto transmissions are basically for the lazy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dinggus
On 3/23/2016 at 6:25 PM, jjkusaf said:

Manuals do not need to go.  Maybe the clutch ... but not the ability to select whichever gear you want. :) I <heart> manuals.

Most cars already have "manuals with no clutch". It's not the same.

 

I thought driving a manual would get annoying, but I find myself having fun every day I drive to work, especially when I'm making motor noises to keep me entertained.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon
53 minutes ago, Thayios said:

 

Although this topic has been beat to death among enthusiasts, so I usually stay out of them, I have to correct this:
 

Most automatics in modern vehicles are using engine braking in combination with a quick timing adjustment to enhance deceleration; the automatics that don't use engine braking were in the late 80's to early 90's. I, instinctively will flip my shifter to sport mode in a panic situation when decelerating because it automatically drops it from 6th to 4th and then I'll hammer it down gears (which is much faster than me clutching in, rev matching and downshifting) - but this habit comes from being a manual enthusiast back in the day. 

 

Also, the ECU/PCM in modern vehicles are MUCH more intelligent now than they used to be with the highway situation you mentioned. 

 

As far as 4 cylinder goes, you wouldn't catch me in one in the first place, but those will be quicker to accelerate (manuals) because they are econoboxes and the added drivetrain loss of the torque converter is there (coupled with it being a cheap car in the first place which means they usually don't optimize for race car status shifting, heh).

I guess I'm basing my experience off of my girlfriend's 2013 Civic EX, the last year with the 5-speed automatic before they switched to the CVT vs my 2013 Hyundai Elantra GT with a 6 speed manual. 

 

Both have similar HP and Torque powers, and I spent over 2000 miles last summer in the driver's seat of her car on a road trip. I do know that in her car I would have to often shift out of D into 3 or 2 for it to engine brake -- it wasn't automatic, and it was slow to downshift at highway speeds unless you floored it. Perhaps if there was a sport mode, it would be better.

 

I've driven a sporty automatic before (my mother has a BMW X3 with the turbo in it) and it can be a lot of fun to drive, and it was smart. But in the smaller 4-cyl N/A engines, I just feel that the manuals respond a lot better than any automatic does. 

 

Note: I haven't driven a 6 cyl car before, outside of a pickup truck. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.