Manual transmissions still have their fans, but are they really better? Not anymore.
12-18-2002, 08:45 PM
#1
Manual transmissions still have their fans, but are they really better? Not anymore.
Article from CNN
http://money.cnn.com/2002/12/17/pf/a...wars/index.htm
Killing the stick-shift dinosaur
Manual transmissions still have their fans, but are they really better? Not anymore. Not really.
December 18, 2002: 11:10 AM EST
By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNN/Money Staff Writer
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - It was my father, an avid sports car enthusiast, who made sure his kids got the "automatics are for weenies" gospel. And I believed.Then I began to stray. A few years ago, I got my first car with an automatic transmission.
And I liked it.
So I wondered: Are there really any good arguments for driving a stick shift anymore? I thought there probably weren't. Automatic transmissions are far more sophisticated today than in decades past and the drawbacks that once came with automatics have largely been eliminated. To confirm my suspicions I put in a call to Roger Kwapich, who hosts a syndicated radio program called Consumer Automotive Repair show, better know as the C.A.R.
Show.
Taking it one-by-one, let's look at the arg uments for sticking with stick-shift driving.
Stick shift saves gas!
Sure, if you drive the way they do in gas mileage tests. Now, let's be really honest with ourselves here. Do you drive that way in real life? If you wanted to drive like your grandmother, you'd have gotten the automatic to begin with. The way people drive in the real world, stick shift saves you nary a drop. In fact, you may actually be getting worse mileage than you would have with the car doing the shifts for you.
With the advent of computer chips, automatics are much better at timing those shifts than they used to be, says Kwapich, Just as with a manual shift, if you don't drive like a fuel-hogging freak your transmission won't either.
It gives me more power!
Once upon time, this was true. But two things have changed: Engines and transmissions. "Cars just aren't underpowered anymore," says Kwapich.
Not too long ago, if your car had an automatic and fewer than eight cylinders -- certainly fewer than six -- your biggest driving thrill was trying to merge onto a highway without getting squashed like a bug on the front bumper of an eighteen-wheeler. These days, having been through energy squeezes and tough competition from the Japanese, even once-wasteful American car makers have learned to wring every pony out of the daintiest little engines.
About the transmissions, see above. Increased efficiency means more engine power goes to moving the car rather than getting sucked away by slow or badly timed shifts. Today's automatic transmissions also offer more flexibility in shift styles. Often, if you want a more power-oriented shifting style you can just press a button.
It's cheaper!
Maybe, but probably not in the long run. If the car you want even comes with a standard transmission the automatic will probably cost you $800 to $900 more, says Joe Cashen, director of pricing for Carsdirect.com. In most cases, you'll get that back when you go to sell the car. The exception, he adds, might be for those cars in
which stick-shift is de rigueur, for example a sporty little Mazda Miata.
If you have to look hard for the car you want in stick form, it's probably going to actually cost you money in the long run, he says. If a car company doesn't make many cars of a particular model with a standard transmission it's probably because they know they can't sell them that way. And if very few people want to buy that new family sedan or SUV with stick-shift, you think you're going to do better finding a buyer when you need to sell it? Good luck.
It saves wear on my brakes!
Some stick-shift drivers including CNN/Money's Allen Wastler, insist that stick shifts save them money by allowing them to downshift -- that is, shift into a lower gear to slow the car, something mechanics call "engine braking" -- and save wear on their brakes.
So, let's think this through: We want to save wear on brake shoes, cheap and easily replaceable parts, by transferring that wear and stress to the clutch and the engine. Brake pads are much easier and cheaper to replace than clutches and the added stress on your engine can shorten its life. At best, you're not saving anything. At worst, you could actually be inviting expensive repairs.
It focuses the attention!
Someone driving a stick-shift car is really thinking about driving, the argument goes. He is part of a true man-machine union and is, therefore, more attuned to all aspects of driving, including those aspects involved in not hitting other cars, trees or light posts. Not having to shift gears certainly does not cause me to forget the fact that I'm driving. There are these aspects called "steering," "accelerating" and "braking" with which I remain intimately involved. And, in a good car, feedback through the steering wheel, pedals and seat remain undiminished. I am no less aware of my vehicle's behavior in any important respect with an automatic transmission.
Then there are those hazards caused by the average person's limited number of arms. Between changing CDs, answering the cell phone, drinking coffee and gesturing out the window at "that moron," do you really need something else that occupies one hand and a leg? Two hands on the wheel may be asking a bit much, but most safety experts do recommend at least one, pretty much at all times.
It's just more fun!
You might have me there. These days there are plenty of cars, more expensive ones mostly, that offer automatics with "clutchless" shifting to give you that heady feeling of gear selection when you want it. But without the clutch, half the fun is gone. So there really is no easy answer. With modern automotive technology, there's just no good reason to keep shifting gears yourself. But maybe you don't need a good reason. Maybe you just like knowing that you can pick your own gears.
Let's hear it
http://money.cnn.com/2002/12/17/pf/a...wars/index.htm
Killing the stick-shift dinosaur
Manual transmissions still have their fans, but are they really better? Not anymore. Not really.
December 18, 2002: 11:10 AM EST
By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNN/Money Staff Writer
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - It was my father, an avid sports car enthusiast, who made sure his kids got the "automatics are for weenies" gospel. And I believed.Then I began to stray. A few years ago, I got my first car with an automatic transmission.
And I liked it.
So I wondered: Are there really any good arguments for driving a stick shift anymore? I thought there probably weren't. Automatic transmissions are far more sophisticated today than in decades past and the drawbacks that once came with automatics have largely been eliminated. To confirm my suspicions I put in a call to Roger Kwapich, who hosts a syndicated radio program called Consumer Automotive Repair show, better know as the C.A.R.
Show.
Taking it one-by-one, let's look at the arg uments for sticking with stick-shift driving.
Stick shift saves gas!
Sure, if you drive the way they do in gas mileage tests. Now, let's be really honest with ourselves here. Do you drive that way in real life? If you wanted to drive like your grandmother, you'd have gotten the automatic to begin with. The way people drive in the real world, stick shift saves you nary a drop. In fact, you may actually be getting worse mileage than you would have with the car doing the shifts for you.
With the advent of computer chips, automatics are much better at timing those shifts than they used to be, says Kwapich, Just as with a manual shift, if you don't drive like a fuel-hogging freak your transmission won't either.
It gives me more power!
Once upon time, this was true. But two things have changed: Engines and transmissions. "Cars just aren't underpowered anymore," says Kwapich.
Not too long ago, if your car had an automatic and fewer than eight cylinders -- certainly fewer than six -- your biggest driving thrill was trying to merge onto a highway without getting squashed like a bug on the front bumper of an eighteen-wheeler. These days, having been through energy squeezes and tough competition from the Japanese, even once-wasteful American car makers have learned to wring every pony out of the daintiest little engines.
About the transmissions, see above. Increased efficiency means more engine power goes to moving the car rather than getting sucked away by slow or badly timed shifts. Today's automatic transmissions also offer more flexibility in shift styles. Often, if you want a more power-oriented shifting style you can just press a button.
It's cheaper!
Maybe, but probably not in the long run. If the car you want even comes with a standard transmission the automatic will probably cost you $800 to $900 more, says Joe Cashen, director of pricing for Carsdirect.com. In most cases, you'll get that back when you go to sell the car. The exception, he adds, might be for those cars in
which stick-shift is de rigueur, for example a sporty little Mazda Miata.
If you have to look hard for the car you want in stick form, it's probably going to actually cost you money in the long run, he says. If a car company doesn't make many cars of a particular model with a standard transmission it's probably because they know they can't sell them that way. And if very few people want to buy that new family sedan or SUV with stick-shift, you think you're going to do better finding a buyer when you need to sell it? Good luck.
It saves wear on my brakes!
Some stick-shift drivers including CNN/Money's Allen Wastler, insist that stick shifts save them money by allowing them to downshift -- that is, shift into a lower gear to slow the car, something mechanics call "engine braking" -- and save wear on their brakes.
So, let's think this through: We want to save wear on brake shoes, cheap and easily replaceable parts, by transferring that wear and stress to the clutch and the engine. Brake pads are much easier and cheaper to replace than clutches and the added stress on your engine can shorten its life. At best, you're not saving anything. At worst, you could actually be inviting expensive repairs.
It focuses the attention!
Someone driving a stick-shift car is really thinking about driving, the argument goes. He is part of a true man-machine union and is, therefore, more attuned to all aspects of driving, including those aspects involved in not hitting other cars, trees or light posts. Not having to shift gears certainly does not cause me to forget the fact that I'm driving. There are these aspects called "steering," "accelerating" and "braking" with which I remain intimately involved. And, in a good car, feedback through the steering wheel, pedals and seat remain undiminished. I am no less aware of my vehicle's behavior in any important respect with an automatic transmission.
Then there are those hazards caused by the average person's limited number of arms. Between changing CDs, answering the cell phone, drinking coffee and gesturing out the window at "that moron," do you really need something else that occupies one hand and a leg? Two hands on the wheel may be asking a bit much, but most safety experts do recommend at least one, pretty much at all times.
It's just more fun!
You might have me there. These days there are plenty of cars, more expensive ones mostly, that offer automatics with "clutchless" shifting to give you that heady feeling of gear selection when you want it. But without the clutch, half the fun is gone. So there really is no easy answer. With modern automotive technology, there's just no good reason to keep shifting gears yourself. But maybe you don't need a good reason. Maybe you just like knowing that you can pick your own gears.
Let's hear it
12-18-2002, 09:01 PM
#5
btw,
I drove my 98 auto for 2 days..
This is after 3 months of 11k mile 5 speed driving..
At 1st, it really felt weird, i kept on subconsciously searching for the clutch on the floor. It's really slow off the line too. I couldn't get used to it rolling when you're not on the gas and the car going by itself without me controlling it.. but I started to enjoy cruising in the auto
and especially appreciating it when sitting in bumper to bumper traffic..
An auto would suit a luxury/cruising car well..
but if you want to have some fun.. sorry.
I drove my 98 auto for 2 days..
This is after 3 months of 11k mile 5 speed driving..
At 1st, it really felt weird, i kept on subconsciously searching for the clutch on the floor. It's really slow off the line too. I couldn't get used to it rolling when you're not on the gas and the car going by itself without me controlling it.. but I started to enjoy cruising in the auto
and especially appreciating it when sitting in bumper to bumper traffic.. An auto would suit a luxury/cruising car well..
but if you want to have some fun.. sorry.
12-18-2002, 09:07 PM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,807
I call BS
There is no way an automagic can be as effiecent as a manual transmission. A torque convertor would get owned by a clutch anyday of the week in effeciecy (sp?). Not to mention the fact that 8-14whp/wtq misteriously disappears from the auto maxima's vs 5spds. Also until you get more than 300whp an auto doesn't really have much of an advantage. That unless it has a high stall convertor and a good deep final drive ratio. However it wouldn't be very streetable 
.
.
12-18-2002, 09:15 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,493
Only reason of me to get an auto is for towing or payload cramming. Manuals trannies just can't take the same load as an auto. But if I never buy a truck, I don't think I'll buy an auto. My family has 5 cars, all manuals and we are happy.
12-18-2002, 10:06 PM
#9
Re: I call BS
Originally posted by Nismo87SE
There is no way an automagic can be as effiecent as a manual transmission. A torque convertor would get owned by a clutch anyday of the week in effeciecy (sp?). Not to mention the fact that 8-14whp/wtq misteriously disappears from the auto maxima's vs 5spds. Also until you get more than 300whp an auto doesn't really have much of an advantage. That unless it has a high stall convertor and a good deep final drive ratio. However it wouldn't be very streetable.
There is no way an automagic can be as effiecent as a manual transmission. A torque convertor would get owned by a clutch anyday of the week in effeciecy (sp?). Not to mention the fact that 8-14whp/wtq misteriously disappears from the auto maxima's vs 5spds. Also until you get more than 300whp an auto doesn't really have much of an advantage. That unless it has a high stall convertor and a good deep final drive ratio. However it wouldn't be very streetable
.
Take the VQ for example..
95-99 automatic maximas have an EPA fuel economy rating of 21 mpg in the city / 28 mpg on the highway
while
95-99 manual maximas are rated at 22 city / 27 highway..
i mean, there is a difference but it's not that significant.. the VQ gets less mpg on the highway paired with the manual in a maxima.. maybe because the 5th gear is so damn short and you're in fairly high RPM range cruising at like 70, as opposed to cruising at 70 in the same car, only in automatic and being in Overdrive...
but when it comes down to it,
it may be more convenient to own an auto.....
but it's definately not as fun
and that makes all the difference in the world.. as a driver.
12-19-2002, 12:59 AM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,493
Re: Re: I call BS
[QUOTE]Originally posted by NYCe MaXiMa
[B]
Well, as far as the efficiency thing...
Take the VQ for example..
95-99 automatic maximas have an EPA fuel economy rating of 21 mpg in the city / 28 mpg on the highway
while
95-99 manual maximas are rated at 22 city / 27 highway..
i mean, there is a difference but it's not that significant.. the VQ gets less mpg on the highway paired with the manual in a maxima.. maybe because the 5th gear is so damn short and you're in fairly high RPM range cruising at like 70, as opposed to cruising at 70 in the same car, only in automatic and being in Overdrive...
Well, the 5-speed tranny is pretty poorly designed in my opinion. The Altima shares the very same transmission with us, but for the 2000 and 2001 Altimas, they got revised trannies. Shorter final drive, shorter 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gears, but taller 4th and 5th gears. It resulted in a significantly faster 0-60 time and increased the mileage all around. I wonder why they didn't dump that tranny in the Maxima.
When I'm driving 70 MPH in top gear, I don't need my revs to be at 3,000 RPM...I don't need the power to just have zero acceleration. If I need power, I have 3rd and 4th gear. I think our tranny was optimized for 55 MPH. Speed limit was lifted to 65 where I'm from, but everyone goes 70. Wish auto-manufacturers would take note of that.
[B]
Well, as far as the efficiency thing...
Take the VQ for example..
95-99 automatic maximas have an EPA fuel economy rating of 21 mpg in the city / 28 mpg on the highway
while
95-99 manual maximas are rated at 22 city / 27 highway..
i mean, there is a difference but it's not that significant.. the VQ gets less mpg on the highway paired with the manual in a maxima.. maybe because the 5th gear is so damn short and you're in fairly high RPM range cruising at like 70, as opposed to cruising at 70 in the same car, only in automatic and being in Overdrive...
Well, the 5-speed tranny is pretty poorly designed in my opinion. The Altima shares the very same transmission with us, but for the 2000 and 2001 Altimas, they got revised trannies. Shorter final drive, shorter 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gears, but taller 4th and 5th gears. It resulted in a significantly faster 0-60 time and increased the mileage all around. I wonder why they didn't dump that tranny in the Maxima.
When I'm driving 70 MPH in top gear, I don't need my revs to be at 3,000 RPM...I don't need the power to just have zero acceleration. If I need power, I have 3rd and 4th gear. I think our tranny was optimized for 55 MPH. Speed limit was lifted to 65 where I'm from, but everyone goes 70. Wish auto-manufacturers would take note of that.
12-19-2002, 02:15 AM
#11
Re: Re: I call BS
Originally posted by NYCe MaXiMa
Well, as far as the efficiency thing...
Take the VQ for example..
95-99 automatic maximas have an EPA fuel economy rating of 21 mpg in the city / 28 mpg on the highway
while
95-99 manual maximas are rated at 22 city / 27 highway..
i mean, there is a difference but it's not that significant.. the VQ gets less mpg on the highway paired with the manual in a maxima.. maybe because the 5th gear is so damn short and you're in fairly high RPM range cruising at like 70, as opposed to cruising at 70 in the same car, only in automatic and being in Overdrive...
but when it comes down to it,
it may be more convenient to own an auto.....
but it's definately not as fun and that makes all the difference in the world.. as a driver.
Well, as far as the efficiency thing...
Take the VQ for example..
95-99 automatic maximas have an EPA fuel economy rating of 21 mpg in the city / 28 mpg on the highway
while
95-99 manual maximas are rated at 22 city / 27 highway..
i mean, there is a difference but it's not that significant.. the VQ gets less mpg on the highway paired with the manual in a maxima.. maybe because the 5th gear is so damn short and you're in fairly high RPM range cruising at like 70, as opposed to cruising at 70 in the same car, only in automatic and being in Overdrive...
but when it comes down to it,
it may be more convenient to own an auto.....
but it's definately not as fun
and that makes all the difference in the world.. as a driver.
OH and one thing never brought up!!!!
I BET LESS manual transmission cars get stolen than auto's in past years because everyone knows how to drive auto but not everyone can drive stick and those that can, a percentage cant' drive it well which would make them look very suspicious.
if possible, can soemone get an article on cars stolen between auto and manual?
12-19-2002, 05:31 AM
#14
Originally posted by N34JZ
people with automatics write these articles so that other people with autos dont feel bad.
people with automatics write these articles so that other people with autos dont feel bad.
Heh heh heh. You're right.
I like the way the author doesn't come right out and say that automatic transmissions are as effiecient as manuals now, he just says they are more efficient than they used to be.
Besides, it's all about driving fun. I'd rather have a stick even if the autos got way better mileage.
12-19-2002, 05:50 AM
#15
The author makes some good points, but while I was reading the article, I kept thinking asking, "what about the fun factor?". He finally mentioned it at the end. If a car is not fun to drive, then it's not fun to own.
Another weak point is stated when the author discusses how hard it would be to talk on the phone, change CD's, and do other activities while driving an manual transmission. He almost sounds like driving an automatic is so hard that using both feet and taking one hand off the wheel to shift would be near dangerous.
Here are some points that the author did not bring up with 'engine braking':
If you see a police officer and you do not want to 'plead guilty' by stepping on the brakes, you can down shift to slow your car.
If the weather conditions make the road surface slippery, snowy, or icy, a manual transmission has an advantage over the auto in terms of control.
One more point:
Cost of a new clutch vs. cost of a new auto tranny.
Not all auto's are created the same. The auto's in our cars have less gears than the manuals.
Did I mention that a manaul tranny is more fun to drive than an auto?
Another weak point is stated when the author discusses how hard it would be to talk on the phone, change CD's, and do other activities while driving an manual transmission. He almost sounds like driving an automatic is so hard that using both feet and taking one hand off the wheel to shift would be near dangerous.
Here are some points that the author did not bring up with 'engine braking':
If you see a police officer and you do not want to 'plead guilty' by stepping on the brakes, you can down shift to slow your car.
If the weather conditions make the road surface slippery, snowy, or icy, a manual transmission has an advantage over the auto in terms of control.
One more point:
Cost of a new clutch vs. cost of a new auto tranny.
Not all auto's are created the same. The auto's in our cars have less gears than the manuals.
Did I mention that a manaul tranny is more fun to drive than an auto?
12-19-2002, 06:01 AM
#16
It's chrome alright...
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,009
Re: I call BS
I agree manual is more fun, but mercedes have been making all-auto for years that out accelerate their newer manual trannies.
There is some validity to the author's argument, but N34JZ is right... people with autos write this stuff to justify owning one.
There is some validity to the author's argument, but N34JZ is right... people with autos write this stuff to justify owning one.
Originally posted by Nismo87SE
There is no way an automagic can be as effiecent as a manual transmission. A torque convertor would get owned by a clutch anyday of the week in effeciecy (sp?). Not to mention the fact that 8-14whp/wtq misteriously disappears from the auto maxima's vs 5spds. Also until you get more than 300whp an auto doesn't really have much of an advantage. That unless it has a high stall convertor and a good deep final drive ratio. However it wouldn't be very streetable.
There is no way an automagic can be as effiecent as a manual transmission. A torque convertor would get owned by a clutch anyday of the week in effeciecy (sp?). Not to mention the fact that 8-14whp/wtq misteriously disappears from the auto maxima's vs 5spds. Also until you get more than 300whp an auto doesn't really have much of an advantage. That unless it has a high stall convertor and a good deep final drive ratio. However it wouldn't be very streetable
.
12-19-2002, 07:16 AM
#17
Donating Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 500
Re: Manual transmissions still have their fans, but are they really better? Not anymore.
Originally posted by NYCe MaXiMa
Article from CNN
http://money.cnn.com/2002/12/17/pf/a...wars/index.htm
Killing the stick-shift dinosaur
Manual transmissions still have their fans, but are they really better? Not anymore. Not really.
December 18, 2002: 11:10 AM EST
By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNN/Money Staff Writer
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - It was my father, an avid sports car enthusiast, who made sure his kids got the "automatics are for weenies" gospel. And I believed.Then I began to stray. A few years ago, I got my first car with an automatic transmission.
And I liked it.
So I wondered: Are there really any good arguments for driving a stick shift anymore? I thought there probably weren't. Automatic transmissions are far more sophisticated today than in decades past and the drawbacks that once came with automatics have largely been eliminated. To confirm my suspicions I put in a call to Roger Kwapich, who hosts a syndicated radio program called Consumer Automotive Repair show, better know as the C.A.R.
Show.
Taking it one-by-one, let's look at the arg uments for sticking with stick-shift driving.
Stick shift saves gas!
Sure, if you drive the way they do in gas mileage tests. Now, let's be really honest with ourselves here. Do you drive that way in real life? If you wanted to drive like your grandmother, you'd have gotten the automatic to begin with. The way people drive in the real world, stick shift saves you nary a drop. In fact, you may actually be getting worse mileage than you would have with the car doing the shifts for you.
With the advent of computer chips, automatics are much better at timing those shifts than they used to be, says Kwapich, Just as with a manual shift, if you don't drive like a fuel-hogging freak your transmission won't either.
It gives me more power!
Once upon time, this was true. But two things have changed: Engines and transmissions. "Cars just aren't underpowered anymore," says Kwapich.
Not too long ago, if your car had an automatic and fewer than eight cylinders -- certainly fewer than six -- your biggest driving thrill was trying to merge onto a highway without getting squashed like a bug on the front bumper of an eighteen-wheeler. These days, having been through energy squeezes and tough competition from the Japanese, even once-wasteful American car makers have learned to wring every pony out of the daintiest little engines.
About the transmissions, see above. Increased efficiency means more engine power goes to moving the car rather than getting sucked away by slow or badly timed shifts. Today's automatic transmissions also offer more flexibility in shift styles. Often, if you want a more power-oriented shifting style you can just press a button.
It's cheaper!
Maybe, but probably not in the long run. If the car you want even comes with a standard transmission the automatic will probably cost you $800 to $900 more, says Joe Cashen, director of pricing for Carsdirect.com. In most cases, you'll get that back when you go to sell the car. The exception, he adds, might be for those cars in
which stick-shift is de rigueur, for example a sporty little Mazda Miata.
If you have to look hard for the car you want in stick form, it's probably going to actually cost you money in the long run, he says. If a car company doesn't make many cars of a particular model with a standard transmission it's probably because they know they can't sell them that way. And if very few people want to buy that new family sedan or SUV with stick-shift, you think you're going to do better finding a buyer when you need to sell it? Good luck.
It saves wear on my brakes!
Some stick-shift drivers including CNN/Money's Allen Wastler, insist that stick shifts save them money by allowing them to downshift -- that is, shift into a lower gear to slow the car, something mechanics call "engine braking" -- and save wear on their brakes.
So, let's think this through: We want to save wear on brake shoes, cheap and easily replaceable parts, by transferring that wear and stress to the clutch and the engine. Brake pads are much easier and cheaper to replace than clutches and the added stress on your engine can shorten its life. At best, you're not saving anything. At worst, you could actually be inviting expensive repairs.
It focuses the attention!
Someone driving a stick-shift car is really thinking about driving, the argument goes. He is part of a true man-machine union and is, therefore, more attuned to all aspects of driving, including those aspects involved in not hitting other cars, trees or light posts. Not having to shift gears certainly does not cause me to forget the fact that I'm driving. There are these aspects called "steering," "accelerating" and "braking" with which I remain intimately involved. And, in a good car, feedback through the steering wheel, pedals and seat remain undiminished. I am no less aware of my vehicle's behavior in any important respect with an automatic transmission.
Then there are those hazards caused by the average person's limited number of arms. Between changing CDs, answering the cell phone, drinking coffee and gesturing out the window at "that moron," do you really need something else that occupies one hand and a leg? Two hands on the wheel may be asking a bit much, but most safety experts do recommend at least one, pretty much at all times.
It's just more fun!
You might have me there. These days there are plenty of cars, more expensive ones mostly, that offer automatics with "clutchless" shifting to give you that heady feeling of gear selection when you want it. But without the clutch, half the fun is gone. So there really is no easy answer. With modern automotive technology, there's just no good reason to keep shifting gears yourself. But maybe you don't need a good reason. Maybe you just like knowing that you can pick your own gears.
Article from CNN
http://money.cnn.com/2002/12/17/pf/a...wars/index.htm
Killing the stick-shift dinosaur
Manual transmissions still have their fans, but are they really better? Not anymore. Not really.
December 18, 2002: 11:10 AM EST
By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNN/Money Staff Writer
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - It was my father, an avid sports car enthusiast, who made sure his kids got the "automatics are for weenies" gospel. And I believed.Then I began to stray. A few years ago, I got my first car with an automatic transmission.
And I liked it.
So I wondered: Are there really any good arguments for driving a stick shift anymore? I thought there probably weren't. Automatic transmissions are far more sophisticated today than in decades past and the drawbacks that once came with automatics have largely been eliminated. To confirm my suspicions I put in a call to Roger Kwapich, who hosts a syndicated radio program called Consumer Automotive Repair show, better know as the C.A.R.
Show.
Taking it one-by-one, let's look at the arg uments for sticking with stick-shift driving.
Stick shift saves gas!
Sure, if you drive the way they do in gas mileage tests. Now, let's be really honest with ourselves here. Do you drive that way in real life? If you wanted to drive like your grandmother, you'd have gotten the automatic to begin with. The way people drive in the real world, stick shift saves you nary a drop. In fact, you may actually be getting worse mileage than you would have with the car doing the shifts for you.
With the advent of computer chips, automatics are much better at timing those shifts than they used to be, says Kwapich, Just as with a manual shift, if you don't drive like a fuel-hogging freak your transmission won't either.
It gives me more power!
Once upon time, this was true. But two things have changed: Engines and transmissions. "Cars just aren't underpowered anymore," says Kwapich.
Not too long ago, if your car had an automatic and fewer than eight cylinders -- certainly fewer than six -- your biggest driving thrill was trying to merge onto a highway without getting squashed like a bug on the front bumper of an eighteen-wheeler. These days, having been through energy squeezes and tough competition from the Japanese, even once-wasteful American car makers have learned to wring every pony out of the daintiest little engines.
About the transmissions, see above. Increased efficiency means more engine power goes to moving the car rather than getting sucked away by slow or badly timed shifts. Today's automatic transmissions also offer more flexibility in shift styles. Often, if you want a more power-oriented shifting style you can just press a button.
It's cheaper!
Maybe, but probably not in the long run. If the car you want even comes with a standard transmission the automatic will probably cost you $800 to $900 more, says Joe Cashen, director of pricing for Carsdirect.com. In most cases, you'll get that back when you go to sell the car. The exception, he adds, might be for those cars in
which stick-shift is de rigueur, for example a sporty little Mazda Miata.
If you have to look hard for the car you want in stick form, it's probably going to actually cost you money in the long run, he says. If a car company doesn't make many cars of a particular model with a standard transmission it's probably because they know they can't sell them that way. And if very few people want to buy that new family sedan or SUV with stick-shift, you think you're going to do better finding a buyer when you need to sell it? Good luck.
It saves wear on my brakes!
Some stick-shift drivers including CNN/Money's Allen Wastler, insist that stick shifts save them money by allowing them to downshift -- that is, shift into a lower gear to slow the car, something mechanics call "engine braking" -- and save wear on their brakes.
So, let's think this through: We want to save wear on brake shoes, cheap and easily replaceable parts, by transferring that wear and stress to the clutch and the engine. Brake pads are much easier and cheaper to replace than clutches and the added stress on your engine can shorten its life. At best, you're not saving anything. At worst, you could actually be inviting expensive repairs.
It focuses the attention!
Someone driving a stick-shift car is really thinking about driving, the argument goes. He is part of a true man-machine union and is, therefore, more attuned to all aspects of driving, including those aspects involved in not hitting other cars, trees or light posts. Not having to shift gears certainly does not cause me to forget the fact that I'm driving. There are these aspects called "steering," "accelerating" and "braking" with which I remain intimately involved. And, in a good car, feedback through the steering wheel, pedals and seat remain undiminished. I am no less aware of my vehicle's behavior in any important respect with an automatic transmission.
Then there are those hazards caused by the average person's limited number of arms. Between changing CDs, answering the cell phone, drinking coffee and gesturing out the window at "that moron," do you really need something else that occupies one hand and a leg? Two hands on the wheel may be asking a bit much, but most safety experts do recommend at least one, pretty much at all times.
It's just more fun!
You might have me there. These days there are plenty of cars, more expensive ones mostly, that offer automatics with "clutchless" shifting to give you that heady feeling of gear selection when you want it. But without the clutch, half the fun is gone. So there really is no easy answer. With modern automotive technology, there's just no good reason to keep shifting gears yourself. But maybe you don't need a good reason. Maybe you just like knowing that you can pick your own gears.
Yes, technology has advanced the automatic transmission. However the author doesn't acknowledge the role that gear ratios play with fuel mileage. Oh, and all those effecient, 5-spd autos, that offer flexible shift style transmissions are hard to find in affordable transportation. Almost all affordable vehicels with 4-spd and 5-spd automatic transmissions are slow shifting with epa do-gooder gearing.
Manuals DO put more power down than automatic transmissions. Someone needs to explain the concepts of "powerband", drivetrain loss, and weight-to-power ratio to the author.
Anbody that thinks enigine braking saves you money is stupid.
12-19-2002, 07:55 AM
#18
And I thought this article was going to harp on CVTs becoming available in cars, or new automatic tranny technology (not that I really look into automatic transmission technology at all, but a friend of mine has chatted with me about companies developing auto trannies that don't see power loss like the standard torque converter/etc transmissions that most have today).
12-19-2002, 08:06 AM
#19
yeah maybe the autos in todays more refined/upscale cars (benz, jag, etc) but certainly not as much with the 3rd gens after xmas and birthday $ i may set out to look for a 5 spd VE parts car again..
after xmas and birthday $ i may set out to look for a 5 spd VE parts car again..
12-19-2002, 08:29 AM
#21
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
I agree with some of the stuff this guy said, but essentially he doesn't know jack about cars.
Some autos out there really are nice to drive. GM trannies are a prime example. They typically have a deep 1st gear and they are very efficent. My 94 Z28's auto was docile around town, but at WOT it slammed into each gear. It would downshift the instant your right foot asked. The 6 speed looses ~12% to the drivetrain whereas the auto looses about 15%. That's pretty close. FYI, GM makes many of the 5-speed autos for BMW.
Then there's the Japanese autos I don't understand how a generation of people who are so focused on performance, give us such lack luster performing autos? Their 5-speed auto offerings are getting pretty good, but their still a bit slushy and indecisive.
The advantage of the manual is to be able to downshift or NOT downshift when you want and typically better gearing. The extra power is just another plus. The true manual transmission days are numbered though. I think we're just a few years away from all manuals being converted to race-style manumatics with paddle shifters (no toruqe converters, the tranny operates the clutch). If this style of tranny is available when I buy my next car, I'm getting it. You end up getting the best of both worlds.
Dave
Some autos out there really are nice to drive. GM trannies are a prime example. They typically have a deep 1st gear and they are very efficent. My 94 Z28's auto was docile around town, but at WOT it slammed into each gear. It would downshift the instant your right foot asked. The 6 speed looses ~12% to the drivetrain whereas the auto looses about 15%. That's pretty close. FYI, GM makes many of the 5-speed autos for BMW.
Then there's the Japanese autos
I don't understand how a generation of people who are so focused on performance, give us such lack luster performing autos? Their 5-speed auto offerings are getting pretty good, but their still a bit slushy and indecisive. The advantage of the manual is to be able to downshift or NOT downshift when you want and typically better gearing. The extra power is just another plus. The true manual transmission days are numbered though. I think we're just a few years away from all manuals being converted to race-style manumatics with paddle shifters (no toruqe converters, the tranny operates the clutch). If this style of tranny is available when I buy my next car, I'm getting it. You end up getting the best of both worlds.
Dave
12-19-2002, 08:38 AM
#23
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
Originally posted by Dave B
My 94 Z28's auto was docile around town, but at WOT it slammed into each gear. It would downshift the instant your right foot asked. The 6 speed looses ~12% to the drivetrain whereas the auto looses about 15%. That's pretty close. FYI, GM makes many of the 5-speed autos for BMW.
My 94 Z28's auto was docile around town, but at WOT it slammed into each gear. It would downshift the instant your right foot asked. The 6 speed looses ~12% to the drivetrain whereas the auto looses about 15%. That's pretty close. FYI, GM makes many of the 5-speed autos for BMW.
Is this lower "loss" through domestic tranny's because the tranny's really are that much more efficient than Japanese tranny's, or are the loss figures just skewed lower due to under-rating of the engine's true crank horsepower. I believe some LS1's in the Camaro are only "rated" at like 305HP, but I saw a dyno for a stock 6spd putting 317 to the wheels. That would be a *negative* loss
I know BMW also tends to under-rate their engines as well. The 330i manual for example dynos at around 195-200 whp on an engine only rated at 225 bhp. Is this because the tranny's are just insanely efficent, or because the engines are putting out more than they're "rated" at?Just hoping to get your take on this
12-19-2002, 09:44 AM
#24
I think we're just a few years away from all manuals being converted to race-style manumatics with paddle shifters (no toruqe converters, the tranny operates the clutch).
Still, what about CVTs? They're peaking their head in the industry, albeit in cars like the Prius...but there was an article on here about the next-gen GTR having plans for a CVT version in 2005.
Not that I know any more about CVTs than howstuffworks.com has to offer, but...
12-19-2002, 10:55 AM
#25
I drive 5sp because:
*Helps in rain/snow for traction
*great off the line
*not many of my friends know how to drive 5sp so they can't borrow my car
*ever tried roadracing w/auto? they suck for modulating the traction limit in fast hard turns unless u got a crazy torque converter that locks
*some manumatics have horrible downshift delays, like IS300
*I've been told the TL trannies DOA...but that's supposedly been cured by a recall
However, I think there's a valid argument for autos costing the same as manuals. As long as you do your tranny flushes regularly for both, they should last a very long time (my 92 toyota previa auto has gone 200k with an oil change every year...not bad!)
Jae
*Helps in rain/snow for traction
*great off the line
*not many of my friends know how to drive 5sp so they can't borrow my car
*ever tried roadracing w/auto? they suck for modulating the traction limit in fast hard turns unless u got a crazy torque converter that locks
*some manumatics have horrible downshift delays, like IS300
*I've been told the TL trannies DOA...but that's supposedly been cured by a recall
However, I think there's a valid argument for autos costing the same as manuals. As long as you do your tranny flushes regularly for both, they should last a very long time (my 92 toyota previa auto has gone 200k with an oil change every year...not bad!)
Jae
12-19-2002, 11:04 AM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,280
Originally posted by blizz20oma
That's what my friend mentioned above was talking about.
Still, what about CVTs? They're peaking their head in the industry, albeit in cars like the Prius...but there was an article on here about the next-gen GTR having plans for a CVT version in 2005.
Not that I know any more about CVTs than howstuffworks.com has to offer, but...
That's what my friend mentioned above was talking about.
Still, what about CVTs? They're peaking their head in the industry, albeit in cars like the Prius...but there was an article on here about the next-gen GTR having plans for a CVT version in 2005.
Not that I know any more about CVTs than howstuffworks.com has to offer, but...
12-19-2002, 11:47 AM
#29
Originally posted by Kojiro_FtT
Anyways, maybe the CVT will be cool, as long as it comes with a "Sport Mode" button that puts the engine at peak torque RPM and holds it there the whole time you are accelerating!
Anyways, maybe the CVT will be cool, as long as it comes with a "Sport Mode" button that puts the engine at peak torque RPM and holds it there the whole time you are accelerating!
12-19-2002, 11:56 AM
#30
Typical crap written from a lazy arsed society raised on automatic transmissions. Plus the fact the author doesn't know crap about cars(mentioned already)
As said before, CVT is probably the future of autos but I read that they feel like rubberbands when driving. Not inspiring to me.
Auto trannies are becoming better. Many makes have 4-5-6 gear autos now. But these things HAVE to weigh a ton?
The only "auto" trannies that have any appeal to me is the electronic manual types(use clutches but use electronics to control the clutch pedal/shift functions). ie.. BMW and Ferrari?
As said before, CVT is probably the future of autos but I read that they feel like rubberbands when driving. Not inspiring to me.
Auto trannies are becoming better. Many makes have 4-5-6 gear autos now. But these things HAVE to weigh a ton?
The only "auto" trannies that have any appeal to me is the electronic manual types(use clutches but use electronics to control the clutch pedal/shift functions). ie.. BMW and Ferrari?
12-19-2002, 02:50 PM
#31
All i got to say is that the 5speed max is obviously faster then the automatic. That is all I need to know. No 20lb fluid cylinder that works by flinging fluid against a fan like item can beat a direct link from the gears to the motor.... NO MATTER WHAT!!!!!!!! in an NA..
Turbo auto is only better because it can still boost on gear shifts.... But sh*t I can hold the pedal down to do the same thing...
Turbo auto is only better because it can still boost on gear shifts.... But sh*t I can hold the pedal down to do the same thing...
12-19-2002, 06:18 PM
#35
Handsome
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,074
What about Manumatics??
I drove a 97 porsche carrera (last of the air cooled) that had triptronic shifting last semester. It is much like the shifting in the prelude auto's with the manumatic.
I can honestly say that manumatics suck just as much as automatics as far as fun factor. Obviously I liked the porsche, and the speed was much more than I expected (only in the high end of the RPM range) but I would definalty rather have a five speed, Oh wait, a six speed
The Max is my first auto, it was just to good of a deal to pass up. I would rather have a five speed, but I'm not going to complain over it, because I absolutly love this car, and I still have no problem beating most other imports. I may be able to beat them better if I had a five speed, but I doubt if I would have won on the races I lost if I would have had a manual (ie: new 7 series, TL-S) (I have a 4th gen)
The biggest thing that seperates auto's and manuals (to me) is more gears in the manual (which means shorter gears
) ability to shift match RPM's between shifts; and launches.
I can honestly say that manumatics suck just as much as automatics as far as fun factor. Obviously I liked the porsche, and the speed was much more than I expected (only in the high end of the RPM range) but I would definalty rather have a five speed, Oh wait, a six speed
The Max is my first auto, it was just to good of a deal to pass up. I would rather have a five speed, but I'm not going to complain over it, because I absolutly love this car, and I still have no problem beating most other imports. I may be able to beat them better if I had a five speed, but I doubt if I would have won on the races I lost if I would have had a manual (ie: new 7 series, TL-S) (I have a 4th gen)
The biggest thing that seperates auto's and manuals (to me) is more gears in the manual (which means shorter gears
) ability to shift match RPM's between shifts; and launches.
12-19-2002, 06:30 PM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,883
Re: Manual transmissions still have their fans, but are they really better? Not anymore.
Originally posted by NYCe MaXiMa
Article from CNN
http://money.cnn.com/2002/12/17/pf/a...wars/index.htm
Killing the stick-shift dinosaur
Manual transmissions still have their fans, but are they really better? Not anymore. Not really.
December 18, 2002: 11:10 AM EST
By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNN/Money Staff Writer
Let's hear it
Article from CNN
http://money.cnn.com/2002/12/17/pf/a...wars/index.htm
Killing the stick-shift dinosaur
Manual transmissions still have their fans, but are they really better? Not anymore. Not really.
December 18, 2002: 11:10 AM EST
By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNN/Money Staff Writer
Let's hear it
His attitude is that of the lazy, American, throw away lease today lease tomorrow your pulse is your credit mentality. Let me talk on the cell, watch my dvd, drink my coffee while I drive all on a 18,000/year salary.
All you have to do is take a ride to Europe and see what they're driving. Nowadays your typical 35 year-old has a 42" waistline and can't figure out for the life of him what that pedal to the left of the brake is for.
Anyway, driving a manual is more that higher gas mileage, control, etc. like he says. It's a way of life and attitude. That attitude has turned VW around from going down the drain to gaining market share on the Japanese cars.
On my coed hockey team, every person including the girls drove a stick. It's the attitude of work hard/play hard. I was the only person except for one girl who didn't have xenons on my car, underachiver that I am!
12-19-2002, 08:05 PM
#37
Supporting Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,042
Re: Re: Manual transmissions still have their fans, but are they really better? Not anymore.
Originally posted by Frank Fontaine
His attitude is that of the lazy, American, throw away lease today lease tomorrow your pulse is your credit mentality. Let me talk on the cell, watch my dvd, drink my coffee while I drive all on a 18,000/year salary.
All you have to do is take a ride to Europe and see what they're driving. Nowadays your typical 35 year-old has a 42" waistline and can't figure out for the life of him what that pedal to the left of the brake is for.
Anyway, driving a manual is more that higher gas mileage, control, etc. like he says. It's a way of life and attitude. That attitude has turned VW around from going down the drain to gaining market share on the Japanese cars.
On my coed hockey team, every person including the girls drove a stick. It's the attitude of work hard/play hard. I was the only person except for one girl who didn't have xenons on my car, underachiver that I am!
His attitude is that of the lazy, American, throw away lease today lease tomorrow your pulse is your credit mentality. Let me talk on the cell, watch my dvd, drink my coffee while I drive all on a 18,000/year salary.
All you have to do is take a ride to Europe and see what they're driving. Nowadays your typical 35 year-old has a 42" waistline and can't figure out for the life of him what that pedal to the left of the brake is for.
Anyway, driving a manual is more that higher gas mileage, control, etc. like he says. It's a way of life and attitude. That attitude has turned VW around from going down the drain to gaining market share on the Japanese cars.
On my coed hockey team, every person including the girls drove a stick. It's the attitude of work hard/play hard. I was the only person except for one girl who didn't have xenons on my car, underachiver that I am!
And finally, I loved the part about how driving a stick is "the attitude of work hard/play hard"? Jeez - listen pal, I'm 36, just ran my first Ironman, and pretty much whip *** in most of the things I do.
It's cool that you guys are proud of your cars. And I'm glad that you have fun driving manuals. But relax with the judgment - there's no inherent superiority in driving a stick shift.
Sorry for the rant, I must be tired...
12-19-2002, 08:12 PM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 765
Re: Re: Manual transmissions still have their fans, but are they really better? Not anymore.
Originally posted by Frank Fontaine
First of all, what kind of male has a hyphenated last name? He should take a look at his wrist...
His attitude is that of the lazy, American, throw away lease today lease tomorrow your pulse is your credit mentality. Let me talk on the cell, watch my dvd, drink my coffee while I drive all on a 18,000/year salary.
All you have to do is take a ride to Europe and see what they're driving. Nowadays your typical 35 year-old has a 42" waistline and can't figure out for the life of him what that pedal to the left of the brake is for.
Anyway, driving a manual is more that higher gas mileage, control, etc. like he says. It's a way of life and attitude. That attitude has turned VW around from going down the drain to gaining market share on the Japanese cars.
On my coed hockey team, every person including the girls drove a stick. It's the attitude of work hard/play hard. I was the only person except for one girl who didn't have xenons on my car, underachiver that I am!
First of all, what kind of male has a hyphenated last name? He should take a look at his wrist...
His attitude is that of the lazy, American, throw away lease today lease tomorrow your pulse is your credit mentality. Let me talk on the cell, watch my dvd, drink my coffee while I drive all on a 18,000/year salary.
All you have to do is take a ride to Europe and see what they're driving. Nowadays your typical 35 year-old has a 42" waistline and can't figure out for the life of him what that pedal to the left of the brake is for.
Anyway, driving a manual is more that higher gas mileage, control, etc. like he says. It's a way of life and attitude. That attitude has turned VW around from going down the drain to gaining market share on the Japanese cars.
On my coed hockey team, every person including the girls drove a stick. It's the attitude of work hard/play hard. I was the only person except for one girl who didn't have xenons on my car, underachiver that I am!
12-19-2002, 08:24 PM
#39
Killing the stick-shift dinosaur
Manual transmissions still have their fans, but are they really better? Not anymore. Not really.
December 18, 2002: 11:10 AM EST
By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNN/Money Staff Writer
he can have his automatic i'll stick and clutch it.
to be honest i would like to see a tranny like the ones that are used in CART( i think). i believe there is still a clutch pedal so you can get a good launch but the have a seuntial gearbox actuated by a lever, forward for downshifts and pull back for upshifts.
Manual transmissions still have their fans, but are they really better? Not anymore. Not really.
December 18, 2002: 11:10 AM EST
By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNN/Money Staff Writer
he can have his automatic i'll stick and clutch it.
to be honest i would like to see a tranny like the ones that are used in CART( i think). i believe there is still a clutch pedal so you can get a good launch but the have a seuntial gearbox actuated by a lever, forward for downshifts and pull back for upshifts.
12-19-2002, 09:45 PM
#40
Re: Re: Re: Manual transmissions still have their fans, but are they really better? N
Yes, there is. In a manual, only JOO tell the car when it can shift. It's all about control
Computers are wonderful for automation, not for fun.
DW
Computers are wonderful for automation, not for fun.
DW
Originally posted by Maximax2
. . . .But relax with the judgment - there's no inherent superiority in driving a stick shift.
Sorry for the rant, I must be tired...
. . . .But relax with the judgment - there's no inherent superiority in driving a stick shift.
Sorry for the rant, I must be tired...