Automatic vs. Manual: The Ultimate Showdown Thread

[Danoff]

This discussion is largely distorted by consideration of those few occasions, by percentage, when it's just you, the car, and the road. When you're not simply trying to get to your destination before exhaustion overwhelms you...

Thank you. 👍

A lot of times driving is more about practicality than anything else. Getting home from work, or picking up the groceries is not about performance. This is what I've been trying to say all along, and it's why there isn't a "one size fits all" answer to the proposed question. Sometimes autos are objectively better suited to the task. Sometimes manuals are. I tried to give examples of the sorts of occasions where each excels in my first post.

I did a little experiment on my way to work this morning. Thinking to myself "what's the big deal, how much enjoyment could I get out of shifting a dozen times or so in my 10 minute commute", I counted the number of times I shifted on the way into work this morning. The answer? 40. It's easy to forget just how much extra effort it is. Of course this morning most of those shifts were totally enjoyable. But that's not always the case.

I love the following about my car:
- High Rev Limiter
- Laterally supporting seats
- 6 speed manual
- Heavy, precise steering
- Light weight for fast accel and better handling
- Small, maneuverable
- Aggressive brakes
- Stiff, responsive suspension

But I also hate the following about my car:
- Power only comes at the top end
- Lateral supports make getting in and out painful, and reaching the dog in the back seat damned near impossible.
- 40 gear shifts on the way to work means a free hand is hard to come by
- Heavy steering sucks in parking lots and city traffic
- Lack of sound deadening = deafening cruise
- Hauling large objects is impossible.
- The dogs hate my brakes, the groceries hate my brakes
- Speed bumps, potholes, and the millions of ruts on CA roads are painful and irritating.

It's all well and good to have a car that's maximized for performance. But there's a tradeoff in practicality. Sometimes I don't miss the practicality, other times I do. So none of those things, be it the manual transmission, the contoured seats, or the stiff suspension are always good. When 99% of my driving is for the purpose of getting from A to B, those compromises can show up in a big way.

 

[Joey D]

So saying you had fun in a basic car with a slushbox does not prove anything, because the real issue here is the degree of control a driver can exercise over gear selection. This is less an issue of subjective preference and more one of an objective, measurable thing that is bound by empirical observation.

Many people are insinuating you can not have fun or as much fun with an auto, my point is you can have fun in anything. Like I said my buddy with the 80's Crown Vic has fun with it all the time.

It sounds like I simply expect more out of a car before I can start having fun than you do. That's not a slam or anything, just the facts.

Which proves it's subjective. There is no right or wrong with fun.

You agree with me that not all automatics are the same. But yet it sounds like you want to use your MINI as an example that all automatics are as good as the one BMW put in your car.

I use the MINI because I have lived with it everyday for a year, I could talk about a Camry but my experience with it is limited. If I started talking about another car I promise you someone would call me out on not knowing the car well enough. I use only what I know, I have driven both the auto and manual versions of Cooper enough to make up my mind about it.

I think that is false statement.

I do not, I think you are just as in control with an auto, I've said my reasons.

===

I'm not really going to get into with you because you obviously have your mind made up about autos, I'm not going to change your mind.

Joey, I'm not calling you down because you chose to drive an auto. I have one too (wife's car is technically mine since my name is on it) and I enjoy it because of the things it can do that a manual can't. But I think you've gone overboard in defending your personal choice (which is perfectly justifiable) and have taken a position that is, in my mind, indefensible.

So I should just lay down? That makes no sense. I firmly believe you can have as much fun, be in just as much control, and enjoy the drive just as much no matter which transmission you have in your vehicle. I'm defending my position because I think many members here a manual elitist that fail to recognise that autos are good, involved, or even fun. That's foolish and I do not agree with that sentiment. As I've said I have nothing against a manual, people preferring manuals or people wanting a manual in there car. In some situations I can see it being good to have a manual.

 

[homeforsummer]

However, I resent that a company like Porsche has chosen to cater to the average casual buyer rather than the enthusiast. I know why they made that decision. But I still resent it.

It's also annoying that they've chosen, with their steering wheel button shifting system, to put the buttons to change up on the front of the steering wheel, and the buttons to change down on the back. On both sides. No "up on the right" and "down on the left" here. And I think even the casual buyer has got used to that arrangement now (with VAG's DSG, the transmission in the smart car, the transmission in BMWs with SMG etc), so Porsche's confusing system makes no sense at all.

 

[Keef]

Every now and then I crave an automatic trasmission while I'm driving my Civic through traffic or cruising down the highway or just out relaxing. Driving a manual can feel like work if you're not in the greatest mood.

That said, I've driven numerous 5- and 6-speed manual transmissions, along with an assortment of old-school, 4-speed torque converter automatics. The most notable difference between them, I believe, is the ability of a manual to directly shift into any gear--to "skip" shift. Often when I'm lazily cruising my Civic I'll start in 1st, go to 2nd, and then rest into 5th to maintain my speed. The automatics I've driven have not had the ability to skip shifts. They're sequential. In fact, some of them even would start from a stop in 2nd gear, and not use 1st at all. But normally, they would start in first, go to 2nd, then third after a curiously long wait, then 3rd and finally 4th. As I slowed down they wouldn't downshift to 2nd and engine break as I normally would; they do whatever they do. I can't tell if they're downshifting or staying in fourth. But either way, the ones I've driven cannot skip shifts.

Now, I have heard of true autos that can skip shifts. I believe I was reading of a Mercedes unit a while back that would when you tromped on the gas. It would go from 7th to 4th or third 3rd or whatever was necessary. Most torque converter automatics can't do that.

 

[Duke]

I firmly believe you can have as much fun

Subjective measurement = no argument from most of us

...be in just as much control

Objective measurement = wrong conclusion, as specifically detailed by ///M

...and enjoy the drive just as much no matter which transmission you have in your vehicle.

Subjective measurement = no argument from most of us

 

[Joey D]

I still disagree, I've never once felt out of control with an auto.

 

[the Interceptor]

I think control is the wrong word. Let me put it like this: has an autobox ever acted in a way you didn't want it to at that very moment?

 

[eiriksmil]

I wasn't talking about applying the brakes, I was asking whether the auto could downshift in the middle of a corner or not. Can it? And what if you start sliding? In a manual you can press the clutch and steer through the corner, what options have you got with an auto?

Can somebody answer these questions..? Auto dudes, check in.

 

[Joey D]

I think control is the wrong word. Let me put it like this: has an autobox ever acted in a way you didn't want it to at that very moment?

Of course, but I've driven manuals that have done similar things. It's still a machine and is not always going to behave the way you think it will or should. I have not driven a manual on an everyday bases for a long time though so the frequency is something I am not able to discuss.

 

[the Interceptor]

Sorry, but how can a manual go wrong in terms of when and how to shift?

 

[Joey D]

Sorry, but how can a manual go wrong in terms of when and how to shift?

Unless you know the shift points precisely then you may run into problems. That's my point. I've driven some pretty poorly set up manuals before which give you rather odd shift points...mainly being much older cars.

 

[slowman]

Joey, I've made my feelings about this subject clear in this thread earlier. Please keep in mind that I am not opposing or defending either side because like I said earlier, everything here is completely subjective. It is HIGHLY based in opinion. I would go so far as to give you props for bucking the trend and going with your true feelings on a transmission.

However, I've had my car for long enough to know EXACTLY what the manual transmission is doing at all times. It always behaves the way I think it will or should in every situation. 1984 BMW 3 with the 5 speed Getrag 260. Fantastic transmission, even at 24 years old. I would expect so, considering the original $23,000 MSRP... and thats in 1984 dollars.

But see how this discussion can get a little out of hand? There are other manuals that do their job worse, and there are manuals that do their job better than the 260. There are automatics that are much worse, and there are automatics that are much better.

 

[Joey D]

Joey, I've made my feelings about this subject clear in this thread earlier. Please keep in mind that I am not opposing or defending either side because like I said earlier, everything here is completely subjective. It is HIGHLY based in opinion. I would go so far as to give you props for bucking the trend and going with your true feelings on a transmission.

However, I've had my car for long enough to know EXACTLY what the manual transmission is doing at all times. It always behaves the way I think it will or should in every situation. 1984 BMW 3 with the 5 speed Getrag 260. Fantastic transmission, even at 24 years old. I would expect so, considering the original $23,000 MSRP... and thats in 1984 dollars.

I understand that, all I was asked was if a manual could do something you are not expecting it to. I gave an example. It's a downfall of the the car, unless you know it perfectly, which for your own personal car you will, you may run into problems. I've gone for a gear thinking it will provide more power when it takes the vehicle out of the torque range. It really has to do with a poorly set up gear box from really old cars.

But see how this discussion can get a little out of hand? There are other manuals that do their job worse, and there are manuals that do their job better than the 260. There are automatics that are much worse, and there are automatics that are much better.

I agree 100% there are good and bad versions of both transmissions.

 

[Philly]

If you know your automatic really well, you can probably predict when it'll upshift or downshift... And then you can incorporate that into your driving.

 

[Roo]

Manual, always. For me, and what I do day to day (towing things on slippery surfaces, often), the advantages of an auto over a manual are negligable compared to the disadvantages. For reference:

1st car: 1990 Rover Mini, 4 speed manual
2nd car: 1992 Rover Mini, 4 speed manual
3rd car: 1993 Volvo 940, 4 speed manual + overdrive
4th car: 1989 Mercedes 260E, 4 speed auto

I still have all 4 (although the 1990 Mini is in many bits). Other vehicles I drive on a regular basis include a 1990-something Peugeot 205 (5 speed manual) and a 1986 Case tractor (8 forward and 4 reverse gears, manual). I also had a 2007 Vauxhall Corsa (5 speed manual) for a week last year, and have driven my dad's auto Subaru Legacy more than once.

A manual does give more control. Firstly, having had both the Merc and the Volvo in a damp, muddy field, the manual gearbox made the difference between driving out in 2nd whilst controlling the power through the clutch and being pulled out by the Case, as happened in the auto Merc. Secondly, if autos gave just as much control as a manual, why do all tractors have manuals, where control is everything? Thirdly, in a manual you always know when it's going to change gear - it's when you move the gearstick. In the autos I've driven, it could change gear at any time according to how much throttle you give it. I want to know what is going to happen and when, not when the car says so.

How does a good gearbox feel? I personally saw no difference between the Vauxhall and the Case, although in the Case I actually feel like I'm doing something. At the end of the day, I'm still pushing the clutch pedal and moving a lever.

In traffic, in the Volvo my left foot is always pushing the clutch; in the Merc my right foot is always pushing the brake pedal. Having driven both in traffic, I fail to see the difference.

I've never felt the need to eat whilst driving; in my eyes that's just as bad as using a mobile phone, in that you're still trying to do 2 things at once for a prolonged period of time.

Edit: oh, and the Merc always starts in 2nd and you can't select 1st. However, that's more an issue with a specific gearbox, not all auto gearboxs everywhere.

 

[YSSMAN]

I still disagree, I've never once felt out of control with an auto.

I'm uncertain as to how you found this point. I drove a Chevrolet Astro van with the same powertrain that was in your Blazer for a year or so (on off, depends on if I was with my Dad or not) and I had absolutely no control as to what gear the van was in. Any time we went through the Grand River valley on my way to Amway or to my Grandparent's house, it was never in the right gear for climbing hills or making backroad passes.

Granted, I wouldn't have wanted a manual in a van, but nevertheless, I didn't like not having control as I would have in my Fox or Jetta at the time.

BUT!

Much of that kind of stuff comes down to the programming in the gearbox versus the way in which the gears are controlled. I've been in a fair number of automatic cars and trucks that were absolutely terrible (Suzuki Verona comes to mind), and some that were very good (Chevrolet Malibu, Ford Fusion).

 

[Philly]

A manual does give more control. Firstly, having had both the Merc and the Volvo in a damp, muddy field, the manual gearbox made the difference between driving out in 2nd whilst controlling the power through the clutch and being pulled out by the Case, as happened in the auto Merc.

That is probably one of the only things you can't do (gear selection wise) in the GTI. I can't take of in 2nd anywhere under something like 7 mph. Although the Hyundai did let me sit at a stop light in second, and take off too. Oh, and there is nothing I can do about the GTI shifting just before redline, which is something that Top Gear commented on. So on a race track, you end up only making the downshifts because the upshifts happen just before you would shift.

However, I can shift into first at any speed that keeps the tach below redline, something that none of my friends driving manuals can do. Because that's just sooo useful.

And on automatics controlling gears, after a really hard acceleration run, I find that the automatics tend to hold gears longer than normal driving. hard accelerations on the freeway will leave the GTI in 4th for a few seconds before it goes back to 6th.

 

[kingcars]

That was kind of my freakin' point, directed towards though who push the idea all manuals were the same....



Are you serious? I got Danoff's point the instant he posted it, and you still don't understand?

Please comprehend.

~If your left foot is injured, it's very tough to drive a manual. Doesn't work the same on an automatic because you don't used your left foot.
~If your left hand is injured, it's still tough to drive a manual because your left hand would generally steer while the right shifts (or vice versa in different countries). With an auto, your other hand can still steer.
~If your right hand is injured, see above switched around.
~If your right foot is injured, then it becomes tough to do either.

FAIL.


That is all.

It amazes me how bad people are at taking jokes.

And congrats on once again COMPLETELY ignoring my point, which is perfectly summed up here:

But I'm not going to deprive myself of the fun and excitement 99% of the time just so I can drive pain free in the unlikely event I'm injured. You could get paralyzed from the waist down and not be able to drive anything, but not many of us currently have a chauffeur in the event that happens.

Next up:

Here:

Again, not really. For a daily beater, haul-the-kids-around, work commuter car, automatics are fine. But for fun cars, nothing beats a manual. Automatics will never come close, in my opinion. I think you've misunderstood my points.

Judging by that you will have more fun with the manual over the automatic in every case. It's not twisting anything, it's responding to what you wrote.

So where did I say you CANT have fun in autos? Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

I disagree with the control being enhanced with a manual and there is no need for me to reiterate my points as I think I've pretty much done so enough times now. I think people need to read those to be honest. I know why people prefer manual transmissions, I just think some choose to ignore that autos can and are just as good.

Every auto is different, so you can't judge them based on just one car.

Too bad you keep ignoring the fact that most autos dont let you change your own gears (not in a normal, regularly usable fashion anyway, and hence the statement that autos dont give the driver as much control). Good job proving yourself wrong. Again. Also, take a look at some of the posts on this page; there are lots of good points proving your whole "control is the same" argument wrong.

And to those of us who you claim "ignore that autos can and are just as good," you're once again ignoring the fact that I have said MANY times that automatics CAN be just as quick, and maybe even faster in certain racing/driving conditions (bracket racing comes to mind). HOWEVER, they will NEVER replace the feeling that a manual gives you, unless they get a clutch pedal and dont have a torque converter and...wait...that's what a manual tranny setup is.

 

[kingcars]

dp

 

[eiriksmil]

Of course, but I've driven manuals that have done similar things. It's still a machine and is not always going to behave the way you think it will or should.

"Manuals that have done similar things".. You make it sound like you do everything good and then the 'box does something it shouldn't. It relies on input from you. If you do a mistake, you will feel it. Simple as that, your movement is wrong (i.e too sudden, too slow, too little gas, too much gas etc), and because you control the gearbox it won't behave like you think it will. Of course, all cars are different, but I guess that goes for autos too..

 

[kingcars]

"Manuals that have done similar things".. You make it sound like you do everything good and then the 'box does something it shouldn't. It relies on input from you. If you do a mistake, you will feel it. Simple as that, your movement is wrong (i.e too sudden, too slow, too little gas, too much gas etc), and because you control the gearbox it won't behave like you think it will. Of course, all cars are different, but I guess that goes for autos too..

Hahahaha, thanks for posting that. I was going to make that point, but forgot. 👍

 

[Perfect Balance]

Hmm... Do I need to check the batteries in my sarcasm meter? Or are you being serious?



M

I was being serious.

I'm having a hard time understanding why something as simple as addition can be so difficult for some to grasp.


In an automatic you can control:

1. Throttle
2. Brake
3. Steering

In a manual car:

1. Throttle
2. Brake
3. Steering
4. Gears

Is 4 > 3 difficult to understand? Everyone seems to think I'm basing my arguments on the fact that I prefer a manual transmission. I'm simply comparing the number of things that you can control, in which a manual comes out on top. There are more things in the car you have control over = you have more control.

Joey seems to be stuck on the idea that we're trying to say that a non manual car will cause you to lose control of the vehicle. This isn't what we're getting at. Even then, I've already given 1 direct example of a situation that requires precise control of the vehicle, that I couldn't acheive with an automatic car because I was unable to control shift points and the gear I was in.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, I try not to bring personal opinions into debates. It's just as simple as: I can control everything you can, along with 1 more thing = I can control more things than you, thus, I have more control over the vehicle.

 

[Gil]

In 30 years of driving, I have always preferred a manual transmission.
In 25 years of marriage, my wife who is quite adept with a manual, prefers an automatic.
If there is a chance that both of us will be using the car guess what kind of transmission will be in it?
That's right an auto.

Of the ten (yes 10!) vehicles we own, only 2 have manual transmissions. My wife has driven the car twice in the 6 years that we've owned it. She's driven the pick-up once that I know of, and that was at my insistance?

Though my views have only been commented on once, I have to restate that as more cars get "decent" autos, the "playing field" is being leveled and it is possible to be skillful and fast in an auto.
As the car companies have figured out how to beat the economy of a manual with an automatic, I can't believe that it will be long before the performance angle is moot between transmission types.

That said, it will still be more fun to drive a car with a manual transmission.
And NO Mandatory "Skip shift feature" like on older 'Vettes!

 

[///M-Spec]

This statement...

Many people are insinuating you can not have fun or as much fun with an auto, my point is you can have fun in anything. Like I said my buddy with the 80's Crown Vic has fun with it all the time.

...is completely contradicted by...

Which proves it's subjective. There is no right or wrong with fun.

..that statement. Think about it for a moment. If fun is purely subjective, then how can the people who say they don't have fun with an AT be wrong??

And did you even read my post? Because if you did, you may have noticed that I already stated fun is a subjective thing, and that's not the point of my argument.

I use the MINI because I have lived with it everyday for a year, I could talk about a Camry but my experience with it is limited. If I started talking about another car I promise you someone would call me out on not knowing the car well enough. I use only what I know, I have driven both the auto and manual versions of Cooper enough to make up my mind about it.

This does not even begin to address my point. I would really appreciate your reading my posts before you reply to them.

I do not, I think you are just as in control with an auto, I've said my reasons.

As Duke already so succinctly put it, you have drawn an incorrect conclusion. Go back and read his post. This is not about fun. This is not about opinion. This is about what you CAN do with an auto, and what you CAN NOT do with an auto.

Answer these simple questions:

Can you change gears in all basic, non-performance ATs without changing the throttle?

Can you apply full throttle in all basic, non-performance ATs without the transmission shifting gears on it's own?

Because you can do BOTH of those things with any MT.

If you can NOT do either of those things with a basic AT, then it stands to reason that not all ATs give you as much control over your car as any manual.

It's not hard to follow, dude. Srsly.

I'm not really going to get into with you because you obviously have your mind made up about autos, I'm not going to change your mind.

Statements like this are annoying on so many levels.

First, it serves no purpose. Second, it's a complete and utter cop-out because instead of arguing against my points, you've either ignored or distorted them. Third, the statement tries to paint me as being stubborn or unreasonable. Fourth, it's hypocritical because YOU have obviously made up YOUR mind about this as well, so how does that give you a moral leg to stand on??

So I should just lay down? That makes no sense. I firmly believe you can have as much fun, be in just as much control, and enjoy the drive just as much no matter which transmission you have in your vehicle.

Yeah, you've already said that. Do you have anything other than your absolute unyielding conviction that supports your claim? Care to take a shot at addressing the stuff above about what you can and can't do with an AT?

I'm defending my position because I think many members here a manual elitist that fail to recognise that autos are good, involved, or even fun.

I'll remind you that if there is no 'right' or 'wrong' and fun is completely subjective, then they are as correct as you are.

Tricky, that subjective stuff, isn't it?

Anyway, if it upsets you, you will need to take that up with the people who said those things, because I haven't made statements like that. I've said some ATs are terrible, while others are pretty good. In your zeal to defend your personal choice (which I agree was attacked for some poor reasons), you've mixed my points up with every guy here who doesn't like ATs. I really wish you wouldn't do that.

Once again for clarity: I didn't say all ATs were bad or not any fun. I said you are wrong to assume all ATs offer as much control over your car as any manual.

That's foolish and I do not agree with that sentiment. As I've said I have nothing against a manual, people preferring manuals or people wanting a manual in there car. In some situations I can see it being good to have a manual.

I think it's foolish that in your zeal to defend your personal choice of an automatic (which -once again- is perfectly reasonable), you have gone way past arguing the reasonable or even rational.

You should just stop at saying "auto is a good choice for me and I enjoy it", rather than trying to saying "I firmly believe you can have as much fun, be in just as much control, and enjoy the drive just as much no matter which transmission you have in your vehicle", which is partially untrue.

It's also annoying that they've chosen, with their steering wheel button shifting system, to put the buttons to change up on the front of the steering wheel, and the buttons to change down on the back. On both sides. No "up on the right" and "down on the left" here. And I think even the casual buyer has got used to that arrangement now (with VAG's DSG, the transmission in the smart car, the transmission in BMWs with SMG etc), so Porsche's confusing system makes no sense at all.

Yeah, I forgot about that. Sadly, BMW is also guilty of this on the non-M cars. I drove a 335i with paddle shifters and it's push to downshift, pull to upshift on the same paddle, which was redundant on each side.


M

 

[homeforsummer]

I've never felt the need to eat whilst driving; in my eyes that's just as bad as using a mobile phone, in that you're still trying to do 2 things at once for a prolonged period of time.

Agree totally. Half the population are bad enough at driving as it is without being distracted by eating. Some idiot following me yesterday was peeling and eating a banana as he was driving along. However, the law that you can't even take a drink when you're at a standstill, in traffic, with the handbrake on and car out of gear because technically you're still "driving" is idiotic.

[/off topic]

 

[kingcars]

[post full of 150% correctness]

Thank you for also pointing out issues with Joey D's arguments...maybe a bit more eloquently than I did .

Agree totally. 95% of the population are bad enough at driving as it is without being distracted by eating. Some idiot following me yesterday was peeling and eating a banana as he was driving along. However, the law that you can't even take a drink when you're at a standstill, in traffic, with the handbrake on and car out of gear because technically you're still "driving" is idiotic.

[/off topic]

Totally agree, although I did have to tweak one little bit of it .

 

[Danoff]

Agree totally. Half the population are bad enough at driving as it is without being distracted by eating shifting.

Fixed.

 

[kingcars]

Fixed.

Wow, that's the dumbest thing I've seen stated in this thread. I'm not even going to START to post reasons why...

 

[Danoff]

Wow, that's the dumbest, most ignorant thing I've seen stated in this thread. I'm not even going to START to post reasons why...

Oh? You're just going to leave it at "you're dumb" and pretend that you don't need to back that up at all?

If someone is bad at driving, which would you rather do:
a) make driving more complex and distracting?
b) make driving easier and more straightforward?

 

[kingcars]

Oh? You're just going to leave it at "you're dumb" and pretend that you don't need to back that up at all?

If someone is bad at driving, which would you rather do:
a) make driving more complex and distracting?
b) make driving easier and more straightforward?

Neither. I'd rather make them take REAL driving courses and/or get off the road.