Automatic vs. Manual

[CyborgGT]

I love my auto in traffic but when I'm in the canyons it's almost never in the gear I want it to be in. For that kind of situation I prefer a stick-shift manual. Haven't driven with paddles or sequential stick yet.

 

[Danoff]

Sorry, but the stick thing is actually a valid reason. It's part of the whole "one with the machine" mentality. You may not agree with it, but it is still valid. It's a bit like acoustic guitars vs. electric guitars (leave out amps for this simile), sure an electric can make any noise the acoustic makes and then some, but some people still prefer acoustics for the raw simplicity of it. Nostalgia is not simplicity.

DSG is simpler.

DSG preferences:

Precision Broad term, but I assume you mean you don't miss shifts, in which case I would respond with the fact that you have to shift down twice to go from 5th to 3rd.

You hit the gear you want every time perfectly with as little disruption to the car as possible. That's mechanical precision, a perfectly executed shift. I've discussed at great length the scenario in which you might need to skip gears during a downshift, and it takes some effort to construct.

Control Clutch+stick=more control. The end.

The car is in better control with a DSG. You upset the dynamics less, you have both hands on the wheel while you shift, the shift happens at the exact instant you want, exactly when you are prepared. It doesn't happen a fraction of a second in the future when the conditions have changed, it happens instantly... digitally. That's control - smooth, instant, both hands on the wheel.

Consistency I don't understand...

No flubbed gear changes. No 5th to 2nd. No mismatched revs that upset the car. No grinding gears. The gear change is perfect every time.

This date will rage on for pages and pages and years and years. The points are all out there and those who have picked sides generally won't budge. Really all you can do at this point is present your preferences and reasons in the most attractive manner. I will drive a stick and clutch on the street no matter how fast DSG's get. If I were to race, I'd go DSG.

You should come out and say that you drive a stick for irrational and emotional reasons based on a combination of nostalgia and tradition.

 

[Jet Badger]

Okay, let's leave gears alone. What other differences between manual and auto? You can't pull start an auto, you can't tow an auto. In manual you have the control of clutch. Manuals are more efficient. The third pedal isn't a dogs fifth leg, it's 33% more control. Yes, to utilize all the benefits of a manual, you need to be quite experienced, but when you are, you are much more in control than you would be with an auto. That 'control' isn't just starting and braking. It's how you behave in difficult conditions.

 

[Zenith]

DSG is simpler.

Are you talking about the mechanism or the use of it? Because saying that a DSG gearbox is mechanically simpler than a manual would be ludicrous.

*control stuff goes here* Yes, DSG is much better for racing where the slightest upset in balance can affect a laptime. In normal driving, the difference is inconsequential.

You should come out and say that you drive a stick for irrational and emotional reasons based on a combination of nostalgia and tradition

Again, no. It's been said over and over in a million different iterations. Stick shift is more fun. It has nothing to do with nostalgia or tradition. It has nothing to do with efficiency or control at extremely high speeds. It is more fun. If somebody is too dull to want to have fun while driving, then they should go buy a Corolla.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Hmm, it occured to me this morning...

In a manual, on a typical journey to work, I probably shift about 50 times because I have to, and maybe 1 or 2 times because I want to (normally engine braking towards roundabouts)

In an automatic, on a typical journey to work, I don't have to perform those 48 shifts necessary just to keep the car moving forwards.. and as Joey highlights, I can still manually select 2-3-4 if I really wanted to.

Left foot braking without having to heel'n'toe is quite enjoyable, and the longer you can keep both hands on the wheel the safer it is... (uninterupted steering feedback).

Interestingly I find in my current auto, flicking the switch to 'S', rather than 'E', typically drops the car down a gear, then if you boot it, it holds the gear into the red before shifting up anway, by which time the overtake is complete, tap it back into 'E', the car drops 4000 revs and you're on your way with no real drama. Sounds a bit of a pulava, but really it's just pushing a button, and thats maybe once or twice a journey, rather than the 50 labourious, repetitive gear changes I'm forced to make in a manual.

I think people need to learn how to drive automatics before assuming they are rubbish.

.. all that said.. I'm still not going to vote either way

 

[Anghammarad]

I have two cars, one with manual gearbox and one with DSG. My next cars will have manual. The DSG is fantastic, for an automatically shifted gearbox, but I just prefer to use a pedal operated clutch.

 

[Stotty]

Manual almost all the time for me.

There are a couple of exceptions... SUV's and big saloon cars with very torquey engines (big capacity diesels or petrols) are almost always better with an automatic box.

 

[Sureboss]

Valid reasons to like Manual over DSG:
- Cost (temporary)
- Maintenance
- Skipping gears on downshifts
- Reliability (temporary)

Invalid reasons to prefer a Manual to a DSG:
- Liking the extra pedal
- Enjoying grabbing a big stick and moving it a few inches
- Preventing boredom

Reasons to prefer a DSG to Manual:
- Precision
- Speed
- Control
- Consistency
- Stability
- Component wear
- Focus

Can you add:

Changing gear without using clutch to feel really MACHO!

As a valid reason? Please?

 

[Sniffs]

Great post Keef. With the exception of ABS, none of those are related to an automatic gearbox.

MatskiMonk and Sniffs, what you're proposing is pretty much a Nirvana fallacy. You're saying "If you're going to take the manual approach to shifting gears, then you must take the manual approach to shifting, steering, braking, and gear sync." but that's like saying "If you ever drive economically to get better gas mileage then you must buy a Prius."

no, what the kid was doing was taking a pot-shot at the Manual users for coming across as "excessively old fashioned", and what I was doing was giving a high five for a good old fashioned zinger. i read that post to my mother, and she laughed her ass off, too (she's over 60)

also, every car I've owned made before the late 90's has been pre abs/antiskid/traction controll/power everything. you know how annoying it is having a car that was so old a rear defroster or a radio was a very expensive option on an otherwise utterly loaded car?

btw, haven't you guys ever put your autos in anything but Drive? i know most of you guys don't believe me when I tell you we have steep downhills with "farmers turns" (90 degree left/right corners), but, dangit, I have to constantly throw my autos into low gear and use engine braking, especially in the winter, to NOT slide off into the nearest tree, ditch, or deer crossing the road

 

[Joey D]

You can't pull start an auto, you can't tow an auto.

You can't pull start anything but small engines now days, if you are talking about a push start though, then yes, you can only do it with a manual and a very small number of older automatics.

And you can easily tow automatic vehicles.

Manuals are more efficient.

That's only really true for older cars. With many newer vehicles with 6-speed automatics, the car will get the same if not better fuel economy then it's manual counterpart. The automatic version of my car gets slightly better economy then the 5-speed Focus.

And even with older automatics you could drive them to get similar fuel economy to a manual, it just took really knowing your car and its shift points.

Again, no. It's been said over and over in a million different iterations. Stick shift is more fun. It has nothing to do with nostalgia or tradition. It has nothing to do with efficiency or control at extremely high speeds. It is more fun. If somebody is too dull to want to have fun while driving, then they should go buy a Corolla.

Stick shifts are more fun for some, not everyone will find a manual inherently more fun to drive. The only two reasons I can see someone would choose a manual over an automatic is that they find it more enjoyable to drive and it typically saves $1,000+ on a new car. Both are valid and I wouldn't fault someone for doing it, after-all it is your car.

 

[Stotty]

That's only really true for older cars. With many newer vehicles with 6-speed automatics, the car will get the same if not better fuel economy then it's manual counterpart. The automatic version of my car gets slightly better economy then the 5-speed Focus.

That's just the way manufacturers are setting up their cars to optimise the official economy and emissions tests.

In the real world, Auto's ARE less economical than manuals, have higher emissions and for the main part,are slower too.

Maybe the very latest Auto's from Mercedes might be able to get close to a manual, but I'd very much doubt any other auto box will get anywhere near a manual in real world conditions.

 

[Joey D]

That's just the way manufacturers are setting up their cars to optimise the official economy and emissions tests.

In the real world, Auto's ARE less economical than manuals, have higher emissions and for the main part,are slower too.

Maybe the very latest Auto's from Mercedes might be able to get close to a manual, but I'd very much doubt any other auto box will get anywhere near a manual in real world conditions.

It comes down to how you drive, I was consistently getting better calculated fuel economy with my automatic Cooper then guys in the club I was affiliated with that had manuals. The same goes with the Focus too, and my car is significantly heavier then the Focus SE with hardly anything on it (the only way Ford offers a manual stateside).

 

[Keef]

People with manual transmissions often drive with more spirit than those in automatics. And often, the ones who don't just aren't very good at driving a manual, but whatever.

Until recently, with the advent of many-gear automatics, a manual was the best way to get the best gas mileage. They had more gears so the engine didn't have to work as hard to accelerate. The overdrive was lower and that made the engine rev lower on the highway. That hasn't always been the case for the last few years.

 

[mustangGT90210]

I've driven traditional Automatics, traditional Manuals, and DSG Semi-automatics. And after all that, I still prefer the stick. I find myself yelling at my truck(auto) "SHIFT!" because sometimes it wants to hold a gear longer than I want it to on the flat ground here, and that's at least once a day, forcing it into OD as soon as possible. I like that I can just put it in drive and go, but I'd much prefer it had a stick. And not just because of the whole gearing advantage sticks for the 80s/90s had over their auto counterparts. I've driven many automatics, and basically it always rings true, either it doesn't shift when I want it to, or shifts before it should.

DSGs... my only experience with these is in a MkV Jetta TDI. Based on that, the shifts are not that smooth, they feel like someone who is just a good driver shifting a manual. And I still don't feel attached at all. Just push the lever when the rpms get up there, it's the same as driving a conventional automatic and using the D321 portion of it all. Not very impressed. It's much smoother than a traditional auto, but really lacks a lot feel wise to a conventional manual

I like manuals better, and can't finish this reply due to time constraints, I'll be back for it

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Haven't touched a DSG, have driven a CVT or two, have driven a fair few automatics and proper manuals.

And I've seen a case where the CVT is legitimately better/nicer to drive than the manual: the new Legacy with the base engine. The 6-speed box is absolutely awful in terms of feel, gear spacing sucks, and it generally feels like work to drive it. The CVT in comparison felt like the engine wasn't working nearly as hard and the entire car felt better as a result. I swear my uncle's 200k+ mile F150 feels better to row through the gears than that Legacy. At least the clutch doesn't chatter constantly in it.

A good manual is better than an automatic to me but a decent auto is better than a crap manual. I'd actually rather have a manual in the average traffic jam than an automatic (and I also think all TC automatics should shift to neutral automatically after a certain time of holding the car back then shift back when the driver lets off the brake) just because it's less of a pain to creep a manual than an automatic.

 

[BlacqueJacques]

Manual is also the cheaper option (usually)

 

[BloodyPenguin]

For me, I never understood manual. I figured an automatic was easier and manual was just for people who wanted to save money.

That was until... I bought an Acura RSX type S. And it only came in a manual and I REALLY wanted that car.

From that day on, I came to understand the connection between driver and car. I do not see myself owning an automatic ever again.

Nothing beats a quick rev-matching downshift right before a hard corner.

..

 

[Danoff]

For me, I never understood manual. I figured an automatic was easier and manual was just for people who wanted to save money.

That was until... I bought an Acura RSX type S. And it only came in a manual and I REALLY wanted that car.

From that day on, I came to understand the connection between driver and car. I do not see myself owning an automatic ever again.

Nothing beats a quick rev-matching downshift right before a hard corner.

..

Yea, I owned one of those. Wanted the 6-speed manual on it too. Didn't bother me one bit that it came with the stick, I was excited about owning a manual again. The RSX-S is one of those cars that really greatly benefits from being able to select a gear. You really have to wind it up to tap the power, and so selecting a gear is key. If you're stuck on buying the RSX, I can totally see why you'd want the manual version of that car.

That being said one drive in an Audi A3 with DSG killed the RSX for me. The DSG was so much better than the honda transmission (especially mine which had synchro issues in 2nd and 3rd gear from day one). The DSG was a whole new level of connection with the car. That lever and pedal in the RSX was just getting in the way of operating the car.

DSG FTW.

btw, haven't you guys ever put your autos in anything but Drive? i know most of you guys don't believe me when I tell you we have steep downhills with "farmers turns" (90 degree left/right corners), but, dangit, I have to constantly throw my autos into low gear and use engine braking, especially in the winter, to NOT slide off into the nearest tree, ditch, or deer crossing the road

I do it all the time in my 330i. Often I find myself doing 60 behind a semi-truck on the freeway with traffic going by in the left lane doing about 20 mph more. To bridge that 20 mph gap I need power quickly and precisely. Since I don't have a DSG or SMG in the 330i, I tap it over to manumatic mode and pop it into 4th gear to accelerate. This is far better than trying to feather the gas to make the transmission shift. Takes no time, with a little practice you don't even think about it. This is something that I think a lot of the manual guys out there refuse to do. They put the car in drive and simply say "I don't like it". Try working with the controls a bit and really learning what you can do. I leave my car in drive 90% of the time, and use manumatic for about 10%. Best of both worlds. I'd prefer a DSG, but manumatic is preferable to full auto in many situations.

 

[Thatman]

Manuals are better for me. It lets me do what I want to do.
But sequential manuals are annoying in traffic.
The auto in my Lincoln is good for long trips. And having carry stuff space.

 

[Mike0105]

When you boil it down, it comes to 3 choices:

Manual ('stick')
Auto ('slushbox')
Automated manual ('flappy paddle')

Manual is the most involving. More to do, more part of the process, more fun for those that like it.

Auto is more comfortable and easier. Suits big diesels and very big petrols as they do the work for you.

Semi-autos have been in between for years, and until recently have been universally rubbish. They are loads better these days, but the are still a compromise. The box on the Ferrari 360 I drove on a track was awefull, can't imagine actually living with it.

DSG's can be better mechanically (faster, more economical etc) than manuals because they are so advanced. But I still don't want one.

I love the mechanical aspect of cars. As many have said, it's more fun to do it yourself. A computer might be better, but dammit, I want to play!

I will mourn the loss of the manual when it goes. It will be lost when electric takes over, in whatever form they come up with.

It might be irrational, it might be silly, might be nostalgia, maybe not. But frankly, I don't care what the reason is, I love my manual box and will defend it till the last. No one can convince me that I would prefer an auto or semi-auto.

If you love an auto, that's fine. Nothing wrong with that at all. Enjoy it. It probably makes your life that bit easier.

But i'll stick to my manual box thanks.

Edit: actually, forget it, it doesn't matter at all. It's like saying red cars are better than blue cars. Personal preference is just that an there is no right or wrong.

This is just going to go on and on with no actual outcome, because there is no answer to opinions.

 

[Danoff]

When you boil it down, it comes to 3 choices:

Manual ('stick')
Auto ('slushbox')
Automated manual ('flappy paddle')

Manual is the most involving. More to do, more part of the process, more fun for those that like it.

Auto is more comfortable and easier. Suits big diesels and very big petrols as they do the work for you.

Semi-autos have been in between for years, and until recently have been universally rubbish. They are loads better these days, but the are still a compromise. The box on the Ferrari 360 I drove on a track was awefull, can't imagine actually living with it.

DSG's can be better mechanically (faster, more economical etc) than manuals because they are so advanced. But I still don't want one.

I love the mechanical aspect of cars. As many have said, it's more fun to do it yourself. A computer might be better, but dammit, I want to play!

I will mourn the loss of the manual when it goes. It will be lost when electric takes over, in whatever form they come up with.

It might be irrational, it might be silly, might be nostalgia, maybe not. But frankly, I don't care what the reason is, I love my manual box and will defend it till the last. No one can convince me that I would prefer an auto or semi-auto.

If you love an auto, that's fine. Nothing wrong with that at all. Enjoy it. It probably makes your life that bit easier.

But i'll stick to my manual box thanks.

Edit: actually, forget it, it doesn't matter at all. It's like saying red cars are better than blue cars. Personal preference is just that an there is no right or wrong.

This is just going to go on and on with no actual outcome, because there is no answer to opinions.

Kudos to you on admitting that it's all about your personal preferences and that from an engineering point of view, we're moving on.

I am curious about something though:

Manual is the most involving. More to do, more part of the process, more fun for those that like it.

You'd have more to do if synchronizers didn't exist. Would you rather your manual didn't have them? You'd be more a part of the process, it would be more involved. I suppose the nissan rev-matching thing is a terrible idea from your perspective also as it gets int the way of the 3-pedal downshift, which is more involved and leaves you with more to do.

Is it always that a more complex interface is preferable so that you have more to do and are more invovled? Or is there an arbitrary cutoff at which point you think this is the perfect amount of complexity and work/involvement?

 

[Mike0105]

I am curious about something though:

You'd have more to do if synchronizers didn't exist. Would you rather your manual didn't have them? You'd be more a part of the process, it would be more involved. I suppose the nissan rev-matching thing is a terrible idea from your perspective also as it gets int the way of the 3-pedal downshift, which is more involved and leaves you with more to do.

Is it always that a more complex interface is preferable so that you have more to do and are more invovled? Or is there an arbitrary cutoff at which point you think this is the perfect amount of complexity and work/involvement?

The Nissan thing is clever, but not for me. I don't really want the car to rev match for me. Syncro's are a little different, as not having these are before my time.

Therein probably lies part of the answer, I learnt to drive in a manual. My family all have manuals except for my grandfather and uncle, who have never had manuals.

As to the cut-off point, that again is purely personal. Had I been driving before syncro's I might have preferred to not have them, maybe not. But having tried auto's, manuals and semi-auto's, I know where my preference lies.

As for abs, you never notice it until you it does it's thing, at which point you do need it. In a game, I switch it off, in my car I always want it there just in case. Same with ESP.

Power steering is more noticeable, but you can't buy a new car without it, not anything that I can use anyway. I'm ok with it, as long as it's not too over assisted.

 

[Danoff]

The Nissan thing is clever, but not for me. I don't really want the car to rev match for me. Syncro's are a little different, as not having these are before my time.

...

As to the cut-off point, that again is purely personal. Had I been driving before syncro's I might have preferred to not have them, maybe not. But having tried auto's, manuals and semi-auto's, I know where my preference lies.
...

I applaud your honesty. I wish everyone understood themselves as well as you do.

 

[chuyler1]

People always complain about shifting a manual in traffic. Well, i sit in traffic every day and there are things you can do in a manual you simply cannot do in an automatic. For example, you can modulate speed much better by leaving the car in 2nd or 3rd and using throttle input and engine braking to maintain the speed of the brake-happy car in front of you. My foot basically stays on the gas pedal for the entire time.

I get close to 60k on a set of brake pads because I simply don't use them very often.

I suppose a manu-matic would give me the same capability but I have yet to discover one that properly handles engine braking.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Abs in both my last cars has been overly intrusive, and the ASC is too, I guess auto is something you learn to live with, and to get the best out of it.. just as you have to with a manual.

One things for sure.. now I'm focused on it.... Changing gears seems to be a real chore when I'm driving a manual!!!!

 

[fitftw]

Manuals aren't going anywhere in our lifetime. I wish everyone drove stick in America like they do in every other country.

 

[176OES]

Auto suits my needs perfectly. It shifts gears quicker than I ever will and it doent lose boost on the gear changes.

Also a lot more comfortable to drive.

 

[fitftw]

I like driving to be as spartan as possible. Like the Flintstones. No interior, primitive gearbox.

 

[Sureboss]

Abs in both my last cars has been overly intrusive, and the ASC is too, I guess auto is something you learn to live with, and to get the best out of it.. just as you have to with a manual.

One things for sure.. now I'm focused on it.... Changing gears seems to be a real chore when I'm driving a manual!!!!

Sounds like you need leg and arm muscles.

 

[Drewsifer3x]

My 86 subaru XT HAD to be manual. Mostly because the available automatic was a 3 speed with no computer control. Modern cars don't have such terrible automatics. I voted stick, but I would not be opposed to a modern auto on the future.