Save the Manuals!

[Joey D]

From your own link;

"Leasing also remains high for luxury import captives such as Mercedes-Benz Financial, at 64 percent leasing in the fourth quarter; or BMW Financial Services, at 62 percent leasing, according to Experian."

...so yes, it's pretty relevant when we're talking GTIs, M3s, and 911s.

Except we are talking about all car, not just luxury imports. From your own words:

Without question, leasees make up the majority of automatic equipped cars.

I can assure you luxury imports do not make up a majority of vehicles on the road, if they did the two best selling vehicles in the US wouldn't be a Toyota Camry and a Ford F-150, they'd be a BMW 3-series and a Mercedes S-class.

But let's go back to your statement. If leasees make up a majority of automatic equipped cars, meaning all cars that are leased, then you're implying the majority of the cars on the road are leased because a majority of them have automatic transmissions. If you would have said "Without question, leasees make up a majority of automatic equipped luxury cars" then you would have been correct and there wouldn't have been any question. (still incorrect it seems). You said all cars, and if you really did work in the automotive business, you'd know that's just flat out wrong.

Oh and a GTI isn't considered by anyone to be a luxury car. M3 and 911, sure we can call those luxury cars because I suppose you could say owning one is a luxury, but a GTI? Really?

 

[Murcie_LP640]

Those who are automotive enthusiast and care about what they drive are a significantly smaller number than those who just want a beige Camry because it's safe and gets good mileage.

I've had to recommend countless sports cars that have an automatic transmission because the enthusiasts that DO care about what they drive never bothered to apply for a manual license. Love driving them, can't legally drive them.

 

[Danoff]

If you would have said "Without question, leasees make up a majority of automatic equipped luxury cars" then you would have been correct and there wouldn't have been any question.

He still wouldn't be right. It implies that most luxury cars are manual (a very high percentage of those that aren't leased). Since few cars are leased, if most automatics are under lease, then few are automatics.

It's wrong every which way it's dissected.

I think what he may have been trying to say was that most leased cars are automatic. Which is unsurprising, but at least obvious.

 

[Joey D]

I've had to recommend countless sports cars that have an automatic transmission because the enthusiasts that DO care about what they drive never bothered to apply for a manual license. Love driving them, can't legally drive them.

Caring about what you drive doesn't mean you'll get a manual though. I care about what I drive and while I do own a manual equipped vehicle, my daily driver is automatic. Both matter to me.

My point was that automatics sold better than manual even before double-clutches existed because a majority of car buyer just see a car as an appliance that takes them back and forth to work. If all a car is, is four wheels, an engine and a steering wheel, why add something else to it like a manual? Even back when automatics were for the most part awful, most people didn't care because they didn't even notice.

He still wouldn't be right. It implies that most luxury cars are manual (a very high percentage of those that aren't leased). Since few cars are leased, if most automatics are under lease, then few are automatics.

It's wrong every which way it's dissected.

When you put it like that, you're right.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

...which is almost certainly incorrect without substantiating it. I'm still waiting for your citation.

Go to a Mannheim auction and see for yourself. Better yet; get login information to remotely view/bid. From there you can get all the information and data your heart desires.

Or go call Porsche and ask them...see how far that get's ya.

You said all cars, and if you really did work in the automotive business, you'd know that's just flat out wrong.

You're putting words into my mouth or have reading comprehension issues. Based on the link provided and the evidence you didn't read it, I'm leaning towards the latter. Either way, it's a safe assumption you can not or choose not to read between the lines.

Argue semantics, or whatever it is you're arguing, all you want. I'm not sure you're intelligent enough to understand the point I'm getting at, which is residual values of manual v. automatic cars if both options were available at time of purchase. The GTI, M3, and 997 are all cars that have manual & whiz-bang auto boxes, are at different price points, are not new model names, and there's brand loyalty.

Wait a while...maybe I'll be right...maybe I'll be wrong. But based on wholesale prices of non-leased cars, I think I'm right on this one.

 

[Danoff]

Go to a Mannheim auction and see for yourself. Better yet; get login information to remotely view/bid. From there you can get all the information and data your heart desires.

Or go call Porsche and ask them...see how far that get's ya.

Yea, it doesn't work like that. You make the claim, you back up said claim. I still think you misstated.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

Yea, it doesn't work like that. You make the claim, you back up said claim. I still think you misstated.

It works exactly like that.

Mail me a certified check to renew my license so I can access auctions or hire ChiCom hackers to steal internal leasing, sales, and trim/option data from automakers b/c that's the only way you're going to get what you want.

Mailing me a check will probably be cheaper.

 

[Wolfe]

Is it not true? Take a good hard look at it for a second and tell me you don't cling to the manual simply because you're used to it.

There was a period of time where I couldn't drive my BMW anymore because I needed a new car, and we only used my fiancée's automatic Intrepid for some months. There was no revelation, it was not eye-opening, it did not change anything. Even with over twice as much horsepower and a well of torque compared to my BMW, it was not fun. The added convenience was negligible to me. When we bought my current car, we got a manual Legacy.

I'm not sure how I can provide a valid litmus test in your eyes, but that's probably the closest you'll get.

On a website where so many covet only the most expensive latest greatest most powerful technologically advanced vehicles in the world, price is the reason for the transmission choice... really? Is that what you're going with?

Must I covet only the most expensive latest greatest most powerful technologically advanced vehicles in the world, simply because I come here? I know that's the norm around here, but it couldn't be further from the truth with regards to myself.

Sure, I think $200k+ Porsches are pretty cool, but my dream car is a $27k Subaru, and right now in my life it's just as unattainable. I hate most modern cars with a passion for being overcomplicated and fat, and complain every time a Forza DLC pack is dominated by 20xx cars, especially me-too exotics. I think the automakers' horsepower race is juvenile, and would rather take the keys to an Elise than a 2013 Viper. I loved BMWs for years and still love their classics, but today they're a stranger to me, because they've gone way too techno-happy and bulky with frivolous bullcrap; Porsche is sadly sinking into the same hole.

Call me a "purist" if you want. I just want an undiluted, rewarding driving experience, and I think a modern synchromesh 3-pedal manual strikes a perfect balance between "old and clunky" and "new and uninvolved." When you tell me that experience is objectively "worse," that's insulting.

So tell me honestly that I'm wrong.

I've been trying.

 

[Murcie_LP640]

Caring about what you drive doesn't mean you'll get a manual though.

I completely agree.

My point was that automatics sold better than manual even before double-clutches existed because a majority of car buyer just see a car as an appliance that takes them back and forth to work.

The majority of car buyers here in previous years saw their car as either a Ford Falcon or a Holden Commodore and trashed the living 🤬 out of owners of the other party. That's 'Straya for ya.

If all a car is, is four wheels, an engine and a steering wheel, why add something else to it like a manual?

Because even for people who have grown up with automatics and only recently learned manual...it's bloody good fun.

 

[Joey D]

There was a period of time where I couldn't drive my BMW anymore because I needed a new car, and we only used my fiancée's automatic Intrepid for some months. There was no revelation, it was not eye-opening, it did not change anything. Even with over twice as much horsepower and a well of torque compared to my BMW, it was not fun. The added convenience was negligible to me. When we bought my current car, we got a manual Legacy

To be fair it was an Intrepid, no one has ever had an eye opening experience in that car other than maybe a few teenagers that got lucky for the first time on prom night in one.

 

[Danoff]

There was a period of time where I couldn't drive my BMW anymore because I needed a new car, and we only used my fiancée's automatic Intrepid for some months. There was no revelation, it was not eye-opening, it did not change anything. Even with over twice as much horsepower and a well of torque compared to my BMW, it was not fun. The added convenience was negligible to me. When we bought my current car, we got a manual Legacy.

I'm not sure how I can provide a valid litmus test in your eyes, but that's probably the closest you'll get.

Perhaps I've led you astray. I'm not trying to convince you that an automatic is better than a manual. I understand why people don't like torque converters and wish for their demise. I also understand why people prefer to row their own gears when compared to an automatic.

No what I believe killed the manual is the DCT. That's where I think people are refusing the new because it's not what they're used to. You didn't grow up watching movies with people using flappy paddles, they shifted gears with their right hand (unless they were overseas).

So that's the real comparison here, DCT vs manual. I understand that automatics are not the same animal.

Must I covet only the most expensive latest greatest most powerful technologically advanced vehicles in the world, simply because I come here?

Of course not. If you honestly say price is the reason, I can accept that. That reason will erode over time.

 

[niky]

Talk to me when your car is older and the transmission doesn't shift right. I really doubt that the long-term ownership costs of manual v. autobox are equal when it comes to servicing and repairing the transmission. It'll be interesting to see how these sorts of cars do a generation or 2 on (7-10 years).

Crunchy synchros, wonky shift forks, dual mass flywheels that cost a fortune to replace, busted hydraulics... and two or three new clutches over a hundred thousand miles. Less... eager... drivers might not have to deal with bent forks, but they'll still have to replace those stupidly expensive flywheels along with the clutch change.

Versus needing to change a clutch pack once in that time (for a DCT) or simply changing out fluid in an torque converter AT and perhaps changing out the clutch packs if they drive like idiots.

Don't ask about CVTs, though. Until Honda starts selling new rubber bands alongside timing belts at the dealer, older CVTs will remain a headache. I have yet to see specifications for servicing for newer ones from other manufacturers, or for the more durable (supposedly) CVT in the new Accord.

 

[Murcie_LP640]

No what I believe killed the manual is the DCT.

👍

Even single-clutch automated manuals are getting to the stage where there's next to no purpose other than potential running costs and the feeling of rowing one's own gears for a fully-manual transmission to exist.

As I stated earlier if I end up getting an FPV F6 next year it will be an automatic, because the ZF auto makes the Tremec manual in that car seem pointless. The car's faster with the auto, it does all the tricky throttle-blips and all that jazz for me, all I would miss is the feeling of a well-oiled shift gate which I reckon would become moot quite easily.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

Crunchy synchros, wonky shift forks, dual mass flywheels that cost a fortune to replace, busted hydraulics... and two or three new clutches over a hundred thousand miles. Less... eager... drivers might not have to deal with bent forks, but they'll still have to replace those stupidly expensive flywheels along with the clutch change.

Versus needing to change a clutch pack once in that time (for a DCT) or simply changing out fluid in an torque converter AT and perhaps changing out the clutch packs if they drive like idiots.

Don't ask about CVTs, though. Until Honda starts selling new rubber bands alongside timing belts at the dealer, older CVTs will remain a headache. I have yet to see specifications for servicing for newer ones from other manufacturers, or for the more durable (supposedly) CVT in the new Accord.

Personally, I think there's a lot more to go wrong with newer automatic transmissions than their manual brethren. Much more than you may realize. I'd also hate to see diagnostic fees on such and how often dealers will just say "you need a new transmission" rather than fixing what's broken (if they're competent enough to find the problem). Too many times both dealer service centers and Joe Schmoe down the road just throw parts at a problem.

Like I've said before, we'll have to wait and see.

Yes, dual mass flywheels are a pain in the wallet. Overcomplicated, expensive, and damn near impossible to find a place that can resurface them.

Pity about CVTs being unreliable as I think that is the performance and efficiency ticket (outside the engine anyway). User expectations, such as feeling a shift, is probably their #2 downfall behind durability.

 

[McLaren]

Any idiot does know...good thing I'm not an idiot.

Manual enthusiasts may actually make up the majority of buyers.

It appears as though something of a stick-shift renaissance has since occurred, with 5.1% of new cars being manual last year. And a new report from Edmunds.com indicates that stick shifts are on pace to account for roughly 7% of cars sold in 2012.

Read more: http://business.time.com/2012/08/02/last-gasp-for-the-stick-shift/#ixzz2ODoSfQKn​

​

Not even a 10th of buyers are manual owners.

You don't lease a car for 10 years/120,000 miles...but many own cars that long and with that kind of mileage. While this "experiment" is long term, I'm pretty confident that the residual value of manual equipped cars will be significantly higher than autos. Partly b/c of demand and partly b/c of durability; a clutch will be a lot less expensive to replace than the whole damn DCT.

You're making an argument that may have had a chance 5 years ago. That's not the case anymore.

 

[Wolfe]

Perhaps I've led you astray...

[The DCT is] where I think people are refusing the new because it's not what they're used to. You didn't grow up watching movies with people using flappy paddles, they shifted gears with their right hand (unless they were overseas).

So that's the real comparison here, DCT vs manual. I understand that automatics are not the same animal.

I'm not used to people referring to DCT as "automatic." IMO we've spent too many years with slushbox automatics to flippantly lump SMG/DCT into that category just because it can shift itself. You can still refer to my last post:

I just want an undiluted, rewarding driving experience, and I think a modern synchromesh 3-pedal manual strikes a perfect balance between "old and clunky" and "new and uninvolved." When you tell me that experience is objectively "worse," that's insulting.

So let's recap:

1. DCT is mechanically similar to a manual, so it checks most of the same boxes that lead me to prefer manual over an automatic.
2. I've already stated more than once I have nothing against DCTs, overall. If all manuals disappeared off of the face of the earth and were replaced with DCTs, it wouldn't be the end of the world.
3. I agree, manual holds very little over the DCT objectively, and DCT offers things manual can't.

Nonetheless, I want what DCT can't provide. The involvement and the fringe benefits. Would I consider buying a DCT car someday? Absolutely. Would I choose it over a manual, all other things being equal? Never.

I still don't take the battery thing lightly; it can happen far too easily for that. And with such a simple solution when you have a manual, it seriously makes me feel like an ass when I don't. Please don't undermine my feelings on that.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

[/COLOR][/LEFT]
Not even a 10th of buyers are manual owners.

1. Fleet sales
2. Many models are not available with a manual as an option. Some entire brands as well.

Those are reasons why I think it would be best to look at cars that have both standard and automatic as an option. The reason for looking at sportier cars is that they have a different market than a run of the mill appliance. Most times, shoppers of these cars know exactly what they want and cross-shop various dealers looking at almost identical cars. They also pay a little more to get the options they want...that's been my experience anyway.

With that, wholesale & retail pricing will tell you if the market is looking for a particular model with a certain power train. If, down the road, the prices for manual transmission cars are higher than automatics, despite having a lower or same priced MSRP as automatics, that will tell you a lot. If there's a big discrepancy in used values between auto & manual; then it stands to reason that the automatic has durability issues. Could be other factors as well as sports cars are not exactly rational purchases to begin with.

If nearly identical cars with differing transmissions have the same depreciation slope or if automatics are more expensive/desirable...then I'd be wrong.

We'll have to wait and see. DCTs haven't been around long enough to gauge long-term durability & value. I'm not aware of any run-of-the-mill transmission shop that will rebuild/repair these newer transmissions which leads me to believe this drivetrain isn't popular enough or old enough at this point in time.

 

[justchyllan]

Here's how I'm gonna try and explain why I prefer a manual over an auto. (And when I say auto I mean DCT, DSG, SMG, STD, and every acronym imbetween)

I recently got engaged to my girlfriend of 3 years. There are other women out there that I could have proposed to that objectively and quantitatively are better for me... Make more money, low maintenance, more reputable degree, and a bland personality to avoid conflict. The problem is I would kill myself of boredom, I proposed to my fiance because she is fun, which I cannot describe. But it is better than the woman who is factually better.

Factually autos are better. I love my manuals. My favorite setup is in my evo which I just recently finished, an air shifted dogbox, so I have a massive pole for my gear lever and a LCD display for my gear display, like WRC cars. I love that I still have manual control of the clutch, though the setup is not very practical. I love my dogbox in my dd, drive it like a standard manual and can do clutchless changes when I want to let loose. Either way, I can't factually or reasonably explain why I prefer manuals, but there you go. I don't hate autos, and they can be fun. Just my final say before I go on business travel. Probably won't have time to get on here for another month or so.

Edit: I hope this makes sense, or maybe I'm just going off the deep end

 

[Tornado]

I haven't driven a slushbox with a manual mode since the one they put in the Intrepid in the 90s. Based on how they are being described here, can I assume that they have gotten considerably better then the "wait 3 seconds to poll the other gears for a decision, then shift" mess that that was?

 

[McLaren]

1. Fleet sales
2. Many models are not available with a manual as an option. Some entire brands as well.

Doesn't really change anything, though.

Even taking your points into consideration, we would still have a far larger increase than just 3.8% to 5.1% to 7% over the last 3 years.
The fact is this: manual owners are in noway a possibility of being the majority of buyers as you proposed. Sorry, just how it is & has been.

If nearly identical cars with differing transmissions have the same depreciation slope or if automatics are more expensive/desirable...then I'd be wrong.

We'll have to wait and see. DCTs haven't been around long enough to gauge long-term durability & value. I'm not aware of any run-of-the-mill transmission shop that will rebuild/repair these newer transmissions which leads me to believe this drivetrain isn't popular enough or old enough at this point in time.

DCTs have been around for 10 years now, so we don't have to wait for anything to see that the transmissions really don't have that much bearing on the price; it's the other options, mileage, & current condition of the car.

But, just by observing the market on higher end performance cars with similar conditions, the manuals are typically cheaper. In the case of 1 manufacturer, autos with higher mileage than the manuals of same model years & similarly equipped options actually still hold their value better because there's just not many people in the market who want the 6-speed.

 

[niky]

I haven't driven a slushbox with a manual mode since the one they put in the Intrepid in the 90s. Based on how they are being described here, can I assume that they have gotten considerably better then the "wait 3 seconds to poll the other gears for a decision, then shift" mess that that was?

If you're driving something like an EVO or a Porsche, yes. And even traditional slushboxes can shine given the right logic. I quite enjoy the 5AT with paddles Honda uses, and the previous 6AT in the otherwise soft Genesis Coupe. Some boxes will actually allow you to ping off the limiter, though even the most aggressive autos will still downshift for you if the engine starts lugging and won't allow downshifting if you'll be doing over 5k rpm in the next gear down. Just the way I like it.

But if you're driving something like a Chevrolet Cruze... three seconds to shift would be an improvement.

 

[Pupik]

But if you're driving something like a Chevrolet Cruze... three seconds to shift would be an improvement.

If we're talking about the NA Chevy Cruze, it's improved, based on my last two rentals. I'd say it's about a quarter to a half second in gear acceptance, which is on par with most cars. The TC must be disabled for even remotely spirited driving (not even all-out hoonage), which kind of tells the car it's okay to let the driver make some decisions, from my unofficial testing.

Mazdas are pretty rapid and will let you keep it near the redline, if needed. To be fair, I rarely have any need to even redline a rental car.

What's more annoying is when a transmission doesn't fully understand that you'd like to stay in that gear for a while, although from my experience, only a few cars are that obstinate.

 

[niky]

Not quite as bad as it used to be, probably. But last year I spent several laps on track in a diesel Cruze chasing a 1.6 Turbo S60. These two cars had similar 0-100 km/h times yet the Cruze's auto was easily flummoxed midcorner, whereas the S60 just sailed through everything with no problem.

 

[homeforsummer]

No.

...For you

The point is for it to eliminate the work you don't want to do. There are still shifts that you'll want to make on your own. It's not an all or nothing proposition. The manual mode is something you should be comfortable moving into and out of for a single shift a few times per drive. It's a tool. There's nothing about it that says you have to use it exclusively or not at all.

You've answered your own question in the first line. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've been reading my posts as well as just the ones aimed at you, but you'll note I have very little against automatic transmissions and have spent quite a lot of time defending them against some of the daft reasons people have given for disliking them.

However, when I drive an automatic, I personally want it to do things itself. "Eliminating the work you don't want to do" means (for me) changing gears, period. Whether or not it has a manual mode is of little consequence to me, but does make gradually more sense the more performance something has and I'd use it accordingly.

I'm well aware how to drive an automatic "properly" but a good auto - and increasingly, they're pretty good these days - is usually good enough to negate the necessity of taking control yourself once in a while.

What I'm not saying, and I feel you massively jumped to conclusions with my response, is that manual modes should immediately disappear from all autos. I just personally have little use for them.

Please tell me I'm not the only person in this thread who knows how to properly drive both automatic and manual transmissions.

Don't flatter yourself.

Edit #1: Please tell me I'm not the only person in this thread who can see the merits of both automatic and manual transmissions rather than dismissing one or the other based on nothing more than personal preference and a superiority complex.

 

[Danoff]

Factually autos are better. I love my manuals.

I find it fascinating that so many people in this thread are so much more interested in the act of driving when they have a stick and an extra pedal to play with.

You've answered your own question in the first line. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've been reading my posts as well as just the ones aimed at you, but you'll note I have very little against automatic transmissions and have spent quite a lot of time defending them against some of the daft reasons people have given for disliking them.

Yes I'm aware.

However, when I drive an automatic, I personally want it to do things itself. "Eliminating the work you don't want to do" means (for me) changing gears, period.

Why?

Why would you suffer poor automatic transmission logic when the manufacturer has given you a perfectly good tool to avoid it? Again, you don't have to use it when you don't need it, but it's there for you when you want it... and I know you want it.

The manual enthusiasts (and even perhaps yourself) in this thread would drive an underpowered automatic up steep hill and watch the transmission move between gears over and over. Speed up, upshift, slow down, downshift, speed up, upshift, slow down, downshift. There are roads where the speed limits force this to happen unless you're doing 10 under or 10 over. These so-called car enthusiasts would say "Ha! the automatic is so pathetic. I hate these slushboxes, I can't even go the speed I want! If i had a manual transmission, I'd have no problem with this hill."

Meanwhile, I move a lever an inch to the left and never think of it.

Whether or not it has a manual mode is of little consequence to me, but does make gradually more sense the more performance something has and I'd use it accordingly.

On the contrary, I think the manual mode is far more useful in an underpowered car. That's where the gear selection matters most.

I'm well aware how to drive an automatic "properly" but a good auto - and increasingly, they're pretty good these days - is usually good enough to negate the necessity of taking control yourself once in a while.

This is the case with my FX35, which is a 5 speed auto with 275 hp and 270 ft-lbs of torque. It doesn't matter what gear you're in, the engine will do just fine. This was very much not the case for my 4-speed 120 hp or so honda. If you want to pass someone while traveling at 70 mph, you need manual mode to do it elegantly.

What I'm not saying, and I feel you massively jumped to conclusions with my response, is that manual modes should immediately disappear from all autos. I just personally have little use for them.

I understand that you're not saying that you want them to go away. But if nobody learns the system, it will eventually die.

Don't flatter yourself.

As best I can tell, it is true.

Edit #1: Please tell me I'm not the only person in this thread who can see the merits of both automatic and manual transmissions rather than dismissing one or the other based on nothing more than personal preference and a superiority complex.

I don't see any merits of a manual over a DCT worth discussing.

- You can get it rolling if the battery dies
- You can skip gears if you find yourself wanting to
- You have an extra lever and pedal to keep you entertained while you drive.
- It costs less than a DCT for now

I am not impressed.

http://[domain blocked due to malware]/instances/400x/24742973.jpg

 

[Exorcet]

- You have an extra lever and pedal to keep you entertained while you drive.

Impressive or not is up to opinion, but that is more than enough to justify manual transmissions for all of time.

 

[Famine]

There's one and we've discussed it before.

The clutch (the device, rather than the pedal) is more than just a disc that makes changing gears by yourself possible. It's a control device - specifically a control device that governs how the power (okay, okay... torque) from the engine reaches the wheels.

The clutch pedal itself is an analogue input device to control the clutch. To be wholly fair, most drivers don't use it as one - they mash the pedal down, slam it into gear and hoof straight off it, without any consideration of continuity of power (okay, okay... torque) delivery and the comfort of their passengers, as you've noted - but it is one and used properly it's nothing but beneficial. I'd even go as far as saying it's a safety device - though that depends on circumstances.

It's a hindrance to outright pace in sports driving - a DCT and even an auto (let's disregard typical auto gear ratios) can get from gear to gear faster than someone rowing it themselves - and there's been so many TLGPs won and lost by a boneheaded clutch drag or gearchange, but it is a useful additional tool for driving over DCT, CVT or auto.


I'll add here that I've not driven many autos or DCTs compared to manuals. The list is quite small - Jaguar XJ6, Jaguar S-Type R and Mazda Xedos 9 (Millenia) Miller in the autos, Nissan GT-R for the DCT and Nissan 370Z for auto with flappy paddles. The only direct comparison I can make is the 370Z, because I've also driven a manual. I'll say I flubbed my very first gearchange in the manual 370Z - being on the left of the car didn't help - while that never happened in the flappy auto, but thereafter the clutch helped getting off the line in the adverse weather conditions compared to the flappy auto. Both cars had disabled (on purpose) traction control systems

 

[justchyllan]

This is the case with my FX35, which is a 5 speed auto with 275 hp and 270 ft-lbs of torque. It doesn't matter what gear you're in, the engine will do just fine. This was very much not the case for my 4-speed 120 hp or so honda. If you want to pass someone while traveling at 70 mph, you need manual mode to do it elegantly.

My Evo has 575awhp, I still like selecting my gears and having a clutch.

I still don't understand why you think you can win us over with facts. It's emotion. It's fun. Maybe you've never heard of fun. Only practicality because it sounds like you only use a car to get from Point A to Point B.

 

[homeforsummer]

Why?

Why would you suffer poor automatic transmission logic when the manufacturer has given you a perfectly good tool to avoid it? Again, you don't have to use it when you don't need it, but it's there for you when you want it... and I know you want it.

That assumes that all auto transmission logic is poor. The issue you describe below:

The manual enthusiasts (and even perhaps yourself) in this thread would drive an underpowered automatic up steep hill and watch the transmission move between gears over and over. Speed up, upshift, slow down, downshift, speed up, upshift, slow down, downshift. There are roads where the speed limits force this to happen unless you're doing 10 under or 10 over. These so-called car enthusiasts would say "Ha! the automatic is so pathetic. I hate these slushboxes, I can't even go the speed I want! If i had a manual transmission, I'd have no problem with this hill."

Meanwhile, I move a lever an inch to the left and never think of it.

...has happened to me all of once in the dozens of automatics I've driven, in a DCT-equipped Mercedes-Benz A250 (so not underpowered - over 200bhp), driving up a steep-ish hill at around 30 mph.

I put it down to a fluke of the engine/tranny combo - since the diesel version with a torque-converter auto I drove on the same day never showed the same issue. It certainly wasn't enough to make me scorn automatics, and it wasn't even the worst thing about the car (that would be its ride quality).

Could I have "fixed" it by holding onto a gear? Of course. But given how infrequently this scenario has happened to me, it's hardly a massive advert for a manumatic mode.

On the contrary, I think the manual mode is far more useful in an underpowered car. That's where the gear selection matters most.

This is the case with my FX35, which is a 5 speed auto with 275 hp and 270 ft-lbs of torque. It doesn't matter what gear you're in, the engine will do just fine. This was very much not the case for my 4-speed 120 hp or so honda. If you want to pass someone while traveling at 70 mph, you need manual mode to do it elegantly.

To an extent I agree with the first paragraph, but my point is that a fun performance car would encourage you to make best use of a manual mode, rather than pottering around in auto everywhere.

Mercifully, I've only ever driven one automatic I'd consider truly underpowered, a PT Cruiser. And you've sort of covered this point in the second paragraph, though all the "underpowered" cars I've driven have been fully manual.

I understand that you're not saying that you want them to go away. But if nobody learns the system, it will eventually die.

Not strictly true. Marketing will keep it there, if nothing else. Marketeers will go blue in the face telling you it's inspired by some race car system or other, even if it's just artificial steps in the CVT on a Honda Fit.

I don't see any merits of a manual over a DCT worth discussing.

It's because you refuse to acknowledge that some people simply have a personal preference for it, and enjoy using them. You may not see that as "worth discussing", but it's as worthy of discussion as any of the practical issues for or against.

 

[phil bell]

I actually reckon the manual shift mode for automatics is pretty applicable, especially for low powered cars or fast track driving.

However for road use in a car with decent power, I doubt I'd even go near it.
Especially considering modern autos are calibrated pretty well. Jaguar is an example, they have one sweet auto box.