Automotive Social → Re: why would you want a stick shift?

I used to own many stick shift cars but in the '80's I decided to do very long driving vacations once a year. At that time the only way to get cruise control was with an automatic, so I bought an '86 Mustang GT 4-speed auto with cruise. I have had 7 auto's since then, the latest being a '10 Mustang GT with 5-speed auto.

-Bob

This was likely a package limitation. My 1987 Audi 4000 quattro (available since 1984) had cruise control (vacuum servo system) and it was only available with a 5-speed manual. If you wanted all wheel drive in an Audi, your only choice was a 5-speed until the early 90s. Even then it was limited to the bigger, more expensive, models.

Speaking of package limitations, many cars today force you to get an automatic if you want anything above the stripper basic model. Its very annoying.

I noticed that a few years ago when looking at cars, Mainly pickup trucks that any of the V8 models were Automatic only.

I can see why in big trucks. It could be a pain. But in sportier cars you have to HAVE to have a manual. It should be a MAN LAW. If you don't know how to drive a manual you should have your MAN CARD revoked.

I do not think being able to drive manual makes anybody more manly though.

However... If someone buys a sports car with an automatic they should have their man card revoked. A proper sports car is manually shifted with a stick.

You crazy!?!?! Let say you met Chuck Norris. Chuck asks you, "Can you drive manual?" What would the only answer be? YES.

So a Ferrari 458 is not a proper sports car?

I have always figured Ferraris were classed as Super Cars. Though maybe that is not a true separate classification.

A super car would be a very high-end sports car (both in price, performance and availability). I would not classify all Ferrari's as super cars - the F40 was a Ferrari super car...

I also would not call the Ferrari paddle shifter an 'automatic' as NOC suggests - more based on the F1 tranny where the traditional clutch is activated via hydraulics.

It's not a gated manual w/clutch so therefore per Kearnstd they would have their man card revoked.

I have never owned a vehicle without a clutch, and I don't understand why so many choose automatics. There is a lot of false information in this thread, I'm going to attempt to clarify some of it.The 458 has two clutches and still must be shifted. Therefore, it is still a manual. Same as an F1 car.

Automatics are advertised as having higher fuel efficiency because their running gear is geared lower than the manual. It's a marketing tactic. The truth is, it works both ways in practice. It takes more gas to maintain speed, even though the engine is running lower rpm the load is higher. I have NEVER driven an automatic that returned better fuel economy than the manual version.

Automatics are less reliable, on average failing at approximately 100-120k miles. Many manuals are sealed and are rated to be reliable for over 1 million miles. This is one of the main reasons big rigs are still primarily manuals.

A manual will always be faster and more efficient. A clutch has less power losses, and has less power draw than a torque converter.

There really is no replacement for selecting the ratio of torque output of your engine. So called 'manumatics' help with this problem, but are still controlled by logic and still shift only when the computer shifts it for you. I drove a Lexus IS350 with such a system a while back, and sometimes the shifts would be delayed by upwards of 2 seconds. Very annoying.

Driving a manual does not require more work. When you learn the amount of pressure required to activate the pressure plate, it really only requires a few pounds of force by your foot. Most modern manuals have synchros that rev match for you, guides that slip it into gear for you, etc. you really only need to tap it for it to fall into gear. Again, minimal effort required. If this is too much work for one to perform, I'd love to hear what you do for a job. I exert more energy taking a crap than I do shifting gears.

You must be tall. A short person needs extenders to do a clutch proud. Plus, you must be young...wait till you get frozen shoulder in the right shoulder or bursitis of the hips...especially if you can barely fully depress the clutch because of being short and you have the seat pulled up as close as possible and are at risk for air bag injury/death because the seat is so close to the steering wheel. My last car took a lot of effort to drive. It was fun when I first got it ...but I was almost 14 years younger then. The ones before it were lots of fun and they had no power steering...but I was young then. One chooses auto only because they are getting old and it is the right choice at that stage of life for almost anyone.

5-speed automatic gets better gas mileage than the 6-speed manual.

Only by EPA - I can get more MPG from a manual. Manual has a major advantage over the automatic - you shift when you want. I shift early in all of the manuals I drive and I get between 10-15% more MPG than the EPA. If I have to get into the gas then I can shift early after that and mitigate the damage of getting into the throttle - this is pretty much impossible with an automatic.

EPA numbers are a guideline - there is zero guarantee that you will get the MPG on either side but it is a TON easier to beat EPA in a manual by begin smarter when driving.

I am currently getting about 24 MPG around town in my 2001 330i -

quote:

---

Premium Gasoline
21 Combined
18 City
27 Highway
»www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/ ··· 96.shtml

---

So I am getting about 20% more than the EPA for city - mainly because I can go into 5 the gear at 35 mpg. I also get 30-33 mpg highway at 70 mph - a good deal better than EPA. I can get these numbers with the mid-range gas (89 octane).

If I get on the highway - even for 10 minutes then I can get as much as 25.5 mpg - beating the EPA by even more.

100% spot on. I get about 15% greater mileage than the EPA estimates for combined and easily more than 20% greater than highway numbers.

When I sprained my right ankle at Road Atlanta a few years ago I was VERY happy to have an auto.

Just went out to get some stuff - with minimal highway - I am up to 24.7 mpg...

I averaged 37 highway in my Si, where EPA says 31. I don't know where they get their numbers but they are way off.

I'd wager to bet I'm older than most here, and I'm 5'6". Somewhat tall, but not overtly so.

I broke my left foot in 2005, and was happy to have an automatic.

I had an injury to the large toe on my left foot and I continued to drive my stick (didn't really have a choice). It was pretty difficult and I had to compensate by twisting my foot somewhat. I can't imagine how I would have managed if my foot had been broken.

So yeah, automatics definitely have their advantages.

Uh oh, now you've done it... you actually said automatics have their advantages, your man card is gone too!

Yups. Need to be revoked!

So come and revoke it.

Foot pains are the worst. I'll give up my man card for pain relief.

On a different note, I'm travelling right now and I got a Mazda 3 automatic from Hertz. It's a pretty stripped down model, but I have to say it drove far better than the Chevy Cruze from Hertz I drove last week when I was traveling.

The Mazda 3 feels pretty close to mine and the automatic does a fine job, although there are times I would have chosen different gears. The Cruze on the other hand was horrendous. It was constantly upshifting and downshifting. Very annoying. I'd definitely have preferred a manual.

I did a hike about a month ago and had a crappy day, finished it but cramping and high level of exhaustion made me real happy to have the auto.

For every day driving, yes, generally the same exact vehicle will be quicker with a manual, but that's not always a truth. There's a point (which isn't really all that low, but mostly concerning racing) where an automatic will outrace a manual, everything else equal...you just can't beat an automatic shift (with a good trans) with a driver working a clutch and shifter manually.

And as far as saying that a 'manual does not require more work', that is just obviously false. You have a clutch and a shifter to operate, which require effort to use. Not a lot, no, but it's definitely more work than not using them would be.

That being said, the only personal vehicle I've had that's an automatic is my truck, just because it wasn't available in a long bed 5 speed. A manual will always be better in my eyes, short of working on them (I'd rather rebuild a dozen automatics than another manual, so much easier).

They may shift faster but autos are generally not real reliable - especially in racing. That is why no major racing series use automatics - at least to my knowledge - from F1 thru F3, to Indy, none in NASCAR, WRC, NHRA (maybe NHRA but they run much slower), ALMS, LeMans (European), Rolxes series, WTCC, DTM, BTCC - just off the top of my head.

They Subaru SVX was also noted for having a fast shifting automatic - too bad they did not have a reputation of lasting 60K+ miles.

I'm able to shift gears in under 2 tenths of a second. A very good automatic can take an entire second and some of them, like that IS350, take even longer. So no, not faster at all.

Again, I'm a favor of manuals, but just arguing the truth of them being faster (in my context, quarter mile racing, especially sub 10 second passes).

I don't know what autos you're used to, but most shifts in modern autos are completed in well under a second.

VAG DSGs can shift in the neighborhood of 10ms, R35 and IS-F around 100ms, etc. A fair amount quicker than the 200ms you've (apparently) clocked yourself at. Even your C6s, 8L60Es, etc can shift in 200ms with the right VB mods.

Along with quick shifts, you also have the repeatable shifts (1-2, 2-3, etc), not subject to human error like a manual.

For a daily driver, I wouldn't be able to stand an automatic. If I were building a car for a fast pass on the track, I'd choose an automatic.