cnn's debate on auto v. maunal

M

medic

New member
http://money.cnn.com/2002/12/17/pf/autos/shift_wars/index.htm



Kinda interesting, but I think the reason most get them is that they are more fun. That said, my next car will probably have the clutchless tranny - I know they're a bit lame, but just for those few times you're tired and stuck in traffic or fo whenever I have to take friends down lombard street (really curvey and hilly street in SF) it'd be nice to not have to worry about the shifts.
 
I tried to read that with an open mind but all I heard was Bla bla bla Auto Bla bla bla





I'll keep my 6 speed in the SS. and the auto is great for the saturn. It is up to the driver and what car it is.......
 
There is only one good reason to shift gears anymore in an adequately engined car - one chooses to do so and memories of the past. Like drum brakes, in a few years only classics will feature this mode of braking and of shifting :cool:
 
ehh... what can you expect... Car advice from CNN? :rolleyes:



I don't think I'd say automatics are lame or inefficient, but clearly there will always be people who prefer manual trannies. There's no reason not to offer them on cars where it makes financial sense. For a while now, a manual on a Corvette has cost more than an automatic. Yet still some people buy them. Clearly it isn't just cheapskate econofreaks who see the value in self-shifting.



I don't think I'd compare manual trannies to drum brakes, though. There is no real advantage to drum brakes over discs except the initial cost of the hardware (over time the labor and difficulty of drums probably reduces the overall savings). I don't think you'd find anyone who would opt for drum brakes over discs unless they are just trying to cheap out (or don't know much about what they are anyway).
 
Sometimes I'm glad for the Automatic. Anytime we know that we are going to be stuck in traffic for half the trip we always take the Accord because its an auto. I like having control over the gears on road trips but for traffic I love the auto. If you have a car with a really heavy clutch then you would really hate rush hour. The GSR has a fairly light clutch so I don't really find that its an issue. I don't mind it in traffic at all.
 
thanks but no thanks cnn, i prefer not to be the lazy driver. Autos are good for long *** trips to florida and such from michigan, but id rather keep my stick bc i enjoy driving instead of worrying about whos calling me on my cell phone. And for sports car enthusiasts, i don't care if your new to it or old, you go by the stick unless you have the foot problem. I hate how automatics shift(take my gf's z28 for example), they are way too hard, and i can't stand that horrid upshift or shifting between 3rd and 4th when at a certain speed. Being able to control my own gears is a big help. Ill live by the manual until i have a big family, but if i ever buy a sports car, theres no way in heck that i will get an auto.
 
So far, no one's discussed engine braking. On a spirited drive on a backroad, does no one use some compression braking on their sports car. This is a de facto necessity for a 4-stroke motorcycle because of the weight, and also why some bikes have some advantages. I find the same in a car when I am negotiating windy roads. Albeit, I have never driven one the the clutchless shifting cars. The point is not whether there is a clutch or not, but whether I can choose the gearing that I want.
 
I for one am hoping that a manual transmission with a clutch

pedal stays around for a long time.



I realize that the new sequential automanual doodads shift

faster, that Formula One cars are now fully automatic, that there

is no longer a fuel mileage benefit to a clutch over a torque

converter, etc. Don't care. I still like using a clutch pedal.



To those who say the automanuals are the best of both worlds,

bah humbug. I have a Tiptronic car...it's an automatic. There is

no clutch pedal.



Remember in the mid 80's when the digital dashes came out and

everyone was yapping about how the highest tech things out there, fighter planes and F1 cars, had digital dashes, etc?

The general buying public screamed for old-tech round analog

gauges and we still have them. I wish the clutch pedal was of

the same ilk.



Regarding advancing technology, I am old enough to remember

setting points, starting a carbureted car in sub-zero F temps,

steering into the skid, etc. Yup, modern fuel injection and ABS

are better and I wouldn't do without them



But I do still wanna operate a clutch pedal.

JonT

Two stick shifters for me and one Tiptronic for da wife, a veteran

of five knee surgeries.
 
2wheelsx2 said:
So far, no one's discussed engine braking. On a spirited drive on a backroad, does no one use some compression braking on their sports car. This is a de facto necessity for a 4-stroke motorcycle because of the weight, and also why some bikes have some advantages. I find the same in a car when I am negotiating windy roads. Albeit, I have never driven one the the clutchless shifting cars. The point is not whether there is a clutch or not, but whether I can choose the gearing that I want.
Click to expand...



Go back and read the CNN article. There is a paragraph about engine verses brake usage for slowing down a vehicle. With high quality 4 wheel vented disc brakes and ABS one is able to drive deeper into the turns before slowing. The requirement of engine braking again is a left-over from the past when brake performance on cars were not up to racing's or spirited driving needs. One will still use a little in-gear engine braking to maintain a balance during high speed excitement but this is done along with some throttle adjustments and no gear change. If you require you engine's counter torque to slow down you are driving beyond the capabilities of the vehicle or are experiencing brake failure or fading.

Drive in deep, brake hard - drive off fast ( In slow- out fast) :wavey
 
I did read the article actually. I am not talking about engine braking to slow the car down. I am talking about throttle control . I haven't driven an F1 car, so I don't know what the shifts are like, but in a street car, engine braking, coupled with 4 wheeled disc brakes, makes for the smoothest transition. Less work for the suspension, allowing the wheels to stick to the ground better. I am not arguing that if I had an F1 suspension that I wouldn't be able to get around a corner faster, but I am saying on things being equal, in a 4 door sports sedan, I can around a corner just as fast, and likely faster, with me controlling the gearing.



YMMV, as different people prefer different things.



On a slight tangent, if these tiptronic trannies are so good, why are all the 18 wheelers still manual? :D
 
2wheelsx2 said:
On a slight tangent, if these tiptronic trannies are so good, why are all the 18 wheelers still manual? :D
Click to expand...



Surely you don't mean to imply that 18-wheelers are on the forefront of performance... Should I slap some retreads on my car when my Michelins crap out?



Not to mention that if you need to shift three times before you get up to 15 mph, an automatic that would be suitable would probably cost a fortune.



You know you get engine braking with an automatic when you lift the gas too...
 
That was a joke guys. That's why the smiley was there. :)



As for the engine braking on automatics, maybe it's true for a 4 banger. On a V8, or a on a diesel with loads of torque, a vehicle will accelerate when not on the brakes. That's why 4wheeling guys prefer big V8's with autos. You can actually put it in drive and then push the vehicle, and then jump back in when the truck starts to move.



On my brother's turbodiesel, the truck will get up to 20 MPH without ever hitting the accelerator. He's got 20k Miles on the truck and the front brake pads are almost all gone. Engine braking? Nah....
 
It's a give and take thing, I think. Automatics are great for traffic jams, rush hour, and mindless commuting, but manual transmissions give you a bit more control and they're more fun to drive. Automatics have come a long way in terms of efficiency and reliability (sometimes) so the performance differences between them are getting smaller. Even so, I still think there are many cars out there that feel better on initial accelleration and "launch" better with a manual transmission, while their automatic equipped siblings feel more sluggish. This is mainly for cars with smaller engines with less low-rpm power though.



I suppose it depends on what you think the car is for. Is it for fun and the pleasure of driving, or is it for easygoing transportation?



I sometimes wonder if I made the right choice with my car (usually when sitting in gridlock), especially since my clutch is decidedly on the "heavy" side, but at the time this was my first "nice" car I've owned, and I decided I wanted to go the enthusiast's route.



I've been wanting to learn double clutching (just because it's so cool :cool: ) but I don't think my feet are long enough! :p
 
4DSC said:


I've been wanting to learn double clutching (just because it's so cool :cool: ) but I don't think my feet are long enough! :p
Click to expand...

I dont understand. Are all the syncros out in your tranny? Or are you thinking of something else?
 
Im young, and will never drive a auto again if i have teh choice. They are too boaring. I love being able to punch the gas and get up and go. Not get up, shift and then go becasue the engine doesn't want to hit 3k rpm.



P.S. Anyone who flames me for "punching the gas" becasue I am young, and "shouldn't" what do you do when grandma wants to merge into 80 mph traffic at 35 mph? Or she stops in the merge lane.



Ooo the joy of living near a retirement home.
 
Adamah said:
I dont understand. Are all the syncros out in your tranny? Or are you thinking of something else?
Click to expand...
Eh, I actually meant "heel-and-toe" shifting, but my brain ran into a 6 foot tall speed bump. :p
 
samiam513 said:
Im young, and will never drive a auto again if i have teh choice. They are too boaring. I love being able to punch the gas and get up and go. Not get up, shift and then go becasue the engine doesn't want to hit 3k rpm.



P.S. Anyone who flames me for "punching the gas" becasue I am young, and "shouldn't" what do you do when grandma wants to merge into 80 mph traffic at 35 mph? Or she stops in the merge lane.



Ooo the joy of living near a retirement home.
Click to expand...



I am old ;) and probably skew because all my automatic cars have 300+ hp and torque. When I step on the gas there is rarely a problem of what gear my tranny is in. Too high a gear acceleration is great and if in a lower gear the tires are screaming for help. All may classics are manual so I can ( never driven) have the pleasure of shifting gears if the urge over-takes me.

When I was younger no one could make me buy a automatic. Shifting was the only way to go. Of course than I was driving lower powered cars that needed every advantage available ( VW, TR-6, 320i, MG, Rx7, Porsche 914 & Acura Legand). Would I buy a Porsche with an automatic, No, but I also would not be driving it everyday. It su*k getting old.:wavey
 
2wheel, I thought you meant engine braking from an appreciable speed. My car will creep along too from a stop (it has a V8). But if I lift off the gas at 60 mph, there is engine braking. I could also select 2nd gear and increase that braking if I wanted. I don't really need engine braking when I'm going 10 mph...



I'm not saying automatics are better than manuals or anything. When I eventually get another Corvette, you can bet it will be a manual. But autos are certainly not for weenies or anything. Samian, don't you have to downshift with your manual when you punch it just like an automatic would do? Or do you just cruise around in like 2nd or 3rd gear everywhere?



For cars with low torque and no low-rpm power, automatics can actually be better on low speed acceleration (excluding when you drop the clutch on an already high-revving engine) because the torque convertor can allow the engine to spin up more into its power band, thus allowing it to make more torque. That is one thing that a manual can't do (unless you don't care about your clutch at all). The torque convertor can make a 4-speed auto have more gear range than a 6-speed manual.
 
What in the wolrd is so bad about manual cars in traffic? Shoot if anything it gives me something to do!



Never understood why people complained about that, as if its hard work or something...?
 
emobob said:
What in the wolrd is so bad about manual cars in traffic? Shoot if anything it gives me something to do!



Never understood why people complained about that, as if its hard work or something...?
Click to expand...
Clutch wear, sucks with stiff clutches, 1st gear.... 2nd gear..... (traffic stops)... back to 1st gear.... repeat..... :p Also if you're just sitting stopped you can't just instantly hit the gas and seize an opening if you see one (if you're in neutral).



As much as I like driving my car, I think if you have a heavy traffic, long commute an automatic is the way to go - especially for those mornings when you don't quite feel 100%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top