Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Manual or automatic? kinda depends where you live and what type of driving you mostly do.
If you have to deal with the traffic and congestion of an urban environment i think an automatic is the way to go,if most of your driving is suburban or rural then a manual would suffice.
I have driven and owned manuals my whole life. Even had some odd cars to be in manual like a Mazda 626, Nissan Maxima, Jeep Cherokee, Saturn SL1, etc
I just bought a 2009 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited and hate the manual transmission on it. It is not an enjoyable stick to drive. The transmission just seems clunky. My 1994 Jeep Cherokee that was stick had a much better feel to it than the Wrangler I have now. This is the first stick shift vehicle I really don't like. Otherwise, I wish more vehicles were available in stick. Honda sticks are usually pretty enjoyable to drive.
Manual or automatic? kinda depends where you live and what type of driving you mostly do.
If you have to deal with the traffic and congestion of an urban environment i think an automatic is the way to go,if most of your driving is suburban or rural then a manual would suffice.
Personally, I rather drive stick in traffic because I am not riding my brake while everyone else is.
Last I checked 38 was more than double 15. It varies from car to car. In my experience manuals are usually in the 7-10% range and autos in 15-20%.
Yet in your ZL1 chart, the Internet shows 580hp for a 2013 ZL1, so the difference between the manual and auto is not "twice" the loss.
Also, "twice" depends on context; 2 is twice the amount of 1, yet no one would be saying much if the HP loss was 2hp over the 1 hp of the manual. It is better to view as a percentage and even then, in what powerband this is occurring and gear as new autos have locking converters at hwy speeds that remove a lot of the power loss. For older cars, a built auto removes a a lot of the power loss especially given the shift points are more defined.
Regarding your Kia example, as the articles below show:
The two manual tests achieved a 75. and 6.8 0-60, while the one auto test achieved a 6.9. Of course the manual times can become better (especially the 7.5) as the driver gets to know the car and shift points better. But this goes back to the point; just how significant is the power loss? Especially to the casual/daily driver who is not racing, basically not maximizing the performance constantly during every drive?
Basically, the power loss from manual to auto is inconsequential to almost everyone except the racer. and even then, depending on aftermarket offerings, the auto can be modded up to obtain highly efficient performance from it. This does not even get into gearing differences between the two, in which a manual may have less efficient gearing than a trans (or vice versa) to maximize the power it gets.
This is why back when I was racing, I went from a top loader to a c6, because to rebuild the loader utilizing more efficient gear ratios was way more expensive than building up a c6 (if I had the funds, I would have built up the loader of course). But this was for racing, maximizing performance, I doubt most people are racing their car daily going to work, grocery store, etc. However, I did keep the manual in my camaro,my daily driver, because it is just that much funner.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.