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.
Most of the newest automatic transmissions equal (or darn near) the MPG of the same model with a manual transmission. If anything, the efficiency difference is only a couple of percent now, not 10% as in the distant past.
What I find odd is that on threads like these is that Manual drivers despite being in the minority of car drivers (in the US) make up most of the posts calming manual superiority for a variety of different (and questionable) reasons, the thread inevitably invokes more and more extreme comments and any one who defends the automatic is mercilessly ridiculed.
Why is that ?
I don't know why it is. But I found something very interesting in an issue of Sports Car Graphic (Dec., 1967).
A road test of a '68 340 Plymouth Barracuda...
"I have always put the Torqueflite [automatic transmission] at the top of the list of big-engined automatics, and the transmission in this Barracuda did nothing to alter my choice. The stick with the press-button release is placed and angled just right, and with the degree of manual override which the Torqueflite provides, you can really get the Barracuda moving on the twisty, undulating and narrow minor roads. There is no long delay in picking up intermediate gear after selecting "2," and downshifts, though they come in positively, are not so fierce that they lock up the back wheels. Automatic transmission becomes an acceptable alternative to a manual box for enjoyable sports-type driving when they come as good as this one."
Wow. I would not be surprised if the above was in Motor Trend magazine, but appearing in a magazine primarily directed at sports cars, it was very surprising for me when I read it.
Wait. If you live in North America, and you drive into San Francisco, you want a manual transmission? I know how to drive a manual transmission. I can tell you timing the release of the clutch and engaging first gear in stop and go traffic, crawling up a 45 degree hill, is not a fun experience.
Then, trying to drive a manual transmission in a traffic-ridden major European city. It's really hard to come by an automatic transmission in a European rental car, but I insist on it. Having an automatic means you can concentrate on the crazy traffic and signposts.
I prefer a manual in all circumstances. Automatic transmissions were created to make humungo amounts of cash for car companies. I'd rather spend less money, and time in the shop, and enjoy a stick shift
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertpolyglot
Wait. If you live in North America, and you drive into San Francisco, you want a manual transmission? I know how to drive a manual transmission. I can tell you timing the release of the clutch and engaging first gear in stop and go traffic, crawling up a 45 degree hill, is not a fun experience.
Then, trying to drive a manual transmission in a traffic-ridden major European city. It's really hard to come by an automatic transmission in a European rental car, but I insist on it. Having an automatic means you can concentrate on the crazy traffic and signposts.
I shift and don't even realize I am shifting. My body knows what to do so i can concentrate on traffic.
I prefer a manual in all circumstances. Automatic transmissions were created to make humungo amounts of cash for car companies. I'd rather spend less money, and time in the shop, and enjoy a stick shift
Well, then they are in for a disappointment because my 4 current cars (the oldest a '66) all have the original (non-rebuilt) transmissions.
I bet you bother to do fluid changes, too! Most don't bother until it is too late.
Well, even though the owner's manual of '66 Plymouth says the fluid does not need to be changed "for the life of the car" I did change it when I put in a shift kit. Even if I didn't do that, I would have changed it eventually. I don't think Plymouth expected their cars to still be driving around after 45+ years!
Same thing with my '69 Cadillac Fleetwood. The transmission fluid has been changed once since I've owned it (beginning in 2004) because a shift kit was installed.
I've owned my '76 Cadillac Limousine since '99 and I think the fluid has been changed once.
And it has been changed on my '95 Lincoln Town Car for "preventive" purposes.
I have driven both ! A stick is a lot of work ,get stuck in traffic & you will be sorry you have one !, or on a hill, ( very dangerous ) you have to take your hand off the wheel to shift, last, re-sale ( 85% of drivers want automatics! ) A automatic is no effort at all , it's easy, more relaxing, Safer, Once you buy a stick , you usually buy an automatic afterword's ( Yes, I prefer an Automatic )
Last edited by classic1956cars; 03-27-2012 at 02:20 AM..
I have drivien both ! A stick is a lot of work ,get stuck in traffic & you will be sorry you have one !, or on a hill, ( very dangerous ) you have to take your hand off the weel to shift, last, re-sale ( 85% of drivers want automatics! ) A automatic is no effort at all , it's easy, more relaxing, Safer, Once you buy a stick , you usually buy an automatic afterwards. ( Yes, I prefer an Automatic )
Yes, one of my brothers drove an '89 Nissan Sentra for over 10 years. When he decided to buy a new car ('08 Acura TL), he told me no way was he going to get one with a manual trans. He told me he really got tired of always having to shift it. Of course, an '89 Sentra with a 4-cylinder engine (which is what his car had) would not be much fun to drive no matter what transmission it had.
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.