The Allure Of A Manual Tranny

I prefer to drive manual mainly because shifting and doing footwork is
kind of fun, and it makes me feel smug. I don't really get tired of it,
even in stop and go traffic. I think that unless you really good, you
can drive more smoothly and get better "lap times" in an automatic. Two
things I don't like about automatic are that you can be pressing no
pedals, and the car will still "go" by itself, and also, the car
sometimes upshifts or downshifts and catches you by surprise.

 

Atleast $500 cheaper, but if you sit in traffic a lot and have to pay
someone to do your clutch replacements, the costs can add up. When I
lived in LA, I was always creeping or stop/go. So a clutch every
20-30k isn't necessarily cheaper..

Maybe.. The manual is probably a bit less labor to disassemble, but I
suspect individual hard part costs are comparable..

They tow more (due to torque converter multiplication), are more
convenient to drive, shift smoothely, attempt to maximize fuel
economy, and limit emissions..

I think I'll stick to my automatic .. as I sit in traffic.


__________________
Note: To reply, replace the word 'spam' embedded in return address with 'mail'.
N37.3 W122.0

 

Is the Autostick anything like Porsche's Tiptronic?

 

This is so "suddenly it's 1955" - with modern synchromesh your
heel-toeing probably causes more wear than it saves (and why would you
want to use your expensive transmission to slow down instead of wearing
out the user replaceable brake pads? ). My first AT was my '88 Integra &
I loved it - I wouldn't consider a manual for the NYC area these days.

YMMV (of course)

 

Godwin's 2nd law must be that when one party to a Usenet debate accuses
the other of being gay, then he loses (automatically, not manually).

 

When will that be, Caroline?

 

alan wrote:

I find this a curious remark - it's certainly possible to have a manual
in 1st gear with no feet on pedals & the car will creep along (at least
they used to).

Huh, how's that? I really don't think about up & downshifts when driving
an AT. (may be an age factor here - my boy racer days are well behind me
<g>)

 

That's coz you had to get it started going first, by engaging the clutch
and pressing the gas. Then it makes sense that the car is "just
coasting along" when you aren't pushing the pedals anymore. With an
auto, you can let go of the brake ("the car is already stopped, why
should I need to use the brakes anymore?") and suddenly the car will
start moving by itself again.

I mean, you're driving up a hill, and suddenly the car downshifts and
you surge forwards

 

I don't know if you are referring to a double clutch or not, but heel
toeing and rev matching save wear on the clutch and synchros.

(and why would you

My theory in terms of wearing out the engine vs wearing out the brakes
is: It's better to not be able to go than not be able to stop.

Just kidding.

 

seems like your little gay-ass "3-strikes" comment was a bullshit
justification, but since you got soundly spanked you dont want to admit
to it.[/QUOTE]

But nobody was "soundly spanked" by anything you said. You just made
shit up, and now you're hoping nobody noticed.

 

You do NOT use the trans or engine for braking. That's the whole
point of the rev-matching in heal-toe. It is also not really
about the synchro.

Perhaps you are thinking about double-clutching (where again,
there is no wear or engine/trans braking)? Heal-toe is still
useful for racing, where I am (badly) trying to apply it. Yes, on
a track or autoX. Say you are approaching a 3rd gear turn in 4th.
You first brake, and rev-match your downshift to third while still
braking. Hit the apex, and then let her fly out.

If you don't heal-toe, you either:
a) Have to wait till finished braking to change gears, losing
valuable accel time, or
b) You change gears without rev-match sending a jolt to your
drivetrain which should have the tires already at full traction.
You seriously risk disturbing the car in mid-turn, ie spin out.

Basically, if you don't heal-toe in racing, you simply are losing
time.

 

Yes. Basically, with electronic controls that all modern AT's
have, any of them can have such a system. They just give them
proprietary names and charge much more than they cost to add them
(IMHO).

 

Basically like an electronic version of VW's "Autostick" tranny from the
1960s.

 

Given Crapsler's notorious tranny problems that have existed since the late
80s, I shudder to think what kind of problems this AutoStick is likely to
have and how much it will cost to fix them. It could make Honda's V6 auto
tranny problems look minor by comparison.

 

If most of my driving time was in large cities, with many encounters with rush
hour, I would never buy a manual transmission.

But most of my driving time has never been in large cities. Thus.

I wonder if we can even get data on replacing clutches for city driving, since I
suspect few do much driving as a matter of routine in cities with a manual
transmission.

The automatic transmission has more complexity and of course more parts and so
more that can go wrong with it. It's going to be more complex to diagnose. I
expect both parts and labor over the life of the car to be notably higher.

I understand, this is true often, but not always.

All cars attempt to maximize fuel economy for their given engine size/desired
performance characteristics (e.g. sports car vs. family sedan).

Differences in fuel economy for manual and auto transmissions continue to occur.
Buyers of a car model who are considering both manual and auto transmission
would be wise to check.

For older Honda, the gap between auto and manual still seems to favor the manual
transmission most of the time. See for example the mileage for 1994 Hondas
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Honda1994.shtml .

OTOH for newer Hondas, I do think it's fair to say that the gap in fuel mileage
differences for auto v. manual has closed. See
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Honda2004.shtml

The nitpickers can point out things like, in 1994, automatic transmissions had
only 4 speeds for the civic but the manual transmissions had 5 speeds. Yup,
that's all that was available back then. If one wants a fuel efficient Honda
built in 1994, manual is the way to go.

This appears to correlate well with fuel mileage. See the above sites.

Sure: You choose the city life, you choose to sit in traffic, you choose higher
expenses, including the higher capital expense of an automatic transmission and
higher overall car expenses. Enjoy? ;-)

 

I figure sometime past the age of 65 when my joints show more sign of wear.

But I am in excellent shape in my 40s. I imagine some folks (e.g. the overweight
with foot and/or ankle problems) may have to give up manual sooner.

 

I know what you mean. I'm already feeling that emotion. It's like
breaking a horse. The manual is a bit wild, so you need to learn each
nuance!

See above! It's a learning process for sure, a totally different way to
drive. I'm still a pup, but am proud of the progress I've made. I've yet
to stall her!

Anyone got advice when she bucks me? A couple of shifts have resulted in
severe buckage.

 

From: (Barry S.)
wote:

What's a ball park for a clutch? And, are there differing levels of
quality?

 

I agree with the logic of your argument but on highways or city streets, the
technique is not necesary. If you want to reduce engine braking, the just
take your foot off the brake for a second and tap the gas to rev match, the
resume braking and come off the clutch. Also, I've tried to learn heal and
toe in my 2003 Accord but couldn't do it. The gas pedal is lower down that
the brake pedal and my ankle isn't flexible enough to it during normal
braking. I supposed I might be able to if I had the brake pedal mashed to
the floor but that would produce too much braking and I'd come a screeching
halt. A little too extreme for in town driving I think. I usually just end
up coming off the clutch slowly in order to bring the engine's RPM into
range for the lower gear. Smooth braking with a touch of engine braking
won't hurt the car. It's the downshifting jolt of popping the clutch in a
lower gear that will cause damage.

 

All this talk about constant clutch replacement...

My last MT car I drove for 170,000 miles, lived in NYC for one year,
Washington DC for a couple more, and never had one problem with the clutch.

Am I missing something?

-Indirecto