Two nations separated by a common car transmission (automatic vs standard (manual))
#31
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 17,429
I feel exactly the same. Admittedly I'm English so manual transmission was the norm for me learning to drive but I like to feel like I'm actually DRIVING. I get a kick out of being sensitive to the car's performance and adjusting my driving behaviour accordingly. I live in central London so driving here is stop-start with gear changes maybe every 10 metres on some days (so often that frequently I have one hand resting on the gear stick for the majority of the journey). I would never change my car for an automatic. They just seem like cars for lazy people to me (sorry guys!!).
Driving across Kansas - where a tree is a landmark that can be seen for miles - I'll let the car drive while I chill.
Just like there are drives that scream "Shift Me!" there are drives that whisper "Relax, I'll take this."
#32
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,410
I'm not a guy, but I thought I wanted a manual when I was around 22 because they are cheaper and have slightly better gas mileage. Then a friend (who had a manual because her parents were cheap) said it's fun 20% of the time and really annoying the other 80%. I'm sure that is a lot different with a high end car vs a generic american or japanese car, but it put me off ever bothering to buy a manual.
Now, had I lived in a place like San Francisco I probably would have a very different opinion.
Also, in the plus column I'll add one more feature: If you need to stomp on the gas to get out of the way a manual is better than an auto. The auto will rev up the engine, decide it should be in the lower gear, slow the engine, shift and rev it again. The manual will simply let the engine rev. If you stomp on the pedal while driving you don't care about fuel economy at the moment!
Having evaded accidents twice due to this I was very reluctant to go to an auto, but my latest car is a CVT--it doesn't exhibit this behavior. While the transmission does seem to do something it gets out of the way at least as well as I could.
#33
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,410
I will never own a CVT for one big reason. It is belt driven which would require semi-regular maintenance. Its one thing if its easy do it yourself maintenance or cheap maintenance at a mechanic as there isnt much involved like your drive belt or radiator hoses. Its another if the routine maintenance has to do with opening up the engine or transmission.
Last year when I was in the market for a new car and was a tie between Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic I used timing chain vs timing belt as the deciding factor.
I didnt want to spend several hundred dollars every so often to change the timing belt. I would imagine changing a belt in a CVT is even worse as transmission jobs usually run in the thousands of dollars.
I will only ever own a regular automatic transmission where you just change the fluid every so often, or a manual where even though you have to replace the clutch eventually, it will be a big repair that is few and far between as long as you dont abuse it.
Just say no to CVTs, at least right now until the reliability improves.
Last year when I was in the market for a new car and was a tie between Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic I used timing chain vs timing belt as the deciding factor.
I didnt want to spend several hundred dollars every so often to change the timing belt. I would imagine changing a belt in a CVT is even worse as transmission jobs usually run in the thousands of dollars.
I will only ever own a regular automatic transmission where you just change the fluid every so often, or a manual where even though you have to replace the clutch eventually, it will be a big repair that is few and far between as long as you dont abuse it.
Just say no to CVTs, at least right now until the reliability improves.
#35
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: YWG
Programs: Aeroplan, MileagePlus, Marriott Rewards
Posts: 2,159
I once heard that manuals predominate in Europe because when driving really caught on on a mass scale after WWII, the cost of automatic transmissions was prohibitive... the cars sold there were generally simpler and less expensive compared to what was popular in North America. In time, people got used to it and it became the norm.
I'm not sure how accurate that theory is, but to me a standard car is like a car without power steering, no air, etc. In the right conditions it can enhance your enjoyment (fun to put the windows down on a warm summer day! etc.) but for the most part it seems like a compromise.
I'm not sure how accurate that theory is, but to me a standard car is like a car without power steering, no air, etc. In the right conditions it can enhance your enjoyment (fun to put the windows down on a warm summer day! etc.) but for the most part it seems like a compromise.
#36
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 13,573
Also, in the plus column I'll add one more feature: If you need to stomp on the gas to get out of the way a manual is better than an auto. The auto will rev up the engine, decide it should be in the lower gear, slow the engine, shift and rev it again. The manual will simply let the engine rev. If you stomp on the pedal while driving you don't care about fuel economy at the moment!
Having evaded accidents twice due to this I was very reluctant to go to an auto, but my latest car is a CVT--it doesn't exhibit this behavior. While the transmission does seem to do something it gets out of the way at least as well as I could.
Having evaded accidents twice due to this I was very reluctant to go to an auto, but my latest car is a CVT--it doesn't exhibit this behavior. While the transmission does seem to do something it gets out of the way at least as well as I could.
#37
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 13,573
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Programs: MR/SPG LT Titanium, AA LT PLT, UA SLV, Avis PreferredPlus
Posts: 31,004
Also, in the plus column I'll add one more feature: If you need to stomp on the gas to get out of the way a manual is better than an auto. The auto will rev up the engine, decide it should be in the lower gear, slow the engine, shift and rev it again. The manual will simply let the engine rev. If you stomp on the pedal while driving you don't care about fuel economy at the moment!
I've come to the conclusion that there's not really an objective/measurable argument anymore for a manual. It's an emotional need for those who enjoy driving.
#39
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,405
I once heard that manuals predominate in Europe because when driving really caught on on a mass scale after WWII, the cost of automatic transmissions was prohibitive... the cars sold there were generally simpler and less expensive compared to what was popular in North America. In time, people got used to it and it became the norm.
Another argument why big cars never really caught on in Europe until quite recently is that everything is much more compact. I've had small hatchback rentals that barely fitted into the parkings spots of older car parks. Italy, France, Spain and Portugal have lots of narrow streets, where a US SUV would fail miserably.
With autos - and especially dual clutch boxes, I approach the gearbox thinks "oh he's slowing down. He's probably going to stop". When I want to accelerate, the gearbox takes much more time to put the gearbox and give me the gear I want. Once it reacts, it somewhat overreacts by keeping revs high for some time, whereas I only needed a little burst of power.
And obviously on roads I know and bends I can drive in my sleep, a properly set up manual transmission is IMO still king.
I only drive autos when I have to (rentals), but stomping on the gas of a 6-speed in top gear isn't going to get you much. MrsCPs auto 328 will get out of the way faster then my M5. Even with me downshifting, she'll be further out of danger for the critical first 2-3 seconds as I'm shifting. The days of 1-2 seconds shifts are in the past, IMHO.
And yes. Obviously the days of the >2 second shifts are gone. There are a few cars out there, that still have horrible automatic transmission. The VW Up! has the dreaded automated gearbox: It's essentially a 4 gear manual transformed into an automatic. It has the shifting times of a very slow, old driver.
Overall I would say that neither system can claim a definitive win. The manual gearbox is definitely fun and - contrary to common believe - is in 90% of the cases just as easy to drive. An automatic can handle most situation just fine. The disadvantage of it is clearly cost: It usually costs more to get an automatic and if the gearbox fails, these fancy double clutch gearboxes can get quite expensive.
Oh. And regarding additional security, neither wins. Theoretically the automatic gearbox wins as you keep (in theory) both hands at the wheel. In practice, I tend to say that I see more drivers in America being distracted with smoking, drinking, eating, etc... behind the wheel than in Europe.
#41
Join Date: Nov 2006
Programs: Seniors Bus Pass
Posts: 5,529
We have been doing it so long now it just seems natural. I gather the US only recently changed to driving on the "wrong side", changeover date being 4 July 1776, I think?
#42
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: MEL CHC
Posts: 21,009
Most American cars produced before 1910 were RHD.[8] In 1908 Henry Ford standardised the Model T as LHD in RHT America,[8] arguing that with RHD and RHT, the passenger was obliged to "get out on the street side and walk around the car" and that with steering from the left, the driver "is able to see even the wheels of the other car and easily avoids danger."[39] By 1915 other manufacturers followed Ford's lead, due to the popularity of the Model T.[8]
#43
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: A metal nomad
Programs: Mucci des Delices Exotiques,Order of the Platinum Hairbrush,Her Royal Diamond
Posts: 23,723
I can't imagine driving anything but a stick, and a real 4 wheel drive stick.
Automatic bores me. No challenge. Even when stuck in traffic.
Automatic bores me. No challenge. Even when stuck in traffic.
#44
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 17,429
USA cars were right hand drive until about 1910~1915. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-...t-hand_traffic
The opposite of right is wrong. RHD is correct
The opposite of right is wrong. RHD is correct
When driving on the right, LHD is correct.
You don't really want to be steering your vehicle from the side not adjacent to oncoming traffic, unless you like shunting body panels. I mean, you can get used to it, like brushing your teeth with your non-dominant hand, but it's not worth the effort.
#45
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,405