Manual transmission vs. Automatic

[agentsteel53]

Automatic because I only have so many hands.  One has to stay on the wheel, and if the other is shifting, there are no photo opportunities.

I've had to steer, shift, take photos, and hold a busted door closed before.  that was its own variant of fun.

[SSOWorld]

Automatic because I only have so many hands.  One has to stay on the wheel, and if the other is shifting, there are no photo opportunities.

I've had to steer, shift, take photos, and hold a busted door closed before.  that was its own variant of fun.

That must mean a new car is in order

Automatic for me - and those electronic manuals - useful for climb and drop to maintain speed and not worry about a cop chasing you down to make a profit. (as speed limit drops tend to be at the bottom of a hill where I'm at.)

[Chris]

You really do not need automatic transmission to be able to make pictures while driving. In fact, I think just about any European road enthusiast drives stick and is still able to make good pictures from behind the wheel. If you're at a constant speed you don't need to shift gears anyway, and if you do have to do that, you can always shift somewhat later by disengaging the clutch.

[agentsteel53]

in this case, the car was a rental.  note to self: when in the interior of Iceland, open the door into the wind so it doesn't rip out of my hand.

[corco]

You really do not need automatic transmission to be able to make pictures while driving. In fact, I think just about any European road enthusiast drives stick and is still able to make good pictures from behind the wheel. If you're at a constant speed you don't need to shift gears anyway, and if you do have to do that, you can always shift somewhat later by disengaging the clutch.

I started my road-enthusiasm with a manual, and it's really a non-problem once you get used to it

[Scott5114]

Manuals seem unappealing to me because when I'm on the road I want to be concentrating on things like traffic flow, signs, and possible hazards, not the implementation of my car's propulsion system. The car should do as much of the work as possible so I can focus on providing the sapience to make decisions it cannot.

[agentsteel53]

actually I've always thought that there is such a correlation between road situation and how one should be operating their transmission, that I've advocated that a manual transmission be required for all driver's license examinations.

[corco]

I second what Jake says and would add that, especially in the instance of hazard avoidance, having more control over your propulsion system can make it much easier to perform evasive maneuvers- if the car chooses what gear to be in for you, it will often pick the wrong gear. Once you're used to driving a stick, you're likely to often be baffled by what gear your car is in when driving an automatic and realize that it's just not the right/safest gear for the car to be in at any given point- especially on terrain. The shift intervals on an automatic transmission pretty much assume flat ground.

[J N Winkler]

I second what Jake says and would add that, especially in the instance of hazard avoidance, having more control over your propulsion system can make it much easier to perform evasive maneuvers- if the car chooses what gear to be in for you, it will often pick the wrong gear.

I don't think this observation holds universally true.  It really depends on the design of the automatic transmission.  There is typically provision to limit the gear range from first to two or more gears down from top gear, and some automatics do allow direct gear selection.  My 1986 Nissan Maxima GL had an automatic transmission which could be constrained to remain in first gear, which was useful for descending very steep hills (e.g. Marin Avenue in Berkeley, California, with a downhill grade somewhere around 20%--I could descend that in first gear at 25-30 MPH and 5000 RPM).  I tend to worry more about transmissions which don't allow gear constraint below second gear, since those can easily overspeed on very steep downslopes.

Once you're used to driving a stick, you're likely to often be baffled by what gear your car is in when driving an automatic and realize that it's just not the right/safest gear for the car to be in at any given point- especially on terrain. The shift intervals on an automatic transmission pretty much assume flat ground.

I can't speak for all experienced drivers of automatics, but I for one don't usually have any trouble knowing within a gear or two which gear ratio is actually in use.  I definitely know instantly when the gear is too high, and I am very quick to take appropriate action, either by shutting off the overdrive or moving the shift lever to a lower gear range.  But in general I try to anticipate rather than react--this becomes much easier with experience on automatics, just as it does on manuals.

Shift intervals on automatics don't "assume" flat ground.  The shift points are set dynamically according to a number of variables, including throttle position, RPM, engine vacuum, etc.  Experienced drivers of automatics usually know how to manipulate gear choice for a given situation using various positions of the throttle pedal and shift lever.  Even more experienced drivers (with some knowledge of basic shadetree mechanic stuff) know how to adjust the throttle cable to "sweeten" shifts.  (I did this in my Maxima and, as a result, managed the feat--fairly unusual for this particular model--of reaching 227,000 miles without a single transmission repair.)

On the other hand, experienced drivers of manuals who are naive to automatics tend to make rookie mistakes.  One old friend of mine who was used to his "Silver Bullet" (a Toyota Corolla derivative with a manual transmission) managed to burn out the brakes on an automatic minivan by going down the switchbacks at Bighorn Pass in overdrive, relying on the brake pedal to control speed, instead of downshifting to L2 to take advantage of engine braking.

In general I think it is a mistake to assume that experienced drivers of automatics are any more naive about the implications of various choices of gear ratio than experienced drivers of manuals.  For this reason I support automatics-only endorsements on driver licenses only if people who take their driving tests in manuals are required to have manuals-only endorsements on their licenses.

[xcellntbuy]

Never learned how to drive a manual 34 years ago and there is no desire to change.

[agentsteel53]

I can always tell which gear the automatic is in.  the ratio of speed to RPMs (plus or minus about 400, due to the slush) nails it.  

without a tachometer it's a bit more of a guess but usually I'm aware, as it is a function of the engine sound.

the thing is, I tend to be able to cajole the correct gear out of an automatic using just the gas pedal and the shifter maybe 95% of the time (and the 5% when it doesn't happen reliably is the 5% where you need it the most, like going uphill on ice).  With a manual transmission, that is 100%.  

that said, how many people, who drive automatic transmissions, are aware of the "L" and "2" settings on the shifter?  Probably not many.  Forcing people to take the driving test using a manual transmission would build great awareness of those options.

but then again, driving tests don't have any correlation between what is important in general.  Any moron can learn to drive 75 feet backwards on a dead-end residential street.  Who really knows which way the car will spin when you swerve from pavement onto mud to avoid a collision in front of you, and how to correct and regain control?  Hardly anyone.  

And which is the more useful skill?  Parallel parking, or staying alive?  Hmm...

Given the advances in simulators, I would support much more advanced driving tests, since in that case a failure would not kill the student.  While testing how merge onto a freeway, simulate a blow-out in one of the tires, and anyone who can regain control and park safely by the side of the road can get a license.  

(For extra credit, change the tire yourself.)

[corco]

I would venture that most folks who post on this forum are better...or at least more experienced and aware drivers than the general population. My mother, for instance, who doesn't know how to drive a manual has no idea what gear she is in when driving an automatic, and that's pretty obvious when she drives (she doesn't gas/let off the gas to get in the most fuel efficient gear, as an "aware" driver of an automatic would generally do).

It's not directly assuming flat ground, but there's no denying that an automatic works much better on a flat surface than it does on a hill. Automatics also vary greatly by car. Good luck shifting into L/2 while going more than 30 MPH in my Jeep Liberty- you'd burn the transmission out faster than the brakes if you try to do it. Manuals are easier to predict on a car to car basis- you just do whatever the engine speed tells you to do.

Gear manipulation is certainly feasible- I'm unfortunately stuck with an automatic now (and have had one as my primary vehicle for the last 3 years), but (at least in my opinion) it's a lot more difficult to push/let off the gas pedal and hope an engine computer decides to shift than to just do it myself. I've had the car not downshift when I've gassed and not upshift when I've left off, despite my own desires. Like Jake said, it's 95% instead of 100%

In general I think it is a mistake to assume that experienced drivers of automatics are any more naive about the implications of various choices of gear ratio than experienced drivers of manuals.  For this reason I support automatics-only endorsements on driver licenses only if people who take their driving tests in manuals are required to have manuals-only endorsements on their licenses.

I would strongly disagree with that- there are obviously some fine points in driving an automatic, but anybody who drives a stick can get in the car and go in an automatic. Somebody driving automatics cannot, 99% of the time, get in a car and drive a manual. It may just take a couple hours on backroads to get them up to snuff, but I'd much, much rather have somebody who has driven a manual but never an automatic drive a car than somebody who has never driven a manual try to drive a manual on the road the very first time.

Who really knows which way the car will spin when you swerve from pavement onto mud to avoid a collision in front of you, and how to correct and regain control?  Hardly anyone. 

Off topic, sure, but I strongly agree with that. I mostly thank my parents for the way they handled my learning-to-drive experience (did it in the winter on bad roads using a car with RWD by default and a manual transmission), but sneaking off to parking lots in the middle of the night with friends to spin donuts on icy parking lots was equally crucial (and if my parents would have known about it, they would have been pissed). The "just don't ever have to emergency maneuver" idea that most folks (and the police) have is nice in theory but doesn't actually occur in practice. It's good to have those reflexes sort of developed so if something does happen that requires evasive maneuvering, the driver is prepared to do it- I know if I fishtail in traffic, there's a very good chance there won't be an accident because I have the reflexes/muscle memory to recover that slide. You still try to avoid it, but things happen. Somebody who fishtails in traffic who has never done it before is at a significant disadvantage.

[J N Winkler]

the thing is, I tend to be able to cajole the correct gear out of an automatic using just the gas pedal and the shifter maybe 95% of the time (and the 5% when it doesn't happen reliably is the 5% where you need it the most, like going uphill on ice).  With a manual transmission, that is 100%.

I think 5% is an overstatement--even 0.5% would be a bit on the high side, except for very unusual driving activity profiles.  The situations where manuals have a compelling advantage are limited to those where the traction envelope is so narrow (such as the ice on an uphill slope example) that it is highly undesirable for the transmission to be allowed to "float" even within a very narrow gear range.  In such marginal conditions I think it is fair to question the need to drive at all.

that said, how many people, who drive automatic transmissions, are aware of the "L" and "2" settings on the shifter?  Probably not many.  Forcing people to take the driving test using a manual transmission would build great awareness of those options.

Actually, no, it wouldn't.  It would put unnecessary hardship on people who do not have access to manuals for learning in, and would not give drivers of manuals a chance to learn what they need to know to access lower gear ranges in an automatic.  As my friend's example shows, extensive experience driving a manual is no guarantee that you will know what to do when you have to descend a hill in an automatic.

but then again, driving tests don't have any correlation between what is important in general.  Any moron can learn to drive 75 feet backwards on a dead-end residential street.  Who really knows which way the car will spin when you swerve from pavement onto mud to avoid a collision in front of you, and how to correct and regain control?  Hardly anyone.

Driver testing and driver education in general are not particularly good at developing the higher-level executive functions necessary for safe driving--such as the prudence required not to make unnecessary trips on icy roads.  A lot of European countries are incorporating hazard-perception elements to their driving tests, and while I approve of this in theory, I am unconvinced that real-world training and testing of hazard perception ability is even possible.

It is also worth noting that manuals introduce certain possibilities for dangerous driver error which do not exist with automatics.  One example is pulling out the clutch in fourth gear while initiating a left turn, thus stalling out the car right in the path of an oncoming vehicle.  

[corco]

In such marginal conditions I think it is fair to question the need to drive at all.

-such as the prudence required not to make unnecessary trips on icy roads.

I would venture that this is highly unreasonable in a decent part of the country. If McCall, Idaho or Laramie, Wyoming had to shut down every time the roads were icy, winters would be impossible to negotiate. Drivers in these towns (among other mountain/high plains towns) just learn that ice is part of the road, learn how to drive in it, and do not allow the ice to deter them from driving. If one has to or even wants to be somewhere, they go. This isn't just a 22 year old talking, this is all ranges of the age/experience spectrum. This doesn't make us irresponsible, just practical, as local roads are covered with ice/snow >50% (>75% in McCall) of the time in the winter.

I mean, goodness, if I had to not drive and stay in every time it snowed in one of those towns because it was too icy, I would still be in high school!

On a side note, and I haven't looked at this in great detail, but it seems like McCall has a far higher percentage than normal of manual transmissions- everybody I know has at least one vehicle in their stable with a stick. I'd hazard at least 25% of vehicles have sticks (as compared to ~5% nationwide). I've never explicitly asked, but I would guess that this has to do with manuals being better in bad conditions.

[J N Winkler]

I would strongly disagree with that- there are obviously some fine points in driving an automatic, but anybody who drives a stick can get in the car and go in an automatic.

Yes, that belief is quite common, and in relatively flat terrain and unchallenging driving conditions the disparity between confidence and actual ability is not great, but it is in situations like hill descents and trying to drive an automatic on ice (yes, it is challenging, but it can be done) that the mismatch between what manual drivers think they can do and what they actually can do becomes most glaring.

Somebody driving automatics cannot, 99% of the time, get in a car and drive a manual. It may just take a couple hours on backroads to get them up to snuff, but I'd much, much rather have somebody who has driven a manual but never an automatic drive a car than somebody who has never driven a manual try to drive a manual on the road the very first time.

The other side of the coin is that someone who has driven automatics only will typically have the prudence not even to attempt to drive a manual without some time to practice clutching etc. on low-volume back roads and in parking lots.  Meanwhile, a manual driver with zero experience of automatics will cheerfully volunteer for a challenging hill descent in an automatic and assume that no prior training is necessary.  That is dangerous.

[corco]

Meanwhile, a manual driver with zero experience of automatics will cheerfully volunteer for a challenging hill descent in an automatic and assume that no prior training is necessary.  That is dangerous.

I guess I disagree- the principle in driving an automatic down a steep hill is the same as a manual, you slow before the hill, let your foot off the gas and brake as needed. I don't know many stick drivers who downshift to the point of redlining their engine just to go a little bit slower (even in bad conditions).

trying to drive an automatic on ice (yes, it is challenging, but it can be done)

I'd say the same principle again. A manual driver is certainly going to be aware of the 2/L, and beyond that if they figure out that they can get minimal power just by letting their foot off the brake, it's exactly the same principle minus the ability to more finely regulate throttle with the clutch. Just like driving a manual, you still want to minimize braking, and otherwise it's exactly the same. You don't downshift to slow down on ice in a manual on a flat surface, you stay in the top gear and brake to slow down, which is basically what an automatic does. On a hill, you drop to your low gear before you start descending the hill in a manual, and in an automatic you slow to the point where the car puts itself in the low gear (or you put it in 2/L depending on the speed involved). Then you coast. Same deal either way.

I didn't drive an automatic until well after I got my driver's license (the driver's ed car in McCall had a stick!), but I just don't remember there being much of a learning curve, and off the top of my head I don't remember ever feeling like I was endangering myself due to the transmission. I just can't imagine that the manual->automatic curve is anywhere near as difficult as the automatic->manual curve.

[J N Winkler]

I would venture that this is highly unreasonable in a decent part of the country. If McCall, Idaho or Laramie, Wyoming had to shut down every time the roads were icy, winters would be impossible to negotiate. Drivers in these towns (among other mountain/high plains towns) just learn that ice is part of the road, learn how to drive in it, and do not allow the ice to deter them from driving. If one has to or even wants to be somewhere, they go. This isn't just a 22 year old talking, this is all ranges of the age/experience spectrum. This doesn't make us irresponsible, just practical, as local roads are covered with ice/snow >50% (>75% in McCall) of the time in the winter.

The definition of necessity is somewhat elastic.  I think the distinction that is important here is that people living in Idaho, Wyoming, and other Rocky Mountain states with significant snow and ice accumulation have plenty of experience driving on snow and ice and thus have a concrete idea of their own driving abilities that they can factor into their own evaluations of whether their trips are necessary.  They would also take into account the handling characteristics of the vehicles they would be using, and the full range of vehicles (automatics and manuals, small cars all the way up to truck-derived SUVs) are in use in those states.  Snow removal practices along the proposed itinerary are also an important factor.

Winter maintenance practices vary considerably among regions.  It is my understanding that FHWA requires a bare-pavement policy on Interstates, but the resourcing of winter maintenance operations depends on what can typically be expected given the climate in a given area and the amount of resilience the state DOT thinks it has to provide.  Given basically the same ice storm in both places, a person driving I-84 in Boise is probably better off than someone driving I-40 in Amarillo because ITD has more winter maintenance equipment and tighter snow/ice clearance routines than TxDOT.  (It was posted in MTR a while ago that the TxDOT Amarillo District apparently has no equipment for snow/ice removal and this forces closure of I-40 in major storms.)

[J N Winkler]

I guess I disagree- the principle in driving an automatic down a steep hill is the same as a manual, you slow before the hill, let your foot off the gas and brake as needed. I don't know many stick drivers who downshift to the point of redlining their engine just to go a little bit slower (even in bad conditions).

Nope.  That is exactly what you do not do for steep hills.  It is basically what my friend did in the automatic minivan, and that is what caused the brakes to smoke and fade.  Downshifting for hills does not remotely come close to redlining the engine--the Marin Avenue hill is the most extreme example I have personally tried and in first gear it didn't rev my engine past 5000 RPM, with redline being well above 6000 RPM (I think it was 7000 RPM).

On steep hills it is less important to save wear on the transmission (whether automatic or manual) by downshifting to a lower gear ratio and more important to preserve the ability to brake as you go downhill.  Compressive braking also gives finer control of the car since it is not struggling to escape from your control just as soon as you slacken pressure on the brake pedal.
Post Merge: January 09, 2011, 04:56:34 PM

I didn't drive an automatic until well after I got my driver's license (the driver's ed car in McCall had a stick!), but I just don't remember there being much of a learning curve, and off the top of my head I don't remember ever feeling like I was endangering myself due to the transmission. I just can't imagine that the manual->automatic curve is anywhere near as difficult as the automatic->manual curve.

Yes, the curve is steeper going from an automatic to a manual than it is going from a manual to an automatic.  The problem is that people going from a manual to an automatic assume that there is no learning curve at all, when in fact there is, however mild it may be.  It is this mismatch between expectation and reality that causes problems in challenging driving situations such as hill descents.

[corco]

That's fair, to an extent. Down here in Tucson, I would be a bit afraid to go out if it snowed, not because I'm nervous about my own abilities but because ohdeargod how many of these people have never seen snow before.

And yeah, in Idaho and Wyoming we equip ourselves well- those who have the means keep at least one 4WD vehicle with studs and possibly a manual transmission in their fort, but the ones who have lived in the area for a while will often just drive whatever, provided it has the ground clearance to get out of the driveway (the thought being that 95% of snow/ice driving ability is driver ability, not transmissions/tires/drivetrains).

But yeah, your general point is fair. Obviously a snowstorm in Florida should button down the fort more than one in Montana. One thing not used in Idaho or Wyoming that is cried for by other areas (Seattle for one) is salt. Rocky Mountain states don't use salt, just sand on steep hills, but Midwest states (some of them?) use salt and folks who never get snowed on also cry salt.

Downshifting for hills does not remotely come close to redlining the engine--the Marin Avenue hill is the most extreme example I have personally tried and in first gear it didn't rev my engine past 5000 RPM, with redline being well above 6000 RPM (I think it was 7000 RPM).

On steep hills it is less important to save wear on the transmission (whether automatic or manual) by downshifting to a lower gear ratio and more important to preserve the ability to brake as you go downhill.  Compressive braking also gives finer control of the car since it is not struggling to escape from your control just as soon as you slacken pressure on the brake pedal.

I guess our definition of "slow down" varied a bit. In the manual car I drive most frequently (a 4 banger Jeep with a 5000 RPM redline), I'll slow to about 20 MPH so I can put it in either 2nd or 3rd gear to go down a hill, which keeps me slow enough that I don't have to redline. You wouldn't drop it to 1st though, because then you'd redline. Compression brake as needed.
In my car (a 6 cylinder automatic Jeep with a 5000 RPM redline), I'll slow to 20 or so and either drop it into 2/L or just go down the hill, depending on the hill. Longer hills go to 2/L, but you shift before the hill starts if you need to shift. The key is to maintain a constant gear down the hill- it doesn't even really matter what gear (within reason). You can always compression brake.

Nutshell- with either a manual or an automatic, you get the car in whatever gear you want it to be in for the speed you want to go down the hill at, shift to that (it shouldn't be such a high gear it redlines), and then go down it, braking as needed. That's a little bit easier in a manual, but it can be done in an automatic.

The proper course of action really varies by hill, no matter what your transmission is.

Maybe I'm not explaining it very well-oh well. At least 60,000 miles of driving on bad, mountainous roads (including having to descend a fairly steep hill to get out of my parents house to go to high school) and I've never even almost been in the ditch. I'm confident in my abilities, but maybe not so much my ability to explain the procedure. 

[oscar]

From 1972 to 1988, I drove only automatics.  1988-2006, only stickshifts, then I got a truck with automatic in addition to my stickshift car (which died in 2008).  Now both of my rides are automatic -- manual was not an option for either model.

I did like the stickshifts for better performance and fuel economy, though I burned through a clutch while learning how to drive a stick for the first time, and also working the clutch could be miserable during my usual stop-and-go commutes.  In addition, I was fortunate to have an automatic on hand while I was recovering from a broken left ankle in 2006.

[J N Winkler]

I guess our definition of "slow down" varied a bit. In the manual car I drive most frequently (a 4 banger Jeep with a 5000 RPM redline), I'll slow to about 20 MPH so I can put it in either 2nd or 3rd gear to go down a hill, which keeps me slow enough that I don't have to redline. You wouldn't drop it to 1st though, because then you'd redline. Compression brake as needed.

I am kind of surprised the redline is that low.  But yes, given that constraint, slowing down before starting the descent is prudent.

Marin Avenue is a long downhill descent interrupted by benches where side streets cross.  I usually shifted into first gear while turning onto it off of Grizzly Peak Boulevard (taking the turn very slow so the downshift would go smoothly) and then kept my foot off all pedals, just covering the brake so I could respond if someone crossed in front of me, and let the car choose its own speed once it "bit" into the grade.  I chose first gear on the basis that it offered complete suppression of speed gains from the grade once the car reached 25-30 MPH.  I think I tried second gear at first but had to give that up after just one block.

In my car (a 6 cylinder automatic Jeep with a 5000 RPM redline), I'll slow to 20 or so and either drop it into 2/L or just go down the hill, depending on the hill. Longer hills go to 2/L, but you shift before the hill starts if you need to shift. The key is to maintain a constant gear down the hill- it doesn't even really matter what gear (within reason). You can always compression brake.

Yes, the points about getting in the correct gear before tackling the hill and then maintaining a consistent gear are important.  I have been down the Bighorn Pass switchbacks twice, and both times I think I kept the car in second for the 10% slopes.  (It is signed as a 10% pass but I don't think it is 10% for the entire distance.  I think most of the hairpin curves are benched while the lengths between each curve have 10% slope.)  I think I was happy with 50 MPH or so as long as I could slow down to 30 MPH for curves with no more than a gentle application of the brakes.

[Duke87]

I can certainly understand where in some situations one might wish they had more direct control over what gear they're in, but those are few and far between. And most of them can be handled effectively, though not necessarily optimally, by using that "L" setting which, yes, I will grant you, people tend to forget exists.

A couple other issues worth mentioning:

- drivers of automatics (which describes pretty much everyone around here) seem to have a nasty habit of never using the parking brake. The thinking being that just putting the car in "P" is good enough, even if you're parked on a hill. The risk being taken is small, granted, but it's stupid and unnecessary. It's just one of those things. (nobody ever turns their wheels to the curb, either...)

- a manual transmission does, for what it's worth, give you the ability to start your car with a dead battery without needing jumper cables, so long as you have a hill or a second person to push.

[corco]

From what I've noticed, automatic-only drivers really don't use neutral at all either. When I'm stopped at a light, even in an automatic, on a flat surface I'll usually shift to neutral and let off the brake to save on brake/transmission wear (not saying that it's bad that most people don't do it- it is an extra step that adds very little gain). That's a habit that I feel like came from driving a stick

- a manual transmission does, for what it's worth, give you the ability to start your car with a dead battery without needing jumper cables, so long as you have a hill or a second person to push.

My Dad's first car in the mid-60s was a 1956 Volkswagen that didn't have a battery at all, so every time he went anywhere he had to push start it. Fortunately, a Volkswagen is light enough that he could push and start without having to use a friend or a hill,  but he still had to be careful where he parked.

[J N Winkler]

- a manual transmission does, for what it's worth, give you the ability to start your car with a dead battery without needing jumper cables, so long as you have a hill or a second person to push.

Hasn't that functionality been engineered out in recent models for emissions control reasons?

From what I've noticed, automatic-only drivers really don't use neutral at all either. When I'm stopped at a light, even in an automatic, on a flat surface I'll usually shift to neutral and let off the brake to save on brake/transmission wear (not saying that it's bad that most people don't do it- it is an extra step that adds very little gain). That's a habit that I feel like came from driving a stick

Most automatic drivers will indeed keep the car in gear and use the brake to restrain creep because that saves on time and motion when the light changes.  However, if I expect to be stopped in traffic for a considerable length of time (e.g. long train at a railroad crossing, or waiting for my direction to be given the go-ahead on a two-lane rural highway subject to one-way working while under construction), I will pop the transmission into neutral, switch the engine off, and set the parking brake.

[Brian556]

I have an automatic. I frequently put it in park while waiting for trains or at drive-thru's.