HEY ROADGEEKS:
what do you prefer? I would like to have my next car be a 5 speed even though I cant really drive it (Dr. Frankenstein taught me and I stalled his car like 52,000 times). but actually having a manual car and being up the creek when its time to take it off the lot will teach me how! I guess would prefer it for Its better for fuel economy, more control but really because its COOL to be able to say you can.
I would hopefully get a 1987 Volvo 240DL Wagon with a 5 speed and do donuts in the parking lot for the Decarie Square Mall because CDN-NDG (right next to the A-20 Decarie expy) is the place to do gangsta sh*t like that. although not in the winter because I wouldn't drive in the winter because Quebec winters eat through 25+ year old cars like Don Gorske eats through Big Macs.
but anyway I digress...
AARoadgeeks my question to you is what do you prefer? Standard or Auto and why?
Pedal-powered.
We just had a thread on this back in July: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9580.msg228023#new
Manual. Automatics are slushed up too much these days, because people don't want to feel the shifts.
Only way to accomplish this is to make the clutches slip more, which heats them up more, and decreases their life.
In other words: automatic transmissions have engineered-in issues anymore, because people are wussies.
I've never owned an automatic and hope never to have to.
Both my cars are manual. Whenever I drive an automatic my left foot gets bored.
Never owned a vehicle with an automatic, though I may be forced to go that way if I want to keep driving Ford pickups, since they don't apparently offer trucks with manual transmissions any longer.
My strong preference is to drive a manual, but I have two cars with an automatic at the moment.
All the cars that I've purchased, including my daily driver, have had manual transmissions. One previous car and my truck (both given to me by family members) had/have automatics.
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on October 12, 2013, 09:07:19 AM
Manual. Automatics are slushed up too much these days, because people don't want to feel the shifts.
Only way to accomplish this is to make the clutches slip more, which heats them up more, and decreases their life.
In other words: automatic transmissions have engineered-in issues anymore, because people are wussies.
Not everyone that drives an automatic wants to "not feel the shifts" and fluids are engineered to combat the slipping of the clutches to reduce the heat and wear.
I attempted to learn manual and learned several things - it's a pain in the behind in my daily commute, I'm not very good at it, very few folks with manuals will let you grind their gears to learn, and not a lot of folks around me own manuals in the first place. But it's all OK - I've survived driving the last 30-plus years with automatics and my manhood is still intact.
All that said - I'm not against offering manuals to those that want them - but I can envision where after decades of charging a premium to have an automatic (despite the take rate being something like 94%), there will be a premium to buy a manual.
I've yet to drive an "automated-manual" like in some VWs and in the new Dodge Dart and Fiat 500/500L.
No such thing as an "automated manual". They are automatic transmissions.
My current car is a slushbox but I much prefer manuals. I like the fact that I can drop from 6th to 2nd if I am passing on a 2 lane highway. With an automatic with paddles, you must go from 6 to 5 to 4 to 3 to 2, but with the manual you can go straight from 6th to 2nd to build up power.
I have no desire to own or drive a manual. Why make the act of driving more complicated than it has to be?
Quote from: hbelkins on October 12, 2013, 08:15:15 PM
I have no desire to own or drive a manual. Why make the act of driving more complicated than it has to be?
Because it's a lot more fun?
Quote from: hbelkins on October 12, 2013, 08:15:15 PM
I have no desire to own or drive a manual. Why make the act of driving more complicated than it has to be?
I love driving. With a manual transmission, I love driving even more. If using a manual transmission isn't something you enjoy or prefer, then there's no reason to use one. A modern, properly-maintained automatic is every bit as good as, and sometimes better than, a manual-shift. It's strictly a matter of preference; use whichever you like better.
Automatics aren't "better" than manuals, just different. Nothing will ever replace the good old fashioned 3 pedal manual.
AT&T Princess phone
Quote from: bugo on October 13, 2013, 02:06:14 AM
Automatics aren't "better" than manuals, just different. Nothing will ever replace the good old fashioned 3 pedal manual.
AT&T Princess phone
"Better" is a matter of opinion; technical superiority is not. Continuously variable transmissions, dual-clutch automatics, and, in some cases, regular old slush boxes, have the potential to be, and often are, superior to driver-controlled transmissions. Fuel efficiency, acceleration, and off-road performance are now better with a well-designed automatic than with anything controlled by a poorly-designed driver.
I agree that a three-pedal manual is better in terms of being more fun and more instructive, but the machines we now design are better than what we can do ourselves.
My current car is an automatic. All my previous cars have been manual but I've reached the point where I was getting sick of changing gears.
Quote from: wxfree on October 13, 2013, 05:18:25 AM
Quote from: bugo on October 13, 2013, 02:06:14 AM
Automatics aren't "better" than manuals, just different. Nothing will ever replace the good old fashioned 3 pedal manual.
AT&T Princess phone
"Better" is a matter of opinion; technical superiority is not. Continuously variable transmissions, dual-clutch automatics, and, in some cases, regular old slush boxes, have the potential to be, and often are, superior to driver-controlled transmissions. Fuel efficiency, acceleration, and off-road performance are now better with a well-designed automatic than with anything controlled by a poorly-designed driver.
I agree that a three-pedal manual is better in terms of being more fun and more instructive, but the machines we now design are better than what we can do ourselves.
Disagree. A good driver can make more efficiency and performance out of a manual than out of an automatic. I use my car's manual-shift mode whenever I'm not on a roadtrip, and definitely appreciate being able to set my own gear. That said, I don't have the attentiveness to work with an actual manual, since I often find myself forgetting to shift. And it wouldn't work if I have to take a no-look one-handed photo while simultaneously braking, turning, and accelerating through a corner, which I do often.
Manual transmission for me, though it's getting very hard to find them in vehicles that are otherwise comfortable. Easier to find in the most basic "starter" car lines or in the high end sports performance car.
Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 12, 2013, 07:33:43 PM
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on October 12, 2013, 09:07:19 AM
Manual. Automatics are slushed up too much these days, because people don't want to feel the shifts.
Only way to accomplish this is to make the clutches slip more, which heats them up more, and decreases their life.
In other words: automatic transmissions have engineered-in issues anymore, because people are wussies.
Not everyone that drives an automatic wants to "not feel the shifts" and fluids are engineered to combat the slipping of the clutches to reduce the heat and wear.
I attempted to learn manual and learned several things - it's a pain in the behind in my daily commute, I'm not very good at it, very few folks with manuals will let you grind their gears to learn, and not a lot of folks around me own manuals in the first place. But it's all OK - I've survived driving the last 30-plus years with automatics and my manhood is still intact.
All that said - I'm not against offering manuals to those that want them - but I can envision where after decades of charging a premium to have an automatic (despite the take rate being something like 94%), there will be a premium to buy a manual.
I've yet to drive an "automated-manual" like in some VWs and in the new Dodge Dart and Fiat 500/500L.
Electronic manuals are hit or miss in my experience. VW does a good job with theirs. I drove a Peugeot with one that was absolute garbage though. Shifts were jerky and they kept the manual gear ratios. Hit the gas pedal and it would lurch forward very briefly, seemingly stall while it shifted, then lurch forward again in 2nd.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 12, 2013, 08:15:15 PM
I have no desire to own or drive a manual. Why make the act of driving more complicated than it has to be?
I don't find it complicated at all. It's more second-nature.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 13, 2013, 01:22:46 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 12, 2013, 08:15:15 PM
I have no desire to own or drive a manual. Why make the act of driving more complicated than it has to be?
I don't find it complicated at all. It's more second-nature.
Agreed. Even in D.C.-area traffic that is often terrible.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 13, 2013, 01:22:46 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 12, 2013, 08:15:15 PM
I have no desire to own or drive a manual. Why make the act of driving more complicated than it has to be?
I don't find it complicated at all. It's more second-nature.
Same here. I find myself looking for the phantom clutch pedal and shift lever in an automatic.
Quote from: Steve on October 13, 2013, 08:50:44 AM
That said, I don't have the attentiveness to work with an actual manual, since I often find myself forgetting to shift. And it wouldn't work if I have to take a no-look one-handed photo while simultaneously braking, turning, and accelerating through a corner, which I do often.
It's odd how that works- if I drive a car with an automated manual in manual mode, I nearly always forget to shift. If I'm driving a car with a real manual, I never have that problem. There's something about the way an engine responds when mated to a real manual that makes it hard to forget to shift- or the clutch part makes or breaks the attentiveness. I don't enjoy driving automatics with the option to manually shift at all because of it- if the car doesn't have a clutch I'd rather just stick it in D, using the manual mode just to downshift on steep grades or prior to passing.
In my experience though you can't really equate driving an automatic in manual mode to driving an actual manual- it's two totally different sensations. Not only are you using a clutch, but you use the gas pedal and even the brakes a lot differently with a real manual- an auto-manual you just drive as you would with an automatic and then flick to shift- if you tried to drive a manual like an automated-manual with a clutch you'd burn out the clutch and transmission and probably stall a lot. If you drove an automated manual in the same way as a regular manual without a clutch, you'd be the jerkiest driver ever and your passengers would hate you.
As for taking pictures- my first couple years of roadgeeking were with a manual. The trick is to just not shift while you need to take a picture- it won't kill the car to stay in a gear for an extra couple seconds if you modulate the gas pedal right- if you're going to brake as you go around a corner just pop it into neutral before the curve, take the picture as you brake, then shift into the appropriate gear. It's a little bit more complicated I guess, but not too much. You get used to it.
I've always driven an automatic, but I would like to learn a manual someday. Both have their place; similar to the PC vs. Apple arguments (which this thread shows some signs of turning into, given how passionate some folks seem to be). FWIW, some of the newer automatics I've driven have made me wish I had a manual, cause the transmission programming would "overthink" it's inputs, creating some questionable shift points. The computer doesn't (yet) know what's ahead, exactly where I am going to go, or what the conditions are.
Quote from: bugo on October 12, 2013, 08:24:26 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 12, 2013, 08:15:15 PM
I have no desire to own or drive a manual. Why make the act of driving more complicated than it has to be?
Because it's a lot more fun?
Well, that, but for me it also has a practical purpose. If the act of driving itself (as opposed to additional distractions on top of driving) is more complicated, I'm able to focus better on doing it. And manual transmissions require a lot more interaction with the vehicle in traffic situations than automatics do, and traffic situations are where it's helpful to be more actively engaged in driving. (I also find that hitting heavier traffic towards the end of a long, boring drive often helps me wake up somewhat.)
No, the automatic isn't "technically superior" to a manual. Manuals can do things automatics can't do. You are wrong.
Bell Labs Princess rotary dial phone
Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 12, 2013, 07:33:43 PM
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on October 12, 2013, 09:07:19 AM
Manual. Automatics are slushed up too much these days, because people don't want to feel the shifts.
Only way to accomplish this is to make the clutches slip more, which heats them up more, and decreases their life.
In other words: automatic transmissions have engineered-in issues anymore, because people are wussies.
Not everyone that drives an automatic wants to "not feel the shifts" and fluids are engineered to combat the slipping of the clutches to reduce the heat and wear.
I attempted to learn manual and learned several things - it's a pain in the behind in my daily commute, I'm not very good at it, very few folks with manuals will let you grind their gears to learn, and not a lot of folks around me own manuals in the first place. But it's all OK - I've survived driving the last 30-plus years with automatics and my manhood is still intact.
All that said - I'm not against offering manuals to those that want them - but I can envision where after decades of charging a premium to have an automatic (despite the take rate being something like 94%), there will be a premium to buy a manual.
I've yet to drive an "automated-manual" like in some VWs and in the new Dodge Dart and Fiat 500/500L.
No, really - the only way to make an automatic shift in such a way that you can't feel it is deliberate slippage of the clutches. If they don't slip, the shifts will be VERY hard, at any speed or throttle position.
As for automated manuals, I've driven a vehicle with one - a 2006 Volvo VNL64T670 with an Eaton Fuller 10-speed autoshift. :)
Manual.
Every situation except stop and go, I'd much rather have a manual. And extended stop and go sucks no matter what.
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on October 14, 2013, 03:17:43 PM
No, really - the only way to make an automatic shift in such a way that you can't feel it is deliberate slippage of the clutches. If they don't slip, the shifts will be VERY hard, at any speed or throttle position.
Understood. Chrysler's UltraDrive (known later as A604 and 4*TE and now 6*TE) does allow for such slippage - and proper care and feeding requires the use of a specific transaxle fluid to allow for that type of operation. Throw Dexron in one of these (which many QuickieLube places will do - and shouldn't) and because it's a "grabbier" fluid it will cause more wear and tear and will ultimately kill the transaxle.
Quote from: bugo on October 12, 2013, 07:39:18 PM
No such thing as an "automated manual". They are automatic transmissions.
Sorry. How about "dual-clutch transmission" or "dual dry clutch transmission"? Both are types of semi-automatic or automated manual automotive transmissions. It's what's used in the Fiat 500, Fiat 500L and in certain models of the Dodge Dart.
And, as noted, they are used in many large trucks as well - including the Ram Promaster (nee Fiat Ducato) cargo van.
Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 14, 2013, 05:35:28 PM
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on October 14, 2013, 03:17:43 PM
No, really - the only way to make an automatic shift in such a way that you can't feel it is deliberate slippage of the clutches. If they don't slip, the shifts will be VERY hard, at any speed or throttle position.
Understood. Chrysler's UltraDrive (known later as A604 and 4*TE and now 6*TE) does allow for such slippage - and proper care and feeding requires the use of a specific transaxle fluid to allow for that type of operation. Throw Dexron in one of these (which many QuickieLube places will do - and shouldn't) and because it's a "grabbier" fluid it will cause more wear and tear and will ultimately kill the transaxle.
Yep. You should only use what the owner's manual tells you to in an Ultramatic. IIRC, it was ATF-4 fluid (which, interestingly enough is also the power steering fluid). There have been more than a few reports on Allpar of idiot mechanics who have thrown in Dexron as it was just there.
I prefer a "stick" over an automatic any day, unfortunately, my wife doesn't, so I'm stuck driving automatics. I still miss my 1991 Ford Escort which was a stick, and it's probably been 10 years since I had it.
One way sticks would really be useful is with the problem of texting and driving. It's kind of hard to be tapping on your phone when you have to be using all fours to actually drive the car!
I have no issue with manual but prefer automatic. that said, when I get a Jeep at some point, I will want a manual transmission in that one for off-road purposes.
Quote from: empirestate on October 14, 2013, 02:23:16 AMWell, that, but for me it also has a practical purpose. If the act of driving itself (as opposed to additional distractions on top of driving) is more complicated, I'm able to focus better on doing it. And manual transmissions require a lot more interaction with the vehicle in traffic situations than automatics do, and traffic situations are where it's helpful to be more actively engaged in driving. (I also find that hitting heavier traffic towards the end of a long, boring drive often helps me wake up somewhat.)
Ladies and gentlemen, the main reason why I drive manual.
Also because it's less boring.
Since all but one of my vehicles have been full-sizes (four of them being true land-yachts); I've only owned automatics. Although, the owner's manual for my first car (a 1969 Ford LTD) lists available manual transmissions; those were for the bare-bones Custom/Custom 500s models or the sport-oriented XL model. I did once see an eBay ad for a '71 Ford LTD convertible that was equipped w/a 4-speed manual; (photos showed a floor-mounted shift and the clutch pedal). So a big, full-size car could be equipped w/a manual prior to the mid-1970s.
However, about a year after getting my license (1983); I did learned to drive a manual on my father's 1972 Ford Pinto wagon that he paid $300 for (his '79 Ford Econoline van was stolen and his '72 BMW Bavaria needed engine work). I guess he figured, if I initially grind the gears, the car was essentially throw-away transportation to begin with. I eventually got the hang of it. I've since driven his '83 Escort (which ultimately replaced his Pinto) that had a 4-speed manual and my brother's '86 Escort L that had a 5-speed.
My biggest issue/challenge w/a manual is when one's stopped on an incline. One needs to be really quick on their feet when proceeding to prevent rolling back (and possibly into the vehicle that may be behind you). One time while driving a friend of mine's 1989 Dodge Dakota pick-up that had a manual. After stopping for a red light at the intersection of Bishop Ave. & Baltimore Pike in Springfield/Upper Darby PA; I came close to rolling into the vehicle behind me when the light turned green, fortunately I didn't. It was several years since I drove a manual at the time.
For those that don't know the area, Bishop Ave. south of Baltimore Pike is a steep incline towards the intersection.
Bishop Ave. looking north towards Baltimore Pike:
http://goo.gl/maps/fjilu (http://goo.gl/maps/fjilu)
IMHO, cars w/manual transmissions should have a nameplate/decal that states such mounted on the back trunk or hatch. That way an approaching vehicle will know to give a little extra space behind it; which is an issue in many urban/developed areas.
For those that think the above is outlandish; once upon a time, many small cars equipped w/automatics (back then, such was a minority) had an Automatic nameplate mounted on the back. The old VW bugs equipped w/automatics were an example of such.
- Party Line
(for you, bugo :sombrero: )
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 18, 2013, 06:02:45 PM
...the owner's manual for my first car (a 1969 Ford LTD) lists available manual transmissions; those were for the bare-bones Custom/Custom 500s models
In my experience, Ford was notorious for offering an incredibly wide array of component options (including many outdated components, such as a three-speed
manual column shift as late as the mid '80s on trucks) while also allowing buyers to strip even the most expensive models down to poverty spec. You'd see "AM Radio - May be deleted for credit." even on LTD brochures.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 18, 2013, 06:02:45 PM
My biggest issue/challenge w/a manual is when one's stopped on an incline.
I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but this is a simple matter. Just hold the car with the hand brake while you let out the clutch and ease down on the accelerator. As someone who owns a manual and lives in San Francisco, I know this maneuver well. There are also several cars that have a "hill hold" feature that will keep the car from rolling back on an incline until you start going.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 18, 2013, 06:02:45 PM
For those that think the above is outlandish; once upon a time, many small cars equipped w/automatics (back then, such was a minority) had an Automatic nameplate mounted on the back. The old VW bugs equipped w/automatics were an example of such.
That was because an automatic (particularly on a small or foreign car) was something of a bragging point in the way that "Turbo" or "Symmetrical AWD" might be viewed today. My dad's 1975 Super Beetle had "FUEL INJECTION" across the deck lid as it was the first year VW put the Bosch L-Jetronic in the Beetle. It was actually pretty early for fuel injection in general, particularly for a small, inexpensive car.
Ironically enough, a "Manual Shift" badge might have even more snob appeal today, but for a different reason.
Regarding the handbrake trick....my first car when I was 16 was a four-speed manual with a pedal-operated parking brake! Big steel bumpers, too, so I didn't much worry about not being able to do the handbrake trick.
I think starting on a hill becomes second nature very quickly. The only time in recent memory I remember feeling like I might have a problem was in Montreal. I turned around in my seat, caught the eye of the guy behind me, and gestured to him to back up. He immediately did. I'd wager most Americans would have no idea what I was trying to signal. I did indeed roll back that time. I seldom do, but that particular hill was tough.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 18, 2013, 06:58:37 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 18, 2013, 06:02:45 PM
...the owner's manual for my first car (a 1969 Ford LTD) lists available manual transmissions; those were for the bare-bones Custom/Custom 500s models
In my experience, Ford was notorious for offering an incredibly wide array of component options (including many outdated components, such as a three-speed manual column shift as late as the mid '80s on trucks) while also allowing buyers to strip even the most expensive models down to poverty spec. You'd see "AM Radio - May be deleted for credit." even on LTD brochures.
This is true. My dad had a 1983 Ford F100 with a 300 six and a 3 on the tree. It was quite fun to drive and was peppy.
Quote
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 18, 2013, 06:02:45 PM
For those that think the above is outlandish; once upon a time, many small cars equipped w/automatics (back then, such was a minority) had an Automatic nameplate mounted on the back. The old VW bugs equipped w/automatics were an example of such.
That was because an automatic (particularly on a small or foreign car) was something of a bragging point in the way that "Turbo" or "Symmetrical AWD" might be viewed today. My dad's 1975 Super Beetle had "FUEL INJECTION" across the deck lid as it was the first year VW put the Bosch L-Jetronic in the Beetle. It was actually pretty early for fuel injection in general, particularly for a small, inexpensive car.
The Volkswagen Automatic Stickshift was utter garbage and the fuel injection was half baked. I wouldn't want an air cooled VW without a 4 speed manual and a carburetor.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 18, 2013, 06:02:45 PM
That way an approaching vehicle will know to give a little extra space behind it
Technically, you're supposed to give that space to ALL cars, not just because of manual rollback, but because you'll create a traffic jam if the vehicle in front of you stalls out or something if you don't have room to maneuver around.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 18, 2013, 10:07:04 PM
Regarding the handbrake trick....my first car when I was 16 was a four-speed manual with a pedal-operated parking brake! Big steel bumpers, too, so I didn't much worry about not being able to do the handbrake trick.
I think starting on a hill becomes second nature very quickly. The only time in recent memory I remember feeling like I might have a problem was in Montreal. I turned around in my seat, caught the eye of the guy behind me, and gestured to him to back up. He immediately did. I'd wager most Americans would have no idea what I was trying to signal. I did indeed roll back that time. I seldom do, but that particular hill was tough.
When sitting at a light on a hill, I usually start to roll back when a vehicle approaches me from behind to signal that I am driving a manual and need a bit of extra space. That usually does the trick for me.
Of course, I have driven manual long enough, that even on the steepest inclines I can start off from the hill without rolling back any significant distance without using the handbrake.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on October 19, 2013, 01:47:18 PM
Of course, I have driven manual long enough, that even on the steepest inclines I can start off from the hill without rolling back any significant distance without using the handbrake.
Well, not to discredit your skills, but that has as much to do with your car and the hill itself as it does with your prowess. ;-)
In Pittsburgh there was a saying about using the handbrake: it's not "cheating", it's "technique".
Yeah, I sometimes roll back deliberately as well. It FREAKS OUT the high school kids who don't know manual shifts exist. (There have been times when I've jumpstarted the RX-7 and then just left it running without locking the doors while I put away the other car. The high school kids in our neighborhood wouldn't be able to joyride because it seems none of them know how to drive a manual.)
I don't see any reason for manual cars to be labelled. It's the following driver's responsibility to leave space. But the problem is the average automatic driver has no clue that a manual driver might roll back. Having a label wouldn't inform them they need to leave room.
Isn't leaving space or labeling a manual transmission car moot anyways? If there would be a collision, wouldn't the driver of the manual be at fault since they failed to properly control their vehicle?
All I do know is this was a topic that was never discussed when I took drivers' ed (leaving space was, but not with regards to a manual transmission car). How much space is appropriate to leave? Three feet? Half a car length?
Quote from: DaBigE on October 20, 2013, 12:22:40 AM
Isn't leaving space or labeling a manual transmission car moot anyways? If there would be a collision, wouldn't the driver of the manual be at fault since they failed to properly control their vehicle?
If they properly failed to control it, then possibly so. However, on a steep incline, it's perfectly possible for a manual transmission to roll somewhat while still being properly controlled. A corollary would be braking: you can bring you car to a stop having full and proper control, but your stopping distance will still be greater than zero.
QuoteAll I do know is this was a topic that was never discussed when I took drivers' ed (leaving space was, but not with regards to a manual transmission car). How much space is appropriate to leave? Three feet? Half a car length?
Enough so that the car in front doesn't roll into you if it's being properly controlled. That will depend on the hill, mostly.
I should add that I, too, often roll back deliberately to indicate that I'm likely to do so when starting off. So far, I haven't seen anyone behind me take any course of action based on that info, but at least they have it.
Quote from: DaBigE on October 20, 2013, 12:22:40 AM
All I do know is this was a topic that was never discussed when I took drivers' ed (leaving space was, but not with regards to a manual transmission car). How much space is appropriate to leave? Three feet? Half a car length?
You should be able to see the tires meeting the pavement plus a few feet of pavement thereafter. If you can't, you are too close. This was drilled into my head in driver's ed. Every time I stopped close enough that I couldn't at least see the tires of the vehicle in front meeting the ground...I got yelled at by the instructor.
My observation is that absolutely nobody has a fucking clue when it comes to proper following distance...stopped or not. When moving...what is so GD hard to understand about a 2-second minimum following distance? I don't get it. Sorry, that's for another thread...I'll stop ranting now.
Same- it's just good practice to leave a few feet behind the car in front of you. Beyond the possibility that they have a manual, that six or seven foot buffer has saved me from getting rear ended on a couple occasion. If I'm stopped somewhere, and the car behind me isn't paying attention and isn't going to be able to slow down in time, I can roll a few feet forward as they jam their brakes, increasing the likelihood that they'll have room to stop.
Quote from: DaBigE on October 20, 2013, 12:22:40 AM
Isn't leaving space or labeling a manual transmission car moot anyways? If there would be a collision, wouldn't the driver of the manual be at fault since they failed to properly control their vehicle?
Some rollback, depending on the hill, is inevitable with a manual. This is a fundamental difference between the transmissions. An automatic transmission is ALWAYS applying some torque to the wheels. Not so with a manual. With neither the brakes nor the gas applied, the wheels on a manual flow freely and at the whims of gravity. This is also why a manual can stop so much faster from coasting alone. With no gas applied, only inertia keeps the car moving. An automatic still has forces pushing it forward in this state. In a manual, it is never needed to use the brakes to slow down for a slower speed limit if the MUTCD is followed (unless you're on a downhill grade, that is). In an automatic, they are mandatory regardless. This is also why automatics play the creeping game at red lights but manuals rarely do. With an automatic, you can do it with a lazy foot. With a manual, it takes more effort than standing still, and is bad for the transmission.
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on October 20, 2013, 12:37:03 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on October 20, 2013, 12:22:40 AM
All I do know is this was a topic that was never discussed when I took drivers' ed (leaving space was, but not with regards to a manual transmission car). How much space is appropriate to leave? Three feet? Half a car length?
You should be able to see the tires meeting the pavement plus a few feet of pavement thereafter. If you can't, you are too close. This was drilled into my head in driver's ed. Every time I stopped close enough that I couldn't at least see the tires of the vehicle in front meeting the ground...I got yelled at by the instructor.
Oh...I thought you guys were referring to some extra distance necessary for manuals,
beyond what you're supposed to leave in general.
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on October 20, 2013, 12:37:03 PM
My observation is that absolutely nobody has a fucking clue when it comes to proper following distance...stopped or not. When moving...what is so GD hard to understand about a 2-second minimum following distance? I don't get it. Sorry, that's for another thread...I'll stop ranting now.
Simple answer: short attention span. From what I've witnessed, most drivers today are only concerned about themselves and cannot handle space/time logic. They think all the bells and whistles they added onto their car will allow them to do anything they want. It only becomes evident to them that this is not the case either when someone invades their space or there's a crash. Generally, I've noticed that they: are overconfident in their skills, think 4WD negates the laws of physics, their time is more precious than anyone else's, and common sense is something that was tossed out the window with their cigarette butt.
I am convinced that many driver's heads would explode if they ever tried to learn how to operate a manual given how overwhelmed they appear with all the other surrounding stimuli.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 18, 2013, 06:58:37 PMYou'd see "AM Radio - May be deleted for credit." even on LTD brochures.
What year was that LTD brochure that stated such? I could see that being the case if the LTD model in question was a 1975 vintage or newer (up to 1982), the base LTD (as opposed to the Brougham, Landau and later Crown Victoria) was considered the bottom-feeder model by that time; the Custom 500 by then was a fleet/Canada-only.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 18, 2013, 06:58:37 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 18, 2013, 06:02:45 PM
My biggest issue/challenge w/a manual is when one's stopped on an incline.
I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but this is a simple matter. Just hold the car with the hand brake while you let out the clutch and ease down on the accelerator. As someone who owns a manual and lives in San Francisco, I know this maneuver well. There are also several cars that have a "hill hold" feature that will keep the car from rolling back on an incline until you start going.
Personally, I never heard of a so-called
hill hold feature; but then again, the newest vehicle I drove w/a manual was the fore-mentioned 1989 Dodge Dakota.
Quote from: DaBigE on October 20, 2013, 11:29:04 PMOh...I thought you guys were referring to some extra distance necessary for manuals, beyond what you're supposed to leave in general.
^^This. I can't speak for the others here but I was personally referring to
additional space and in a more urban/developed setting where vehicles are typically stopped closer together at stop lights. It may not be right, but that's reality. Similarly, I live in an area that despite the numerous
DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION signs placed at several signalized intersections, stopped vehicles will indeed block them; but that's another thread for another day.
My Saturn hybrid cuts off the engine when the vehicle is stopped at a red light, stop sign or in a drive-through. Even though it's an automatic, some rollback occasionally happens when I move my foot from the brake to the gas and the engine re-engages.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 21, 2013, 10:52:08 AM
Personally, I never heard of a so-called hill hold feature; but then again, the newest vehicle I drove w/a manual was the fore-mentioned 1989 Dodge Dakota.
I believe Subaru was the first manufacturer to come out with hill hold and it was in the early 80s. I've never personally driven a car with one. However, I do know that they need adjusting after time. It was an idea to get more people driving manuals by making it easier in tough start off scenarios. Manual transmissions aren't for every driver. One must have some degree of mechanical inclination in order to be smooth with a clutch. The driver has to have a basic understanding of what's going on between the engagement of the engine/transmission.
For the record of hill roll back...I'm not perfect, but I roll back minimally. I have quite a bit of experience with a manual. 15 of my 16 years have been with driving a manual. In all that time and miles I've been in plenty of steep hill start offs; often with a car behind me. I only rolled back into one car, and it was back shortly after I got my license. It was leaving high school and the girl behind me stopped inches from my bumper. I took my foot off the brake when there was a break in traffic and before I could even get my right foot on the gas pedal I was already resting on her bumper. I pulled out into traffic and she didn't pursue me so she obviously wasn't phased by my doing it.
*Edit to add that I know of but never use the emergency brake trick.
Quote from: signalman on October 21, 2013, 06:36:28 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 21, 2013, 10:52:08 AM
Personally, I never heard of a so-called hill hold feature; but then again, the newest vehicle I drove w/a manual was the fore-mentioned 1989 Dodge Dakota.
I believe Subaru was the first manufacturer to come out with hill hold and it was in the early 80s.
Studebaker had them in 1936.
Quote from: bugo on October 22, 2013, 03:33:28 AMStudebaker had them in 1936.
Yes, but did they
continue offering such? There have been cases where some features and options come out, get dropped and then return many years later.
Tow examples would be 4-wheel disc brakes and anti-lock brakes. Ford and Mercury offered 4-wheel discs as an option during the 70s and Lincoln offered anti-lock brakes in its Continental models during the late 60s/early 70s. Both options were dropped after 1978 but were revived about a decade later.
Quote from: vdeane on October 20, 2013, 06:24:44 PMAn automatic transmission is ALWAYS applying some torque to the wheels. Not so with a manual. With neither the brakes nor the gas applied, the wheels on a manual flow freely and at the whims of gravity. This is also why a manual can stop so much faster from coasting alone. With no gas applied, only inertia keeps the car moving. An automatic still has forces pushing it forward in this state. In a manual, it is never needed to use the brakes to slow down for a slower speed limit if the MUTCD is followed (unless you're on a downhill grade, that is). In an automatic, they are mandatory regardless.
This is true for the Volvo 745 Intercooler I was running for the last couple weeks. It seems to have "negative engine braking" in Drive, and slows down faster when coasting in neutral. OTOH, I normally drive a 745 Turbodiesel, and it has pretty pronounced engine braking in drive, and will slow down pretty quickly without a foot on the accelerator. Sometimes I'll pop it into neutral when coasting up to a red light. Often in city driving, a light foot on the brake is just enough to make the car downshift, and I can then lighten up my pressure on the pedal as the engine braking is mostly adequate to take care of things from there.
--
That said, I prefer manual.
Economy:
Rochester to Portland on one tank (32.49 MPG) in another 745TD ain't too shabby. The Intercooler, OTOH, is fun to drive, but damn... Slushbox with no lockup; 238 miles and it's time to fill'er up again. That's ~16 MPG with about 160 mi highway driving and the rest toodling around suburban Greater Portland. Maybe it's a little
too fun to drive... 8-)
However, yes, the gas/diesel comparison is kinda apples-to-goats...
My `85 TD (slushbox) got 25.99 MPG overall. Best I got was 435 mi on a tank, for 32.14 MPG. After it rusted out, my dad put the engine into the standard car I drove Rochester->Portland. He claims mid-hi 30s MPG overall, even up to 40ish. I requested his most recent Fuel-MPG spreadsheet; maybe I can make a more informed post on that later on. :P
Performance & control:
I find the autos kick down too soon, downshifting when I'd prefer to just put the pedal down and ride it thru/past its torque peak a bit, spool up the turbo, and get the power I need that way. Hunting, on hills or around town in the lower gears, is a drag. I'd much rather have it in the gear I know I want it in, thankyuhverruhmuch.