Manual vs. Automatic?

[hbelkins]

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.

[signalman]

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.

[bugo]

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.

[PHLBOS]

Studebaker 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.

[yakra]

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 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...

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.

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.