Stick or Automatic Transmission?

[~Shard~]

I prefer stick. If you have an automatic, you're only steering the car. If you have a stick shift, you're actually driving the car.

 

[xsedrinam]

Stick is just awesome. It also prevents others from wanting to drive your car...

Ha! Hadn't heard that one in a while, but it's true. Remember when we used to spit in our cokes at the ball diamond so nobody would want a drink?

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I guess it is stick for the gearheads and performance orientated. Auto for those of us that are older and more concerned about long term costs.

After an infection, that for the male among us one can only guess about , I will never own another stick car. Yes, they are fun to drive. But when you drive them for "fun", the fuel efficiency is lost.

Longer term, AT's have less repairs over MT's. The repair costs IIRC from a CR story will for many out weigh the extra cost of the AT's.

OT of sort: why is that we still don't see more vehicles with the CVT transmission?

 

[Whyren]

I much prefer the stick...gives you more of a connection to the vehicle. Sort of like how starfighter pilots dial down inertial compensators a bit so they can actually feel some effects of gravity for reference.
(sorry...been reading the X-Wing series too much again)

 

[miloblithe]

I guess it is stick for the gearheads and performance orientated. Auto for those of us that are older and more concerned about long term costs.

OT of sort: why is that we still don't see more vehicles with the CVT transmission?

Sticks are cheaper (usually), cheaper to fix, get better gas mileage, and are less likely to need repair if used by a driver who understands not to ride the clutch.

Automatics are for people who don't want to be bothered with shifting, plaing and simple, or who are unable to drive a stick-shift. There are no other reasons (although those are perfectly legitimate ones).

CVTs, in my understanding, don't work very well with large amounts of power, which is why they tend to be linked to small engines in small cars, like the 3-cylinder, 9-valve (how's that for unique!) Subaru Justy. Something like 70 horsepower.

 

[joepunk]

Right now I am an automatic person. I have not had much time using a stick and my family only had one stick-shift car for a few years during my young driving age. I managed to drive it a few times but never really was all that enthusiastic to really want to drive a stick. Also, when driving on Seattle hills, an auto is such a life saver if you know how to use the parking break.

Even though using a stick gets the car better fuel efficiency over an auto, how many people really drive just to get the most fuel economy out of their stick-shift car?

 

[Sutekidane]

Definately automatic. I'm WAY too busy with my hands while I'm driving to have to bother moving a stick constantly.

 

[KingSleaze]

I've got both.
I prefer stick, in addition to all of the previous reasons, I can keep the car in a higher gear--go farther per engine revolution--get more miles per gallon. As stupid as gas prices have gotten lately, that's the best benefit of the stick.
However, I won a car during last springs's GM Hot Button promotion. Didn't have a choice, it came with an automatic. Can't beat the price of the car though.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Sticks are cheaper (usually), cheaper to fix, get better gas mileage, and are less likely to need repair if used by a driver who understands not to ride the clutch.

And there is the rub on that. the CR report I saw stated that on an average the cost was lower over the long term for AT over MT. Even more so as AT's have gained the tech edge on milage compared to MT's.

Automatics are for people who don't want to be bothered with shifting, plaing and simple, or who are unable to drive a stick-shift. There are no other reasons (although those are perfectly legitimate ones).

As stated above, the mpg differences between MT and AT have narrowed. There are times like for towing and hilly driving that MT's may rule over At's. I think for most it is the macho desire.

CVTs, in my understanding, don't work very well with large amounts of power, which is why they tend to be linked to small engines in small cars, like the 3-cylinder, 9-valve (how's that for unique!) Subaru Justy. Something like 70 horsepower.

You may have answered my question inadvertently. Our nation seems to be obsessed with "power". Never mind that the maximum posted speed limit is 75mph IIRC. All that seems to matter is being able to do it under 6 seconds from a standing start. There was a time IIRC that the Toyota Avalon got something near 33 or 34mpg. This year they came back to 31mpg, after being something like 29 or 30 mpg hwy.

If we can mandate airbags, tire pressure sensors, and the such for "national" safety; then maybe we need to start to mandate speed governors limiting cars to no more that 80mph. Or mandating acceleration rates to no more than 0-60 in 7.5 seconds.

 

[miloblithe]

From Wikipedia:

"CVTs have much smoother operation than hydraulic automatic transmissions, are simpler to build and repair and provide better fuel economy by avoiding torque converter losses. Their torque handling capability is limited by the strength of the belt or chain, and the ability to withstand friction wear between torque source and transmission medium for friction-driven CVTs. Therefore CVTs have typically been limited to low powered cars and other light duty applications."


But I'm amazed that the Nissan Murano has a CVT linked to a 3.6l V6. And there are a lot more CVT cars available than I thought. (I haven't been a "car guy" for about a decade so I've missed a lot of developments.)

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Definately automatic. I'm WAY too busy with my hands while I'm driving to have to bother moving a stick constantly.

You may have been joking, but that is a serious issue as people fiddle with their cell phones, iPods, and DV players eek: ).

 

[Peterkro]

The major advantage to manual gearboxes(what you lot charmingly refer to as a stick shift)is that its 10-15% more efficant than a Auto.They are also much more controlable than Autos as lots of people have pointed out.I've driven all sorts of vechicles in many different parts of the world for a looong time and its manual all the way.Autos are still relatively rare in Europe where fuel costs tend to be higher,not economical to drive a car which has a what is a large pump as a gearbox.

 

[miloblithe]

You may have answered my question inadvertently. Our nation seems to be obsessed with "power". Never mind that the maximum posted speed limit is 75mph IIRC. All that seems to matter is being able to do it under 6 seconds from a standing start. There was a time IIRC that the Toyota Avalon got something near 33 or 34mpg. This year they came back to 31mpg, after being something like 29 or 30 mpg hwy.

If we can mandate airbags, tire pressure sensors, and the such for "national" safety; then maybe we need to start to mandate speed governors limiting cars to no more that 80mph. Or mandating acceleration rates to no more than 0-60 in 7.5 seconds.

Sounds good by me. I should mention that the reason I know how many valves a Subaru Justy's engine has is because I used to drive one as a teenager (it was my dad's car). And when I bought a car I got a not terribly overpowered Acura Integra (1.8l, 140hp).

I'm always annoyed when anyone refers to 150hp (or more!) cars as "underpowered".

 

[tag]

The parking brake is easy to forget D) and vital...get in the habit of putting the car in gear after shutting it off, especially on hills. The engine compression will keep the car from moving if the brake happens to not work right (which can happen).

Hahah oh my god that is the worst thing ever. Right after I learned to drive stick I had my car at a friends house, which had its driveway on a hill, and only had the parking break on (forgot to put it in gear, stupid me). Now wouldn't you know it, like a half hour after getting there, there is a knock on the door by this stranger asking who's car it is that is empty and sitting in the middle of the road, blocking both lanes of traffic. Honestly I almost died of embarrassment, but I'm so glad it didn't hit a car or go across the street into the giant ditch that was on the other side. I'll tell you, I never forget to put it in gear now.

But despite some embarrassing moments, I would never go back to automatic, it just seems to be a bore now. Gah and what's the deal with that Lexus SC430, that sport car only comes in auto, I guess maybe because its a good deal luxury type, but what a shame yeah?.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Sounds good by me. I should mention that the reason I know how many valves a Subaru Justy's engine has is because I used to drive one as a teenager (it was my dad's car). And when I bought a car I got a not terribly overpowered Acura Integra (1.8l, 140hp).

I'm always annoyed when anyone refers to 150hp (or more!) cars as "underpowered".

I come from an age that 90-110hp "ecno-boxes" were consider "death". I had a Civic 2001 with 120hp IIRC that was plenty fast for driving in the urban area of DC. The 'hunting" for the right gear when doing the hills of WV or going out to STL via Nashville was a "disappointment". I think that a CVT would have given me no concerns. I was able to keep up with my Civic on the likes of I-81 and I-95 in CT. F them on the highways that don't like it when I can't or won't do over 15+ over the posted limit! I am not in the far left hand lane, unless at 15+/- over the limit - that I am passing those in the right most lanes.

 

[mad jew]

My company car is an auto but my regular is a manual. I like it this way because when I'm driving about for work it means I don't have to worry so much about gear changes whereas I can still play with phallic shafts in my "own" time, if it pleases me.

 

[iBlue]

both for different reasons. sticks are fun for sporty driving but on a regular basis i'd rather have automatic. learning to drive in los angeles traffic will cure a lot of people of the desire to drive a stick... my left leg would nearly shake with fatique at times in massive traffic jams holding that damn clutch in. after that i did not care one bit about that "control" of a stick-shift.
all our cars at the current moment are automatic transmissions.

 

[AppleAce]

And of course, there's going up hills where automatics always seem to shift at the wrong time.....

Exactly what annoys me to no end about automatics.

And how can you people forget to not take the car out of gear when you shut off the engine??? It's called, the only time the car should be in neutral is if the engine is running and you're parked, with the brake on, or if your left foot gets tired at a stop light. Park, turn off ignition, let left foot off of clutch, don't shift out of gear, easy as that.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Exactly what annoys me to no end about automatics.

That is why most car manuals suggest that you down shift (or up shift as needed) in these cases.

And how can you people forget to not take the car out of gear when you shut off the engine??? It's called, the only time the car should be in neutral is if the engine is running and you're parked, with the brake on, or if your left foot gets tired at a stop light. Park, turn off ignition, let left foot off of clutch, don't shift out of gear, easy as that.

I think it is due to many drivers being used to AT's. What will become of future generations that become used to the like of the Prius with no ignition key to turn? Or a gear shift on the floor to shift?

 

[Kobushi]

If we can mandate airbags, tire pressure sensors, and the such for "national" safety; then maybe we need to start to mandate speed governors limiting cars to no more that 80mph. Or mandating acceleration rates to no more than 0-60 in 7.5 seconds.

them's fightin' words!
I'm not anywhere near a gearhead, but believe it or not, there are times when gunning it up to 90 has saved my life. I can't count how many times I've tried to pass some pokey bastard doing 65 in an SUV, or some trucker doing the same speed, only to have them obliviously try to pull into my lane (with me still in it). Slamming the brakes wasn't an option. I've no desire for a car that plants me in the backseat if I stomp on the gas, but I do like the vehicle to be as close to an immediate extention of my body as possible. In short, I'm a control freek. I demand performance. However, you may be surprised to find out that when I ordered my car, I went for a 4-cyl over the 6 for better mileage.

I wouldn't trust CR any more than the grammatically incorrect, explicit product reviews I always see online. They change their stance on some products more than John Kerry. Fact is, when I shopped for my car (recently), every single window sticker showed an EPA rating for mph that was higher for manuals than autos. Occassionally, the margin was only 2mpg. As far as repairs go, I don't know where that comes from. I've owned many a car (both stick and auto) and have always had more problems with the auto. Statistically, you would have to--more moving parts = greater chance for failure. And every time, the parts were more. Not to mention every auto I looked at was instantly $1k+ higher than the manual in the same model.

*pant* *pant*....okay. I think I'm done.
Speed governers, indeed.

 

[devilot]

Stick for me... I'm not the greatest at it (had this stick car since February 14, 2004 but haven't yet put 9K miles on it ) but I've been told that I'm better than some of the boyfriend's buddies who have driven stick for quite a while now.

I tried driving an automatic once or twice since having a manual-- I definitely stomped on the brake before turning the key in the ignition. Hee.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

them's fightin' words!
I'm not anywhere near a gearhead, but believe it or not, there are times when gunning it up to 90 has saved my life. I can't count how many times I've tried to pass some pokey bastard doing 65 in an SUV, or some trucker doing the same speed, only to have them obliviously try to pull into my lane (with me still in it). Slamming the brakes wasn't an option. I've no desire for a car that plants me in the backseat if I stomp on the gas, but I do like the vehicle to be as close to an immediate extention of my body as possible. In short, I'm a control freek. I demand performance. However, you may be surprised to find out that when I ordered my car, I went for a 4-cyl over the 6 for better mileage.

Fair enough. The real point is that we have way too many over powered cars on the road, all due to the culture and promise that we have a free economy to decide what we should be able to but, in particular to cars.

Keep in mind most state laws require you to anticipate that a slow poke may pull into your lane, and you should be ready to address that.

I wouldn't trust CR any more than the grammatically incorrect, explicit product reviews I always see online. They change their stance on some products more than John Kerry. Fact is, when I shopped for my car (recently), every single window sticker showed an EPA rating for mph that was higher for manuals than autos. Occassionally, the margin was only 2mpg. As far as repairs go, I don't know where that comes from. I've owned many a car (both stick and auto) and have always had more problems with the auto. Statistcally, you would have to--more moving parts = greater chance for failure. And every time, the parts were more. Not to mention every auto I looked at was instantly $1k+ higher than the manual in the same model.

*pant* *pant*....okay. I think I'm done.
Speed governers, indeed.

Maybe any more than I would trust GWB on WMD in Iraq. Sorry but I could not resist after your condemnation of CR.

The difference is 6% on average over MT vs. AT. IIRC the report from CR that I read indicated that over a 100K life-span, that the costs between MT and AT would give the edge to the AT in repairs, as a cost of of ownership.

It depends on the driving you do. If you are a highway traveler with little shifting, then MT's have the advantage. Otherwise AT's are better overall.

As to speed governors, there has to be something that we can do about about those (at least in the DC area) that do well over 15-20mph over the posted limit (the max in the area IIRC is like 65mph). These "speeders" are a safety concern. They are also a social concern, because increased speed is a drain on the limited fossil fuel resources we face as a world economy.

 

[devilot]

The difference is 6% on average over MT vs. AT. IIRC the report from CR that I read indicated that over a 100K life-span, that the costs between MT and AT would give the edge to the AT in repairs, as a cost of of ownership.

I doubt that. I know several people involved in going through auto programs (trying to become master technicians) and they all say if there's something wrong w/ an AT; you swap the whole dang thing out-- more time and cost efficient than attempting to fix certain parts. That is NOT the same for MT.

As to speed governors, there has to be something that we can do about about those (at least in the DC area) that do well over 15-20mph over the posted limit (the max in the area IIRC is like 65mph). These "speeders" are a safety concern. They are also a social concern, because increased speed is a drain on the limited fossil fuel resources we face as a world economy.

I know of at least one person here in CA who after receiving several moving violations (usually going upwards of 95-120 mph) had a government installed/mandated speed governor placed in his car; his modified BMW would then top out at a blistering 70 mph. Also, most cars do come stock w/ a form a speed governor-- they just aren't set 'low enough' I believe to be of great help.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I doubt that. I know several people involved in going through auto programs (trying to become master technicians) and they all say if there's something wrong w/ an AT; you swap the whole dang thing out-- more time and cost efficient than attempting to fix certain parts. That is NOT the same for MT.

It depends on our experiences, and society as a whole. The problem is that when there is an issue with TA's, they are expensive.

I am sure that there is some one here that will give us a break down as the the repairs between the cars owned and the miles driven and the cost of repairs between MT's and AT's.

 

[tag]

What will become of future generations that become used to the like of the Prius with no ignition key to turn? Or a gear shift on the floor to shift?

Oh man that is pretty sweet, I had no idea they could do that, I'm kinda wishing my car had that. Just for the other uninformed I did a quick search when I had no idea what you were talking about exactly , this is from wikipedia...

There is no conventional ignition switch which needs to be turned to start the Prius, that function having been replaced by a simple round "Power" button on the dashboard. With the SE/SS models, the driver need only sit down inside the vehicle (with the fob in their posession), press the brake with their foot and push the "Power" button to start the vehicle