Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Stick or Automatic Transmission?
- Thread starter OutThere
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I prefer a stick, but due to problems with my left ankle I had to switch to an automatic (during a flare-up driving was impossible). I suspect that clutching may have aggravated the ankle problem.
Getting old is not fun at all . . . .
Getting old is not fun at all . . . .
Manual's as we call them in the old country can offer a much better driving experience, especially if you have a sporty car.
However my current car is an auto and I guess it's not so bad, but it changes up/down too early/too late and is a little fustrating.
Mind you, my car only came with an auto box, so I guess I can live with it
However my current car is an auto and I guess it's not so bad, but it changes up/down too early/too late and is a little fustrating.
Mind you, my car only came with an auto box, so I guess I can live with it
ScruffyTheMac said:
A wise man once said:
"Enjoy the fruits of youth. At first they taste sweet and fresh. But as time passes, the taste grows bitter."
Lord Blackadder said:That's why such cars are called "luxo-barges"
A relative of mine has an old Cadillac Deville, probably a mid '90s. This car is so huge it looks pretty hard to handle. When ever she comes to my house or comes to the house I am at (party), I always say "the boat is docking".
EJBasile said:
I had a great-great grand-uncle (or something
) in West Virginia who droves a '76 Eldorado convertible.
That thing had so much torque it hardly needed any gears at all!
The irony being that Infineon raceways is pretty close to SF and Thunderhill isn't that far either.Kup said:If you live in Seattle, or San Francisco, or Pittsburgh, or any city with hills and mountains, you would be crazy to have a stick for your everyday driver. Weekends at the race track on the other hand, that's another story.
I agree w/ you personally, but most of my relatives who lived in SF drove manuals and they said many of their friends also did the same. But I myself could NEVER handle that kind of superfluous stress. Kup said:
Actually, as somebody with a stick driving in seattle alot, I think the exact opposite. You don't need to have a super powerful car to get up some of those hills in reasonable time.
BEN
miloblithe said:
Well Ford is using CVT in their Five-Hundred, Montego, and Freestyles that have 203HP V6 engines. Long term reliablity remains to be seen however. The CVT allows these cars to achieve good fuel economy and make them accelerate as good as cars with 20-40 more horsepower. My Principal at the school just got a new Five-Hundred All Wheel Drive. She had a small Subaru and wanted something a little larger, but with AWD. I guess she really likes it but said the CVT is kind of different and is taking a little time to get used to. Basically when you punch it, the engine goes to a specified RPM and stays at that engine speed until you reach the driving speed you want. It is different not to see the vehicle shifting through gears.
Abercrombieboy said:
I've heard that as well...that driving a CVT can be really confusing at first...it's hard to imagine just a smooth acceleration to the speed you want.
I've also read several reviews of the Ford Five Hundred...sounds like a really nice car (which, unfortunately, is a dying breed among domestics.)
Chip NoVaMac said:
When you're trying to pass a semi on the highway, and someone blocks you from merging back in, because your car's acceleration is crippled and limited, and you have a head-on collision, then maybe you'll realise that maybe just maybe people should have the power, not machines.
I've been a passenger in a vehicle, where we were in exactly that situation. My Dad was yelling at the driver "poussez le gaz!" and they floored it, barely merging in as oncoming traffic roared by. I'm glad I didn't have to die due to some misguided "safety" device.
devilot said:Haha, I'm not worried about getting up the hills... I'm terrified of rolling back down!
Exactly! Especially the way everyone rides your bumper these days. Oh well, if you get hit from behind technically it's their fault in the laws eyes.
saabmp3 said:
No actually... I've never worn a clutch out
if you wear a clutch out, you aren't driving properly.saabmp3 said:
That advice sucks, what use is that if you're slowing down from 70? none. You change down THROUGH the gears to maximise engine braking and to ensure that you are in the correct gear for your engine and road speed.
saabmp3 said:
Which is why you should change down through all the gears to optimise your engine speed to your road speed. Selecting 3rd or 2nd isn't going to achieve this for the duration of the maneuver is it.
saabmp3 said:
No it doesn't, not if you do it correctly.
saabmp3 said:
If you do that, I bet you get through clutches though.
saabmp3 said:
Actually starting off in 2nd is considered driving without due care and attention over here, that and it puts excess stress on the vehicle too. Not to mention being completely pointless in normal driving conditions.
The only time you need to start off in 2nd is if you're in an older car (without traction control or 4WD) and you need to reduce wheel spin on a slippery surface, where 1st would just exasperate the lack of traction, but the reduced surface friction reduces the mechanical stress of starting in the higher gear as well as reducing wheel spin.
yesterday i was totally analyzing my driving after spending the morning reading this thread. I found that a lot of times I don't give the car much gas when starting up as most people do. The engine grumbles a bit. Also I don't spend a lot of time with the clutch halfway in as a friend of mine does. I get it in gear as quickly as possible and don't have that rev up but not moving situation.
also my car doesn't stop a whole lot when "braking" by downshifting. the engine makes a whole lot of noise though.
also my car doesn't stop a whole lot when "braking" by downshifting. the engine makes a whole lot of noise though.
iGav said:No actually... I've never worn a clutch out
Somewhat true, but going through ALL of your gears twice uses the clutch....twice!!!
That advice was taken from click and clack, the car talk guys on NPR. Quite a popular radio show, and some very knowlegable guys in terms of cars
If you do that, I bet you get through clutches though.
Thanks again iGav...because rereading my post, I still don't see where I said that I do that. I even pointed out that it's bad for your clutch (but I don't know if you understand the term "slipping" a clutch).
So close!! Old cars, new cars, basically all cars benefit from this in snowy conditions (those that you would find perhaps in the mountains or in northern US states, where I currently am). Traction control is just going to slow down the engine revving, not let the wheels stop spinning (it can be argued that they go hand in hand, but it's not true on my 2001 car).
BEN
saabmp3 said:
But it doesn't mean you'll double the speed in which you go through your clutch, which is what you said.
If I really wanted to excessively preserve the life of my clutch I'd freewheel when I was braking... but that's stupidly dangerous of course.
saabmp3 said:
All I can say is that my information was taught to me by my first driving instructor and who later became my advanced instructor, I trust his word, because he's a professional driver who knows his stuff.
But can I ask you a question, when you're slowing down from say 75 mph, and you're in 5th and you're coming to a junction, roundabout or traffic lights and you need to come to a stop, how would you carry out that manoeuvre?
saabmp3 said:
I was taking the mick fella... hence the use of the word 'if' and the cheeky wink and laugh.
I just found it amusing that you were going on about myself going through clutches, when you were kind of dismissive e.g.
and the effect that has on your clutch, that's all.
I meant no offense by the way.
saabmp3 said:
Yes I do thanks, it's covered when we first learn to drive and it causes excessive wear and shouldn't really be done.
saabmp3 said:
Different traction control systems work in different ways, some just lower the revs on the first detection of wheel spin cutting engine power and thus stopping the wheel spin, the good ones however are a lot more advanced meaning that you don't need to start in 2nd at all.
I remember a demonstration on Fifth Gear, and Tiff was driving an X-Type in Finland, or Sweden somewhere REALLY cold where the town's population consists of pretty much no one except car companies and their test drivers, he demonstrated the effectiveness of Traction Control on a sheet ice incline, he tried it first with the system switched off and regardless of whether he started in 1st, or 2nd (even with modulating the throttle) the car was just sliding back, as expected of course.
He then switched the system on and the car just drove straight up the ice, freakish really. The system monitors each wheel independently and can control the amount of power going to each individual wheel, starting in 2nd wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference with this system.
saabmp3 said:
I didn't say snowy, I said slippery... e.g. frosty, icy, wet grass, mud, gravel even greasy wet tarmac on an incline. Snow is another situation entirely of course and requires completely different techniques as you well know judging by your location, and one that I freely admit I don't have enough experience of to really comment on, or at least with any validity.
But that's here nor there, and beyond my original point anyway. There is no reason why anyone should start pulling away in 2nd in normal conditions, and really there isn't any valid reason to skip gears when accelerating either.