2009 Nissan GT-R - Zero tolerance for asshattery

[Scaff]

Upon reading this post, I googled to see what CAGS is. This is what I found:

"...Chevrolet came up with an innovative (and annoying) gizmo called CAGS. CAGS forces you to shift your manual transmission Corvette from first to fourth under light acceleration. It never causes a problem when you're pegging it but is a pain when you forget to mash the throttle to the floor."

Thanks for pointing that out. I would HATE that; and that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Luckily, theres a way to disable it, and that's the first thing I'd do if I ever got one. Makes me love my Tbird and my dad's Chevelle even more. No electronic pedals, nothing that MAKES me shift into a specific gear, and no traction control other than the posi rear end.

And guess what that would do to your warranty......




.....void it instantly, guess that's one a piece for GM and Nissan.

**********PLEASE READ NOW**********​

I would also like to take a moment to remind everyone of the following addition to the title of this thread.....

" Zero tolerance for asshattery"

.....as a number of you are starting to get very close to testing that statement. Just as a reminder the last time the staff had to step in with regard to this thread a number of people lost the privilege of posting in it for a period of time, this can and will be repeated if heads do not get cooler and quickly.

First, last and only warning. I will be checking the thread on very regular basis from now and anyone even nudging over the AUP will not be posting in here for a while, act like a complete asshat and infractions will follow.

In short gents, if you can't talk nicely to each other, then I will stop you talking to each other at all.


Thanks

Scaff

 

[kingcars]

It has been said before but the dual clutch transmissions completely destroy manuals when it comes to performance. If you can shift in 60 milliseconds or so you're officially a damn tough guy. I doubt you can though, or anyone else for that matter. So technically, and compared to the dual clutchers, the manuals indeed are slushboxes.

Nope, the term slushbox was made to describe automatics. A manual transmission driven by a good driver can be an incredibly fast-shifting setup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fwydyrDSkE

Watch that...how can you call that a slushbox?

With the same logic as yours Renault is apparently the fastest car in the world, their F1 car has just won two races in a row in front of Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW... in short, race cars mean absolutely nothing.

And the winner of the Daytona? Certainly not a Corvette. More like a Lexus.

What real life car is the F1 car based off of? Oh, and it seems you've forgotten this:

Doesn't look like a Lexus to me.

I'd say it's completely OK to use the word in such a context seeing what was his own opinion about it. The point being that manuals certainly are slow in comparison to dual clutch gearboxes.

Just because they may be slowER doesn't make them slushboxes. Slushbox is a term used for automatic transmissions that shift slowly. Anybody who has actually driven a slushbox AND a manual would know. Too many people only look at the numbers without any real world experience. Just because an 8 second 1/4 mile car is faster than a 10 second car doesn't mean the 10 second car is a slow piece of crap. If you want to talk slushboxes, try driving a stock ford AOD.

And guess what that would do to your warranty......


.....void it instantly, guess that's one a piece for GM and Nissan.

That's fine, since I'd mod the crap out of it anyway. Something Nissan tried to prevent with the GTR. (key word is tried, though haha)

And to further my point of the term slushbox, lets look at a couple of definitions:

1. slushbox

Slang term for a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission.

2. slushbox

slang term for an automatic transmission, possibly because the transmission connects the engine to the drive shaft using a fluid instead of a solid plate

slushbox (plural slushboxes)

3. (slang, automotive) An automatic transmission (a term used by automobile aficionados, derisively describing the reduction of performance in comparison to a manual transmission).

So, as I said, no such thing as a slushbox manual. A slow shifting manual just means the driver either isn't good or isn't TRYING to shift quickly (ie under normal driving conditions).

 

[Greycap]

What real life car is the F1 car based off of?

It's as much of a road car as the race Corvette is a road Corvette. If the C6R had the road engine, the road suspension, the road gearbox, everything out of the road model, in fact, if it WAS a road model, your argument would be valid. Race cars simply can't be used to find out which car is the fastest unless it's about Group N racing or some other class that uses cars very close to production spec.

Oh, and it seems you've forgotten this:

*picture*

Doesn't look like a Lexus to me.

http://www.daytona24hr.com/

That car on the opening page certainly doesn't look like a Corvette to me. It looks very much like a Lexus Riley. And it won the race. The Corvettes may have won their class but the Lexus won the overall race.

And to further my point of the term slushbox, lets look at a couple of definitions:

Funnily enough, it wasn't me who said that the term slushbox refers to a slow shifting transmission yet you're trying to nail me for it. No mention about anything related to automatics, simply that the term slushbox refers to a slow shifting transmission.

This is going off-topic again, I'm out for a while.

 

[kingcars]

Funnily enough, it wasn't me who said that the term slushbox refers to a slow shifting transmission yet you're trying to nail me for it. No mention about anything related to automatics, simply that the term slushbox refers to a slow shifting transmission.

ORLY?

It has been said before but the dual clutch transmissions completely destroy manuals when it comes to performance. If you can shift in 60 milliseconds or so you're officially a damn tough guy. I doubt you can though, or anyone else for that matter. So technically, and compared to the dual clutchers, the manuals indeed are slushboxes.

The point being that manuals certainly are slow in comparison to dual clutch gearboxes.

I'm pretty sure that's your user name there, saying that manuals are slushboxes.

And the whole race car argument was over a good number of posts ago; my point was that I said Vettes won the Daytona race a while ago, and they did.

Point being, I'd still rather have a real manual setup than a button or pedal. Nothing can compare to the experience, even if it is technically faster.

 

[Tornado]

I'm pretty sure that's your user name there, saying that manuals are slushboxes.

The hell are you talking about? You were the one who said automatics were called slushboxes because they shifted slower.

 

[buickgnx88]

Guys, guys, guys calm down. It's pretty much true that in terms of quickness, dual-clutch>manual>auto. And anyways, slushbox was originally used by manual guys to describe automatics. http://www.motorera.com/dictionary/SL.HTM

 

[kingcars]

The hell are you talking about? You were the one who said automatics were called slushboxes because they shifted slower.

You are correct. I said that because it's TRUE. Look at the definitions I listed. You're the one saying MANUALS are slushboxes, which is incorrect.

3. (slang, automotive) An automatic transmission (a term used by automobile aficionados, derisively describing the reduction of performance in comparison to a manual transmission).

Guys, guys, guys calm down. It's pretty much true that in terms of quickness, dual-clutch>manual>auto. And anyways, slushbox was originally used by manual guys to describe automatics. http://www.motorera.com/dictionary/SL.HTM

Correct. 👍

 

[the Interceptor]

Actually it's none of my business, but since I'd like this thread to stay open, you guys should back off a little and remember what Scaff posted earlier.

Anyway, what I actually wanted to point out that it's not the speed of the shifts that makes a double clutch gearbox have an advantage. The idea is that while the actual shift happens, there's no discontinuity in power delivery, since the two clutches open / close simultaneously. That's the true advantage of the concept.

 

[kingcars]

Actually it's none of my business, but since I'd like this thread to stay open, you guys should back off a little and remember what Scaff posted earlier.

Anyway, what I actually wanted to point out that it's not the speed of the shifts that makes a double clutch gearbox have an advantage. The idea is that while the actual shift happens, there's no discontinuity in power delivery, since the two clutches open / close simultaneously. That's the true advantage of the concept.

Thanks for the info. 👍

We're keeping the debate civil, so I see nothing wrong with it. There's no flaming or name calling going on, and it is on the topic of the GTR since it has a double clutch setup.

 

[MustangSVT]

What real life car is the F1 car based off of? Oh, and it seems you've forgotten this:

Just cause a race car does well doesn't really mean anything. Look at Aston Martin. Their DBR9 has won the Le Mans 24hr GT1 class the last 2 times. Since the modern vette racer is called "C6R" and the Aston is called "DBR9", that would mean that the cars in question here are the "C6" and the "DB9". I'm pretty sure that both of those cars are in a different class from each other, and the C6 ZR-1 would probably destroy the DB9 on the track, but then again the DB9 is not exactly designed to be a track machine. Using a race car as "proof" that a road car is good doesn't really mean much, unless it's in a category that is very close to production spec.

Note: i'm not trying to bash the Corvette (or other car for that matter), I'm just saying that highly developed race cars (such as the C6R and DBR9) do not relate that closely to the road going car.

 

[Wolfe]

You are correct. I said that because it's TRUE.

They're objecting to the reasoning. You're defending the claim. Yes, automatics are called slushboxes. No, they did not earn that name because they "shift slow."

For one thing, automatics are not "slower" than manuals. Not only does a manual's shifting time depend on the driver, but most automatics -- if left to their own devices -- will shift almost instantaneously. It's when you try to use flappy paddles or a +/- stick that automatic shifts become irritatingly sluggish.

The reason automatics are called slushboxes is because the torque converter makes for very vague and unresponsive throttle input. When you dip your toe in, it can take a second or two for the car to even begin accelerating, and between the hyper-eager upshifts and lack of engine braking, a backroad jaunt feels more like a soap box derby with a "climb hill" pedal than a spirited drive.

A well-designed automatic isn't so bad, but I still refuse to drive anything that uses a torque converter unless it's a truck intended for 4x4ing or towing.

 

[kingcars]

They're objecting to the reasoning. You're defending the claim. Yes, automatics are called slushboxes. No, they did not earn that name because they "shift slow."

For one thing, automatics are not "slower" than manuals. Not only does a manual's shifting time depend on the driver, but most automatics -- if left to their own devices -- will shift almost instantaneously. It's when you try to use flappy paddles or a +/- stick that automatic shifts become irritatingly sluggish.

The reason automatics are called slushboxes is because the torque converter makes for very vague and unresponsive throttle input. When you dip your toe in, it can take a second or two for the car to even begin accelerating, and between the hyper-eager upshifts and lack of engine braking, a backroad jaunt feels more like a soap box derby with a "climb hill" pedal than a spirited drive.

A well-designed automatic isn't so bad, but I still refuse to drive anything that uses a torque converter unless it's a truck intended for 4x4ing or towing.

I've been in many street races against manual cars, back when I had the automatic. You wouldnt believe the ground I would give up to them due to the slow shifts. A well built, fast shifting automatic is typically not called a slushbox, since it's used as a derogatory term. Slow, sloppy shifting autos are the focus. Trust me, I had one.

The throttle response you speak of is also true. I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[Wolfe]

I've driven a Grand Prix, Blazer, Cressida, Cutlass Supreme, SC300, 525ti, and Subaru SVX with automatic transmissions, and not a single one, even the Oldsmobile, takes more than a split second to complete an upshift. If you're driving a modestly powerful automatic car, a full-throttle run should feel like a wave of acceleration with a slight reprieve each time you hear the engine drop into the next gear. If not, there's something wrong with your transmission.

Also, I still call a well-made automatic a slushbox as long as it has a torque converter. I don't care how far Mercedes-Benz, VAG, or Porsche have taken the technology -- this is the best thing any of them have done with a planetary gearset.

 

[niky]

Thing is: others have done the exact same thing before, such as BMW with the E46 M3. I didn't see anyone complain there...

There was quite a brouhaha over it when M3 owners found out their launches were being counted and warranties were being denied. Of course, the issue wasn't as widely blown out of proportion (despite the number of cases) as the GT-R issue is.

But I'd rather not own either. They both have electronic throttles.

It all depends on the tuning. Most E-throttles have a lot of lag in their response, but the best ones are nearly transparent in operation.

Of course, an E-throttle means no engine-bogging if you open the throttle too wide for the rpms the engine is at. Takes away some of the skill needed to drive, but seriously, on the racetrack, you're at WOT at low rpms... when? More to the point... when are you ever at low rpms on the racetrack?

The one really horrid thing about E-Throttles... anti-Launch Control. Some E-throttles shut closed to preserve the engine when you dump the clutch. This is a crime on par with ABS kicking in before brakes achieve full-lock.

-----

Slushbox refers to, and ONLY refers to, anything with a torque converter... though most CVTs have torque converters, I often refer to them as rubber bands...

It's a derogatory term, but high-end torque-converter transmissions have the ability to withstand a ton of punishment... Maybe Nissan should put a Mercedes unit in the 2nd-Generation R35 GT-R?

Still, I'm a fence-sitter on this one. A manual clutch transmission, driven by a good driver, will always be faster than a torque-converter transmission... but a robotized manual allows you to concentrate on other things... gives you more left-foot braking options than a three-pedal... allows you to concentrate more on actually driving than your footwork. And you still have total control over which gear you're using, rpms and engine-braking.

And that's the nice thing about new technology.

It pares away the unessential parts of driving. You want involvement? Go powerboat racing... there are so many things to watch that it takes two people to pilot one of those monsters. One person just to adjust engine trims, because the other has his hands full just driving it. Try to do everything yourself... a la F1... on the fly, and it's just superfluous logic-circuit overload.

For me, the important part of driving is that I have control over which way the car is pointing, which way it will go, and when it will accelerate or brake. The rest is just fluff.

An active AWD system will make a car pointier on turn-in and more stable on the way out, but you still have control over where the car will go. It's not any worse than having active downforce or r-compound tires. I've never heard a karter complain that his tires have too much grip, making driving too easy and uninvolving.

Well... I complain about too much grip... but it's simply because too much grip on a road car makes it difficult to reach that cusp between under-control and out-of-control at safe and sane speeds.

In this regard, your ZR1, Porsche GT3 or Viper ACR is no better or worse than a GT-R... they all have so much tire grip that thehy demand much less from the driver to extract 9/10ths of their performance than, say, a 1950's sportscar.

That extra 1/10ths? That's where the engagement comes in. Where they start demanding skill from you... driving skill that could mean the difference between life and death.

Arguing that a Corvette is better than a GT-R in regards to driver engagement because it has less technology is like arguing Perrier is better than regular distilled water because it's more natural. They both come out of a bottle, and they're both H2O.

Now if we're talking GT-R versus, say, a Kia Rio... then we have something to talk about...

 

[the Interceptor]

There was quite a brouhaha over it when M3 owners found out their launches were being counted and warranties were being denied. Of course, the issue wasn't as widely blown out of proportion (despite the number of cases) as the GT-R issue is.

There was? I did hear some faint rumbling, so I must have missed that. Anyway, I must say I can kind of understand BMW as well as Nissan. You just can't build a vehicle to withstand all the forces of nature for all time. As a launch control naturally is very hard on the car (especially on an AWD such as the GT-R), you will be wearing parts out. The handbook tells you so, and it also says that you'll void the warranty. But who needs LC in real life? Can't you get off line line quickly enough without in a daily driving situation? Therefore, I can live with circumstances such as these.

Still, I can understand the argument that you have to use LC to archieve the 0-60 time claimed by the manufacturer. Then again, I am sure that BMW as well as Nissan can set up a situation where they will reach that time without LC. Since noone states how that test is to be performed, they are permitted to do so. Besides that, every manufacturer sends his models out with stats you just can't meet in real life driving. Just think of mpg figures. Therefore, I don't see Nissan doing so wrong in this case, at least not worse than all the other manufacturers.

A thing that must not happen in this respect however is the story of one GT-R owner from NAGTROC. He bought the car solely for 0-60 accelerations, and therefore, he had the salesman demonstrate the LC to him several times on an almost brandnew car, the car he later bought. The salesman newer warned him about voiding the warranty and never told him not to use the LC repeatedly. Also, the owner claims that he never was given the paper that you have to sign in order to learn that driving the car with VDC off will void your warranty. Given it's all true, the salesman made a huge mistake here.

 

[McLaren]

Joey D: Ever heard of dealer markup?

Your logic of pricing is completley stupid. How can the term "smoking/smokes/etc." be used in terms of price. A GT-R's price is smoked by the Corvette's price because it's higher, is that what you're trying to relay?

Hell, in that case, a I guess a Genesis really puts a S-Class to shame, then....

 

[kingcars]

Your logic of pricing is completley stupid. How can the term "smoking/smokes/etc." be used in terms of price. A GT-R's price is smoked by the Corvette's price because it's higher, is that what you're trying to relay?

Hell, in that case, a I guess a Genesis really puts a S-Class to shame, then....

Wow, that argument is old, and it's been long settled now. Read the whole discussion before posting please.

Still, I'm a fence-sitter on this one. A manual clutch transmission, driven by a good driver, will always be faster than a torque-converter transmission... but a robotized manual allows you to concentrate on other things... gives you more left-foot braking options than a three-pedal... allows you to concentrate more on actually driving than your footwork. And you still have total control over which gear you're using, rpms and engine-braking.

And that's the nice thing about new technology.

It pares away the unessential parts of driving. You want involvement? Go powerboat racing... there are so many things to watch that it takes two people to pilot one of those monsters. One person just to adjust engine trims, because the other has his hands full just driving it. Try to do everything yourself... a la F1... on the fly, and it's just superfluous logic-circuit overload.

For me, the important part of driving is that I have control over which way the car is pointing, which way it will go, and when it will accelerate or brake. The rest is just fluff.

Race car drivers have long been perfecting the art of heel-toe shifting. I think it's an essential skill (that I can't wait to practice and perfect myself). You cannot try to compare F1 or powerboat racing to a regular road car or sports car racing series like ALMS. They're completely different. Things like F1 and Rally racing are areas where I do understand the use of computer controlled setups, but that's not what the discussion is about. My argument still stands that a true clutch/manual setup keeps you more in tune with the car than any computer controlled setup, and that's what makes it better in my opinion. Using paddles or a push stick just feels like playing a video game.

 

[McLaren]

Wow, that argument is old, and it's been long settled now. Read the whole discussion before posting please.

There shouldn't have been a discussion in the first place about your logic of what car's bests another in terms of price. It's silly. Just like how you posted a picture of the Corvettes winning the 24H Daytona back in 2001, and used that picture in the discussion of a Corvette C6-generation Z06 against a GT-R when the winning Corvettes were very different, old C5Rs.

 

[kingcars]

There shouldn't have been a discussion in the first place about your logic of what car's bests another in terms of price. It's silly. Just like how you posted a picture of the Corvettes winning the 24H Daytona back in 2001, and used that picture in the discussion of a Corvette C6-generation Z06 against a GT-R when the winning Corvettes were very different, old C5Rs.

Just as dumb as their argument calling manuals "slushboxes" even though the term ONLY applies to automatics. However, nobody else is hanging on logic flaws that we've already called each other out on and sorted out (the Le Mans references were in response to people saying that American cars can't handle). Please put it behind you and try to add onto the conversation we're currently engaged in instead of one we settled a while ago.

 

[niky]

Race car drivers have long been perfecting the art of heel-toe shifting. I think it's an essential skill (that I can't wait to practice and perfect myself). You cannot try to compare F1 or powerboat racing to a regular road car or sports car racing series like ALMS. They're completely different. Things like F1 and Rally racing are areas where I do understand the use of computer controlled setups, but that's not what the discussion is about. My argument still stands that a true clutch/manual setup keeps you more in tune with the car than any computer controlled setup, and that's what makes it better in my opinion. Using paddles or a push stick just feels like playing a video game.

It's possible, I'll grant you that. On road cars, having a clutch allows you more options when coming into a corner, I've witnessed firsthand how much more playful you can get with a manual compared to a DSG, SMG or CVT box with paddles both on corner entry than corner exit.

But in racing, not having to think about other things allows you to do millimeter perfect driving without distraction. It's for this alone that I'm having a hard time holding onto my hatred of slushboxes. On a tight autocross, or through chicanes and hairpins, you kind of start to appreciate the fact that you're not fumbling between 2nd to 3rd gear (lordy, for the days when doglegs were still in vogue!) and are instead accelerating away from a corner where the guy behind you is still looking for the proper gate.

In tune with the car, for me, is knowing exactly what all four wheels are doing. And that's easier when you have both hands on the steering wheel.

All priorities... manual=fun. (new/DSG/SMG/whatever) automatic=fast. Personally, I still wouldn't buy anything without a clutch and a stick, but having driven the cream-of-the-crop of new automatics, I'm amazed by how responsive they are... to the point that I don't even bother with the flappy paddles, anymore.

As for heel-and-toeing... my bane and disappointment... I can't heel-and-toe to save my life. The only reason I'm even halfway-quick on the race-track is quick shifting and a good understanding of proper apexing.

 

[kingcars]

It's possible, I'll grant you that. On road cars, having a clutch allows you more options when coming into a corner, I've witnessed firsthand how much more playful you can get with a manual compared to a DSG, SMG or CVT box with paddles both on corner entry than corner exit.

But in racing, not having to think about other things allows you to do millimeter perfect driving without distraction. It's for this alone that I'm having a hard time holding onto my hatred of slushboxes. On a tight autocross, or through chicanes and hairpins, you kind of start to appreciate the fact that you're not fumbling between 2nd to 3rd gear (lordy, for the days when doglegs were still in vogue!) and are instead accelerating away from a corner where the guy behind you is still looking for the proper gate.

In tune with the car, for me, is knowing exactly what all four wheels are doing. And that's easier when you have both hands on the steering wheel.

All priorities... manual=fun. (new/DSG/SMG/whatever) automatic=fast. Personally, I still wouldn't buy anything without a clutch and a stick, but having driven the cream-of-the-crop of new automatics, I'm amazed by how responsive they are... to the point that I don't even bother with the flappy paddles, anymore.

As for heel-and-toeing... my bane and disappointment... I can't heel-and-toe to save my life. The only reason I'm even halfway-quick on the race-track is quick shifting and a good understanding of proper apexing.

Can't disagree with anything said in this post. It's just a personal preference. I never said true manuals are faster, but I simply prefer the experience. Sounds like you do as well. However, for things like heavy drag racing applications, automatics are the way to go. But for a fun street car, no automatic will ever touch a manual in my opinion. I spent the first 2 years of having my license with an automatic in the Tbird. For the past 2 months since I've swapped in the 5 speed, I haven't regretted it, even if the learning curve got frustrating at times (I kept grinding 2nd gear and it would drive me INSANE).

 

[Joey D]

With a street car I see zero point to having a manual, especially while sitting in bumper to bumper traffic trying to get home from work. It's just a royal pain to have to work the clutch and the gears after a long day at work and all you want to do is get home. The only place I see a manual being of any use any more is on a track although with the semi-automatic and full automatics out now they are making manuals obsolete. The GT-R is a great example, as is cars like the VW GTI and it's DSG gearbox (which is the single best transmission I've ever experienced).

Manuals are becoming ancient, although some people do prefer them which is fine. You are just as in control of your vehicle with an automatic as you are with a manual, probably even more so because you can focus more on the driving then the gear change. I know I will only ever buy automatic vehicles for anything remotely close to a daily driver.

 

[kingcars]

With a street car I see zero point to having a manual, especially while sitting in bumper to bumper traffic trying to get home from work. It's just a royal pain to have to work the clutch and the gears after a long day at work and all you want to do is get home. The only place I see a manual being of any use any more is on a track although with the semi-automatic and full automatics out now they are making manuals obsolete. The GT-R is a great example, as is cars like the VW GTI and it's DSG gearbox (which is the single best transmission I've ever experienced).

Manuals are becoming ancient, although some people do prefer them which is fine. You are just as in control of your vehicle with an automatic as you are with a manual, probably even more so because you can focus more on the driving then the gear change. I know I will only ever buy automatic vehicles for anything remotely close to a daily driver.

I haven't been in bumper-to-bumper traffic in a very very long time (has to be well over a year). It's very rare where I live, so that's a moot point. Have you ever driven a fun street car with a stick? I fail to see what's fun in sticking a car in gear and driving around or pushing a paddle. There's no feeling of involvement to me.

And there's no way you're "as in control of a car with an automatic." Kinda seems to me like you've never really tried a manual car; of if you did, you never really gave it a shot because after you get used to it, there is no focusing on the gear change that you mention (if you have, thats' cool, but idk how you could come to such a conclusion). There were so many times with my old (but perfectly working) automatic would bog down in 2nd gear as I was trying to accelerate, and even flooring the gas wouldn't get it to downshift. It was so eager to get into 3rd gear and overdrive also. That's not what I would call having control of the vehicle. With the manual, I shift whenever I want, accelerate as much as I want, and I can shift as hard or as smooth as I want. I'm speaking with experience from both sides (and in fact, much more experience driving automatics), and my opinion is that automatics are completely boring to drive, and have annoying tendencies. It also hasn't been brought up that automatics eat up flywheel horsepower; my car pulls a lot stronger with the manual.

 

[Perfect Balance]

You are just as in control of your vehicle with an automatic as you are with a manual, probably even more so because you can focus more on the driving then the gear change.

No.


If this was true nobody would have any gripes about autos, it's already been proven that a good auto has the potential to be just as quick, so that's not really the big issue.


I shift at a subconscious level, even more when I'm driving hard. Having an extra hand on the wheel for a second by not having to shift doesn't make up for being able to engine brake, getting in proper gear earlier, response, and simply having more control over the attitude of your car.

 

[slidesquad#1]

The only place I see a manual being of any use any more is on a track although with the semi-automatic and full automatics out now they are making manuals obsolete.

Not too many hills around where you live, are there? Or any road with corners actually.

And seriously, driving a manual car in traffic isn't that hard, unless you have atrophy of the left leg or something. It can get annoying, sure, but really, the gain is more than worth the pain.

Also lol at having more control with an auto. I can see how keeping your hands on the wheel at all times is beneficial, and I concede that DSG/F1 etc. might have an advantage in this regard, but a normal automatic, no way in hell. And like PB said, you're going at it, you don't think about it, you just shift.

I'd like to play around with a DSG like box, but no way would I ever want manuals to become extinct.

 

[Wolfe]

If you're talking about traditional automatics, Joey, there's no control to be had, IMO:

...the torque converter makes for very vague and unresponsive throttle input. When you dip your toe in, it can take a second or two for the car to even begin accelerating, and between the hyper-eager upshifts and lack of engine braking, a backroad jaunt feels more like a soap box derby with a "climb hill" pedal than a spirited drive.

If you're talking about something with a computer-controlled clutch (or two), as your mention of the GT-R and GTI indicate, I concede that a DSG offers greater control and driver confidence without any performance drawbacks. However, a three-pedals-and-a-stick manual will always be more fun to drive, and there's really no argument for removing it from the market other than "some people think it's too much work." It's simple, reliable, effective, flexible, and encourages the driver to focus on what they're doing. The DSG is a great alternative to the automatic, but it can't match the standard manual on half of those qualities.

 

[McLaren]

And seriously, driving a manual car in traffic isn't that hard, unless you have atrophy of the left leg or something. It can get annoying, sure, but really, the gain is more than worth the pain.

It's not that it's hard. The problem with it is that it's a pain in the ass. It's exactly why I only drive the TL in to Dallas.

I haven't been in bumper-to-bumper traffic in a very very long time (has to be well over a year). It's very rare where I live, so that's a moot point. Have you ever driven a fun street car with a stick? I fail to see what's fun in sticking a car in gear and driving around or pushing a paddle. There's no feeling of involvement to me.

Depends on the driver & car, though.

There were so many times with my old (but perfectly working) automatic would bog down in 2nd gear as I was trying to accelerate, and even flooring the gas wouldn't get it to downshift. It was so eager to get into 3rd gear and overdrive also. That's not what I would call having control of the vehicle. With the manual, I shift whenever I want, accelerate as much as I want, and I can shift as hard or as smooth as I want.

Not all automatics are the same, though, and to be brief, I can do that in my TL. All it takes in auto mode is just throttle control. In the car's "manual" mode, it acts like another car. The only time it'll ever shift is if it redlines for more than 5-8 seconds, or it'll downshift it drops to 1K RPM, which is expected to keep it from damaging the engine. Other than that, it works just like my Honda with the paddle or +/- gear stick. And with near 300 horses, I can easily say it takes much more skill to drive fast in manual or auto modes than the Honda.

I have nothing against either transmission, though. I own the best of both worlds. The only thing I don't like is 1 side making silly arsed claims about the other, of which, manual drivers seem to be the bigger culprits (not pointing fingers at anyone this site, mind you). All I can say is drive what you like because these days, so many cars have transmissions geared differently. Some manuals are still sluggish compared to same automatics and vice versa. It just depends on the car, imo.

 

[Perfect Balance]

I
The only thing I don't like is 1 side making silly arsed claims about the other, of which, manual drivers seem to be the bigger culprits (not pointing fingers at anyone this site, mind you).

Manual drivers seem to be the bigger culprits making claims in general?(I'll agree with you on this)

Or making "silly arsed" claims?

I think it's pretty silly that someone can slide the stick to "D" and tell the car when to stop and go, and consider it just as involved and "being in control" as manually shifting the car yourself.

I'm talking about conventional "slushboxes" here though.

 

[McLaren]

Manual drivers seem to be the bigger culprits making claims in general?(I'll agree with you on this)

Or making "silly arsed" claims?

I think it's pretty silly that someone can slide the stick to "D" and tell the car when to stop and go, and consider it just as involved and "being in control" as manually shifting the car yourself.

I'm talking about conventional "slushboxes" here though.

I never said it wasn't silly. I only said manual drivers seem to be the ones who more than often make the ludicrous claims, for example, how they sometimes exaggerate a manual, or that any auto is way slower than any manual. And for some reason (and personal experience), these claims seem to come from young kids who think they're awesome for knowing how to drive a manual.

 

[homeforsummer]

I've driven a fair number of manuals, a couple of torque-converter autos, and unfortunately not had the opportunity yet to drive any automated manual, paddleshift, dual-clutch or any other variation on the flappy-paddly sort of transmission.

I'd love to have a go in something like the GT-R or a DSG VAG product, because they do seem to get rave reviews every time the transmission is mentioned. I also think the idea of the technology is brilliant, because they are supposed to give the drive characteristics of a manual - i.e, the amount you press the loud pedal is proportional to how much you'll accelerate, and you have complete control over which gear you're in - but with the convenience of just being able to drop it into auto mode when the mood takes you.

The two autos I've driven were good cars, but hopeless transmissions - a PT Cruiser, and a V6 Mitsubishi Outlander, both in the States. They hunted for gears all the time (going up a relatively steep motorway incline, they'd bog down, drop two gears and scream at high revs, then change up again). Neither felt like they had anything near their quoted power (the 140bhp PT felt slower than my 60bhp Fiesta), and because of the sluggish throttle response, you had to mash the accelerator pedal if you wanted anything like the "go" of the line you'd get from just releasing the clutch a little quicker in a conventional manual.

Fuel economy was ruinous for these reasons, because you couldn't drive them on the torque like you can in a manual. I like to think I use the appropriate gear for most situations in my car, and know that in certain situations I can make perfectly efficient progress by just accelerating a bit harder in the same gear. Not so in the autos, which both decided to choose lower gears and use higher revs instead, even when it was completely pointless to do so.

It's also disconcerting to have to solely rely on the brakes when you're pushing on a bit, and inconvenient not being in the right gear to exit a corner. Now I realise I've not driven a brilliant auto such as you'd find in a Mercedes, for example, which are supposed to be quite clever at choosing the right gear and giving you engine braking, but I'd still prefer a manual in these situations.

However, for simply cruising along the motorway, or pottering around town, or being in traffic, the conventional autos were brilliant. It was nice too not having to worry about driving on the other side of the car from normal, which may have been a small issue if I'd been driving a manual. From a holiday perspective, it made driving so much more relaxing.

On balance, and until I've driven a dual-clutch transmission, I'd always choose a manual for the extra control, but I do realise that sometimes (well, quite often in modern traffic) a smooth slushbox auto is a fantastic thing.

I certainly don't hold anything against the GT-R for having an "auto", because it's obviously a brilliantly designed one and let's be honest, it suits the car's "technology overload" character. Somehow it wouldn't seem right with a proper manual...