Conceptions/Misconceptions Over Cars

[Kent]

I agree with many of the concerns listed in this thread.
Transmission biases, engine size, drive wheels, etc etc... 👍

One thing I haven't seen (probably because so many here are guilty)...

Judging a car based on your assumptions about the "typical" driver.
I can't stand it when people assume that every BMW is owned by a rich kid or woman who doesn't appreciate the car. Same for assuming every wrx/sti is owned by a flat-bill wearing "no ragretts" tattooed punk. The list of cars affected by this insanely prejudicial (and ignorant) practice is endless.

It's just as bad as saying this kind of dog or that kind of dog is a bad dog because the owners are typically ______ and those people are poor, rich, white, black, etc etc.

 

[Grandea GTR]

I agree with many of the concerns listed in this thread.
Transmission biases, engine size, drive wheels, etc etc... 👍

One thing I haven't seen (probably because so many here are guilty)...

Judging a car based on your assumptions about the "typical" driver.
I can't stand it when people assume that every BMW is owned by a rich kid or woman who doesn't appreciate the car. Same for assuming every wrx/sti is owned by a flat-bill wearing "no ragretts" tattooed punk. The list of cars affected by this insanely prejudicial (and ignorant) practice is endless.

It's just as bad as saying this kind of dog or that kind of dog is a bad dog because the owners are typically ______ and those people are poor, rich, white, black, etc etc.

Was actually waiting for someone to put this up... 👍

 

[TheCracker]

I agree with many of the concerns listed in this thread.
Transmission biases, engine size, drive wheels, etc etc... 👍

One thing I haven't seen (probably because so many here are guilty)...

Judging a car based on your assumptions about the "typical" driver.
I can't stand it when people assume that every BMW is owned by a rich kid or woman who doesn't appreciate the car. Same for assuming every wrx/sti is owned by a flat-bill wearing "no ragretts" tattooed punk. The list of cars affected by this insanely prejudicial (and ignorant) practice is endless.

It's just as bad as saying this kind of dog or that kind of dog is a bad dog because the owners are typically ______ and those people are poor, rich, white, black, etc etc.

Pah! Typical Subaru driver.

 

[E28]

I said 'Gai-Ar-Do' to an Italian person (I usually pronounce it 'Ga-Lar-Do' anyway, I just wanted to sound smarter lol) and he just laughed and said that it's pronounced 'Ga-Lar-Do'.

'Gallardo' is a name given to a famous breed of Spanish fighting bull, and is a spanish word. In Spanish, 'll' makes a 'y' sound, so Guy-Ar-Do' is a correct pronunciation of the word. If Gallardo was indeed an Italian word, then I believe the common 'Ga-Lar-Do' pronunciation would be more correct. Anyone more knowledgeable than me may correct me, this is all based off secondary school Spanish, and I wasn't great at it.

Anyway, some of my pet-peeves:

• If someone is in a luxury saloon (especially an Audi or BMW) they will tailgate you and drive like a 🤬
• Every car is better with a manual.
• Safety technology makes people more distracted, less focused, and therefore more dangerous.
• Hybrids will end modern motoring as we know it, and kill any fun in driving. Because having 100hp or so of instant power on tap wouldn't benefit any performance car in any way, especially if advancements in battery technology meant very little weight penalty.
• Diesel = Tractor.
• Car culture is dying/being ruined by [insert stance, JDM, any other modern trend here].
• Manual RWD wagons are the epitome of cool.
• Small engines are terrible, soulless, horrible things that the eco-crowd are shoving down everyone's throats.
• AWD 2.5 Subaru wagons are race cars.

 

[White & Nerdy]

-The opposite of most of what @E28 said in the above post. Why wouldn't any car be better with a manual? And small engines are horrible, I don't care how much power they can make, they're still wrong.

 

[Azure Flare]

^ Stuff like that puts context into the post I made in the beginning of this thread.

 

[Wolfe]

These are value judgments:

• Every car is better with a manual.
• Small engines that make their power with high revs, hybrid systems, or turbocharging are lame.
• Cars aren't always better with a manual.

These are misconceptions:

• Every car is faster/more efficient/more reliable with a manual, and there's no justifiable reason for anyone to drive anything else.
• Small-engined cars are "dangerously slow", and evidence of the takeover of the united states by a wave of immoral eco-hippy socialism or something.
• There's no justifiable reason for anyone to prefer a manual transmission in every case, that's just silly.
• Any value judgment you don't like -- especially if it's touted by individuals who use poor reasoning, a subculture you dislike, or a TV show of dubious objectivity (which you may also dislike) -- qualifies as a misconception.

 

[Tornado]

Why wouldn't any car be better with a manual?

My current car would be better with a manual if only for fuel economy; or even better some sort of manual control on the gears like the 300M had, though in the long run I don't really care. Likewise, I can't imagine ever driving any of dad's cars with an automatic, nevermind the terrible 3 speed automatics that they all would have come with if they weren't manuals.




An S10 Blazer with the biggest engine offered? Not even a remote benefit from a manual gearbox.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

Hmmm, lets see.

- People that hate a car due to its drivetrain. That's very annoying.
- People that say muscle and pony cars can't corner well; no matter how many videos, articles, & etc there are that prove otherwise.
- People that think all hatchbacks are stupid and slow. I facepalm at those comments.
- People that are hate on any car for not having stick shift.
- People that talk smack about another person's car when they don't even have a car of their own.

 

[Grandea GTR]

When people mock other people for having a parent-bought car when their car was bought by their own parents.

 

[Gallade4751]

When people say that no clutch pedal = Automatic. I guess FIA LMP teams must be a bunch of nancies for fitting "automatics" in all of the cars.

 

[1241Penguin]

Who the hell would want a manual on a Rolls Royce or a Maybach?

 

[JAHHAJ]

Who the hell would want a manual on a Rolls Royce or a Maybach?

EDIT: read your post wrong please delete

 

[Vegard]

High boost treshold = turbo lag.

FF = chronical understeer.

 

[McLaren]

-The opposite of most of what @E28 said in the above post. Why wouldn't any car be better with a manual? And small engines are horrible, I don't care how much power they can make, they're still wrong.

I'm pretty sure @homeforsummer has explained to you on more than 2 or 3 occasions that not all manual transmissions are the same, thus, some cars with manuals are absolutely horrendous compared to some cars with automatics.

The rest of your post is just stupid as usual.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm pretty sure @homeforsummer has explained to you on more than 2 or 3 occasions that not all manual transmissions are the same, thus, some cars with manuals are absolutely horrendous compared to some cars with automatics.

Indeed. I'd go nowhere near a Mercedes manual given the choice, and a good 50% of modern manual cars I've driven have so little interaction through the clutch and shifter that you hardly feel like you're missing out by opting for the auto anyway. It feels like you're literally just making the revs go up and down and moving a stick for no reason.

Then there are cars where no manual is available and you really don't miss it - Jags, Rolls-Royce, any big luxury car etc.

Then there are cars where I'd not touch the auto with someone else's, either because the auto itself is crap or because the manual is so good. No Honda or Mazda I've ever driven is made better with an auto 'box, for example.

But really, the above just illustrates that the automotive world is a rich tapestry and that it's incredibly short-sighted to assign any sort of "everything should be x" status on something. The same applies to any facet of motoring - whether that's what powers the vehicle along (petrol, diesel, hybrid, electric, dog farts), how the steering is or isn't powered (I've driven non-assisted cars with awful steering and electrically-assisted cars with great feedback), which wheels are doing the driving (yay for understeering RWDs and tail-happy FWDs!) or anything else in which more than one option is available.

Which I suppose brings me onto the conception about cars that irritates me, which is when someone believes that a particular combination of factors in a car is one that defines whether someone is a petrolhead or not. A "proper" car guy/car girl can like any car. There is no *qualifier on the "car" part of "car guy/girl".

 

[niky]

"More camber makes the car faster."

If, by "faster," they mean "Understeer into the weeds much sooner"...

Anyone who says everything is better with a manual has never driven a Mog...

I've driven something like two to three hundred different cars over the past several years. I can only recall half a dozen manual transmissions that I would actually consider lovely. There have been a lot of clunky, rubber forgettable ones. And there have been dozens that were so bad I would have rather has my left leg amputated than to have kept driving them.

The best manual is still better than the best automatic in terms of driving pleasure. But the best automatics are now as good as a good manual.

And on some cars, a three pedal manual is completely pointless. High powered trucks, luxury saloons, vans, racing cars...

 

[homeforsummer]

vans

Funny you mention that. In the UK, vans are still predominantly manual. I expect it's partly a cost thing, though given the way vans seem to be driven over here I'd be surprised if the usual manual = less maintenance thing rings true, as I can't imagine clutches last long.

They're surprisingly easy to drive though - vans tend to prioritise an ultra-light shifter and clutch now. I know older vans used to be a bit physical. Only driven one auto van, which was a Mercedes Vito. V6 turbodiesel. I drove it empty and it went like the clappers. Given the way it was geared I expect it might be a bit tiresome as a manual, since big diesel vans still subscribe to the 1,000rpm-usable-powerband ethos of older turbodiesel cars. If it wasn't an auto you'd forever be changing gears...

 

[niky]

Japanese vans tend to use the same engines and drivetrains as pick-ups... so you get agricultural level pedals and levers. Perhaps the only box van I've driven with a truly decent gearshift was the Mercedes MB100, which was co-built by Ssangyong.

It's the only mid-engined front-wheel drive car I've ever driven. Great gearbox. Geared too long for hill-climbing, though.

My cousins had a Mitsubishi L300 van (ran an ancient version of the motor now under the hood of the Triton) on which first gear broke. As in it was completely gone. Ran it that way for years, since first gear was a useless climbing gear.

 

[Tornado]

Probably not less maintenance, but presumably a bit easier maintenance, depending on how crammed everything is.

 

[homeforsummer]

Probably not less maintenance, but presumably a bit easier maintenance, depending on how crammed everything is.

Yeah, that could be true, particularly on anything front-wheel drive where it's a bit more crammed-in. I don't actually know much about how reliable the vans sold in this country are, really. You'd expect them to be reasonable as operators won't really stand for vans that break down and cost them money all the time, but it's hard not to see modern vans, ever more filled with kit as they are, having little niggles here and there.

 

[INEEDNAWZZZ]

Misconception: taking the back seats, spare wheel and interior plastics/carpeting out instantly makes your car lightweight and track-ready, and the amount of positive results this would create would be immeasurable on pretty much any car ever.

Reality: extra noise in the cabin, makes your car looks scruffy, difficult to sell, almost no difference in performance and road feel, and makes you look like a tool to your friends when you explain why they can't go in the back.

In all seriousness, all the stuff people remove isn't really that heavy. It's the sound deadening, excess metal and extra trinkets in the engine bay (wiring looms for audio stuff, A/C, etc.) that make up the bulk of the excess weight. But no, throwing out stuff that will be useful to you when it comes to sell or in an emergency is worth it so you can get to 30 MPH 0.1 second faster.

 

[Wolfe]

I'm pretty sure @homeforsummer has explained to you on more than 2 or 3 occasions that not all manual transmissions are the same, thus, some cars with manuals are absolutely horrendous compared to some cars with automatics.

The best manual is still better than the best automatic in terms of driving pleasure. But the best automatics are now as good as a good manual.

Manual cars with numb, worn out, long-throw shifters and/or worn clutches are more enjoyable for me than any automatic. A really clunky old manual can be a hoot to drive just by virtue of its raw, unrefined crudeness. Personally, an automatic is a fundamental change to the driving experience that no amount of refinement will ever compensate for. See below for why.

...a good 50% of modern manual cars I've driven have so little interaction through the clutch and shifter that you hardly feel like you're missing out by opting for the auto anyway. It feels like you're literally just making the revs go up and down and moving a stick for no reason.

I have reasons. Controlling that link between the flywheel and transmission (#1 reason); having direct, physical command of gear choice; sharp throttle control (compared to a torque converter 'box). To depart from this level of control is annoying at best, and makes me uncomfortable at worst. By design, automatics and sequentials cannot provide the same control, so as good as they are, (to me) they will never be as good as a manual. It's pretty straightforward.

Anyone who says everything is better with a manual has never driven a Mog...

I'll accept that challenge, but I'm not logically obligated to drive a Mog or ancient crank-start relic to declare a preference for modern synchromesh-manual cars with electric starters and EFI.

And on some cars, a three pedal manual is completely pointless. High powered trucks, luxury saloons, vans, racing cars...

A slushbox is ideal for some tasks, like towing or 4x4ing. On a racetrack, tenths of a second are what matters, so a sequential is smart. I don't really care that our company's work vehicle is an automatic Dodge Caravan. But subjectively, I would enjoy a manual off-roader or vintage racecar more, and I prefer working in my Legacy, even with paperwork to shuffle between gearchanges (it's not even as difficult as I expected).

I'm aware of the ways automatic/sequential transmissions are objectively superior and sufficient for many cases, and that manuals don't always make the most sense. I just don't care. Until they come up with a better alternative (that preserves the sort of control I described while offering "automatic" operation), I will always prefer manual transmission.


So...can we agree that the only "misconceptions" are the factually incorrect claims and judgmental blanket statements thrown about by underinformed members on this subject? I'm just a bit tired of being lumped into the same group, for acknowledging all of the facts and opting to form an opinion based on different standards. Otherwise, it might be better to take this to one of the existing automatic/manual threads.

 

[Badasp5.0]

-The opposite of most of what @E28 said in the above post. Why wouldn't any car be better with a manual? And small engines are horrible, I don't care how much power they can make, they're still wrong.

1st Gen MB SLKs were slower with the manual due to differences in gearing. IIRC the 1st gen Cobalt SS S/C was horrible with a manual.

 

[niky]

The best automatics will give you instant response to throttle inputs, as well as accurately scaled response. Even torque converter automatics will lock at the earliest possible convenience in whatever gear you like.

And they'll also shift at any and all engine speeds where it's safe to shift. Mazda's new automatics will only refuse to downshift if you're going to be exactly at redline in the next gear down.

And then you get to the blipping, rev-matching, variable torque converter lock-up logic and etcetera. Hell, I just drove a MINI Cooper that shifts itself into neutral when you lift off to coast. (OhMyGODfieryDEATHthinkOFtheCHILDREN!!!) Then gets back into gear right quick when you put your foot on either the gas or the brakes. Most drivers can't figure out which gear to get into coming off a neutral coast. Me, I'd have to glance down at the speedometer, find the gear, and ease into the clutch to pop it back in. The Mini does it almost as smoothly as I do, in less time.

Granted, there's still something lacking there when you want to use the clutch to kick the rear end sideways, but that's a very rare, very special case... and Porsche's PDK has a button for that.

And then you get to the CVT. Have a CVT locked in "brake" mode and every single twitch of the pedal is translated right into acceleration or deceleration. It's one of the most direct possible connections between your right foot and the road. If you could get around the slipping issue when hot, they'd be perfect.

Like I said... best manuals, still >>> best automatics. But there are a lot of automatics that are very, very good, leaving little space for the cruddy or even average manuals out there.

And when you get to silly high powered cars and diesels, automatic is really the way to go.

 

[Badasp5.0]

W&N just needs to drive a LS1 Fbody with a good torque converter and shiftkit. I used to lothe autos until I drove a '01 WS6 with the above mentioned mods.

 

[homeforsummer]

I have reasons. Controlling that link between the flywheel and transmission (#1 reason); having direct, physical command of gear choice; sharp throttle control (compared to a torque converter 'box). To depart from this level of control is annoying at best, and makes me uncomfortable at worst. By design, automatics and sequentials cannot provide the same control, so as good as they are, (to me) they will never be as good as a manual. It's pretty straightforward.

Perhaps you've been lucky enough to not drive the kind of cars I'm thinking of. Or you just have a higher tolerance for utter crap than I do.

I have driven cars where there is such a disconnect in clutch and gearbox (a clutch with absolutely no feel as to where the biting point is and little hope of smooth application, and gearboxes where there is zero sense of mechanical link between lever and transmission) and they're truly hateful to drive. Throw in poor throttle response - not uncommon with modern electronically-controlled systems - and you have a drivetrain that I can derive zero joy from using. The act of rowing the stick becomes just that - you get more interaction from the HVAC controls. In some cars I've driven, it's even compounded by a long-travel clutch that necessitates an uncomfortable driving position just for the sake of driving stick.

Yet I have driven modern autos - dual-clutches especially, but torque converters too - where throttle response is as good as any cable-throttle operated classic car I've driven and shifts when using the paddles are as instantaneous as you could hope for.

Hell, I get more pleasure from learning the derpy semi-automatic gearbox in a Smart Fortwo than I have from some stick shifts. At least in the smart you get a feeling that something mechanical is going on beneath you and you can exercise skill in using the throttle and paddles to pull off smooth changes.

So...can we agree that the only "misconceptions" are the factually incorrect claims and judgmental blanket statements thrown about by underinformed members on this subject? I'm just a bit tired of being lumped into the same group, for acknowledging all of the facts and opting to form an opinion based on different standards. Otherwise, it might be better to take this to one of the existing automatic/manual threads.

I think you're doing yourself, and some of those you regularly speak with, a disservice by holding this viewpoint.

I can completely understand that you like the act of rowing a manual transmission. I do too, but I derive significantly less joy from operating one in which you don't get that mechanical, in-control feeling we love manual transmissions for in the first place.

We're not "lumping" you into a big pot with all the people who hate autos simply because they're luddites, but I can personally say, and I expect so can @niky, that I've driven enough manuals to have an equally valid viewpoint that there really are some cars in which an auto transmission is more interactive, more fulfilling and more fun to drive than its equivalent manual. It's entirely possible you've just not driven a manual bad enough (and I don't mean recalcitrant so much as just lousy) that you've experienced and instance where this is the case.

 

[niky]

Some people might even argue that the Mirage manual is one such box. Cable-shifter with several inches of play and an on-off clutch... only thing it has over the CVT is quicker take-offs (if you're willing to roast what little friction material there is on the clutch plate...).

Oh, and then there's the Colorado. Where four.. count it... four different technical drivers (one a pro-racer, and two with race experience) missed the third gear shift on their first try. And on the second try for each, the gear popped out under full load (on a car with under five hundred miles on the odometer). We had to physically hold that gear lever in place to get a 0-100 time. Never had a problem on the regular drive loop, but that box just flat-out refused to be hurried along.

 

[Wolfe]

@niky -- Page me when they develop an automatic that offers a pedal to manually disengage the transmission from the flywheel, produces zero slip at all times (in "manual mode") when the transmission is engaged, and won't ever second-guess or delay a shift I've requested (even if it's not advisable). I just want total control.

@homeforsummer -- The worst would probably be the Ford Ranger that we used when I learned to drive stick. The shifter felt analogous to a giant pencil in a coffee mug, until you needed to engage a gear with a heavy clunk. The clutch was touchy and difficult, pretty much on-off with next to no feedback. It was eye-openingly fun once I got the hang of it, even though I short-shifted into 5th nearly every time I went looking for 3rd. The Renault Encore I had for a summer was pretty similar, but with less force required to operate it. It was also a 4-speed, so there were no mis-shifts.

A bad manual transmission is a challenge. It requires the sort of deliberation that Chris Harris expounded in his video on the 2CV. I could make swifter and easier progress in a nice automatic, but to me it's not worth it. I enjoy driving basically everything -- automatics included -- but I'll always prefer a manual, even if it slows me down. Most of it is the control: gear changes and torque delivery only on my terms (even things like clutch delay valves bother me). Automatics and sequentials, as they are, will never offer that amount of control...which is why I feel confident making the assertion that I would not be satisfied with even the best automatics available today.

I'll accept a fast automatic sportscar for time trial lapping, but ultimately I'd rather go home in a cruddy 5-speed econobox.

 

[Turbotwin01]

Challengers only being good in a straight line is a major misconception...