I drive a manual, love driving it, all of the above is true, control, fun, efficiency, not to mention cheaper to repair if anything goes wrong (as a rule), and I'd never buy an automatic of my generation of car.
However, I think this crusade is doomed to fail, first it was BMW's 'SMG' "as fast at the manual option" then Volkswagen's 'DSG' "faster than the manual by 0.2 seconds to 60mph" (these aren't true quotes), how long will it be before a manual gearbox is as ancient looking as double de-clutching, a live axle, a crank start for your engine, steel wheels, in car phones, all of these terminologies have come and gone in automobiles, and the manual transmission will ultimately be next on the block, especially when you think of the shift to alternative energy, I don't think manuals will make the transition.
This doesn't mean we have to lose the control and efficiency that we love in our manual transmissions, just because we have access to the convenience as well. This is the fundamental flaw in the argument, people are set that it’s either one or the other; I think there should be room for both.
Keep the stick, but have it move forward and backward, yes, lose the clutch, but retain the full control you had, and more, with instant changing paddles - my dad's car has paddle shifters with a single clutch, and imo, it’s not quite there yet (ML63 '12), but if they can have these paddles react as quickly or quicker than you can change yourself, have you feel as at ease, none of us will care if we're controlling it from the wheel or a sequential stick, we'll retain total control, speed, even fun I'd say, plus more with these options than we ever possibly had with a manual stick.
I think your opinions are valid gentlemen, but I simply don't see why this crusade is necessary, and I can't see how you'll ever declare victory, assuming you think it’s possible.
You can downshift an automatic and let the engine do the braking. I was doing it all weekend in the mountains.
