Save the Manuals!

[speed junkie]

How do you define them not having a "suitable" replacement?

I think the case here might be that many don't really agree on what a "good" automatic is. Maybe we know examples of what everyone else (including the media) might label as a good automatic but we're not all in the same page. Me and PB are on the same boat with this one and that is that a transmission with a torque converter simply is not a good transmission whether it gives you the ability to choose a gear or not. The fact that they don't have a "direct" connection to the engine is the problem. They are in no way intended to be ideal for performance driving.

I can't be one to judge here as I haven't driven "allot" of cars, comparatively, but I've yet to find a slush box that doesn't get annoying after a couple days of dealing with its lack of response (among other things.) To me, a good automatic would be one that works like a manual but does all the steps needed to operate smoothly and properly by itself (such as downshifting and starting from 0 mph.) Most modern commercial buses are like this. They sound and behave just like a manual (because they are.) They even stay in gear and perform flawless, rev-matched downshifts with the driver doing nothing besides using the gas and brake pedals. In a car, one may or may not have paddle shifters (maybe in a sporty car) and have the option of switching between semi-automatic or fully automatic but fact of the matter is most cars are not like that. We just aren't there yet in terms of manufacturing technology that would allow this to be as cheap if not cheaper than the current popular slush box solution. Until we're there, I'll probably drive a manual for a daily as I already do.

 

[niky]

Most modern slushboxes have lock-up converters that lock whenever possible, giving you a solid connection between the engine and transmission whenever possible. For many of these trannies, the only time they actually feel slushy is when launching in first gear and in low speed first to second upshifts... which is exactly when you want them to feel slushy.

 

[speed junkie]

Do they stay in gear when slowing down and smoothly downshift? Not to mention, downshifting, and the computer's decision-making in regards to whether or not to stay in gear mid corner.

 

[niky]

Pretty much, if they have a sports mode. Obviously, a slushbox cannot downshift as fast as a DCT or an experienced driver*, but the availability of seven and eight speed boxes more than make up for this. But it all comes down to programming in the end. Most non-sports cars have very conservative downshift algorithms... while I am perfectly fine letting many autos shift themselves on track, cars like the Cruze give the automatic transmission a bad name.

*experienced driver with a good transmission. some manuals are so clunky that the AT is actually faster in the quarter mile.

 

[Azuremen]

Do they stay in gear when slowing down and smoothly downshift? Not to mention, downshifting, and the computer's decision-making in regards to whether or not to stay in gear mid corner.

This begs the question if you've ever driven a newer or higher end car with an automatic, because all of these issues have been resolved for a while now on manumatics and such.

 

[speed junkie]

No I haven't. Newest being a 2008 impreza which was horrible and a 2007 which was just as bad if not worse.

My point is that I like how the behavior of a "manual" feels. And if a slush box cannot provide that feel all the time than I won't like it.

 

[homeforsummer]

As Niky says, early lock-up on higher-end autos at the moment is pretty good, to the point where it feels like fairly direct drive.

One of the best transmissions I've driven recently was the Fiat DCT in an Alfa Romeo Giulietta. Aside from the aforementioned clunky stop-start system* it was actually great.

Alfa is one of the few companies knocking around at the moment that truly understands "throttle response"** and doesn't seem to artificially dull response, even in the "normal" mode of its three-mode drive system (DNA or "Dynamic, Normal, All-Weather"). Even some pretty decent auto gearboxes don't really wake up until you put them into "sport", but the Alfa seems to accelerate in direct proportion to how hard you squeeze the gas pedal. Really satisfying.

Which brings me onto another point - I'd actually say that outright throttle response is more important than the transmission itself. An auto with keen responses - and they do exist - is far, far more fun to drive than a manual with a big dead zone and tardy responses. And plenty of those exist.

Of course, the opposite is also true. An MX-5 with its sharp responses is more fun than most slightly lazy autos, and that's before you even get to the satisfaction of the gearshift itself.



* This, like most stop-start systems, can be turned off. In manual cars I generally don't bother, but some companies haven't quite got it right with autos.

** A surprise other company? Lexus, specifically their hybrids. Stick a CT 200h or GS 450h in "sport" and initial response is actually really, really good. And that's from an 'e-CVT' planetary gearset.

 

[Perfect Balance]

Only bad thing is... Hyundai's manual in the Genesis Coupe is garbage. I hope they've fixed it with the new one. We get to drive it later this month.

I don't think the transmission is the issue, I think it's just the mushy feeling shifter, which is solved by means of a good short throw shifter.

How do you define them not having a "suitable" replacement?

Off the top of my head, I can think of several huge car companies where their autos and dual-clutch transmissions are as good or better than their manuals.

Funnily though as I'm writing this, I've realised that they're all European.

Exactly my point. A lot of the European manufacturers have great automatically shifted manual gearboxes. Most Japanese cars don't have them yet.

Most modern slushboxes have lock-up converters that lock whenever possible, giving you a solid connection between the engine and transmission whenever possible. For many of these trannies, the only time they actually feel slushy is when launching in first gear and in low speed first to second upshifts... which is exactly when you want them to feel slushy.

They feel slushy at all times except when accelerating. This is especially annoying when you're taking a corner fast and are attempting to lightly feather the throttle to balance the car and you get nothing.

This begs the question if you've ever driven a newer or higher end car with an automatic, because all of these issues have been resolved for a while now on manumatics and such.

ONLY on the "automatically shifted manual" tranmissions. On torque converter cars, absolutely not. Yeah they somewhat engine brake, but have a noticable 500 rpm or so "dead spot" where nothing happens, downshifts take forever on these cars, and they are hardly as smooth as a rev-matched downshift, and on rwd cars, under very hard braking, it's enough to make the rear wheels slide.

The manual transmission boxes that shift themselves, yes, absolutely. Torque converter boxes, no.

The best transmission I've driven of this type is the Twin Clutch SST transmission found in the Evo X. In sport mode, (or race mode, whichever it is) the transmission is wonderful, downshifts are quick and rev matched, and the transmission automatically downshifts to stay at high rpms. If all cars came with something like this, there would be no "need" for manual transmissions.

Horrible video, but you can see how when he slows down the transmission automatically downshifts to stay in the powerband, and the shifts are rev-matched. When a manufacturer can produce a transmission like this, I don't really see a "need" for a regular manual, as much as I enjoy driving them.

 

[niky]

To note... the 2008 Impreza WRX STI has one of the worst automatic gearboxes I've ever laid hands on.

I don't think the transmission is the issue, I think it's just the mushy feeling shifter, which is solved by means of a good short throw shifter.

The synchros suck, the clutch sucks, the gearshift sucks...

They feel slushy at all times except when accelerating. This is especially annoying when you're taking a corner fast and are attempting to lightly feather the throttle to balance the car and you get nothing.

Valid point, actually, though not something everyone needs or does... but many newer (better) boxes will not have that dead spot under the lock-up speed in the higher gears. Just in the first two. I've driven boxes that will happily stay locked up until just above idle. Rev-matching downshifts... that's down to engine programming. Nissan does it, it can conceivably be done elsewhere.

Rev-matching is a sore subject. If you use aggressive rev-matching when decelerating at all times, it will be too harsh and jerky for the driver who isn't going anywhere near 8/10ths. Which means it's a good thing the EVO box has multiple drive modes, as the best one is too aggressive for the street.

And that's what it comes down to. Most boxes CAN do what you want, but the manufacturers are not building them for performance. You go up to the more expensive cars wherein the boxes are built for performance, and they will.

 

[Azuremen]

No I haven't. Newest being a 2008 impreza which was horrible and a 2007 which was just as bad if not worse.

Well there is a huge part of the problem - Subaru makes absolute crap for transmissions, even their "nicer" ones are pretty lack luster. The entry level automatics they use in the Forester and Impreza are just jokes.

Actually, most of the Japanese automatics and automated manuals are horrible when compared to their European counterparts.

 

[Perfect Balance]

The synchros suck, the clutch sucks, the gearshift sucks...

Can't say I've really noticed it myself. It's not great, but I don't think I've driven a car with a great manual gearbox after the 90s, at least none come to mind. Good ones maybe, but not great. S2000s are pretty good, and I thought the RX-8 felt decent.

Valid point, actually, though not something everyone needs or does... but many newer (better) boxes will not have that dead spot under the lock-up speed in the higher gears. Just in the first two. I've driven boxes that will happily stay locked up until just above idle. Rev-matching downshifts... that's down to engine programming. Nissan does it, it can conceivably be done elsewhere.

I've driven a few decent ones, but not one I can say with as much of a direct "lag free" connection like a good manual box, whether it's automatically shifted or by hand. Some might say there's not much difference, and that may be true, but there's a reason wheel manufacturers strive to make their wheels lightweight, and bushings can be had in solid aluminum form, and one piece driveshafts can be purchased for cars with two piece ones, and solid mounted calipers exist, ect ect. Everything makes a difference, and it amount to a tremendous difference at the end of the line. If I'm buying a car to modify, it would be annoying to not be able to do anything about that small lag.

Rev-matching is a sore subject. If you use aggressive rev-matching when decelerating at all times, it will be too harsh and jerky for the driver who isn't going anywhere near 8/10ths. Which means it's a good thing the EVO box has multiple drive modes, as the best one is too aggressive for the street.

It's aggressive for sure, but not harsh or jerky at all. In fact that was the point I was making, is that it's extremely smooth and wouldn't at all be intrusive to the car in a hard driving situation like a torque converter flappy paddle box is. It feels like a perfectly executed heel-toe downshift. You know, the ones you don't feel at all.

It's completely unnecessary for regular driving I agree, but for a sports car it's especially important to offer something of that caliber if you aren't going to offer a manual.

And that's what it comes down to. Most boxes CAN do what you want, but the manufacturers are not building them for performance. You go up to the more expensive cars wherein the boxes are built for performance, and they will.

And that's fine, but if you're going to offer a sports car and you're not going to stick a transmission in it capable of enabling a car to be driven at 10/10ths (whether it be the programming or the transmission itself), then offer a damn manual.


Again, I have no problem with these transmissions if they're better at doing it that I am, which a lot of them are. But if you can't do it better than me, then let me do it myself.

 

[speed junkie]

It's completely unnecessary for regular driving I agree, but for a sports car it's especially important to offer something of that caliber if you aren't going to offer a manual.

And that's fine, but if you're going to offer a sports car and you're not going to stick a transmission in it capable of enabling a car to be driven at 10/10ths (whether it be the programming or the transmission itself), then offer a damn manual.

Again, I have no problem with these transmissions if they're better at doing it that I am, which a lot of them are. But if you can't do it better than me, then let me do it myself.

Completely agree. Not to repeat what he has already said, but it's all about the feel. I think most will agree with that. A transmission that can behave exactly like a manual (all features included such as rev matching and proper gear selection) HAS to be a manual transmission. Not a slush box-torque converter combination. As some mentioned earlier, it doesn't give you the "control" you need. Which I think is a term that some may not have fully understood. With a manual, the right foot is always linked to the driven wheels. There is no slip of a torque converter or lag from gear engagement response...

...there's a reason wheel manufacturers strive to make their wheels lightweight, and bushings can be had in solid aluminum form, and one piece driveshafts can be purchased for cars with two piece ones, and solid mounted calipers exist, ect ect. Everything makes a difference, and it amount to a tremendous difference at the end of the line. If I'm buying a car to modify, it would be annoying to not be able to do anything about that small lag.

 

[homeforsummer]

Can't say I've really noticed it myself. It's not great, but I don't think I've driven a car with a great manual gearbox after the 90s, at least none come to mind. Good ones maybe, but not great. S2000s are pretty good, and I thought the RX-8 felt decent.

That's a good point actually. In the interests of usability a lot of the "feel" has been taken out of most manual gearboxes these says. Sure, they're easy to use - most cars have light clutches now, completely unobstructive gearshifts, most even let you knock the gearbox back into 1st on the move, which I was taught never to do when I was learning to drive - but the clutch and gearshift are usually so light (combined with lazy throttle response) that there's little joy to be had from using them.

Of cars I've driven in the last few years, the only few which come to mind as having both a satisfying manual gearbox and being made post-2000 are the current Miata, my old Fiat, and the current MINI.

Completely agree. Not to repeat what he has already said, but it's all about the feel. I think most will agree with that. A transmission that can behave exactly like a manual (all features included such as rev matching and proper gear selection) HAS to be a manual transmission. Not a slush box-torque converter combination. As some mentioned earlier, it doesn't give you the "control" you need. Which I think is a term that some may not have fully understood. With a manual, the right foot is always linked to the driven wheels. There is no slip of a torque converter or lag from gear engagement response...

And good torque converters have that.

I recently had a go in the BMW M135i, which has an 8-speed torque converter auto. Coincidentally, Chris Harris has also recently driven it, and I did exactly the same thing he describes doing when he started driving - mistook it for a dual-clutch 'box. In manual mode particularly, it's basically impossible to tell the difference. I didn't put the throttle into Sport mode either, which I imagine is even more responsive.

The other argument is that sometimes, an auto is just more suitable for the car it's in regardless. Any Mercedes, for example. The manual options, when they're available, are fairly lousy, and Mercedes' autos have always been incredibly smooth, which is just what you want for a big comfy sedan. Inability to rev-match or whatever is largely irrelevant.

That, and combining a manual transmission with a foot-operated parking brake is insane.

 

[Perfect Balance]

And good torque converters have that.

Can't say I've ever driven a good one then. Maybe it's possible, but this brings me back to my original point. If it can do it better than me, that's fine. If it can't, then let me do it myself.

The other argument is that sometimes, an auto is just more suitable for the car it's in regardless.

Of course, but the question is should they get rid of manuals entirely, which I think is only acceptable if the transmission replacing it is capable of taking the place of the manual. In most cases, at least at this point and time, they aren't.

 

[BongRipz]

Save the manuals!!! 👍

I HATE driving automatics

 

[Guardian]

haha nice thread.. just buy older cars they are better than pretty much everything that comes out now thats affordable anyway.

Except newer cars are cleaner (C02 g/km), more spacious, more economical, more comfortable, more stylish, more practical, more reliable and safer. Right?

(I've just realised that's^ a really old quote. )
....

Oh, and count me in.

 

[Azuremen]

Except newer cars are cleaner (C02 g/km), more spacious, more economical, more comfortable, more stylish, more practical, more reliable and safer(?)

The safer bit isn't even a question - new cars are considerably more safe than older cars.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Yes, have you seen he offset front collision between a 1959 Chevy Malibu and a 2008 Malibu? I cite that video whenever people claim that big cars are safer.

 

[phil bell]

Well, "more stylish" is questionable. I dont think the new VF Commodore is any nicer the the pre-ceding VE model. Same goes for many other cars too.

 

[Guardian]

I wasn't asking a question, sorry.
I just worded it wrong.

 

[Worst_Driver]

I never owned a manual car yet (unfortunately) my car is a 2004 Altima so excitement is out of the equation but I'm looking to buy one as soon as I graduate from university. I'm sorry but you cannot be a true gearhead if you don't like rowing your own gears.

 

[Danoff]

I never owned a manual car yet (unfortunately) my car is a 2004 Altima so excitement is out of the equation but I'm looking to buy one as soon as I graduate from university. I'm sorry but you cannot be a true gearhead if you don't like rowing your own gears.

Own one before you go passing judgement. Also you need to have driven good and bad versions of automatics, manuals, and DCTs. I'll take a good automatic over a bad manual any day. Even at the track.

 

[Exorcet]

Yes, have you seen he offset front collision between a 1959 Chevy Malibu and a 2008 Malibu? I cite that video whenever people claim that big cars are safer.

I think it has more to do with one car being old. A little bit of an overload in other variables to look at size/weight alone.

 

[CSLACR]

But still equal manual over equal automatic of course.

Would be fair to add that bit.


Recently aquired a 2004 absolute base Cavalier, and while it's "worse" than most cars on the road by many definitions, there are the bulk of what I love about it.
Seats, pedals, wheel, radio and driver. The ingredients for pure driving enjoyment without interference of distracting gagets.
Not to mention weight savings, 2617 curb. (the AT is about 60lb heavier iirc)

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I think it has more to do with one car being old. A little bit of an overload in other variables to look at size/weight alone.

Yes, crashworthiness is influenced by many things. The older car is not engineered to be safe, so it isn't. I merely meant that size isn't the deciding factor in safety, contrary to what some believe.

 

[CSLACR]

I think it has more to do with one car being old. A little bit of an overload in other variables to look at size/weight alone.

Mathematically and physically, big cars are absolutely safer.

His fallacy is using cars decades apart thinking it's a comparison of size, when it's actually a comparison of technology.
Well duh the newer car does better.

In case of misinterpretation I am agreeing with you.

 

[CSLACR]

Yes, crashworthiness is influenced by many things. The older car is not engineered to be safe, so it isn't. I merely meant that size isn't the deciding factor in safety, contrary to what some believe.

So use 2 new cars. 💡

 

[Joey D]

Mathematically and physically, big cars are absolutely safer.

How do you figure that? A bigger car is not automatically safer, even if they are both new cars. It's all about the engineering behind it and how the vehicle absorbs the crash. A Smart Car is actually pretty safe, but something like a F-150 really isn't.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Of course, newer cars are better, but the crashworthiness is first determined by how the chassis was engineered. See the Smart Fortwo's safety cell for an example. Also, a small hatchback or saloon is less likely to roll over than an SUV in evasive manoeuvring. Admittedly, a larger crumple zone will be safer for passengers inside, but only if it actually works well. The Toyota Prius V, a large vehicle by most standards, performed incredibly poorly in the IIHS small overlp test, and would have seriously injured the driver in those conditions, while the smaller Volvo S60 did very well.

 

[Danoff]

But still equal manual over equal automatic of course.

Would be fair to add that bit.

Not necessarily. In a truck? I wouldn't unless I'd be doing a lot of towing or driving in mud or something. SUV? Nope. Sedan? Depends on what I'm using it for.