Save the Manuals!

That's just world class driving. No offense, but I know you can't drive a manual like that.

Well, how can I compare myself to Dori Dori ...but I do heel and toe when daily driving - it can be done smoothly that my passengers didn't even know it :D. I practiced heel and toe 15 years ago, when my old man trained me to drive - he said it's very important skill set, and all my cars are manual, go figure.
 
Well, how can I compare myself to Dori Dori ...but I do heel and toe when daily driving - it can be done smoothly that my passengers didn't even know it :D.

So can I, its just called daily driving a manual for a while.

I practiced heel and toe 15 years ago, when my old man trained me to drive - he said it's very important skill set, and all my cars are manual, go figure.

All of my cars are manuals, my dad taught me to drive as well :lol: Good to see another manual enthusiast.
 
The most common upshift is to second

I'm not so sure of that. Sort of depends on your commute. Theoretically, if you don't need to stop on your average journey, you'd only ever change up to second gear once, but you may need to go between other gears several times.

I suspect third and fourth are the most commonly-used gears for most people, so the most common upshift will probably be from 2>3 or 3>4. Though as I alluded to in the post a few above yours, I strongly suspect the "instinct" is more related to the forces on your body as you accelerate or brake.

Of course if you drive in bumper-to-bumper traffic all day then 1st>2nd might be quite a common change. Or you may never even reach second. But then that goes back to the "why the heck have a manual at all?" if you drive in heavy traffic every day of your life...
 
The most common upshift is to second, which is back. So I think that's part of the instinct right there.

If you have a car with any kind of power that makes it worth driving a maunal, 1st is pretty much pointless for street driving... IMHO
 
Joey, I wasn't talking about control over your gear changes, and rather the response and precision offered by a direct mechanical connection between the engine and the wheels. This is really only matched by a dct or similar transmission, and while I agree the gear changes are better/quicker and it's definitely a quicker way around a racetrack, I don't think losing all your benefits of a conventional manual is worth it, at least not for me, unless the car only serves a purpose as a track car and you never have to deal with low speed driving, or at least when you do, it's not an important situation. Sort of like the tiny clutch pecal in wrc cars. Sure, it might be a pain to use it, but they don't use it when the car is actually doing what it's built for, but, it's still there when they need it. If my car was only for driving around town, or only for grip track driving, an automatic slushbox or dct is great, but I do both, and I drift, and sometimes I get stuck, or sometimes I'm in a traffic jam, and doing something that completely doesn't bother me, like operating a clutch and shift lever, is completely and entirely worth having something that works well in all situations.

Also, getting rid of manual transmissions would pretty much cut out any new cars from entering the sport of drifting, unless you were to swap in a manual, but that's a more personal view.

I'm not saying you're wrong or even incorrect with what you're saying. You still see a benefit with a manual transmission and a clutch pedal, and you have a valid point with the statements you're making. If you can find benefit with it, then who am I to say you're wrong?

And I don't go to or watch a ton of drifting so I'm not really sure what is and isn't used. I know from the few I've seen though it was pretty much nothing but 80's and 90's RWD Japanese cars. I don't think many people would go out and buy a new car to drift it as it seems like if you messed up, you're going to be way more to fix it then 240 or something. But like I said I don't know for sure. And I'd guess the aftermarket would still have manual for competition purposes.

I'm with you, except for the outdated part. There are things a manual can do that a DCT cannot, and as such it is absolutely not outdated.

Technological superiority...I think you're just meaning it's more complicated? Tank treads are technologically superior to wheels, they require a higher level of technology to construct and operate. Doesn't mean they're better all the time.

I still don't agree with this. It's a more advanced piece of technology. It is not strictly superior. It's superior in some situations, and inferior in others. Just as an automatic is superior in some situations, and inferior in others. DCTs are a middle ground for people who want more control than an auto, but don't want to have to deal with three pedals. They are not a replacement for manuals.

The day they make a DCT that has a clutch pedal you can choose to use as well, that will be a replacement for a manual. You could argue that it'd need an H-pattern to go 4th -> 2nd as well, but if the downshift is fast enough you can double tap and it'd be equivalent enough. Bikes manage to double tap easily enough, I see no particular need to hold onto H-patterns (although it is good fun).

I think you're looking at how my statement is in the wrong way, or I'm just communicating it poorly. Just because something is outdated doesn't make it bad, nor does something being superior make it complicated (although it typically is more complex) or better. I suppose to word it differently, a DCT is the more advanced piece of technology when compared to a manual and I believe new cars should only be fitted with the latest and greatest technology the price bracket can afford. And since new cars like a Ford Fiesta, an economy car, can be fitted with a DCT and still be reasonably priced I don't think the price bracket really comes into play. New car buyer are also demanding automatic transmission, so it stands to reason car makers should continue to invest in automatic transmission technology to make it even better.

So I suppose to put it simple: superior doesn't mean better, it just means more advanced and I think the more advanced technology should be used for new things, while fully respecting that there's going to be a group of people that think the new way of doing things is crap.

I think having a manual transmission that does away an H-gate would be an advancement in technology for manuals and could draw more people back to them. Also I think if clutchless manuals actually got to the point of being good on the road, that would be another advancement.

No, in no way can a DCT emulate a manual, unless an extra pedal pops out....

With a DCT you can use an interface to change gears on demand, that's exactly what a manual does in simple terms. Going back to the emulation example, you'll also see that I said it's not the same as the original, the control is going to be different and some thing might be missing. A DCT is in many ways a manual transmission that a computer clutches and shifts for you. You get a similar experience without some of the interfaces being present...exactly what simulating an SNES game on a computer does.

If you put an extra pedal there, then it would no longer be emulating a manual, it would just be a manual from the get go.

Of course if you drive in bumper-to-bumper traffic all day then 1st>2nd might be quite a common change. Or you may never even reach second. But then that goes back to the "why the heck have a manual at all?" if you drive in heavy traffic every day of your life...

I think the real question would be why even have a car at all?
 
I'm not so sure of that...

Ehh you're right, I was just brainstorming why it might be so instinctual.

If you have a car with any kind of power that makes it worth driving a maunal, 1st is pretty much pointless for street driving... IMHO

I make 640awhp, I still use 1st because its out of a 4 cylinder, and I can't afford to use antilag while street driving. But when I drive my dads NSX I rarely use 1st and he only makes 500rwhp. It largely depends on the motor setup and gearing.
 
Last edited:
So sometimes convenience (DCT, auto) is better than function (manual) and sometimes function is better than convenience. Sometimes convenience is a function and sometimes a function is convenience. Did I get that right?


I think the real question would be why even have a car at all?

I think this is a good point, really isn't the car itself kind of outdated?
 
Last edited:
I think this is a good point, really isn't the car itself kind of outdated?

Depends where you live. Or the job you do, at any rate.

The same problem afflicts public transport (or other alternatives to owning a car*) as afflicts many alternative fuel concepts for the car at the moment - none are quite ready to replace the incumbent technology, since the incumbent technology works so well.

For the record, I do live without a car at the moment. Sort of. I have no "daily driver", even though I do have use of several other vehicles and have a classic in the garage. But I work from home, on the internet, so a car isn't strictly a necessary part of my life.


*For those in cities, car ownership is dropping here in Europe. And uniquely, car-sharing schemes are rising. The future here at least is in non-ownership, even if the car itself sticks around.
 
I love my manual, being able to change gears when you want and having control over the clutch position gives you so much more overall control of the car. With an automatic you lose all of the fun of driving. :(

However in the UK we still seem to be a county of manual drivers, out of my mates at college I don't know anyone who is learning to drive in an auto.
 
I think you're taking this entirely too personally. I'm not suggesting you give up your manual or that you're wrong for wanting to drive one.

...You don't have to like DCT's, you don't have to want to drive one, and you don't have to abandon your manual to buy one.
What's personal is the original topic of this thread -- that the manual is threatened to be phased out with no actual replacement, only more "convenient" alternatives that trade away certain functions (and intangible pleasures) in favor of marketable advantages that some of us never asked for and don't require. To take your videogame analogy, it's like the current shift toward all-digital-distribution, with no physical copies and limited rights and access over the software you've "purchased". Right now it seems like the future, it's certainly convenient (at least in the short term), and it's more "advanced," but that doesn't mean we should all just accept it and move on. There are some legitimate concerns with that model, and they should not be discounted simply because digital distribution is one of the industry's latest innovations. As consumers we have to stand by what's important to us; it just happens to be far more affordable to "vote with your wallet" on videogames than automobiles.

I know you're not telling me I have to like DCTs and drive one, but the market/industry is telling me to do exactly that, someday. Today's manual cars won't be around forever. Accepting DCT as "the future" does no good in making my stand; if arguing in favor of manuals on the internet convinces just one reader with more cash than I do to tick the "manual" box on their new car order form, I consider that worth my time.
 
Last edited:
What's personal is the original topic of this thread -- that the manual is threatened to be phased out with no actual replacement, only more "convenient" alternatives that trade away certain functions (and intangible pleasures) in favor of marketable advantages that some of us never asked for and don't require. To take your videogame analogy, it's like the current shift toward all-digital-distribution, with no physical copies and limited rights and access over the software you've "purchased". Right now it seems like the future, it's certainly convenient (at least in the short term), and it's more "advanced," but that doesn't mean we should all just accept it and move on. There are some legitimate concerns with that model, and they should not be discounted simply because digital distribution is one of the industry's latest innovations. As consumers we have to stand by what's important to us; it just happens to be far more affordable to "vote with your wallet" on videogames than automobiles.

I know you're not telling me I have to like DCTs and drive one, but the market/industry is telling me to do exactly that, someday. Today's manual cars won't be around forever. Accepting DCT as "the future" does no good in making my stand; if arguing in favor of manuals on the internet convinces just one reader with more cash than I do to tick the "manual" box on their new car order form, I consider that worth my time.


The market should phase out manuals though if there's low or no demand for it, which there is. It's just another cost the automaker incurs and passes along to the buyer. You have to remember a overwhelming majority of people who buys new cars are just looking for something to take them to work and back safely and comfortably, it's why the Camry is the best selling car in the US despite not even being that cheap, good looking or even very good.

People obviously like DCT's for their performance aspect too since wealthy buyers of performance cars are demanding automatics from Ferrari's, Porsche's, BMW's, etc. These companies see this and it doesn't make financial sense to offer manuals when only 1 out of 20 buyers want one (or whatever the number is). It's cheaper to lose one customer than develop two drivetrain systems I'd imagine.

The only way to "save the manual" is to buy a new car with a manual option and show automakers they're going to turn a profit by offering one as an option. I would say most manual drivers in the US would consider themselves enthusiasts and for whatever reason many enthusiasts think new cars are a waste of money so they buy used. It's all well and good to complain on the Internet how the manual is dying and that companies don't offer them in new car they think should have them (see the new 911), but unless you're buying new cars your opinion really means nothing to automakers. Automakers that just listen to a fanbase edging them on to make something end up with disasters like the Chevy SSR and the Plymouth Prowler.

If you're going to try to convince people to buy manuals, you really have to convince people like me, a new car buying automotive enthusiast, that they're worth it and I'd guess there are more people that think the way I do than not given how the market is (obviously I have no proof other than industry trends).

I haven't really seen any good reason for me to buy a manual over a DCT because many of the things manual supporters bring up just aren't present with my, rather poor, DCT. I don't have any issues at low speeds, I've always been able to get myself unstuck, and when I want a different gear I press a little toggle on my shifter and it changes for me. I also haven't driven any new car that really makes me wish it had a manual or that I felt was better for having one. I drove the Focus ST yesterday and I, personally, think it would be a vastly better car with a good DCT (and better front diff).

I'm sure there is a sizable chunk of people that fall within the group of new car buyer that could be swayed to want a new car with a manual, but I really don't think that number is large enough to keep automakers interested in continuing to offer them.
 
Now the flip side, what makes DCTs better than manuals:

- You can operate them with 2 limbs if you want to
- They're more convenient in traffic
- Faster on the track
- More accurate shifting, no botched shifts
- No need to remove hands from the wheel to shift
- No need to rev match means easier use and no ruined synchros
- No clutch pedal means no concern about clutch wear
- People who don't know how to drive stick can drive it (yes that's a plus)
- A previously owned version is less likely to need major repairs (torched clutches are so common on used manuals)


1. Meh. I've never wished it didn't take so many limbs to drive a car.

2. Convenient, sure. Better? Absolutely not. They are frequently jerky and they aren't proactive to the situation ahead. Sure, you can manually select gears, but nothing can be done about the programming in a traffic jam where you've slowed to a crawl and constantly going form gas to brakes.

3.Good point #1

4. They do occasionally botch shifts, in the same way a slushbox occasionally shifts hard. Again though, I've never been so annoyed at botched shifts that I wish I had something do them for me.

5. Hand. Just one. Not a significant problem in every day driving. Most people don't use anything near proper driving technique anyway, and frequently drive with one hand, so meh. Assuming every drives correctly though, this is an ok point. Depending on the situation, a driver might need to react to a road condition or other hazard and one hand might not do the trick.

6. Well, you don't "need" to rev match a manual either, you can just ease off the pedal, but your typical DCT in your every day econo car does a pretty bad job of downshifting smoothly anyway, so this doesn't really apply as a
"benefit".

7. Clutch wear? Really? I work in service at a car dealership, and in 5 years I've installed maybe 10-15 clutches? And most of those were flywheel issues with Dual Mass flywheels. I've done a LOT more automatic transmissions than that though.

8. If this really matters to you, then chances are you're never really going to use the car for anything other than every day driving, in which case an automatic is perfectly fine. Or you're married or something and your significant other doesn't want to learn a manual.

9. Really not a good point. If they can't drive a manual or didn't maintain it/abused it, then chances are the equivalent car with a DCT would be just as beat.


Also, drifting. You can't really do it well with a DCT, and no, it's not just a bunch of broke people with 90's Nissans. There are many late model BMWs, Mustangs, Camaros, Scion FRS, ect in the drift scene. This answers your question Joey.
 
Last edited:
https://www.car2go.com/en/seattle/#

These are just randomly parked around the city, there was one directly in front of my place last night.

Yup. It's in several cities now. I quite like the idea too - if I lived in a city with the service I'd be very tempted to sign up. It's cost-effective too as long as you're not using it every single day.

7. Clutch wear? Really? I work in service at a car dealership, and in 5 years I've installed maybe 10-15 clutches? And most of those were flywheel issues with Dual Mass flywheels. I've done a LOT more automatic transmissions than that though.

DMFs are the scourge of manual transmissions at the moment. They're (I think) a bigger problem over here as they're most frequently used in diesels (which naturally vibrate a bit more) and half the country drives diesels. And they go expensively wrong with irritating frequency. Can double the cost of a clutch change.
 
I drive a 92 Nissan D21/Navarra/Pickup/Hardbody(what ever you know it as) 5 speed manual. Been that way for 2 years. The 5 speed is the only reason my truck has any oomph from the 300k mile engine. Manual's are also easier on the engine of your car, if driven properly, because they don't have the inherent slip of most auto transmissions.
 
Manual's are also easier on the engine of your car, if driven properly, because they don't have the inherent slip of most auto transmissions.

That seems... dubious at best. At the extremes, an auto will neither labor the engine nor over-rev, both of which are possible in a manual. On balance, an auto is also more likely to keep the engine revs fairly low reducing friction and wear (and fuel use), unlike many manual drivers who aren't always great at picking the right gear for a given situation. And autos don't put big shocks through the drivetrain as manual drivers sometimes do through mis-shifting, poor clutch control or in the case of some of the heroes on GTP, racing starts.

Thinking about it logically, auto transmissions are likely to be easier on your engine than manuals. At worst, an auto will do no more damage to your engine than a well-driven manual.
 
^ Agreed. I always thought of an auto as giving the engine a little "slack" to work with. Like when you jump off the gas in a manual in first or second and the whole car bucks back and forth... Yeah, I don't think the engine and/or trans internals like those forces.

But what harm does bogging an engine do exactly? I know you're not supposed to but I never knew what it actually does. Like let's say I'm slowing down for a red light in 2nd, keep it in gear, but then it turns green and my rpms are really low and I give it gas to get back up to speed. What's bad about that?
 
What I've been told bogging at lower rpms means lower oil pressure thus greater (or less?) tolerances for the internals, that combined with the load wears things faster. Thing is my Corolla has 295k miles on it and loads of those were with a transmission that would shift into 3rd, it's top gear, at like 20mph and the engine always felt bogged, I would have thought if it did harm the engine wouldn't have lasted. I always assumed it was only bad under extreme bogging, like when you can clearly hear/feel a difference in the engine.
 
That seems... dubious at best. At the extremes, an auto will neither labor the engine nor over-rev, both of which are possible in a manual. On balance, an auto is also more likely to keep the engine revs fairly low reducing friction and wear (and fuel use), unlike many manual drivers who aren't always great at picking the right gear for a given situation. And autos don't put big shocks through the drivetrain as manual drivers sometimes do through mis-shifting, poor clutch control or in the case of some of the heroes on GTP, racing starts.

Thinking about it logically, auto transmissions are likely to be easier on your engine than manuals. At worst, an auto will do no more damage to your engine than a well-driven manual.

Glad someone has some sense around here. The slip in the suto will cause less low RPM load on the engine as the converter slips to put the engine in its powerband....
 
Manual is by far the best transmission to use, I don't care how 'relaxing' auto is. MT is what real drivers use and I will support that thought at every opportunity I get.
 
Manual is by far the best transmission to use, I don't care how 'relaxing' auto is. MT is what real drivers use and I will support that thought at every opportunity I get.

You're not going to win any favors with that attitude. Real drivers only use a manual? Guess I'm just a figment of my own imagination then.
 
For the first time in my life, someone I know well has been stranded on the side of the road with transmission failure.

The vehicle is not excessively old or poorly maintained. The driver is not particularly abusive, and does not engage in motorsports or aggressive driving. One guess as to whether the transmission was manual or automatic.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Manual
 
For the first time in my life, someone I know well has been stranded on the side of the road with transmission failure.

The vehicle is not excessively old or poorly maintained. The driver is not particularly abusive, and does not engage in motorsports or aggressive driving. One guess as to whether the transmission was manual or automatic.
Well... yeah... but there's tons of reasons for gearbox failure on any kind of 'box and operator/operation is just one of them.

My dad never stirred his own gears in the Jaguar S-Type R. The entire box exploded after 23,000 miles (taking the torque convertor out with it). Known fault - apparently software based - STRs lunched their ZF transmissions for fun.
 
You're not going to win any favors with that attitude. Real drivers only use a manual? Guess I'm just a figment of my own imagination then.

Alright, I apologise; I should rephrase that: "The best drivers use MT". Of course, this is only my opinion, but why would you visit this thread if you're an AT driver?
Anyway, my point is that the best drivers out there (Senna, Whiddett, Tuerck, etc) all use MT, so how could you argue with that evidence? I believe it proves that MT is superior. However, this is only my opinion.
 
Well... yeah... but there's tons of reasons for gearbox failure on any kind of 'box and operator/operation is just one of them.

My dad never stirred his own gears in the Jaguar S-Type R. The entire box exploded after 23,000 miles (taking the torque convertor out with it). Known fault - apparently software based - STRs lunched their ZF transmissions for fun.

- I've only closely know one person who was stranded by their transmission:
manual
- I've only had to perform significant (expensive) routine service on one transmission on one of my vehicles:
manual
- I've only had one transmission suffer manufacturer defects that required significant non-routine service on one of my vehicles:
manual
- I've seen many drivers abuse their transmissions by operating them poorly. All of them used the same type:
manual
- I've only bought one car with a transmission that was damaged by a previous owner:
manual
- One type of transmission has major components not covered under vehicle warranties:
manual (I'm generalizing a bit, I'm familiar with GTR warranty issues)
- One type of transmission requires significant expensive work as routine maintenance:
manual

Point is, my cheapskate friends who can barely drive buy manual transmissions because they save $100 on the price of the car and think they get better gas mileage. Then they have to replace the clutch at 60k mi. Most of those people would have saved money and headache (and my neck) with an automatic.

...and for all their reliability, a manual is still the only transmission that I've seen leave someone stranded.
 
...and for all their reliability, a manual is still the only transmission that I've seen leave someone stranded.

Interesting point to be made. However, I've seen several people stranded due to automatic transmission failure, and Volkswagen lost an estimated $600m on a recent recall of 384,000 units of Volkswagen Group vehicles equipped with a 7-speed DSG in China alone. More and more reports and horror stories of the same transmission pop up in Australia every week.

Despite this I doubt this information will not sway you with regards to transmission reliability just as your witness testimony to a single manual transmission failure will not sway pro-manual drivers. It's all a Catch 22.
 
Point is, my cheapskate friends who can barely drive buy manual transmissions because they save $100 on the price of the car and think they get better gas mileage. Then they have to replace the clutch at 60k mi. Most of those people would have saved money and headache (and my neck) with an automatic.
Probably because they can barely drive :lol:

I've seen everything you list with automatic gearboxes too (the middle one being "stick it in D" users). And, for balance, manuals. It's pretty much case by case, gearbox design by gearbox design. A crap 'box is crap no matter who or what's picking the number on it.
 
Back