Manual vs Automatic

Got an automatic 2 weeks ago, after years of driving a manual.... Traffic seems more bearable now :unsure: :love:
 
Neuk_ said:
I see I missed a lot since this morning but most has been said, I prefer an automatic for everyday driving but as an enthusiast my next weekend toy will have a manual like my '66 VW Bus and '82 VW Golf have.



Is there a path for a pilot, such as a commercial/airline pilot that doesn't include small planes? All my friends who are pilots started on microlights, then got their PPL in little planes like Cessna's before moving on to their Comm licences in larger planes before some became airline pilots in huge planes.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately yes there is. Just have a look at the extensive debate about the 737MAX grounding as one thread dealing with this very subject on myBB.
A true enthusiast that becomes a pilot starts as you describe but many do not. the become "bus drivers" where the "bus" is a 747. The effects of "automation" on their psyche is very well documented. The truly good pilots are the ones that pursue in their private lives the flying of small planes and gliders. And it is quite well documented which pilots are more likely to be able to handle emergencies better.

So this is the crux of my debate. These smaller low powered cars with all these bells and whistles including fancy -so-called "automatic gearboxes" are just dangerous missiles in the hands of drivers.

We all grew up with manuals, and some of us were fortunate to move on to higher-powered cars with automatics.
But most "new drivers" are not in that category. They get a licence and then get into a car which they believe is an automatic without having the foggiest idea of what that means or entails. They are a menace because they do not have a "feel" for what it means to be in control of a moving missile. My point is a driver does not easily develop that "feeL" and one-ness for a vehicle IF you start in an "automatic" where the car takes the decisions for you.

So, what starts out as a supposedly "safety" feature such as "ABS" can and does end up being dangerous in inexperienced hands. Similarly, with "semi-automatic" gearboxes, DSGs CVTs call them what you like.
I have never driven a motorbike. I will accept that a biker develops a much better "feel" for what it means to control a moving vehicle than drivers do sooner and quicker in their driving careers.

It is that simple.

And then the expense is the other side of the story, which is what started this debate again. These so-called "automatics" are very expensive to maintain, far more so than a good old fashioned straight forward manual box with a clutch. They have a finite life, shorter than many want to admit, and when they break, the cost of repair is horrendous. And that does not necessarily apply to more powerful cars with "real" automatic boxes.

Sure for the well-heeled, this is not their prime concern --- they change their cars like others change their underwear.
 
Also of course modern auto can change gear faster than any human being
 
Geoff.D said:
So the assumption is that "some Polo or Ecosport" is a manual????
An "automatic" still needs to be driven -- except maybe the larger more powerful ones. The smaller ones still need good old fashioned common sense to know when to "downshift".

The Internet is littered with comments about smaller "automatics" having undue "lag" poor responsiveness, etc.
All the below optimum performance in smaller cars leads to premature wear and tear. Couple that with poor maintenance?
No, given a choice between a manual and an automatic, I will always favour the manual.
Click to expand...
Yip - cheap cars are mostly manuals. Very reasonable assumption. I don't think the vivo is even available in auto.

At least an laggy auto will try and downshift on an uphill. SA drivers can't do that by themselves when they are engaged with their ever so sporty and non-laggy manual **** box.
 
All the people pretending their eco-'sport' or polo is sporty and fun because it is manual are fooling themselves.

Rather just accept you have a shopping cart mommy mobile and forget about your pretensions of 'fun' and 'engagement'. You won't get that in those cars regardless of how the gear changes.

Save your clutch leg for an actually sporty car than may or may not be manual.
 
asshat99 said:
All the people pretending their eco-'sport' or polo is sporty and fun because it is manual are fooling themselves.

Rather just accept you have a shopping cart mommy mobile and forget about your pretensions of 'fun' and 'engagement'. You won't get that in those cars regardless of how the gear changes.

Save your clutch leg for an actually sporty car than may or may not be manual.
Click to expand...

While I mostly do agree there is something to be said for the experience being a lot more visceral in a shitbox and it feeling like it's going to kill you at much lower speeds than the faster alternatives.

All that lack of suspension, lack of door padding and proper window seals makes it feel like a race car albeit it a slow one.
 
Geoff.D said:
Unfortunately yes there is. Just have a look at the extensive debate about the 737MAX grounding as one thread dealing with this very subject on myBB.
A true enthusiast that becomes a pilot starts as you describe but many do not. the become "bus drivers" where the "bus" is a 747. The effects of "automation" on their psyche is very well documented. The truly good pilots are the ones that pursue in their private lives the flying of small planes and gliders. And it is quite well documented which pilots are more likely to be able to handle emergencies better.

So this is the crux of my debate. These smaller low powered cars with all these bells and whistles including fancy -so-called "automatic gearboxes" are just dangerous missiles in the hands of drivers.

We all grew up with manuals, and some of us were fortunate to move on to higher-powered cars with automatics.
But most "new drivers" are not in that category. They get a licence and then get into a car which they believe is an automatic without having the foggiest idea of what that means or entails. They are a menace because they do not have a "feel" for what it means to be in control of a moving missile. My point is a driver does not easily develop that "feeL" and one-ness for a vehicle IF you start in an "automatic" where the car takes the decisions for you.

So, what starts out as a supposedly "safety" feature such as "ABS" can and does end up being dangerous in inexperienced hands. Similarly, with "semi-automatic" gearboxes, DSGs CVTs call them what you like.
I have never driven a motorbike. I will accept that a biker develops a much better "feel" for what it means to control a moving vehicle than drivers do sooner and quicker in their driving careers.

It is that simple.

And then the expense is the other side of the story, which is what started this debate again. These so-called "automatics" are very expensive to maintain, far more so than a good old fashioned straight forward manual box with a clutch. They have a finite life, shorter than many want to admit, and when they break, the cost of repair is horrendous. And that does not necessarily apply to more powerful cars with "real" automatic boxes.

Sure for the well-heeled, this is not their prime concern --- they change their cars like others change their underwear.
Click to expand...

I understand your point of view, both regarding pilots who are merely bus drivers versus flying enthusiasts and new drivers who really have no clue how to properly control a vehicle. I am not entirely convinced of the expense though, perhaps for more advanced twin clutch and automatic manual gearboxes, traditional torque converter gearboxes have always been super reliable and inexpensive to maintain. Couple this with the cost of replacing the DMF, clutch and flywheel on newer manuals, which is massively expensive even when done privately buying OEM kits from the likes of Goldwagen.
 
SauRoNZA said:
While I mostly do agree there is something to be said for the experience being a lot more visceral in a shitbox and it feeling like it's going to kill you at much lower speeds than the faster alternatives.

All that lack of suspension, lack of door padding and proper window seals makes it feel like a race car albeit it a slow one.
Click to expand...

This sounds like driving my '81 VW Golf :ROFL: And don't get me started on my '66 VW Bus where the airbags are your knee and face and changing gears is akin to mixing anthracite.
 
asshat99 said:
Yip - cheap cars are mostly manuals. Very reasonable assumption. I don't think the vivo is even available in auto.

At least an laggy auto will try and downshift on an uphill. SA drivers can't do that by themselves when they are engaged with their ever so sporty and non-laggy manual **** box.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, you are right there. I see it every time I go on a long trip to say CT. I can and do reach an average speed of >90 kph, staying within the 120kph limit with ease, without losing speed on uphills with absolute ease, simply because I know when to "downshift". A laggy underpowered "automatic" where the "car" is supposed to make those decisions for you and you as a driver does not intervene when needed, stands zero chance of achieving the same performance. And the same goes for that fancy high powered "automatic" car.

The classic example is that long uphill stretch just before Colesberg, which is fortunately now a double lane. Me in my 4 x 4, pulls over to the left, changes gears smoothly and maintains his speed up that hill with ease. Along comes that flashy BMW automatic, who tries to pass and just sits there struggling to keep up, pushing the gas pedal through the floorboards wondering why he can't pass me!
 
SauRoNZA said:
I’m 37.

I own a manual at present, because the available auto sucked.

But you are right, there is no point in arguing over it, nobody will change anyone’s mind.

They need to come to the conclusion that auto is better themselves. :)

People just need faster or more powerful cars to drive then they’ll get over the delusion of manual offering them more control when they realise they don’t have time to worry about that when the car is properly fast.

I’ve driven a 911 Turbo S at pace. Last thing I thought it needed was a manual gearbox.

Some boot space would have been more useful.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is arguing that auto is faster. It will be marginally faster in the hands of an experienced driver (same model).

Auto ist great in traffic and I would always chose auto over manual if I'd sit daily in bumper to bumper traffic.

How long did you drive the Porsche for? Of course it will be overwhelming if you're not used to the car and performance. Add stick shift and you'll feel lost. Once you're used to the performance, I bet you'll prefer the manual counter part. A 911 turbo S is not exactly your typical daily commute either.
 
I was enjoying the drive in a manual Polo right up until I stopped on an incline and had to pull up the handbrake ... and I was, screw this. DSG it is :D
 
ubercal said:
So to summarize ...

Fun - Manual
Performance - Auto
Lazness - Auto

end of story
Click to expand...
There are a few manuals that perform rather well. So well that I'd take a 12 year plus older model over the latest POS. Namely BMW Z4 M Coupe E86/ S54 engine. Hands down best manual car I've ever owned. Definitely unsuitable as a daily. Performance is there though and it's a very lively car.
 
bratwurst said:
A lot of modern manuals come with hill assist :)
Click to expand...
Yeah the new Polo does too, but it gives me the heebies. If you tap the petrol, it disengages. Tapping the petrol in an automatic car on an incline will not make you roll back, yes?
 
bratwurst said:
There are a few manuals that perform rather well. So well that I'd take a 12 year plus older model over the latest POS. Namely BMW Z4 M Coupe E86/ S54 engine. Hands down best manual car I've ever owned. Definitely unsuitable as a daily. Performance is there though and it's a very lively car.
Click to expand...

well there are a good few manuals that are pushing around 400wkw.Thats more then enough performance for me :thumbsup:
 
Geoff.D said:
Oh yes, you are right there. I see it every time I go on a long trip to say CT. I can and do reach an average speed of >90 kph, staying within the 120kph limit with ease, without losing speed on uphills with absolute ease, simply because I know when to "downshift". A laggy underpowered "automatic" where the "car" is supposed to make those decisions for you and you as a driver does not intervene when needed, stands zero chance of achieving the same performance. And the same goes for that fancy high powered "automatic" car.

The classic example is that long uphill stretch just before Colesberg, which is fortunately now a double lane. Me in my 4 x 4, pulls over to the left, changes gears smoothly and maintains his speed up that hill with ease. Along comes that flashy BMW automatic, who tries to pass and just sits there struggling to keep up, pushing the gas pedal through the floorboards wondering why he can't pass me!
Click to expand...

It is very clear that you have no driven any modern automatics.

None of these things happen like you illustrate them.

They shift down long before any normal human wakes up to the need to do so.

Likely the BMW just has cruise control on and isn’t on any rush to get up the hill like you are...or maybe it was a manual with a human in control and hence the issues.

Ironically rising home tonight up Tygerberg Hill the only Home up in traffic was a bakkie in the middle lane clearly struggling to find a gear going by the incessant revving in neutral.
 
nothing beats a gated manual :love: .Also a sequential gearbox looks like real fun , the wine noise is lekker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X