Would Wild Birds Eat Grapes If They Were...
Home & Garden2 mins ago
Automatic V. Manual
Yesterday I drove a courtesy-car with manual transmission. This was the first time I've driven with a manual gearbox for over 20 years. It felt like stepping back to some medieval age; all that use of pedals while stirring porridge. Has engineering not progressed since the 1930s?
Once upon a time we had to adjust the choke and the ignition timing, and double-declutching was another chore. Why do some (most?) drivers still prefer a clutch and gearbox? A bit primitive, isn't it ? Or am I missing out on some esoteric thrill?
Once upon a time we had to adjust the choke and the ignition timing, and double-declutching was another chore. Why do some (most?) drivers still prefer a clutch and gearbox? A bit primitive, isn't it ? Or am I missing out on some esoteric thrill?
Answers
I would guess you use a Car to just get from A to B, so losing an element of control and enjoyment that an autobox takes away does not bother you.
13:08 Wed 16th Oct 2013
With a manual comes more control, a proper connection with the car that you are driving. I had an Automatic for a couple of years and yes, it was a lovely car and performed well. When I swapped for a manual, I realised that I do prefer it manual. You find that many expensive cars and a fair few performance cars are auto as standard, but ususally with a tritronic or manual option gearbox, best of both worlds - if you can afford it
I love automatics. Life's far too short to be faffing around with a clutch pedal through nineteen sets of traffic lights ;o)
The best one I ever had was in a Chevrolet Camaro. A 2-speed auto. First gear up to 20mph, then 2nd gear all the way up to around 140 ........ you just have to hang on tight then ;o)
The best one I ever had was in a Chevrolet Camaro. A 2-speed auto. First gear up to 20mph, then 2nd gear all the way up to around 140 ........ you just have to hang on tight then ;o)
I think gingejbee has made a good point.
I certainly prefer manual gearboxes and cars with them are less expensive in all ways :-
http://
I certainly prefer manual gearboxes and cars with them are less expensive in all ways :-
http://
I've given up trying to persuade the macho males types that automatics are just as responsive as manuals (depending on the engine of course), they just can't get that control thing out of their heads. I've an auto Merc SLK and it's never unresponsive - I can leave most manuals behind at the traffic lights if I want to.
I've had automatics for years, though I can still drive manuals if I have to. But I don't drive for the joy of changing gears or interacting with my car or feeling in colntrol; that's just fetishising transport, like trainspotting. The only disadvantage of autos is they cost more. But mine have always worked fine, put me in the right gear, and moved away from the lights at the same speed as everyone else except boy racers.
prudie, I used to have a Volvo (really a Daf) with variomatic transmission, which was based on a sort of rubber band arrangement. That used to accelerate even before I thought about it; I could hurtle away from the lights leaving Jaguar drivers gobsmacked in my wake. But I'm quite happy with my more modestly athletic Peurgeot now.
Generally speaking smallish engined runabout type cars are more fun in manual form but as you edge toward the larger cars [with their bigger engines] auto is the way to go. Sounds like I'm sitting on the fence here but I think both types of transmission have their place. Having said that, whatever the car, if you drive in a lot of stop/start traffic auto's make driving a lot less frustrating.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|