My reasons against auto are almost purely down to the running costs, when comparing like for like (exactly the same engine), its hard to justify.

MG ZT Auto - 40mpg - £235 a year tax

MG ZT Manual - 48mpg - £155 a year tax

May not sound a lot, but if you do 20'000 miles a year, it adds up

Not only that, but I feel very much out of the equation when driving an auto, like you have less control, with a manual you just have that control over gear and revs that you just don't get in an auto.

Flymike, I'm the opposite. I'm wondering how over here it has come to where there is hardly a car I would pay money for because hardly anything is available in a manual.

Over here, I would say 99% of all drivers on the road utilize the car as nothing more than a tool, a tool to get from point A to point B. There is no enjoyment to driving, it's just something that has to be done. Myself, I enjoy driving, immensly.

You commented on driving a manual in a parking garage or heavy traffic. That is probably the most common condition people talk about when stating how it's nicer to have an automatic. Even driving in these conditions, a manual is better. There is no surging, you put it in gear and let the clutch out. You just let the idle pull the car along without any input by you all the while if everyone else did the same, traffic would smoothly move along. Instead, everyone is in auto trans cars and they boot the gas, then stomp the brake, boot the gas, then stomp the brake. That is far less smooth than sticking it in gear and letting the car pull along at idle. Traffic moving a little faster? Stick it in 2nd gear, or higher yet, and let the idle just pull it along. High traffic areas would go much smoother if people drove like that rather than the speed up/stomp the brake version that auto trans drivers tend to drive like.

You also mention low powered car with manual transmission. There is nothing worse than a low powered car with an automatic transmission. When approaching a hill, how does a manual transmission shift gears? By input of the driver who sees the hill and anticipates the need go to a lower gear and climbs the hill at a constant speed. How does an automatic transmission shift gears when approaching a hill? By throttle position. As you start climbing the hill in an automatic, the car slows down due to being in too high of a gear. Thus, you the driver increases throttle position and suddenly, the car shifts down and starts to acellerate. Now as the car starts screaming up towards redline and speed exceeds what is intended by the driver, he lets up on the throttle and the car shifts back to the higher gear. Now the car again slows down, driver increases throttle, car shifts and acellerates.... and the cycle continues. Now what is all this talk about "surging" with a manual transmission?

We could get into talk about control during understeer and oversteer and such, but we are talking about driving on the road, not on a race track. We could also talk about control in bad weather such as the snow in the middle south of the US where it can be measured in feet in some places, but that is too much for me to type at the moment. Perhaps I could later when I have more time.

I have a few examples of where an automatic transmission is down right dangerous to drive as well. I can explain them at a later time if you'd like.

Another aspect is the impression that autos are for the old / disabled

Quote from P1lot :

Another aspect is the impression that autos are for the old / disabled

i wouldnt go as far as to call americans disabled but you certainly get an old timers stuck in the imperial 1800s vibe from them on the whole

i cant even count the numbers having a clutch pedal came in handy during the snow this year
helped immensely with controlling low speed oversteer

I don't feel out of the equation in my camaro but then again its basically the opposite of what i described before, it's a high powered automatic. Plus it is only a three speed so with all that torque it rarely needs to shift out of third gear. When I drive a manual I get the impression that something is wearing out (the clutch) from being half engaged all the time at low speeds. the tranny in my camaro is 30 years old and still tight but the two manual trucks i've driven have gone through a clutch each in 4 years and i'd say im about average at shifting gears (not grinding, overrevving, etc.)

mr rodgers u mentioned shifting into second when the traffic gets a little faster, the problem is, it slows down again and you shift back to first, then it speeds up...ad infintum. Have fun shifting between first and second all afternoon.

the main argument for manual trannies is that you have more control over the engine rpm which doesnt make sense to me because i usually want the revs to be right in the sweet spot all the time (remember i don't live in snow) especially in low powered cars because the little 1.3 liter engines sound absolutely terrible at high rpms, further adding to the feeling that I'm breaking something.

In newer performance cars the only argument for a manual is that you feel like a 'real man' when you drive it, even though the new automatics shift faster and better than any human can.

Quote from flymike91 :

When I drive a manual I get the impression that something is wearing out (the clutch) from being half engaged all the time at low speeds. the tranny in my camaro is 30 years old and still tight but the two manual trucks i've driven have gone through a clutch each in 4 years and i'd say im about average at shifting gears (not grinding, overrevving, etc.)

i think you just plain cant drive
ive never had to change a clutch and ive mostly driven cars that almost only ever get driven around town so few km but lots and lots of take offs and shifting
and neither do i know anyone whos ever had to change a clutch
the closest ive ever witnessed myself was a friend who had to change the clutch release bearing on an over 20 year old mercedes and decided to change the clutch plate too just to be on the safe side

and no youre not supposed to pootle around with the clutch half engaged at low speeds

ah well we're not going to convert each other, we never do shottie lol.

I think manuals in shitty cars are a prick's status symbol in europe, you think americans can't drive stick and drink big gulps at the same time so it looks like an impasse to me.

It's a freudian thing.

Quote from flymike91 :

ah well we're not going to convert each other, we never do shottie lol.

I think manuals in shitty cars are a prick's status symbol in europe, you think americans can't drive stick and drink big gulps at the same time so it looks like an impasse to me.

Status symbol? Huh? Probably 9 out of 10 new cars over here are manual unless you specifically choose otherwise, and then pay the extra that an auto costs. Most people drive "stick" because that's simply what a normal, commonplace car has, they don't give it a moment's thought.

You do get better fuel economy with a manual transmission, though. That is a fact. So for most people, if they have a driving license which allows them to drive a manual, and the manual is cheaper to buy too, it's a no brainer.

Autoboxes turn "shitty" cars into more even more "shitty" cars because they're slower and more expensive to own.

The advantages of "driving stick" far, far outweight the advantages of driving a slush-box.

Performance - Manual wins
Economy - Manual wins
Repair and maintaince - Manual wins

The only time I'd entertain an auto was if I was physically incapable of "driving stick", quite why anyone would choose a tranmission option that is more costly, and suffers in the performance stakes just because its easier to drive (not that "stick" is difficult) is beyond me.

But hey ho, its up to the individual

BTW, I am talking "proper" torque converter autos, not the fancy pantsy DSG type gearboxes.