Manual vs. Auto!
04-06-2010, 08:49 PM
#42
Disinformation Terminator
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NorCal
Age: 55
Posts: 1,930
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04-06-2010, 09:41 PM
#43
Registered Member
The guy who coined the term "MOPAR" (short for Motor Parts) told me that, "One of the advantages of the Ford "flathead" V8 was that women could start the car in 2nd, and leave it there all day." Hey, it was the '30's! I can't recall my mother, however, ever driving the '29 Model A, or the '33, '36, or the '37, and the [much newer] T-Bird has an automatic and a V8. Well, anyhow, leaving it in second all day just doesn't sound like any fun, but it almost sounds like an automatic.
I used to work with a guy who drove on the street - and raced - a C-Type Jaguar. In response to particular comments and questions about my '55 TR-2 (4 spd, but with overdirve in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th), he said that, "...you needed to use the gearbox to slow down; the brakes just wouldn't last." So, I guess an automatic wouldn't have worked on the race track, in the early 1950's, or on the street. [For those who are interested, he skidded upside down across the finish line, in front of his fiance, in his and the car's last race. That car - before it's last race - would be worth a million dollars today.]
Another guy, who taught me "to drive" some 16 years AFTER I got my license, told me that the 5.0 Mustangs he raced against in showroom stock only had "one good brake" a lap, so his 2.0L Nissan was able to keep up with them [well, at Shannonville, if not at Mosport]. About the same time as this discussion, I remember seeing a '69 427 Camero having a front disc brake conversion done, to retire the OEM drums; front discs were actually an option in 1969. So, the 60's, 70's, and 80's are leaning toward the manual transmission, but not for the reasons we thought: the brakes.
What we know about the TSX is that it's agressive gearing with the 6-spd manual masks it's "torque deficiency", and that you have to really work at it to make that car go fast: it is NOT just point and shoot. And not just anybody can drive it quickly: one of the things I like about the manual TSX is that I know my wife and kids CAN NOT drive it as fast as I can - they just don't have the skill or desire, but that's another reason I didn't buy a TL.
Six months after he bought it, by father had the engine of his '77 930 rebuilt. It only had a 4-spd manual, but it seemed to me that he almost never got the damn thing out of second gear before the next light would change. I got to drive that car up and down the driveway, only when I washed it. With me in the backseat, my step mother used drive her '79 911 through traffic on the highway in 3rd gear, my growing weight negating the need for 4th or 5th gears, although at "those speeds" my Fiat would have been left far behind - in any gear - but I would have been having more fun trying to keep up...if I wasn't already in the backseat of the 911.
I guess what I'm saying is that the more things change, and improve, the more they stay the same: manual still wins, because it's just more fun, and it works better.
I used to work with a guy who drove on the street - and raced - a C-Type Jaguar. In response to particular comments and questions about my '55 TR-2 (4 spd, but with overdirve in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th), he said that, "...you needed to use the gearbox to slow down; the brakes just wouldn't last." So, I guess an automatic wouldn't have worked on the race track, in the early 1950's, or on the street. [For those who are interested, he skidded upside down across the finish line, in front of his fiance, in his and the car's last race. That car - before it's last race - would be worth a million dollars today.]
Another guy, who taught me "to drive" some 16 years AFTER I got my license, told me that the 5.0 Mustangs he raced against in showroom stock only had "one good brake" a lap, so his 2.0L Nissan was able to keep up with them [well, at Shannonville, if not at Mosport]. About the same time as this discussion, I remember seeing a '69 427 Camero having a front disc brake conversion done, to retire the OEM drums; front discs were actually an option in 1969. So, the 60's, 70's, and 80's are leaning toward the manual transmission, but not for the reasons we thought: the brakes.
What we know about the TSX is that it's agressive gearing with the 6-spd manual masks it's "torque deficiency", and that you have to really work at it to make that car go fast: it is NOT just point and shoot. And not just anybody can drive it quickly: one of the things I like about the manual TSX is that I know my wife and kids CAN NOT drive it as fast as I can - they just don't have the skill or desire, but that's another reason I didn't buy a TL.
Six months after he bought it, by father had the engine of his '77 930 rebuilt. It only had a 4-spd manual, but it seemed to me that he almost never got the damn thing out of second gear before the next light would change. I got to drive that car up and down the driveway, only when I washed it. With me in the backseat, my step mother used drive her '79 911 through traffic on the highway in 3rd gear, my growing weight negating the need for 4th or 5th gears, although at "those speeds" my Fiat would have been left far behind - in any gear - but I would have been having more fun trying to keep up...if I wasn't already in the backseat of the 911.
I guess what I'm saying is that the more things change, and improve, the more they stay the same: manual still wins, because it's just more fun, and it works better.
As for brakes in the 60's, if you knew what to order, you could get a very good set of stoppers. In '65, Corvettes came standard with 4-wheel disk brakes. And Ford had them for the front brakes since '64 as I recall. But the best setup for GM division supercars at that time was drum brakes with the sintered metallic linings. This was a little know option for all four drums and in 1966, it was $36.90 on the SS396 Chevelle. I know because I ordered them for my '66 396/360 Chevelle (I still have the dealer sales order sheet for that car). They were good for around 100,000 miles and were the best thing going at the time.
04-06-2010, 10:08 PM
#44
I hear you on that, I live in Seattle MT is ok cause I go the opposite of traffic on my commute but on weekends when I go to Vancouver when traffic is hell I quite often think why dont I just get a car where I can stomp on it and go.
04-07-2010, 12:55 AM
#46
My only car is a Bus
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 3,254
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Learn to drive a stick in case you need to use that skill one day and drive whatever you want the rest of the time.
If everyone drove stick shift they'd be paying more attention to what they're doing tho.
If everyone drove stick shift they'd be paying more attention to what they're doing tho.
04-07-2010, 06:52 AM
#47
Registered Member
Let me clear up a few of these if I can. The Ford flat head V8, also called an 'L' head, was a high RPM engine at all. What you gained, comparatively speaking, was a sizable increase in torque in an everyday inexpensive car.
As for brakes in the 60's, if you knew what to order, you could get a very good set of stoppers. In '65, Corvettes came standard with 4-wheel disk brakes. And Ford had them for the front brakes since '64 as I recall. But the best setup for GM division supercars at that time was drum brakes with the sintered metallic linings. This was a little know option for all four drums and in 1966, it was $36.90 on the SS396 Chevelle. I know because I ordered them for my '66 396/360 Chevelle (I still have the dealer sales order sheet for that car). They were good for around 100,000 miles and were the best thing going at the time.
As for brakes in the 60's, if you knew what to order, you could get a very good set of stoppers. In '65, Corvettes came standard with 4-wheel disk brakes. And Ford had them for the front brakes since '64 as I recall. But the best setup for GM division supercars at that time was drum brakes with the sintered metallic linings. This was a little know option for all four drums and in 1966, it was $36.90 on the SS396 Chevelle. I know because I ordered them for my '66 396/360 Chevelle (I still have the dealer sales order sheet for that car). They were good for around 100,000 miles and were the best thing going at the time.
04-07-2010, 07:19 AM
#48
Racer
Thread Starter
Your other post was a report by you that you had just driven a manual for the first time and as you stated, you failed. Now this one asking people's opinions between the two types of transmissions??
Don't worry... I'm not busting your chops. So here's my two cents.
For my personal driving machine, it absolutely MUST be a manual transmission. I will not even consider the purchase of such a vehicle unless it is available with a manual. As for a utility-type vehicle (beater car, truck, etc.), it makes no difference to me. If the 3G TL had not been offered with a manual (27% of the TL's on the dealer's lot that day were manuals), I would be driving something else.
Did you read the links I posted for you?
Don't worry... I'm not busting your chops. So here's my two cents.
For my personal driving machine, it absolutely MUST be a manual transmission. I will not even consider the purchase of such a vehicle unless it is available with a manual. As for a utility-type vehicle (beater car, truck, etc.), it makes no difference to me. If the 3G TL had not been offered with a manual (27% of the TL's on the dealer's lot that day were manuals), I would be driving something else.
Did you read the links I posted for you?
04-07-2010, 08:30 AM
#50
Senior Moderator
04-07-2010, 04:52 PM
#52
Banned
All manumatics are not the same.
I couldn't live with;
- paddle shifts only (à la Acura)
- a slow shifting automatic tranny or one lagging... most recent one are very quick (100 or 200ms in case of BMW, faster than an human, although there is more slippage by nature)
- economy mode only
- a counter intuitive or uninspiring shiftgate.
In the aftermath, my car the first automatic that I enjoy. We have way too much heavy traffic here and in this situation, shifting 300x a day is just not fun
I couldn't live with;
- paddle shifts only (à la Acura)
- a slow shifting automatic tranny or one lagging... most recent one are very quick (100 or 200ms in case of BMW, faster than an human, although there is more slippage by nature)
- economy mode only
- a counter intuitive or uninspiring shiftgate.
In the aftermath, my car the first automatic that I enjoy. We have way too much heavy traffic here and in this situation, shifting 300x a day is just not fun
04-07-2010, 06:46 PM
#53
Registered Member
All manumatics are not the same.
I couldn't live with;
- paddle shifts only (à la Acura)
- a slow shifting automatic tranny or one lagging... most recent one are very quick (100 or 200ms in case of BMW, faster than an human, although there is more slippage by nature)
- economy mode only
- a counter intuitive or uninspiring shiftgate.
In the aftermath, my car the first automatic that I enjoy. We have way too much heavy traffic here and in this situation, shifting 300x a day is just not fun
I couldn't live with;
- paddle shifts only (à la Acura)
- a slow shifting automatic tranny or one lagging... most recent one are very quick (100 or 200ms in case of BMW, faster than an human, although there is more slippage by nature)
- economy mode only
- a counter intuitive or uninspiring shiftgate.
In the aftermath, my car the first automatic that I enjoy. We have way too much heavy traffic here and in this situation, shifting 300x a day is just not fun
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
rp_guy
Member Cars for Sale
9
07-16-2017 07:33 AM
lanechanger
Member Cars for Sale
4
10-13-2015 10:56 AM
