Originally Posted by Mootsfox
Manuals are more efficient than auto in almost every car both are options. Autos do not have a direct link from the wheels to the engine like a stick shift does. More power, more efficiency, more fun.
Fatigue could happen if you're city driving for hours. On the highway long distances it's not bad. I drive to Michigan and Penns. on a monthly bases, and it's not uncomfortable with my 5spd in the least.
Perhaps, but the best automatic transmission's are superior to a manual gearbox.
Auto manufacturers are moving away from manuals and only offering them purely as a nostalgic resonance... Simple as a tool to appease the "Purist."
Originally Posted by GrizzleBoy
Manual cars offer MUCH more control of your car in more situations than an automatic.
You can use the engine to slow down the car if your brakes crap out by shifting down.
You can control your torque directly for icy, muddy situations.
You can choose to change gear at lower revs to save petrol or you can choose to change gear at higher revs if you want to go all out.
No way in heck an auto will ever grant you the same amount of control.
Comfort is just about the only thing that's superior to driving manual and even that is subjective/
No... Modern automated manuals are far superior to mechanical manual transmissions.
The 8-speed automatic in the Lexus ISF
The IS F doesn't offer a manual transmission--and nobody's going to complain. Instead, standard is an eight-speed automatic with manual mode and paddle shifters. While the transmission uses a conventional torque converter in first gear, in manual mode the lock-up clutch remains engaged from second through eighth, directly connecting the engine's output to the rear wheels (lift off the gas, and the engine compression is immediate, as with a conventional manual transmission). Adding to the "manual" feel is ultra-fast shifting; Lexus claims the tranny can change gears in just 100 milliseconds--as quick as the Ferrari F430's F1 box.
This sums up manual transmissions, and the parasitic loss involved:
Nissan quotes a 0.2-second time required for shifts, but this is simply the time that elapses between ordering a shift at the steering-wheel paddles and accelerating in the next gear. What isn't mentioned is that rather than coasting with the clutch disengaged during that time (as happens during a 0.10-second Ferrari F1 shift or a 0.15-second BMW SMG shift), power is still flowing through the previous gear. Those precious tenths add up in other cars, but torque interruption is imperceptible in the GT-R. Manual shifts in the Porsche or Corvette consume about a quarter of a second each, and there are at least three of them in a quarter-mile run.
Ferrari's F1 gearbox
Nissans' Dual-clutch gearbox in the GT-R
Porsche's 7-speed Dopplekuplung(PDK) in the Panamera, Turbo, Cayman and 911.
Manual transmissions aren't offered in most of the cars I listed because they are obsolete to their dual-clutch couterpart.
The reason is because the gear-shifts are impossible for a human to replicate in something like a DCT along with gear ratios that are fixed for every scenario. This eliminates "rev matching" to find an engines power band.
And something tells me that you haven't driven a modern DCT or DSG gearbox because it allows you to slow the car down by downshifting also.
This is called a "jake brake" in trucks. A mechanism that allows the engine to slow the vehicle down.
And this "driver involvement" argument has no legs because you can only argue this circumstantially, not factually. There is nothing stopping a driver of a manual gear-box from doing other frivolous things while drive. Conversely, there isn't anything stopping a automatic driver from being more attentive than a manual gear-box driver.