Manual transmission "snobs"?

[LouDawg]

Why do so many car and driving enthusiasts seem to have such low regard (sometimes darn near hostility) for automatic transmissions and A/T owners?

A. Is it because A/T's are typically less reliable?
B. Is it because M/T's are associated with higher performance?
C. Is it because A/T's are "boring"?
D. Is it because M/T's are more "fun" to drive?
E. Is it because A/T's fuel economy is typically lower?
F. Is it because A/T's are overly and unnecessarily complicated?
G. Is it because A/T's cost too much to fix or replace?
H. Is it because A/T drivers are perceived as being unsophisticated?
I. Some combination of the above?
J. Something else?

Just curious...I've always wondered. I can drive a manual tranny, but my wife can't. Plus they're getting harder and harder to get in the right combinations and numbers of the types of vehicles we can get, so we just went with A/Ts.

 

[Blokey]

I think those overzealous A/T haters are just lacking in other areas

 

[RI_RS4]

With a manual transmission I am more connected to the car in a visceral way.

 

[CBDFrontier06]

For me, it's A, B and G. When coupled with smaller displacement engines, they rob too much power and can be unresponsive when you really need acceleration. I don't mind them so much when I've got >250 lb/ft to work with. I actually WANTED an automatic in my 2006 Frontier...IMO a manual transmission in that truck would have meant an early death to the rear tires. In my Mazdaspeed 6, a M/T is the only way to go. I've driven turbocharged cars with automatics and IMO that's not a good match.

 

[ThirdeYe]

I absolutely can't stand the Automatic in my car, it never seems to be in the gear I want and I prefer to be in more control of my car. My next car will definitely be a manual. Plus they're cheaper

 

[m2200b]

Might be just a few car companies- Honda , Mitsubishi-Chrysler-Hunyndai come to mind as cars to avoid with AT.
GM on the otherhand seems to be bullet proof.

I drive 4 cylinder japanese cars with MT as it eliminates any costly repairs other than a clutch at 150k

 

[BradC]

I loved driving manuals but health issues put and end to that (nothing like having your clutch leg go numb while in a traffic jam).

I know a guy that calls A/Ts slush boxes, but he is not snobbish towards people that have them.

My current GM A/T has an "I" drive setting that allows for more sporty driving.

 

[GeaugaFletcher]

IMHO, A/Ts work very well in high torque applications, but suck every last bit of life out of a small engine.

Otherwise, I subscribe to most of the points you listed, A-G. However, I don't care much about fuel economy - not on a 2.0 Miata.

Why do people bash Honda A/Ts? As far as I remember, they had trouble with one generation of transmission and fixed the issue(s) through recalls. Now, the perception is that every A/T they've ever made is no good.

 

[Gilitar]

Quote:

---

GM on the otherhand seems to be bullet proof.

---

Their SUVs have always been plagued with transmission problems. And Chrysler seems to have their issues with the cars and not so much the trucks and SUVs.

 

[ThirdeYe]

Quote:

---

IMHO, A/Ts work very well in high torque applications, but suck every last bit of life out of a small engine.

Otherwise, I subscribe to most of the points you listed, A-G. However, I don't care much about fuel economy - not on a 2.0 Miata.

Why do people bash Honda A/Ts? As far as I remember, they had trouble with one generation of transmission and fixed the issue(s) through recalls. Now, the perception is that every A/T they've ever made is no good.

---

In general, older Honda AT's shift harshly and also tend to have kind of poor gearing ratios from what I remember. I know in my car, it always shifts out of 1st gear before I even hit 15 or 20, no matter how hard I push the pedal, and that gets pretty annoying. Whenever I merge onto the highway, I have to MASH the pedal to get it to downshift into 3rd gear to pass, and sometimes even the 3rd gear is too high, so I have to drop it down to 2nd to get it some life to merge. It's just kind of a nuisance, i'd much rather be controlling a manual.

 

[eljefino]

I have to agree with the underpowered car AT haters. If I want a 3rd gear windup up an onramp, I want to do it at WOT to get the most from the limited HP. The crashing forced downshift into 2nd at 40 MPH is a real buzzkill.

More powerful and torquey cars, like GM V6s, effortlessly reach crusing speed and are fun to drive even with an egg on the accellerator style. As long as the computer isn't "too smart" I agree with its shift points and motor on, feeling like I'm still in control of the thing. Torque convertor clutches were one of the best inventions 25 years ago with regard to making a car feel less slushy and more stick shifty.

I buy very well used cars so I don't begrudge new car buyers and their choices of equipment. If I wind up hating a car I can always get another clunker and move on with life.

 

[Anduril]

I often drive in bumper-to-bumper traffic, so a manual is pretty much out for me. As long as I live here, I pretty much have to drive an automatic just out of convenience.

 

[tigrpal]

I've always had at least one M/T in the family. I wanted to make sure my kids learned how to drive them. I guess I thought it was an important skill. They are both glad that they learned.

 

[Merkurwwu]

For me its all about reliability. Every auto-maker's automatic is less reliable than thier manual (a general statement, but mostly true). You run a manual 120k and put a $1000 clutch in it, in a bad scenario. You run an automatic 150k and put a $3000 REBUILT tranny in it, in a good scenario. My old manual Explorer is a great example. 150k miles and NO tranny issues. How many Explorer's with automatics can you say that about?

Even in Seattle's horrific traffic, you just hang back and putt along in second gear- it isn't that bad to have a manual. Only on occasion do you get an idiot mad at you because you're not 1 foot behind the car in front of you!

 

[Quattro Pete]

(C) and (D) is why I drive a manual. (E) is a welcome sideffect, but not a deciding factor for me. Anyways, with the modern day automatics, especially the CVTs, the fuel consumptions difference is almost negligible.

 

[Bamaro]

C & D

 

[Max_Wander]

I don't mind either automatic or manual. Non-electronic autos I don't like. Slushy, sluggish, slippy auto's I can't stand.

 

[TallPaul]

Manual tranny makes you part of the machine in a way that an auto tranny just doesn't do. Also more control--e.g., wife's Aerostar auto tranny is high strung and will double down shift, will upshift then right back down, and other weird things that she says never happens to her. I like the auto more in the motorhome as there is enough to think about with a motorhome that I don't greatly desire hand shifting and all my motorhomes auto trannies operate much better than the Aerostar. I think the Aerostar's problem is partly due to the low power of the 3.0 V6. Anyway, when I drive the Aerostar I like to make it shift with little actions of the foot on the pedal. You can trick it into things, but that also is where I get into problems.

Bottom line, if an auto tranny has firm shifting I like it. If it has soft (read mushy) shifting, I don't like it.

 

[CBDFrontier06]

The most frustrating A/T I've ever operated was in a 2001 Town Car. It was clearly programmed for maximum economy, as it would stubbornly pick a higher gear at all the wrong times. There was a horribly long delay on downshifts, that only came if you buried the go pedal. The smooth-shift action (supplied with a lot of slippage, IMO) that Lincolns have had for decades robbed the V8 of any power it attempted to produce, and 290HP isn't anything to sneeze at. But, I guess the demographic for that car didn't demand cat-like reflexes. Smooth, quiet and drama-free definitely describes it.

 

[01rangerxl]

I think each type of transmission has its place.

I have a manual in my I4 Ranger. With an auto trans, the truck would be sluggish. With the manual, it has no trouble. It is also fun to drive when traffic is light. To top it off, M5OD manuals are very reliable (though a bit crude). All I have to do for maintenence is buy a gallon of Pennzoil Mercon ATF at Wal-Mart, get a pump attachment for the bottle, and I can have the transmission fluid changed in the same amount of time it would take to change the engine oil (maybe less).

There are downsides though. In traffic, it just gets old alternating between N and 1. It also gets in the way of multi-tasking. Of course, I should not be doing it anyway, but it is a little harder to eat in the truck with the 5-speed. It can be done though.

I did learn to drive on this truck, and I think that has helped me a lot. When you learn to drive on a stick, you also learn to pay more attention to the road. You have to be more prepared for what other people are doing. Most people I know have wrecked at least one vehicle. Many totalled their vehicles. I have never been in a wreck. I attribute that some to luck and some to paying a little more attention than my friends.

Autos do have a place. In larger vehicles, I prefer one. In a 1/2 ton or larger truck, you already have to deal with the size of the vehicle and a manual would just add to the number of things you have to pay attention to. Plus the long throws of a full size truck shifter keep the fun factor to a minimum. Autos are also easier to deal with in traffic. I have no problem with an automatic that seems to work well with the engine it is mated to. My parents have a 3.0L 5R44E equipped Ranger, and I like driving it. It does not always shift at just the right time, but it is usually close enough. It has some sort of adaptive shifting feature that allows it to change the way it shifts based on the driver's driving style. It does make a difference.