Don't skip the last lesson
 

After giving my daughter a few hours of driving a stick - she boldly proclaimed 'I got it.' My reply was, 'But you didn't get your last lesson.' She insisted she was good to go.

A couple months later she went on vacation to western Virginia and I got a call late in the evening.

'Mom, there's something wrong with my car. It keeps stuttering when I'm going uphill and it bogs down and I lose speed. It's scary.'

'Well, what are you doing differently?" I asked. 'Nothing.'

"Well, are you down-shifting to pick up speed?"

'OH NO I can't do that, I'd go even slower.'

Then I remembered she'd skipped her last lesson.

That sounds like a little more than "one" last lesson to work out :)

Practice will make a master but either way big props to her for willing to learn to drive a stick shift vehicle! Unfortunately not quite the trend nowadays!
Barna

She rode along in cars for around two decades without noticing that?

Good thing about old-fashioned Europe... when taking your driving lessons, you have to do your driving test on a stick; if you take your test on an automatic, you get a note in your driving license saying that you are not allowed to drive stick shifts.
And I guess the guy from the Strassenverkehrsamt will not issue you a license if you think the only way to shift is UP :-)

Amazingly, over here we sometimes have problems with auto trannys, especially if the car has this broaaaaad brake pedal. Because, what do you do on a stick when the revs go up? You stomp on the clutch with your left foot to put the next gear in. Bingo. With nowadays vacuum-assisted brakes, the tyres start protesting immediately, let alone the traffic behind you :-)

I was wondering anyway why auto trannys are not frowned upon in this forum... there is not a single car in existence which you can get with manual and auto with a better mileage in the auto version. If you are serious about saving fuel, you just have to go manual... even the most modern double clutch transmissions (e. g. from VW, the 7-speed version) use about 0,5L/100km more fuel than the same engine/vehicle combination with a stick shift.

But I disgress.

so long,

tinduck

An American friend of mine swears to this day that her 2004 GM truck has some magical, super hi-tech auto transmission which makes it more economical than any manual car could ever be. :rolleyes:

You'll find many here who agree. Even a stupidly short geared manual can do better mileage than an automatic with only minimal effort.

One exception: Prius. It's not a normal auto, though. It's something entirely different. The hybrid system IS the transmission. All that's in there is one engine, two electric motors and a couple planetary gears. They give and take power as needed, store the excess for later, add extra power as needed, and run the engine at optimal efficiency all the time. It's almost magical how well it works.

IIRC, As far as EPA ratings go, there are several a/ts that meet or beat the m/t versions. Don't make me go find them please!

Yes there are. Honda Fit and Civic are examples. But it's only because of stupid gear ratios on the manuals. The Civic auto runs 1800 rpm @ 60 mph, while the manual is at 2500 rpm. Equally geared, the automatic would at best be equal to the manual, but not better.

And that's not counting the hypermileability of a manual. Even with the rpm handicap, a manual Civic can easily out-mpg its automatic sibling.

If we stuck with govt tests I would still be driving a 1982 Austin Metro 998cc OHV with an SU carb and a 4sp and expecting 82 MPG (imp) every day...

That's true. Of course we know how much EPA ratings are worth...

I thought the last gen EPA ratings were pretty good...

The "point" to an automatic isn't just lazy drivers, it's the commute. Thus, the need to eat, text and change radio stations all at once.

The single place, otherwise, where an automatic tends to be superior is in towing.

Well, here it really is the other way around. Not that it should be,but it is. When my son was looking at drivers training (necessary for a good insurance rate), the cost was substantially higher and the wait time a lot longer if he wanted to train in a standard. The system discourages driving standards, and I believe that is a big reason most people here don't know how to drive them and don't want to. Another thing is that some vehicles sold here, mine included, don't even have a standard option. Everywhere else in the world it's offered with a manual, but not here. It wouldn't matter for me anyway since my wife flat out refuses to drive one.

I say good for the girl that wanted to go for it, even if she missed a lesson or two, she'll be a better driver when she gets it mastered.

My point was that the EPA ratings are a estimate that doesn't (and can't really) take into account changes in driving technique. If all the shifting happens at exactly the same time, then there's basically no difference in the FE you'll get.

The advantage of a manual in my opinion is that you the driver have information that an automatic transmission doesn't have--what is about to happen. An auto has to pick gears so that it's "prepared" for whatever may happen next. With a manual, you the driver can pick a gear that is optimized for what you're about to do next.

Well put, Dave.

I never let my daughter drive my 86 Chevy FS PU 3 'on a tree.' Talk about lousy gas mileage. I hate to think it being a auto.