Why do you drive an automatic (unless you don't)?

[Frank Lee]

Nah, that just makes it that much easier to eat, yap on the cell, text, shave, apply makeup, yell at the kids, read a book, etc., while driving.

[cfg83]

Frank -

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Nah, that just makes it that much easier to eat, yap on the cell, text, shave, apply makeup, yell at the kids, read a book, etc., while driving.

I prefer the pilot's analogy where everything that makes flying more automatic also serves to disengage the pilot *from* flying. Some pilots claim that increased automation reduces their situational awareness, or so I've heard.

CarloSW2

[Frank Lee]

Ask the two commercial pilots that missed Minneapolis and flew half-way into Wisconsin before they got turned around! They were playing with laptops in the cockpit...

[slowmover]

I prefer the man trans in my Cummins turbodiesel over the auto available in that year. But the new 6-speed auto is, according to those who use these trucks for business (oilfield hotshot), pretty much the equal in fuel mileage now. The "tow/haul" mode plus an exhaust brake pretty well covers a lot of types of loaded or towing miles quite well. Fuel mileage on the new Ford engine is impressive (despite the price tag) and is because of a well-tuned automatic.

On big trucks it's flat hard to match a stick anymore against an autoshift version, either for acceleration or mpg (leaving aside price or reliability).

As to a manual "forcing" the driver to pay better attention, that's a red herring, beside the point. One can be brain dead in any commute.

As to clutches in the city, I recall decades ago reading about the operators of Checker cabs in NYC making the clutches last about forever. A great deal longer than 40k

I doubt anyone is doing a good job when tires, brakes and clutch last less than 70k.
There are job descriptions where I might not care, but for a personal vehicle it's a different story.
.

[MN Driver]

My first car was an automatic mainly because at that age and less experience, it was less to deal with and it made the rest of the family more comfortable since everyone could drive it if one of the other cars broke down. I always wanted a manual for the reliability involved with a manual transmission car versus an automatic. I had issues with the torque converter clutch staying engaged on the highway, it would release and then after a second try to engage, it would release again and reengage. At that point I sold the car to someone with close ties to a mechanic who could fix the air conditioning and LIM gasket for a price higher than I figured I would have been able to get for it and I've driven a manual ever since.

I've driven my 95 Prizm up and down the hills of San Francisco, including in traffic where I stopped on the steepest hills there. I didn't use the handbrake and didn't really need to spend much time on the clutch or rev the engine very high either. I don't think that I would be running through too many clutches there since most stop signs and intersections are on the flat and then the hill starts right after you cross the intersection. I've also driven that car 24k miles each year for two years on a college commute where stop and go was my daily commute to class for an hour a day. Clutch technique is paramount to getting long life from the clutch. I have nearly 225k miles on that car now. The only reason I'm looking to get rid of it is excessive blowby pressure beyond what the PCV can handle that manages to push out some of the looser oil seals on long highway drives. Yet I manage to somehow have 180psi or higher dry compression on all four cylinders.

I'll drive a manual as long as my car is running off of gasoline. With an electric, I could live with direct drive.

I drive one of three hybrids that I know of, all Honda (1st gen Insight, 1st Gen Civic Hybrid, and CRZ) that have a manual transmission option and I'm loving both overdrive gears, super overdrive is amazing at providing a constant high load for better BSFC crossing the country.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by slowmover

As to clutches in the city, I recall decades ago reading about the operators of Checker cabs in NYC making the clutches last about forever. A great deal longer than 40k

If so, that is many, many decades ago. I was born in and have lived in NY City for almost six decades, and I've never seen a cab here that wasn't an automatic. Back in the 1950's and '60's there was less vehicle traffic than there is now. If manual transmissions are so wonderful for city use all the cabs would be using them. Unfortunately for your theory, the exact opposite is the reality of the situation.

TRANSMISSION
While Checker offered a Warner Gear three-speed manual transmission with non-synchromesh first gear as the standard transmission for several years, it also made an overdrive version of that same transmission available as well as a Borg-Warner two-speed automatic similar to what Ford and AMC used at the time. The automatic became the standard transmission in late 1969, and Ben warns that they can be problematic unless taken to somebody experienced in those specific transmissions.

In about mid-1973, though, Checker substituted the brawny GM-built Turbo Hydra-Matic 400 three-speed automatic transmission for the Borg-Warner unit. The Turbo 400, well regarded among Chevrolet fans for its durability and ease of maintenance, would last as the sole transmission through 1982.

(from Hemmings Motor News: 1960-1982 Checkers)

I doubt anyone is doing a good job when tires, brakes and clutch last less than 70k.

I'm lucky if I can get 30K out of a set of tires (and I always buy tires that have higher treadwear ratings). With brakes, it's about the same. And no, I don't ride the brakes. My driving style is that of trying to avoid having to brake. But with a stop sign on virtually every corner (and sometimes a cop car monitoring it), braking is a necessity as well as a nuisance. You can doubt all you want, but since you don't live under those conditions, you wouldn't know.

[slowmover]

If so, that is many, many decades ago. I was born in and have lived in NY City for almost six decades, and I've never seen a cab here that wasn't an automatic. Back in the 1950's and '60's there was less vehicle traffic than there is now. If manual transmissions are so wonderful for city use all the cabs would be using them. Unfortunately for your theory, the exact opposite is the reality of the situation.


What difference does it make about the decade? A taxi is stop-n-go in 1946 just as in 2006. The point isn't about exact miles comparisons, but that savvy operators can extend component life through better driving habits. Assume that owner-operators will spec a vehicle differently than a fleet operator (manual vs automatic) in some instances, or that before decent automatics were available that taxi drivers were renowned for long clutch life in tough conditions.

I'm lucky if I can get 30K out of a set of tires (and I always buy tires that have higher treadwear ratings). With brakes, it's about the same. And no, I don't ride the brakes. My driving style is that of trying to avoid having to brake. But with a stop sign on virtually every corner (and sometimes a cop car monitoring it), braking is a necessity as well as a nuisance. You can doubt all you want, but since you don't live under those conditions, you wouldn't know.

No, you've no clue of where I've driven, what I've driven, or how I've done it. Sure, some conditions are tougher than others. So what? Driving for economy is still time versus distance calculations. And it would never occur to me to wonder, much less care, how many LEO's are in a given area as I drive. You find 30k acceptable, then have at it. Others can and will continue to do better. Might try another attitude than assuming you've already all the answers. I've started over in driving more than once.

The only thing you've said in the above is that you find it easier to do what you do. Where is the improvement? (Asked rhetorically: it's your business, not mine).

70k might not work for you. So be it.

Good luck

.

[aggie sig]

mostly because my wife prefers automagic transmissions, and there might be an occasion where she needs to drive it, and the longterm minimal efficiency gains will quickly be negated by having to replace the clutch!

This has caused me to go auto on my last 2 vehicles, If we ever get a 3rd car as a fun car (replace the jeep I just traded), or for a backup I will probably get a stick.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by slowmover

If so, that is many, many decades ago. I was born in and have lived in NY City for almost six decades, and I've never seen a cab here that wasn't an automatic. Back in the 1950's and '60's there was less vehicle traffic than there is now. If manual transmissions are so wonderful for city use all the cabs would be using them. Unfortunately for your theory, the exact opposite is the reality of the situation.


What difference does it make about the decade? A taxi is stop-n-go in 1946 just as in 2006. The point isn't about exact miles comparisons, but that savvy operators can extend component life through better driving habits. Assume that owner-operators will spec a vehicle differently than a fleet operator (manual vs automatic) in some instances, or that before decent automatics were available that taxi drivers were renowned for long clutch life in tough conditions.

You ignored the most important point of the post: that if manual transmissions were so advantageous for city driving the cabs would be using them. But they aren't. If they're all using automatics and have been for over 50 years, there's a reason.

[dcb]

I don't think the cab analogy holds up. Those checkers were huge, i.e. 5000 lbs. Lightweight is best for stop and go, as well as clutch life.

They drove huge gas guzzlers for comfort, and the auto trans probably was smoother for passengers and they had a larger pool of drivers to choose from, economy wasn't a large concern. That's reason enough for a cab business.