|
I've driven both and for this car you don't really lose out picking either one. The AT is geared for fuel economy, that might be a a bit of a downer if you wanted better acceleration. The MT was geared better for acceleration at the expense of highway fuel economy. The automatic is actually one of the better automatics I've used and I've driven a ton of automatics as I do work in rental. It may not be a DCT, but for an automatic it closely mimics one so I was definitely surprised when I used the paddles and the shift came what seemed instantaneous as I was used to stupid delays before changing gears. My issue with paddles though is I don't find them engaging enough, every time I drove the AT I ended up leaving it in D the whole time and forgetting the paddles exist.
Then there's the manual, the shifter has relatively short throws but also happens to be accurate which I really like. The clutch...pretty forgiving, I don't think this is the most forgiving clutch I've used because I think my sister's Honda Civic wins there as it doesn't seem to fault the driver even when you're legitimately bad. I appreciate how light it is, for any Torontonian I have to use 401 and 404 daily, so I get stuck in traffic quite a lot and frankly this clutch never bothered me with its weight. Some people think the clutch engagement point is off, maybe I was ok because I've driven a BMW 328i manual and that had a similar bite point. A welcome change from my old Impreza's extremely unforgiving gearbox. Awesome when driven perfectly but also demoralizing when you get it wrong and sadly I'm not perfect, also that clutch was heavier than this car's. It ended up being the best manual I've got to experience, unfortunately I don't have nearly as many to use as reference.
In the end I chose the MT, I simply preferred its more visceral feel. In a car where feel is paramount to its character, its hard for me to ignore the option of getting even more.
|