Commuters driving stick

[cycleboy]

I daily drive my 6MT, but it is mostly on highways with little traffic.

I've taken it to LA a couple of times and while dealing with it in traffic wasn't a big deal (as others mentioned - fairly light clutch).

What I did notice was I didn't really enjoy a lot of time on the LA freeways due to feeling how crappy the pavement is compared to what I'm used to.

But you're going to get that in any of the twins, regardless of tranny type!

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

If you don't like Car & Driver's results, what about Motor Trend?

BRZ Limited
- Auto: 7.7 s
- Manual: 6.4 s

Difference: 20% slower, not 1%.

These are actual tested figures. As far as I can tell, Edmunds never tested an automatic FR-S or BRZ.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ic_first_test/
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...or_comparison/

No difference really, and, sadly, Road & Track is owned by Car & Driver and the quality is really poor. I no longer read any American car magazines. Motor Trend was always the worst drivel. Mind you even Motor Trend admits it's the gearing. Their discussion about 3,000 rpm dumped clutch launches is precisely why I don't read American car magazines. That's just a stupid way to drive your own car so who cares what the numbers it produces are? A better test would be with traction control left on which would highlight the effect of the gearing. Note the quarter mile numbers are even further apart, it's the gearing guys just the gearing. It's not the launch because no sane owner would routinely launch his or her car that way.

Mind you, Evo magazine recently discovered their manual shift car dropped a second off the 0-60 time after about 3,000 miles accumulated on the odometer. That's an unusually tight new engine. Makes you wonder what the odo reading was on those tested cars.

The manufacturer gives the most reliable numbers because they test them as a normal driver would.

http://www.edmunds.com/subaru/brz/2013/road-test2.html

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Suberman

No difference really, and, sadly, Road & Track is owned by Car & Driver and the quality is really poor. I no longer read any American car magazines. Motor Trend was always the worst drivel. Mind you even Motor Trend admits it's the gearing. Their discussion about 3,000 rpm dumped clutch launches is precisely why I don't read American car magazines. That's just a stupid way to drive your own car so who cares what the numbers it produces are? A better test would be with traction control left on which would highlight the effect of the gearing. Note the quarter mile numbers are even further apart, it's the gearing guys just the gearing. It's not the launch because no sane owner would routinely launch his or her car that way.

Mind you, Evo magazine recently discovered their manual shift car dropped a second off the 0-60 time after about 3,000 miles accumulated on the odometer. That's an unusually tight new engine. Makes you wonder what the odo reading was on those tested cars.

The manufacturer gives the most reliable numbers because they test them as a normal driver would.

http://www.edmunds.com/subaru/brz/2013/road-test2.html

It's very odd to me that you discount those magazine's times because they dump the clutch on launch, but can't see that the primary reason for the difference between the automatic and manual 0-60 times is precisely because of that dump-clutch launch.

I've even shown you the 5-60 mph results (which effectively removes the manual's launch advantage) as being nearly identical as tested by the same magazine.

Personally I don't really care what this car's reported or tested 0-60 time is, but I will say that if you autocross the car, you will want to drop the clutch on launch if you hope to put down your best time.

BTW, thanks for posting that Edmunds test on the automatic. Even with their test (which is the slowest manual 0-60 I've seen), the difference is not 1%:

Edmunds BRZ Limited
- Auto: 7.9 s
- Manual: 7.3 s

Difference: 8.2%

Interestingly even Edmunds admits their BRZ manual 0-60 time was slow. Here's their FR-S 0-60 time:

Edmunds FR-S
- Manual: 6.5 s

Difference: 22%

This result is consistent with the other magazines you've discounted.

Car and Driver: Auto is 27% slower
Edmunds: Auto is 22% slower
Motor Trend: Auto is 20% slower

[Suberman]

Using % was probably a mistake now I think about it. I actually calculated the ratios between the ratios. Still, since I did the same for the acceleration times the numbers still make sense with or without %.

The last time I excelled in mathematics was in 1973. My lifetime occupation has eschewed accuracy in use of numbers so I need not apologize. Lawyers only think of numbers in terms of rounded $1,000.00's. When between $1,000.00's we always round up, I.e $1,001.00 is rounded up to $2,000.00 because between lawyers $1,000.00 is not an important amount. Anyway, you are correct but we differ only in my use of the % symbol.

So 7.9 seconds is actually 1.08 longer in time than 7.3 seconds, or 8% longer as you correctly point out.

The gearing difference between the auto and the manual is between 1.02 and 1.40 taller, depending on the ratio considered. Interestingly that all important second gear ratio is 1.06 taller. It gets worse for the quarter mile which is what you'd expect from the gearing. Launch isn't as influential in the quarter mile which is one reason that figure is important to drag "racers", aimed as it is in comparing power to weight ratios over a specified distance. 0-60 is about torque curves.

This "analysis" may be very crude and certainly doesn't take into account the actual torque curve effects it does "prove" that the difference in acceleration between the automatic and manual cars when driven normally is due almost entirely to gearing.

Ironically, the ability of US auto journalists to get the manual transmission car to accelerate so much more quickly (which is also affected by the bizzare idea of a one foot rollout, so not really a standing start at all ) also proves the effect is due to the gearing if you drive the car as if it were your own: the only numbers that make any sense to record or compare.

Still, if clutch dumps at 3,000 rpm (I think Car and Driver will dump the clutch at 6,000 rpm if it gets them a better time) are your thing then yup "launch" is important and you can't launch an automatic. Nobody else in the entire world utilizes such numbers to compare cars, but then again drag "racing" is a uniquely American idea.

Whatever floats your boat. My point is that the automatic would drive just like the manual, or perhaps even a bit quicker, if the gearing had been done right. I stand by that opinion. Where are the guys with the 4.55 rear end to prove this?

[leicaboss]

Originally Posted by BPM

All day everyday, SF traffic and hills don't stop me from driving stick.

This.

Also, I've found that the intermittent traffic on the highways have provided me opportunities to practice heel & toe downshifts...

[CatDaddysBBQ]

I live in Chicago area. Aside from a couple places in the USA, it's got nearly the worst traffic I've seen.

I commute 25 miles each way to work, mostly side roads - no highway. It's fantastic. I picked a route that would be pleasant to drive every day and I get to enjoy rowing through the gears all the time.

I have always had manual cars, and sure, the standstill creeping traffic jam can suck, and can happen once a week on average. But compared to the joy it brings when traffic is moving, it's no reason to go auto.

[Jegan_V]

My only worries about driving stick in bad traffic would only be these two things. How heavy the clutch is which is always up to the car, pick one with a light enough clutch this is a non issue. The next thing is how much of the clutch you may end up burning throughout the trip, if you always sit in bad traffic for say 1 hour and 30 minutes, constantly creeping on a daily basis...yeah I'd then consider a auto because with such a commute you burn through your clutch so often its suddenly a cost issue. Otherwise though...its a subconscious action, going from 1st to neutral to 1st, etc. doesn't actually bother me. Any frustrations...I'd still have if I was driving an automatic.

[dnieves]

Basically, the MT is more fun to drive in general but when you're stuck in traffic. If you plan to keep the car for a long time the MT is cheaper to maintain and repair. Unless thieves have a tow truck they'll leave your car alone or vandalize it instead of joyriding because most of these subhumans only know how to drive an automatic. Then again, if you leave the car with a valet or service technician keep an eye on them as you don't want them to destroy your clutch. The AT comes in handy when it's time to sell the car as most people don't know how to drive a manual.

[Basket Case]

I commute anywhere from 30-150 miles a day in traffic both on the highway and surface streets. I always end up in stop and go traffic...as a point of reference, I drove a mustang gt with a heavy clutch for years this way. It's not that big of a deal. I can really only think of two times I was really frustrated with the traffic.

[ClifraJones]

I know the MT would be more fun but in Atlanta I am glad I went with AT. We don't just have bad traffic we have horrendous traffic. I can spend 45 minutes never exceeding 8 mph. It is not just slow it is stop-5-stop-7-stop-8-stop omg I get to go 20.

With that said, I have not really used the manual mode yet. I have tried a few times but shifting without a clutch just seems really weird! I need to take a drive somewhere I can practice it. I keep reaching for a clutch that ain't there.

[jflogerzi]

Originally Posted by AsianStyle

First of all never use the phone when driving. Second of all never use the phone when driving.

Can't stand these morons who text or talk on the phone especially in stop and go traffic. They tend to sit in the fast lane and leave huge gaps stalling traffic. Luckily the FR-S lets you do hands free calling.

Using your phone yes, hands free calling is fine. Anyways to the OP test drive both. The Auto in the FRS is pretty damn good. But this is a sports car and I have always thought row my own gears if your buying a purpose built sports car(even thought its affordable)

[AsianStyle]

Originally Posted by jflogerzi

Using your phone yes, hands free calling is fine. Anyways to the OP test drive both. The Auto in the FRS is pretty damn good. But this is a sports car and I have always thought row my own gears if your buying a purpose built sports car(even thought its affordable)

Not sure why I was quoted, but in the quote you responded to I specifically state "Luckily the FR-S lets you do hands free calling."

Also, I agree the purpose of this car is for fun and to optimize the fun you need to row your own gears.

[Chad11491]

Originally Posted by ClifraJones

I know the MT would be more fun but in Atlanta I am glad I went with AT. We don't just have bad traffic we have horrendous traffic. I can spend 45 minutes never exceeding 8 mph. It is not just slow it is stop-5-stop-7-stop-8-stop omg I get to go 20.

With that said, I have not really used the manual mode yet. I have tried a few times but shifting without a clutch just seems really weird! I need to take a drive somewhere I can practice it. I keep reaching for a clutch that ain't there.

I drive stick in Atlanta, it's not that bad. Fortunately I can loop 85 and avoid most of the hell that is 75 in rush hour. I feel for you!

[robwbright]

I lived in Silver Spring, MD and attended law school in NE Washington, D.C. for two years with a stick shift Honda Prelude VTEC. Sure, it's easier to drive an automatic in traffic, but I considered it worth it to be able to use the stick when cutting thru traffic and driving backroads - and the trip to school would be 20 minutes with no traffic... or up to an hour if there was heavy traffic.