Manual tranny takes another step into oblivion

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by carbonBLUE

if someone could make a torque converter auto that has supercar like shift speeds but has a third pedal that controls the hydraulic fluid in the torque converter. when depressed the torque converter disengages like a manual so you can kick the clutch to do a drift that would be golden

rofl I mentioned this earlier, I agree it would be awesome. IMO it should have a clutch pedal with 2 "stages", where depressing the clutch all the way turns off hydraulic pump, releasing it to a halfway point with a "click" gives full hydraulic pressure, and releasing beyond that slips a clutch, and when released the clutch is fully engaged and the hydraulic pump is off. It would make starts easier/more efficient.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by madfast

this is the statement that needs clarification or proof. IT IS NOT THAT HARD TO DRIVE A MANUAL!!!! having said that, if we used MT as a way to weed out those that can or cant drive, you only weed out those that lack physical coordination. and is physical coordination, or the lack thereof, the main reason why people crash? no! there are many, MANY people out there that are coordinated enough to drive manual very well and yet are CARELESS drivers. and THAT is the issue, NOT the matter of AT or MT.

the notion that MT forces you to be more attentive is based on what exactly? "logic"? you do more, thus you have to pay more attention? im sorry, but the very existence of "muscle memory" already disputes that notion. so i really dont know why people continuously propagate this myth...

Simple questions:
Is it easier to learn on an auto or a manual?

Therefore does learning and getting tested on a manual make it more difficult to get a license?

Would it be one small step towards a more stringent and effective licensing system?

[madfast]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Simple questions:
Is it easier to learn on an auto or a manual?

Therefore does learning and getting tested on a manual make it more difficult to get a license?

yes, harder, but not hard. and make no mistake, we're not talking about perfect heel-toe downshifts here. we're talking about point A to point B driving. it's not that hard at all...

Would it be one small step towards a more stringent and effective licensing system?

no. the licensing process should definitely be harder. but again, it has little to do with MT vs AT and everything to do with education and experience. raising the minimum age, provisional licenses, re-testing with every license renewal, etc. can do a lot more than forcing people to drive MT. it does nothing in the long run because you cant weed out a bad driver, only a very uncoordinated one. sure that very uncoordinated guy can cause an accident, and you can say they shouldnt be driving in the first place, but honestly how many people are out there that are so uncoordinated they would never be able to drive a MT no matter how much practice they get? and yet the assumption is that they are coordinated enough to get their license with an AT car? because one would think that these very uncoordinated people are so obviously uncoordinated that they cant drive at all, and that the current system as lax as it is, is still enough to weed out these very uncoordinated people. assuming all that, are these very uncoordinated people causing accidents worldwide? how many vs coordinated people who drink and drive?

[Dimman]

Just curious how many people took their exam in a manual?

I took my test in my own manual car, but the common thinking was, learn on manual, test on auto.

[Exage]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Just curious how many people took their exam in a manual?

I took my test in my own manual car, but the common thinking was, learn on manual, test on auto.

Took my first driving test in the auto (parents car as I didn't own a vehicle and hadn't learned manual). This was for the licence to drive without a parent in the vehicle.

My full licence I did manual on my personal car (as well) which I had bought and learned to operate by myself (, 100bhp of bliss haha).

[GenkiElite]

I had an 81 Corolla SR5 5-speed that I learned on but I used my aunt's early 90's VW Cabriolet with the top down for the test. Parking is sooo much easier when you have no visual obstructions lol

[val_lixembeau]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

Unfortunately my auto isn't geared sporty enough and doesn't have the torque converter lock-up feature so I know the FR-S tranny will be amazing since I like mines a little bit.

I'm close to 100% positive you must have a lock-up torque converter in your car... Not having one would be such a huuuuuge mileage and reliability hit that no modern car would be without one.

Did you mean to say something else?

[madfast]

Originally Posted by val_lixembeau

I'm close to 100% positive you must have a lock-up torque converter in your car... Not having one would be such a huuuuuge mileage and reliability hit that no modern car would be without one.

Did you mean to say something else?

he said "lock up feature" which means early lock up. for example the IS-F has lock up on gears 2-8 in manual mode. even though most cars have lock up torque converters, many of them dont lock up unless you're cruising.

[carbonBLUE]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

rofl I mentioned this earlier, I agree it would be awesome. IMO it should have a clutch pedal with 2 "stages", where depressing the clutch all the way turns off hydraulic pump, releasing it to a halfway point with a "click" gives full hydraulic pressure, and releasing beyond that slips a clutch, and when released the clutch is fully engaged and the hydraulic pump is off. It would make starts easier/more efficient.

the concept is cool, the tech wouldn't be that hard to make, making it reliable would be the hard part, it would have to last 125k - 150k miles at least, the way i drive i burn out clutches about every 80k miles

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by borge12

And with the average being 20.8 deaths / 100,000 people, and the US at 12.3 deaths /100,000, I think we can safely say that correlation does not imply causation.

Countries like GB, France, and Germany have half the death rate of the US. That's pretty significant.

I'm not implying that a car's gearbox have anything to do with it. But I do believe it is a symptom of an underlying problem, lack of attentiveness to driving. Manuals give you more control over the gear changes, so they can be faster(depends now), or more fuel efficient, which is more important in heavily fuel taxed Western Europe.

Originally Posted by Dimman

Just curious how many people took their exam in a manual?

I took my test in my own manual car, but the common thinking was, learn on manual, test on auto.

I learned/tested on an auto, because that is all we had at the time. But that is what my parents recommended anyway for a newbie driving.

[ZSwierczynski]

First car was a manual. I hated the car but the price was right for that car, 0 dollars . My second car which I paid and put in the transmission and other needed items, was $3000. Manual too but got rid of because I was moving to California and at the time I wasn't working so I could not afford the gas without not eating. My car which I am driving now, is an automatic. They make them into manual but it was my dads and my stepmom occasionally drove it and she cannot drive stick. If I go back to stick, it needs to be a sport car, not an economically vehicle.

[val_lixembeau]

Originally Posted by madfast

he said "lock up feature" which means early lock up. for example the IS-F has lock up on gears 2-8 in manual mode. even though most cars have lock up torque converters, many of them dont lock up unless you're cruising.

Ahhh... didn't think of that interpretation. I would have said early/aggressive/wide range lock-up or something like that. Totally didn't occur to me that adjective-less lock-up could mean that haha

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Simple questions:
Is it easier to learn on an auto or a manual?

Therefore does learning and getting tested on a manual make it more difficult to get a license?

Would it be one small step towards a more stringent and effective licensing system?

learn what, to drive a car in the most basic sense of the word or to navigate through a sea of other metal boxes operated by people on a daily basis?

whether a car is AT or MT has little impact on learning the general awareness required to operate a vehicle on public roads intelligently.

also, my own personal preference is that having an automatic car for stop and go traffic is a pain in the ass, i would rather be forced to work a little harder to get my car to move rather than have the car move forward on its own during a brain fart moment.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

learn what, to drive a car in the most basic sense of the word or to navigate through a sea of other metal boxes operated by people on a daily basis?

whether a car is AT or MT has little impact on learning the general awareness required to operate a vehicle on public roads intelligently.

also, my own personal preference is that having an automatic car for stop and go traffic is a pain in the ass, i would rather be forced to work a little harder to get my car to move rather than have the car move forward on its own during a brain fart moment.

I know enough people in Metro Vancouver that would probably rather take public transit than pay to fail a driving test if it required a manual. People are lazy, and have enough trouble navigating the metal box sea as it is. Plus with all of these private driver 'training' businesses, coupled with examiners apathy to oblivious drivers because people 'need' to be able to drive (not even counting the few 'buy a license' scandals we've had here), the manual transmission exam (coupled with examiners that took their job seriously) would actually be a very effective filtering tool. At least in Vancouver.

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/ne...e-0d225eb5de21

And if you think that catching this one has fixed it, oh boy...