manual or automatic?

[Nick Danger]

Well, as someone who drives manual and loves it, I'd partially
disagree: Yes, having pain from using a clutch is a sign if a
pre-existing serious medical condition BUT it does get extremely
tedious and boring to use clutch in the 20+ min jams. I rarely
have to endure it but if I were, I'd buy automatic.


Good deal if the car is in great shape.

DK

I've been driving manuals since 1969, so I think I qualify as experienced.

The only time I got leg pain from a clutch was with a 1984 BMW 318i, while
driving through heavy traffic at a German border crossing. Back in those
days, border crossings - even between friendly countries - involved serious
examination of one's passport and questions about one's reason for crossing.
I remember being worried that the border guards might see my leg shaking and
wonder if something was amiss.

Probably the sturdiest clutch I've ever owned was on a 1976 Pinto.
Everything else on the car was falling apart or rusting away, but the clutch
survived a lot of friends and relatives taking their first lessons with a
manual, and was still going strong when I traded the car in.

I've had four Subaru - all with manual. The 1984 GL was noisy, cramped,
underpowered, difficult to handle (no power steering), and rust-prone. But
there was something comfortable about it, like an old pair of boots that you
just fit into so well. Even with years of hard use, the clutch did fine. I
sold it to my BIL who used it to deliver mail. He drove it until the engine
was worn out beyond repair, but the clutch was still doing fine. My 1990
Legacy and 1996 Outback both needed new clutches before they hit 60K miles.
I think I can confidently say this was not the result of being driven
improperly. My 2003 Outback seems to be doing well with 40K miles. Maybe the
hydraulic clutches are better that way.

I just got back from a two-week vacation in the UK. I drove a Ford Focus
over there. You tend to have a lot of things on your mind when trying to
adjust to driving on the other side of the road, but the car was reassuring
and responsive. Getting into reverse seemed to be more of a challenge than
usual - it often needed double-clutching to get the gears to mesh - but
everything else was good. When I got back to the States, I rented a Taurus
for the trip back from the airport. This was a terrifying experience. It was
big, it gave me no sense of where I was on the road, and the transmission
seemed like it was just choosing gears at random.

As a practical matter, I have to concede that there's no good reason to own
a manual anymore. Automatics (my own experience with the Taurus
notwithstanding) are more reliable, more economical, and probably cost less
to own. I've been through the routine with dealers so many times. When
buying: "Oh, so you want a manual. That will be hard to find. It's going to
cost you.." When selling: "Oh, so you have a manual. That will be hard to
sell. It's going to cost you." In spite of it all, I'll keep driving manuals
until either they stop making them or I'm too uncoordinated to handle them.
I only hope that they're still around when my kids start driving.

 

[Adam Helberg]

plan to own a impreza 2.5rs wagon, never drove a manual before, but 'd like to.

Friends who owned a manual car warned me that in daily commutes, your leg will be
extremely painful if got jammed in traffic... that hesitated me to buy a manual
car, is that true???

also, is pre-owned WRX a good option? the price is only around $21,000(CDN) where
new WRX is about 35000.

It depends where you are. My current car is an automatic in So. Calif with lots of
stop and go traffic even on the freeways the auto is much easier. I can control the
speed of the car from stopping to moving with the motion of one foot. The right hand
is always free to enjoy your spouse instead of the stick shift.

You can get used to the manual transmission and in some instances it has an
advantage, but once you try the auto transmission,at least here in S. Cal, you don't
want to go back.

Adam

 

[grape]

there are a few reason why I'd like to own a manual..
firstly, I've heard it's almost matianance-free, there are no fragile parts
like an auto tranny has.... people told me you don't have to worry about the
tranny in the car life time.

2ndly, it 's gass economic. auto tranny eats up gas too quick..

3rdly, I always liked machanics and me likes to play around with all kinds
of things...(my camry has been treated almost like a manual.), and I liked
sports, gears, and circuits, also I used to be an amateur athlete so my legs
are at least strong enough to tolerent the stop&go traffic with clutch.

the last reason is that it's a bit fun to drive, even though I don't like
race or whatsorta of *fun*.

 

[Tom Reingold]

Tom Reingold wrote:




Hi,

You're excluding American autos? I've known a lot of Ford and Chevy
owners who might disagree with you.

Rick

Oh. I didn't know that. Good reason not to buy one of those brands then,
huh?

Tom

 

[Tom Reingold]

Speaking of all this clutch wear, my 16 year old daughter is about to
learn to drive. I have a 2000 Subaru Legacy L wagon, and my wife's car
is a 1998 Honda Civic hatchback. Both have manual transmissions. Which
clutch is my daughter more likely to trash? And which repair is likely
to be costlier?

The Honda is rated at 106 hp. It's a light car. The clutch feels light,
but given the engine's low power and the car's low weight, the clutch
may be durable.

Thanks.

Tom

 

[Tom Reingold]

If you can't get hold of a manual car to practice on enough to get
used to driving it then I think you should stick with an automatic.

I think it's worth taking a shot at buying a manual car without
experience. You'll lurch and stall for the first two or three days, but
then you'll get the hang of it.

I had little experience with a stickshift when I bought my first car.

The fact that manuals are so rare in this country makes us believe that
it's hard to drive them. I don't think that's true.

Tom

 

[Tom Reingold]

err.... so it's risky to own a Sub in general? I've heard a blowing
headgasket is expensive.

Every car has its Achilles' heal.

Tom

 

[Eugene Moon]

Speaking of all this clutch wear, my 16 year old daughter is about to
learn to drive. I have a 2000 Subaru Legacy L wagon, and my wife's car
is a 1998 Honda Civic hatchback. Both have manual transmissions. Which
clutch is my daughter more likely to trash? And which repair is likely
to be costlier?

The Honda is rated at 106 hp. It's a light car. The clutch feels light,
but given the engine's low power and the car's low weight, the clutch
may be durable.

I'd say you answered your own question.

I can't really say that I know which repair would cost more, but I'm
going to take a stab at it and guess the Subaru because I'm assuming
there would be more labor involved because of the AWD. Since YMMV and
all that, I think you'd be best off just hitting a local shop and getting
quotes for both cars.

Eugene Moon

 

[JohnO]

Rent a manual trans for the first day of those lessons. After that, go with
the Honda.

-John O

 

[Eugene Moon]

there are a few reason why I'd like to own a manual..
firstly, I've heard it's almost matianance-free, there are no fragile parts
like an auto tranny has.... people told me you don't have to worry about the
tranny in the car life time.

Not true. A manual transmission (like most other things on cars) requires
maintenance. For example, the clutch in my Subaru is currently in need of
replacement of its hydraulic fluid.

Also, manual transmissions can also have fragile parts, depending on how
they're built and designed. Two common failures I know of with manual
transmissions involve gear synchros and the gears themselves (typically
2nd gear - though I don't know why that is).

As for not having to worry about the transmission for the car's lifetime,
I'd say it's more common that transmissions that are treated nicely last
for good long times while those that are "abused" fail more quickly.
Whether the transmission is automatic or manual has nothing to do with
this.

2ndly, it 's gass economic. auto tranny eats up gas too quick..

While this was true back in the day, today's electronically-controlled
transmissions do a much better job of minimizing this. So, keeping in
mind that there are still cars sold without electronically-controlled
transmissions, I'd say there is no longer a real reason to choose a
manual transmission over an automatic solely based on fuel economy.

3rdly, I always liked machanics and me likes to play around with all kinds
of things...(my camry has been treated almost like a manual.), and I liked
sports, gears, and circuits, also I used to be an amateur athlete so my legs
are at least strong enough to tolerent the stop&go traffic with clutch.

the last reason is that it's a bit fun to drive, even though I don't like
race or whatsorta of *fun*.

Agreed.

Eugene Moon

 

[Tom Reingold]

Rent a manual trans for the first day of those lessons. After that, go with
the Honda.

-John O

Goodness, what country are you in? I'm in Noo Joizy (in the USA), and
I've never seen a rental car with a manual transmission. U-Haul used to
rent big trucks with a manual, but most of those are automatic now, too,
and I am NOT renting one of those for my daughter.

Tom

 

[Rick Courtright]

mind that there are still cars sold without electronically-controlled
transmissions, I'd say there is no longer a real reason to choose a
manual transmission over an automatic solely based on fuel economy.

Hi,

I know this is only one person's experience with a bit of anecdotal
"evidence" tossed in, but I've found the mileage estimates on the window
stickers to be very close between manual and automatic versions of the
same car, while real life driving always seems to favor the manual,
often by a LOT. Especially around town.

As for the electronically-controlled part, I've yet to see where that's
all so great. Most of 'em I've driven, including the Camry I own, seem
to be programmed by Microsoft dropouts. The only way to be able to
predict what my Toyota's gonna do is to lock out the the electronics by
hitting the "power" button. At least it acts like a "proper" auto then!
OTOH, since it's a base model, it may not be all that electronic, but
the auto in the g/f's Civic is perfectly predictable and doesn't leave
the driver wondering "what's it gonna do next?"

As I said, just one person's experience and opinion.

Rick

 

[JohnO]

Goodness, what country are you in? I'm in Noo Joizy (in the USA), and I've
never seen a rental car with a manual transmission. U-Haul used to rent
big trucks with a manual, but most of those are automatic now, too, and I
am NOT renting one of those for my daughter.

I'm in Michigan. OK, I haven't see a manual rental in a long time, and
you're probably right...they don't exist. Anyway, the gist of that is "learn
on someone else's clutch." ;-)

-John O

 

[paul]

All the other answers about how long clutches have lasted in other maeks and
models are quite irrelevant
to your question. Firstly the WRX has a powerband somewhere between 3500 and
6000 rpm, below about 3000
a GEO Metro would seem faster. A manual tranny is the only way to go to get
the best out of it. If you prefer an automatic, you would probably be
happier in another type of car. I needed a clutch replacement on my WRX at
42,000
which I did not think was too bad. A friend who owned a similar car managed
to get a new one under warranty at 36000 miles. I had an Outback immediately
preceding the WRX and needed a new clutch at 12000 miles which was replaced
under warranty after a lot of haggling with Subaru. Yes, I have got a lot
more miles from other makes before replacing clutches, but not Subaru. An
automatic is probably going to be a lot cheaper to run overall, but like I
say, it's a mismatch for the car.

 

[Mark Carroll]

to your question. Firstly the WRX has a powerband somewhere between 3500 and
6000 rpm, below about 3000

(snip)

Mmmm, yes. This reminds me: is it possible to find torque-speed curves
or fuel efficiency maps (by rpm and torque) and suchlike for the WRX
engines? I'd be interested to learn more about it, but I've not seen
any of those plots.

When you don't need the power - say, you're just cruising on an empty
highway, what rpm do you aim for?

-- Mark

 

[k. ote]

They also frequently depress the clutches at higher speeds (30
mph or so) and leave them depressed while braking rather than engaging
the appropriate gears.

I'm not sure how this wrecks the clutch, but I suppose re-engaging the
clutch afterwards while travelling at that speed probably isn't too good
for it. Something I always try to avoid is using the clutch as a brake:
there's downshifting, and then there's downshifting without
double-clutching or rev-matching. I wince sometimes when I'm in a manual
and someone doesn't rev-match when they downshift.. that loud whining noise
makes my back teeth twinge.

Another fun way to ruin a clutch is to rock
the car at a stop light by partially releasing the clutch and
depressing the gas just shy of engaging the gear rather than fully
depressing the clutch and waiting for the light to change before
releasing the clutch and fully engaging first gear. Just a few
examples.

These scenarios seem to make much more sense. The instruction manual for my
STi is quite clear: the clutch should only slip when pulling away from a
stop (either in 1st, for normal driving, or 2nd if the road is particularly
hazardous and slippery.)