WagenMaster

Yeah, one of my best friends is French and comes to visit for a month or so every year...I let her drive my New Beetle last year and it was the first time she had ever been in a car with an AT. She said that in Europe, the only people with ATs are the handicapped. So we now have a joke that most Americans are handicapped

But over there everything's different, including their streets, parking, gas prices, etc...

I'm sure she's gonna be happy to see that I have a 5-speed again this August.

chobits

well, people from Asia always drive manual
it is true that driving manual is fun, but to me it's really depending on the car
sport car - manual
family car - auto

it will be funny if you have 350z, s2000, wrx, sti, evo 8 with auto tranmission

rickbreitenfeldt

Midwest region is to be 70% auto and 30% manual. Toyota will play with it after 6months or so of sales.

BlueBox

Actually... people from Asia...think cars with A/T is a luxury option...that exists only on more expensive vehicles. Hence..we pay abit more for the A/T. It is a convenience and a luxury not to be taken for granted.

George

Isn't the bB only available with an automatic in Japan?

cliffy1

Here are the exact numbers for the Central Atlantic Region (CAT).

For the May order, there were 164 manuals and 164 automatics. Of those, 33 of each came with side air bags. For the June order, there will be 347 automatics (52 with side bags) and 232 manuals (28 with side bags). The May orders will be here between June 23 and the end of June. The June order will be the end of June through mid to late July.

So, for the dealers in the CAT region which encompases VA, MD, PA, WV and DE, the first order was 50/50 and the second is 60/40 with an automatic bias. I hope this helps. I have color breakdowns if anybody is interested.

bbcrud

People used to buy manuals for performance, drivability and ECONOMY. Today's automatics (see Scion xB) offer good drivability and GREAT economy. This leaves performance as the last standing reason for make manuals. That and they're cheaper!

Hasta!

iZero

People in other countries drive a greater percentage of manuals because they can't get their licences from a Cracker Jack box, unlike the US. You don't need to have any skill what-so-ever to get licenced here, and the automatic phenomena is just an byproduct of that. We live in the land of big bumpers and major crash testing because it's just assumed that everyone is a total idiot when it comes to driving. We'd rather dumb our machines down than learn to operate them more effectively.

Straegen

Traffic getting worse = more automatics. All of my friends are shifting to automatics here in Atlanta because of the traffic. I haven't owned a manumatic, but that seems like a nice comprimise if you aren't racing. Too bad automatics generaly have a "softer" gear ratio.

In a more general conversaiton, car 5/6 speed standard H transmissions are ineffecient in their design. Having to cross the gate for each gear shift makes powershifting difficult thus driving in traffic is more difficult (and shifting is slower). If it worked more like a motorcycles 1 down/5 up you can practically drive without using a clutch (although I still clutch when stopping or hard slow downs). You can powershift in a car, but it is a lot more difficult. With motorcycles just hit the start button, slack the throttle, or shift on the rev limiter hit and a clutchless shift is done without any additional strain on the transmission.

iZero

What are you talking about? It's possible to shift just about any manual transmission far faster than any automatic that comes out of the factory. Secondly, they are almost always more efficent in their design than an automatic. With a manual, when the clutch is engaged the engine is directly coupled to the wheels. In an automatic, you've got the torque converter ____ing away power, at least until it locks up at some point (depending on the transmission).

As for "powershifting", in a car that refers to staying on the throttle while you shift. This tends to destroy transmissions in a short amount of time, and no one drives like this everyday. Even using this technique, you'd still disengage the clutch between shifts. With an auotmatic, your foot may be on the "accelerator", but you don't have 100% control over the throttle and what it's doing. You can make a suggestion by pushing down on the pedal. Once a shift occurs, you lose control of the throttle and the car takes over.

A motorcycle is a different beast than a car. Trying to operate the transmissions in a similar manner will result in problems, specifically in the car.

Straegen

I was not refering to manual versus auto. I was refering to the various manual setups that have been around in cars. Crossing the gate shifting gears in the standard H just isn't as effecient as a drop lever shift or manual paddle shift.

Don't tell Ferrari that... their new automanuals if you will shift like a manual but do it faster than any human can. They believe there is a future for computer controlled shifting. I would be inclined to agree since a well built computer system could easily out-shift 99% of the drivers out of the box and could be tweaked or even learn to improve shifts. Then a driver would be completely focused on the line.

In my vocabulary powershifting simply refers to clutchless shifting. One way is a constant accel and then pop the gear. Yes, this does cause damage. Another way is to cause the transmission to slack (such as decel), shift, accel. If you do this perfectly, no damage is done to the tranny. Problem is most people can't do it well even after practice and often converting the tran to shorter throws and practicing yields a better payoff. I drove a manual truck for several months with a practically unusable clutch. Transmission is still going stong years later.

not advocating doing so. just making a point that other manual transmission designs can and do have advantages.

iZero

Ferrari's "automatic" is really a manual. It has a clutch, not a torque converter. It controls the shifts, but they are passing through a transmission that has more in common with a manual than an automatic. Think auto-manual, not manu-matic.

If a clutch is slipping while engaged, why would disengaging it be a problem? Also, how is making sure the engine's RPM doesn't match the transmission's going to help it last longer? Are you sure you aren't talking about rev-matching instead?

Straegen

That is why I called it an automanual. . Personally, I believe it is the future. Imagine a shifting system tied to the geometry of the car itself. Clutching, shifting, turning, excellerating out of a corner all done with total precision. We are still a long way away, but as mountain riding motorcycle freak I can definately imagine the day. Course by that time an efficient CVT might be around making all this moot.

Disengaging isn't the problem, crossing an inordinate amount of space is. Everytime you shift in a standard H you cross the gate. Simply meaning the throws are longer than they could be. There are many reasons including people are used to them, they are a simple sturdy design, and mis-shifting is more difficult. However, they are not the most effecient manual clutching system around.

This is crossing into a double clutching conversation, but basically by speeding up then slacking off just a bit you are relieving the pressure allowing a seamless disengage followed by a shift if done properly that will match the RPMs of the gear you are going too. This is basically what a clutch does all without engaging the clutch. The advantage (as many racing motorcyclists found) is a very fast shift. The downsides are you can damage the dog teeth which of course stripped would stop the switching of gears completely.

This is all a general discussion and there are many points here that would need further definition to be completely accurate, but I am only going for the jist of things.

George

If the driver has to push a pedel and move a lever to shift, it is manual. If the car does it for the driver, it's an automatic. The actual mechanisms involved are irrelevent.

You can also have in-between systems that shift manually, but don't have a clutch. Porsche's tiptronic shifter is one example, as is VW's automatic stick shift from the '60s. The earlier electromechanical systems weren't all that good, but with rapid computer controls, automatic gearboxes can shift better than any human.

We are right on the break-over point now, with excellent automatic transmissions available on expensive cars. Economy cars haven't got the better technology yet, so you can get a bit better performance and economy by shifting for yourself.

George

Straegen

I consider anything you have to shift a manual which pretty much means a tiptronic is an automatic even though you can shift it like a manual. So I would agree with your statement as a reasonable defining measure between an auto and a manual. Course it would be difficult to see it any other way I suppose.

Like I said earlier, it wouldn't surprise me if CVTs become the defacto standard in the future. It is just hard to beat a car that is in the right drive ratio all the time. Then again it could end up like the rotory or the american turbo diesel (which hopefully will come back to us if we ever clean up our diesel).

djct_watt

hold on honld on, I've kept quiet until now because you two both make good points, but I have to emphasize there IS a significant difference between a "manu-matic" and a "auto-manual." You were saying that it doesn't matter if it operates electronically or hydrolically.
OK, a manu-matic is what the generic +/- shifter you see in almost every car nowadays, from mini-vans to Porsche's. They have no increased efficiency over a regular automatic, and are proven to be slower in acceleration if the manual mode is chosen.
An auto-manual is a regular manual transmission, operated by hydrolics, which is mechanically identical to a regular manual transmission, with a few extra parts added, these have shown increased efficiency as shifts are faster. And these cars are usually designed to be left in "manual" mode.

Ok the prime advantage of a manual or auto-manual is that it weighs less. Yes weight is very important. . . because the transmission spins! Rotational inertia plays a major role in efficiency(hence why it is stupid to have huge rims for performance sake). An automatic has more parts(planetary gears and the like) which increase rotational inertia and can sap more than twice the hp/torque of a manual transmission(one that employs a clutch hydroliclly or manually).
Number 2: a torque convertor is an inefficient means of transferring energy-- it is not directly connected to the wheels, and it builds up a LOT of heat. . . every try touching one? True, most Torque convertors can lock up once they get to speed, but it ineffecient nonetheless
Number 3: durability: because of the many parts, an automatic tends to break down more, and upon break down is much more difficult to fix.

A manu-matic is still an automatic, just electronically controlled
An auto-manual is a manual, with the ability to be controlled electronicly
Only high end cars have auto-manuals, such as BMW M3 SMG, Ferrari, and handful of others

Unfortunately the technology is too expensive and probably will not become very cheap either, so it is unlikely to see mass production, however manu-matics are in favor, as they pretend to be manuals. Although there are major disadvantages to this set up, they aren't as great as in the past, however saying that they are equal is just not true. . . there is a ton of data that says otherwise. They are closeR, but not equal and can never be equal (differences are a result of physics of design, not of technology). But nowadays, the difference is small enough and automatic's are durable enough to be bought over manuals for the added convenience of not having to shift, and that is why there are more of them. . . not because they are equal, but because they are close enough that people don't care about the difference.

rampagesd

i think people are still buying automatics for a few reasons (xb is more of a cruiser than a performance car, adapts easier to jdm mods since bb's are auto in japan). it's just my 2 cents...

Straegen

The true main difference between what most consider a manu-matic and an automanual is the existance of a torque converter. Automanual's don't have one and manumatics do. This is a broad brush, but if you want to get to the nitty gritty this is the best way to technically seperate the two.

How the actuator that shifts is for the most part is irrelevant when discussing the difference. A computer operated electronic clutch and an electronic actuator that doesn't have a torque converter (I don't think there is one at least that I know of) would still be an automanual. Hydrololics are just the mechanism not a defining measure IMO.

I don't think anyone here would argue that statement.

True as well, but poor shifting or extreme shifting can cause a manual to wear out much faster. Also, clutches in a manual are not as durable as todays automatic systems. If you consider having to replace clutch parts part of the transmission (I can go either way on this), then a manual isn't as reliable as an automatic. However, on the whole the transmission in a auto should and probably will go long before a manual... clutch aside.

I don't think anyone was trying to bill them as being equal. I think the other guy was just wanting to clear up what the difference between a manual and an automatic was to the driver. I was agreeing with the fact that anything that HAS to be shifted (can't be driven in an automatic mode) regardless of how the tran does what it does is reasonable to be considered a manual and anything that can be driven in auto mode without the driver needing to shift could be called an automatic. This may not be true from a transmission point of view, but I think most would consider this a reasonable statement. Besides, I don't know of any automanuals that can be driven like an automatic or any manumatics that don't have a full auto mode. Sure as I say that, there is some manumatic car that does.

cypher50

OK, I just got off the phone with my dealer...out of 4 people who put in deposits (all manual, BTW), the car they are getting is an automatic. At first, the dealer was going to have me wait till the next shipment...wrong answer...after I informed her (not a threat because I am serious) that I would just take the deposit and leave, she said that she would see the allocation on Thursday for what is at port and try to do a swap. Unfortunately, I guess I picked one of the worst combinations (Black Sand Pearl - 5 Speed) so it is unlikely that I would be able to get that car when I need it...

Oh well, I knew a deposits have many shortcomes but I figured at least that the first shipment would include a lot more cars then this...I'm not getting an automatic though. Life lesson learned, next time I will listen to the people here about deposits...

zizi

It seems the demand for manuals is greater than the supply. I was looking at the XA and XB and every single one was automatic!! Even all the corollas were automatic. I guess when they get a manual in it sells like hotcakes.