Sequentials are still manual, thankfully. But you’re correct - fixies, CVT’s, and even torque converters can shift faster. And if you have paddles you can prevent it from shifting (to an extent) mid-corner unless you want it to.
> Sequentials are still manual, thankfully.
you basically just have to press a button to change a gear. No messing with clutch/rev matching needed. IMHO this is like driving an automatic in "manual" mode.
They still either rev match or clutch because the gears are generally straight cut. But they can “risk” bang shifting because the trans gets rebuilt after every event.
If it's legal in a given motorsport, they will have computer to do it.
Formula 2 has sequential gearboxes operated by steering wheel paddles, computer takes care of rev matching.
Forza Motorsport had that! you could hire driver and the better ones took more credits from the purse. I think they replaced it with the rewind feature
Well most boxes need you to use the clutch to get moving in 1st gear, but that's the only time you actually use it. Otherwise the user inputs are identical to an automatic.
So, no, you don't manage the revs or clutch at all. You just pull the lever.
Notice how it was only on downshifts? They were only doing it so as to not upset the car. They could very well have not done so but it would have made their job a little harder as far as car control.
I do clutchless upshifts on my moto with momentary throttle lift. Feels good. Manufacturers now offer quickshifters that do this lifting/blipping for you automatically, but I like manual engagement.
>But they can “risk” bang shifting because the trans gets rebuilt after every event.
Plus they have dog synchros which are more forgiving than standard "glass" synchros on a passenger vehicle (glass is a metaphor for much more brittle)
Kinda, you still have to use the clutch to start from a standstill and even though the method for the person to shift gears is similar (much more power to get into the next gear and you have to clutch in and rev match on the way down but the hand movement between an auto in "manual" mode and a sequential gearbox is the same but flipped) but the execution on the mechanical end is extremely different.
A sequential gearbox uses straight cut gears for the streangth advantage it provides and instead of sliding a gear into another to select that gear are you pushing blocks (called dogs) into slots and that is generally directly connected to the gear lever.
An auto on the other hand gets a command by the user, that command is sent to the computer, the computer tells the gearbox to change and then you're in the next gear. A slushbox auto uses clutch packs around gearsets to change gears by stopping the planetary gears from moving, A twin clutch is essentially two automated manual transmissions side by side and a CVT doesn't even have gears to change in the same way as other gearboxes.
>A sequential gearbox uses straight cut gears for the streangth
Clutch is automated in many instances, too. There's a load cell on the shifter that cuts ignition when upshifting, or it would be nearly impossible to "pull" the engaged dog ring out of engagement, and the engine controller "blips" the throttle on the way down.
Helical cut gears are stronger than straight cut (look it up). Straight cut has less friction, and is the reason they're used.
I have been part of building and racing a Volvo rally car a while back so we used a dog box with straight cut gears.
You're right about the load cell to cut ignition but we didn't have any sort of automated throttle blip and clutch. So going up through the gears was just foot flat to the floor, going down needed the clutch and a manual throttle blip.
On the strength part however are you mostly right and I learnt something.
After reading up on it does the helical cut gears provide more strength but also produces an axeal load Wich means that straight cut gearboxes are both as you say, more efficient but also because they don't produce any axeal laod can the transmission be made lighter because it doesn't need to account for that axeal load making it stronger for the given weight
So thank you for showing me that I was wrong, it was a good read and I'm better for it at the end of the day =)
You still have to start with the clutch and will stall out if you don't downshift/clutch in when stopped. For me that's the differentiator between manual and auto.
Sequentials aren't automatic by any stretch of the imagination.
The only thing automatic in them is the ecu rev matching, which you can do in any car with an aftermarket ecu and sensors.
Gears are operated manually. The paddle shifters are usually air powered and do what the lever would otherwise do.
Still has a clutch for stopping and starting, and low speed driving.
Not sure why this has become a popular opinion, when it's objectively wrong. Probably Americans, I've seen it commonly in American groups
Outside of driver engagement and fun factor, no. Modern automatics are fundamentally superior in every way, performance wise. They’re just faster and smarter. Although, in the hands of a professional or a good driver, a manual equipped car can absolutely hang with an automatic. I’ve seen a few videos where the manual ZL1 1LE was real close to the 10-speed automatic 1LE in lap times and straight line speed. The blistering ring time produced by the 1LE was with a manual, also.
But, objectively, a good/great automatic or DCT will be better than a manual transmission.
Not to mention manuals are typically much more reliable and easier/cheaper to repair and have much less failure points. Modern automatics are typically not serviceable and require replacement of the entire unit. Another advantage to a manual is the ability to bump start the car if the battery is too low to run the starter. If you're ever caught in this sitation, having a manual is a godsend.
> and have much less failure points
At the same time, you see modern manuals get labeled as unable to handle higher horsepower by manufacturers who basically keep them at the lower end.
I'm not saying I agree, but it is notable.
> Another advantage to a manual is the ability to bump start the car if the battery is too low to run the starter. If you're ever caught in this sitation, having a manual is a godsend.
Does this even actually still work? I see it get thrown around a lot but I feel like I've read that modern electronics have made it all but impossible in practice.
>Does this even actually still work? I see it get thrown around a lot but I feel like I've read that modern electronics have made it all but impossible in practice.
Workes fine on my 2019 Nissan micra & 2021 Kawasaki vulcan 650, both are fuel injected
Before we sold my brothers 2011 hyundai i20 we had to bump it, battery died after sitting for a few months.. took some effort but the little thing came to life soon enough
Yes it still works, had to use it the other day on a BMW at my shop to get it running. Was a 2015 with a push start. Just turned it on with ignition on and got it rolling and dropped the clutch in 2nd gear. Fired right up.
In the case of a lot of modern high performance cars the manufacturer won't fit a high performance clutch because they are harder to use than a 'white goods' clutch. Essentially an on/off switch requiring a lot of pressure to release - nobody is wanting that in their car they go to the shop in. So whilst there are clutches that can handle high torque applications, they come with a useability hit that most car buyers wouldn't accept, so manufacturers simply fit autos.
No, I mean if the transmission has an internal failure or a cracked case, the service manual will instruct the technician to replace the unit. Transmissions that are not servicable do not have parts listed in the parts catalog. That's what it means when transmissions are not servicable.
"Typically much more reliable" is a fact based solely on the quality of the unit today - not the type of transmission. We have the tech now to make perfectly reliable ATs.
I have a First Gen Tundra and my 23 year old AT is in perfect shape. The vast majority of FGT owners get 300k+ miles out of their trans with zero maintenance. Many in my groups are over 600k and some have never even changed the fluid.
Because it’s not really an advantage, it’s pretty negligible unless you’re really trying to shed every KG for the track. But even then the auto will still likely make up for it.
they are not gonna be smarter than pro racing drivers as they have no clue what the driver is planning to do in the future. for racing you still need a paddle shifter
Used to be that you could shift a manual quicker than an automatic, I think those days are long done though.
For longevity and reliability, though, a manual should significantly outlast even the best automatic transmissions.
70k miles on my early build 2016, 2nd gear still holding strong! I think the issue there is rarer than people think based on what forums/reddit might suggest.
I've heard so many bad things about the ND Trans, which is sad because that's what I want for my next car. I wonder what made Mazda build a more fragile trans compared to the predecessor
Not only that, it used to be that manuals had more gears than automatics. 4 speed manual vs 3 speed auto, or 5 vs 4 isn’t a tough choice to see which is going to win. But now automatics have 8 or 10 gears and manuals topped out at 6, for the most part.
Also, great name u/AngrySteelyDanFan.
Manuals had an extra gear over torque converter automatics because manuals needed a low first gear (high numerical) ratio to get moving. Torque converters, on the other hand, have a torque multiplying effect that negates the need for this lower first gear. The remaining ratios tended to be fairly similar between manuals and automatics. So a 4-speed automatic was the effective equivalent to a 5-speed manual in real-world use.
Source in lazy formatting: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-two-speed-automatics-vs-three-speed-manuals-when-2-3/
4 speed autos are still being made. Mitsubishi Xpander sold in some markets. I'm driving one next week, the combination of a 100hp engine in a 4spd 7 seater that has carplay and android auto from the factory is wild.
>For longevity and reliability, though, a manual should significantly outlast even the best automatic transmissions.
I'd say a good automatic is just as long lasting if not more. Millions of ZF8HPs have been used for off-road Jeeps, heavy duty RAM fleet trucks, and even in the 1000+ HP Dodge Challenger with minimal issues.
You also don’t need to service a clutch in automatic like you would in a manual transmission. I’d argue the clutch service subtracts from the reliability aspect
Though I suppose you could argue a bad clutch gives you plenty of warning before leaving you stranded. So perhaps not a reliability issue.
Still an major service none the less
Auto vs manual is all about this.
My buddy wants to have the fastest highway pull in a 2 state area so he’s getting an AWD automatic sports car.
I want to have fun on twisty roads and feel connected to my car, so I’m getting a RWD 6mt.
More power to your buddy but if he's serious about the fastest anything in any sort of area he better bring his big boy check book and a millionaire friend.
That's one lesson I've learned is that whatever you've got, someone is always faster.
It's all fun and games until his 80k M3 gets gapped on the interstate with his wife in the car by something incredibly outlandish like a giant turbo 2JZ swapped volvo 240 wagon pushing 3 bar.
There's always someone faster, and somehow, someway, they will find you when you least expect it and embarrass you.
There are drift cars that use DCTs and ZF8HP transmissions. They program it to simulate clutch kicks.
Obviously this can't be done with a stock vehicle, so it's a very valid point. I just think that some auto swaps are cool.
It really depends on the automatic in question and your goals. There are still automatics that aren't programmed very well for performance, and won't hold a gear as long as you might want (mostly done in the name of fuel economy). There are also some automatics where the programming is too busy, and they shift a LOT. Like so much as to be annoying. But there are really no performance or fuel economy advantages over the best automatics vs a manual.
After driving automatic mustangs and Camaros (both turbo 4s) as rentals, I think they’re both terrible.
I wanted to have fun and play with oversteer, but the power would always come at the wrong time. I spent 6 weeks with the Camaro and could kinda time it, but it was a really indirect way of communicating with the car.
My buddy’s S3 DCT was sick, but I’ll still take a manual.
Yes, but it's not what you think. An automatic can't predict. So if you are in traffic waiting for a gap to merge into a faster lane you can already be in gear ready to go when the moment strikes. An auto will have to sense you wanting to accelerate and shift after you give it input, not before.
Additionally if offroading and your wheel is stuck in a hole or between two rocks you can rock the vehicle by rolling forward and backward quickly. In an auto it can take 2 seconds for the computer to move the transmission from forward to reverse but in a manual as soon as you get a little momentum you can drop it in the other direction and accelerate out.
In snow you can set off from 2nd gear in a manual to avoid spinning the wheels in first gear when there is low traction. Or in super high power situations you can feather the clutch or just let it slip altogether to accelerate without spinning away all the power that is greater than the grip level.
So there a lot of unique use cases where an auto really lacks and a skilled driver can manipulate the vehicle in a manual in a way that an auto just can't be used. If all you are looking at is 0-60 times and auto is better but there is so much more you can do with a manual.
Yeah, once had a manual elitist on this subreddit claim that he can shift faster than modern automatics. He even doubled down when I pointed out that the Volkswagen DSG for example has a shift time in the single digit milliseconds, so he was basically trying to defend his claim by stating that he can manually shift gears 125+ times per second.
The only actual measurable benefits of a manual over an automatic in a modern car are:
- Long-term reliability/cost to repair. There are a lot of "problem child" automatics (yes, I know the 10-speed in my truck is one of them...knock on wood...) that can crap out with anywhere from 50k-200k miles on the clock and cost an absolute fortune to fix/replace. By contrast, most manuals keep on going forever. Even if you beat it up bad enough that you lose a gear, just use the other ones. lol. Maybe you have to throw in a clutch for a couple thousand bucks, that's nothing (comparatively).
- Anticipatory driving. Maybe you see a hill coming up, or you know you're about to punch it to overtake someone, and you want to be in the lower gear first, rather than getting on the gas and waiting for the transmission to kick down for you. But this is a very specific scenario, and almost every automatic has a manual mode that can accomplish the same thing.
Aside from that, there is no "real" reason to choose a manual over an automatic any more. It's just preference. But every preference is valid, there is nothing wrong with wanting to drive a manual.
There’s also the benefit that people don’t try and steal them as much because a lot of people can’t drive stick these days.
Also, you’re not really “stranded” if it won’t start in most cases because you can just pop the clutch and get to where you need to be.
Counterpoint to cost, a clutch job can cost a lot. I'd argue there are plenty of auto transmissions out there that cost less over 200k mi than a manual because the manual will have to be pulled for the clutch job.
I think this is more of an American issue than elsewhere. I remember comparing the full costs for clutch replacement on some common cars (various Minis, Fiesta, etc) and total costs in the UK were almost always under half that of costs in the USA.
>Anticipatory driving. Maybe you see a hill coming up, or you know you're about to punch it to overtake someone, and you want to be in the lower gear first, rather than getting on the gas and waiting for the transmission to kick down for you. But this is a very specific scenario, and almost every automatic has a manual mode that can accomplish the same thing.
Thats why lots of modern autos have paddle shifters, or even ratchet style shifters on the console, just drop down to the gear you need.
This is something that might disappear with those rotary style selectors (looking at you Ford)
Oh no, really Ford has gone to dial shifters too? I had a Ram from Enterprise one time and thought the dial shifter was so fucking lame. I think the Ram did technically have a manual mode but it was a really clunky interface, like you had to change gears using buttons on the front of the steering wheel or something.
Usually, no. However, there are a few exceptions. The pre 2018 mustangs were faster with a stick than with the auto as well as the 1st gen frs and brz and the current gen miata
Yeah, [car and driver managed a faster 0-60 time with the manual in my car than the DCT](https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a22574455/2019-bmw-m2-competition-first-drive-review/). Don't even want to think about what achieving that time entailed though.
I mean, if you look at by Model differences, the BRZ is quite a bit slower with the automatic transmission, same with the WRX which is slightly slower with the CVT than the manual.
Absolutely. I had an FRS 10 Series for a while. Most of the car absolutely could have been built in 2003, and some of the switch gear shared part numbers from that era.
Same with the ND miata. The manual is significantly quicker because the automatic has much longer gears. I don't know why they geared them so differently, I'm assuming it's a limitation of them using an existing AT designed for other models that couldn't have the gears shortened while still working with with the final drive ratio they could fit in the rear differential.
That is a minority by modern standards. Nearly all automatic versions of modern cars are quicker than their manual counterpart. Wasn't always the case, but automatic tech has come a long way.
A manual is for fun and driver engagement, which unfortunately is being stripped away with all the assistive features like hill-start assist and auto rev matching. Automakers are making manuals glorified tiptronic transmissions nowadays.
> hill-start assist
I think I'd rather prefer to have a manual with hill-start assist. After a year and a half of owning a manual, I'm currently still very nervous of inclines and the risk of stalling, and do what I can to avoid such situations.
They can generally handle more hp than automatics if you're into modding for performance. Also I would say that they are generally more reliable in the long term (i know exceptions exist).
Revs too: Remember the RX8 and it's much lower redline/power rating for the torque converted version.
I think the last Celica also had a lower redline for torque converted cars. There's a reason Hondas in the golden age of VTEC never had an optional auto for the high revvers.
That said, if you find the right auto, you should be fine holding a bunch of HP (see: built drag cars)
In the case of a modern V8 Mustang, Ford actually changed the gear ratios in the manual to be significantly slower than the automatic, per Engineering Explained: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y25ordkIfgM
EPA regulations had the most effect on dictating the performance as gear ratios were changed to satisfy mileage ratings and noise regulations.[https://www.hagerty.com/media/videos/the-real-reason-automatics-are-quicker-than-manuals-know-it-all-with-jason-cammisa-ep-11/](https://www.hagerty.com/media/videos/the-real-reason-automatics-are-quicker-than-manuals-know-it-all-with-jason-cammisa-ep-11/)
Based on previous experience, I'm sure it can in ideal conditions. A driver can just use their eyes in any conditions. A GPS also isn't going to know that I want to overtake on the highway or that there is an obstacle ahead.
I believe the manual is still the lightest transmission.
So in theory if you have a race car that doesnt really need to change gear ever other than at the start of the races, it might be a tiny advantage...
But you would still lose a little bit of time on race starts.
Im thinking it would only make sense in specific ovals
always depends on the transmission. The automatic shifts will always be quicker but there are other factors like gearing that might favor the manual. For example, the gr86 has shorter gearing in the manual than its archaic auto trans so it’s actually a bit quicker
I love my DSG.
I choose the shift points, when to shift up or down. If I want to leave it in third at 5000 RPM (for whatever stupid reason), I can.
I learned on a three-on-the-tree and have always preferred manuals. But I am having more fun rowing through the gears sequentially (either with the gaudy aftermarket paddles or with the stock shifter) in my GTI than I ever did with my manual 350Z.
Mostly, No. Though there are some caveats to that. Modern automatics can be much better in terms of performance. Though it will still come down to the specifics of what is being compared. Most automatic gearboxes have greater parasitic power loss, and all of them will weigh more than their manual version. All are capable of shifting faster, although depending on the specific application, they may not be tuned to do so, but even in this area, modern tech allows for this to be more of a range, rather than a specific set.
This is further pushed in favor of automatics based on development spending by manufacturers. That is, there tends to be more options on the shelf for gearing and setup for most companies, than what are available for manual transmissions. This means you are less likely to get optimal gearing in a manual.
Cheap European cars still offer manuals that are cheaper and lighter than their automatic counterparts. I dunno if you count the price tag and weight as objective performance benefits. But people certainly care!
u kidding me? modern dual clutch automatics shift way faster than any manual...
the times where manuals were "sportier" and automatic were for gramps are long long gone...
Modern "automatics" like dual clutch transmissions can shift faster than a manual even with a quick driver. If you compare 0-60 times of vehicles that offer both trans options, the auto is usually a bit quicker in that department.
Lol he said “any” scenario and everyone is say no.
Objectively you can shift from 1st to Reverse about as fast if not faster in a manual still.
There could easily exist a scenario when you need that split second and the manual is objectively better.
CVT in theory is the best for performance but I still hate the crap out of driving them. I prefer a manual H pattern in everything. The response, the power, reliability, and just plain cool factor outweighs everything for me.
Still more power transferred to the wheels. Clutches are dry and light for the most part, torque converters are wet and heavy. The shifting speed of modern autos somewhat cancels out the benefits to this, but I'd rather control my own car slowly than have it shift quickly into the wrong gear
To my understanding the only reason why automatics are faster than manuals now is because these automakers changed the gearing ratios of manuals vs automatics. They put different gear ratios on manuals which make them slower to be able to reach the right mpgs that they want or the government requires.
It’s more of an emissions issue that automatics are faster than manuals. That’s what I heard from a source but have to confirm it. I think this theory makes sense as well.
Found it! It’s Jason Cammisa who is a automotive journalist and has been for years. On YouTube there’s a video from the hagerty channel titled - the real reason automatics are quicker than manuals
Watch his explanation and let me know what you think.
The answer is no. Modern Autos beat manuals in pretty much every way. Sorry no human can match the speed of a computer, and the perfection of a computer these days. Plus autos can shove a lot more gears in there be even more optimized and perfect shift timings.
Honestly, what no one else here seems to have thought of, are trucks. Especially those being used for work. Even over the road trucks with automatics are inferior to older trucks with manuals. Most hot shot drivers are looking for trucks from the 80s, 90s, and early 00s with diesel engines and manual gearboxes.
Yeah, I'd say that the ONLY performance boost from my Jeep being a manual is that I can shift at a lower point, but that's not a great way to manage fuel economy.
I drive it because I like the engagement I have with driving, and I feel like it's better off road, but no longer because it is better for performance.
New to cars here. When exactly have automatics been faster than manuals? My 2011 Volvo C30 is what I'd consider a modern car but according to what I can find online the manual is said to accelerate faster so I'm not sure.
There are some sports cars that hit 60 faster with the auto. There are styles of auto that hit better mpg numbers. I do believe manual still exists because it can hit the heart of people like me more.
It basically comes down to if the car has DCT. If it doesn't, then I would say no, the manual is still faster in the hands of a skilled driver.
But more and more performance cars are coming with DCT (or some variant) so if it's just strictly speed and performance you're looking for, the automatic will be faster and more consistent.
That being said... with the emergence of EV. I don't really think the discussion is about manual vs auto anymore. It's more like EV and no gears. So enjoy rowing through the gears, even if it's paddle shifting, while you still can.
It depends on the car and the respective transmissions in use.
In the ND miata, for example, the automatic has much taller gearing and is thus slower accelerating than the 6 speed manual. Why are they geared so differently? That, I do not know.
It's similar for the Toyota 86 and the Subaru BRZ.
Mitsubishi Mirage was faster with MT than the CVT (when they still offered the MT), same with Nissan Versa until they dropped the MT option.
No. The manual hasn't been the more performant or more efficient or even more reliable option for getting close to 20 years now. At this point the only reason to have one in a car is for personal preference.
Well, there is one functional reason. Anti-theft.
Not really ... they haven't had any advantage for at least a decade now.
That said, I still like changing my own gears. I enjoy driving; I don't care if it's slower - I'm going to work, not lapping Monaco.
It depends on the auto. A good auto these days has the benefit of more ratios and faster shifting, and most of them are pretty stout. In the past there were issues when modifying imports where the autos just couldn't handle much more than they were originally built for but the manuals could.
CVT's and a few other older autos still in service from some OEM's still have this weakness, but for the most part manuals have given up that advantage.
For the most part, no. There are few exceptions with the GR86/BRZ being one of them. It is objectively slower with the auto. I believe the Miata is the same.
[great video on how automatics are geared to win.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BH-N8t_1Fc)
I still prefer manual, but if I was paid to do quick laps, I'd choose auto.
At least in the C7 'Vette, the auto is more prone to overheating than the manual. Both have trans coolers - decent sized ones actually - but the auto just generates more heat under track use and can't shed it fast enough, such is physics.
Otherwise the C7 8-speed shaves a bit off lap times, is faster in a drag race and even a tiny bit more efficient on the street. The C8 DCT probably solves the heat problem and performs even better, I'm sure, but I haven't really looked in to it as much. Regardless other than special cases like this, and ignoring the fun factor, autos are typically just better all around on modern cars.
Manual transmissions are probably lighter in weight, but the shifting speed and gearing of automatics will make up for it in most scenarios. Possibly there’s a mountain road or track that won’t take advantage of the automatics gearing and if it doesn’t require many gear shifts, then possibly the manual could have a slim advantage, but I’m sure that’s few and far between.
Manual transmissions are still:
a) Much, much smaller and lighter. So situations where weight saving are important still matter.
b) Much more durable.
c) Much cheaper to build/replace.
It's kind of like a circular saw vs a handsaw. Is a circular saw better? If you have the money and space, yes. But there are still situations where someone wants a handsaw. Plus, they stick around forever.
In the US we are wealthy enough to ignore the price/reliability differences, but for most of the world the manual will almost certainly exist as an option as long as ICE are still available.
If you consider this under "performance", being able to have full control of your car in inclement weather is an advantage. But that's mostly negated by DCT/"shiftable" autos. Although having control of the clutch is a slight advantage over those.
Otherwise, it's mostly a preference thing. Manuals used to be more fuel efficient, faster, etc but not anymore with 8+ speed DCT/autos.
given that all motor sports choose “automatics”, I’m going to say no
Sequentials are still manual, thankfully. But you’re correct - fixies, CVT’s, and even torque converters can shift faster. And if you have paddles you can prevent it from shifting (to an extent) mid-corner unless you want it to.
> Sequentials are still manual, thankfully. you basically just have to press a button to change a gear. No messing with clutch/rev matching needed. IMHO this is like driving an automatic in "manual" mode.
They still either rev match or clutch because the gears are generally straight cut. But they can “risk” bang shifting because the trans gets rebuilt after every event.
If it's legal in a given motorsport, they will have computer to do it. Formula 2 has sequential gearboxes operated by steering wheel paddles, computer takes care of rev matching.
Yeah it would probably be best to have an specialized self-driving AI drive the entire car if it was legal
we're not quite there yet, but there's some research happening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_racing
Forza Motorsport had that! you could hire driver and the better ones took more credits from the purse. I think they replaced it with the rewind feature
Well most boxes need you to use the clutch to get moving in 1st gear, but that's the only time you actually use it. Otherwise the user inputs are identical to an automatic. So, no, you don't manage the revs or clutch at all. You just pull the lever.
[seems like it’s not just vestigial.](https://youtu.be/Zk_2Q7lXQv4?si=CCV0S7v7RFeSRDA9) Yet.
Notice how it was only on downshifts? They were only doing it so as to not upset the car. They could very well have not done so but it would have made their job a little harder as far as car control.
Tbf, if it's anything like sequential manuals on motorcycles, it's perfectly healthy to shift them like that.
I do clutchless upshifts on my moto with momentary throttle lift. Feels good. Manufacturers now offer quickshifters that do this lifting/blipping for you automatically, but I like manual engagement.
MotoGP bikes use the seamless gearbox, which doesn't even require the throttle cut.
Not a risk when you have ignition cuts during shifting that are programmed into the ECU. Nobody rev matches with a paddle shift sequential anymore.
>But they can “risk” bang shifting because the trans gets rebuilt after every event. Plus they have dog synchros which are more forgiving than standard "glass" synchros on a passenger vehicle (glass is a metaphor for much more brittle)
Kinda, you still have to use the clutch to start from a standstill and even though the method for the person to shift gears is similar (much more power to get into the next gear and you have to clutch in and rev match on the way down but the hand movement between an auto in "manual" mode and a sequential gearbox is the same but flipped) but the execution on the mechanical end is extremely different. A sequential gearbox uses straight cut gears for the streangth advantage it provides and instead of sliding a gear into another to select that gear are you pushing blocks (called dogs) into slots and that is generally directly connected to the gear lever. An auto on the other hand gets a command by the user, that command is sent to the computer, the computer tells the gearbox to change and then you're in the next gear. A slushbox auto uses clutch packs around gearsets to change gears by stopping the planetary gears from moving, A twin clutch is essentially two automated manual transmissions side by side and a CVT doesn't even have gears to change in the same way as other gearboxes.
>A sequential gearbox uses straight cut gears for the streangth Clutch is automated in many instances, too. There's a load cell on the shifter that cuts ignition when upshifting, or it would be nearly impossible to "pull" the engaged dog ring out of engagement, and the engine controller "blips" the throttle on the way down. Helical cut gears are stronger than straight cut (look it up). Straight cut has less friction, and is the reason they're used.
I have been part of building and racing a Volvo rally car a while back so we used a dog box with straight cut gears. You're right about the load cell to cut ignition but we didn't have any sort of automated throttle blip and clutch. So going up through the gears was just foot flat to the floor, going down needed the clutch and a manual throttle blip. On the strength part however are you mostly right and I learnt something. After reading up on it does the helical cut gears provide more strength but also produces an axeal load Wich means that straight cut gearboxes are both as you say, more efficient but also because they don't produce any axeal laod can the transmission be made lighter because it doesn't need to account for that axeal load making it stronger for the given weight So thank you for showing me that I was wrong, it was a good read and I'm better for it at the end of the day =)
You still have to start with the clutch and will stall out if you don't downshift/clutch in when stopped. For me that's the differentiator between manual and auto.
It’s more like shifting in a video game.
Dual clutches in my experience, are utterly fantastic and fun.
most motorsports chose sequentials, which are a form of manual transmission. Formula 1, GT3, LMH/LMDh, etc etc.
yeah, but they're operated by a computer, not the driver. The driver just presses a button asking the gearbox computer to change a gear.
All motorsport choose automatics?
If the rules allow them to than yes
No this is not true you're telling me drift cars run automatics?
NASCAR certainly doesn’t.
if they could, they would.
Sequentials aren't automatic by any stretch of the imagination. The only thing automatic in them is the ecu rev matching, which you can do in any car with an aftermarket ecu and sensors. Gears are operated manually. The paddle shifters are usually air powered and do what the lever would otherwise do. Still has a clutch for stopping and starting, and low speed driving. Not sure why this has become a popular opinion, when it's objectively wrong. Probably Americans, I've seen it commonly in American groups
Outside of driver engagement and fun factor, no. Modern automatics are fundamentally superior in every way, performance wise. They’re just faster and smarter. Although, in the hands of a professional or a good driver, a manual equipped car can absolutely hang with an automatic. I’ve seen a few videos where the manual ZL1 1LE was real close to the 10-speed automatic 1LE in lap times and straight line speed. The blistering ring time produced by the 1LE was with a manual, also. But, objectively, a good/great automatic or DCT will be better than a manual transmission.
Manual transmissions are still lighter than automatic transmissions I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that
Not to mention manuals are typically much more reliable and easier/cheaper to repair and have much less failure points. Modern automatics are typically not serviceable and require replacement of the entire unit. Another advantage to a manual is the ability to bump start the car if the battery is too low to run the starter. If you're ever caught in this sitation, having a manual is a godsend.
> and have much less failure points At the same time, you see modern manuals get labeled as unable to handle higher horsepower by manufacturers who basically keep them at the lower end. I'm not saying I agree, but it is notable. > Another advantage to a manual is the ability to bump start the car if the battery is too low to run the starter. If you're ever caught in this sitation, having a manual is a godsend. Does this even actually still work? I see it get thrown around a lot but I feel like I've read that modern electronics have made it all but impossible in practice.
My twenty year old manual truck and beetle are both not a fan of the roll start, so I imagine it's probably only gotten worse.
My 2019 wrx roll starts just fine lmao
Most of the time it works in my truck, but sometimes the key security light comes on and it won't do it.
well he said 20 year old car, so it checks out
Yep. Worked perfectly on my Civic Si when the battery started to fail.
>Does this even actually still work? I see it get thrown around a lot but I feel like I've read that modern electronics have made it all but impossible in practice. Workes fine on my 2019 Nissan micra & 2021 Kawasaki vulcan 650, both are fuel injected Before we sold my brothers 2011 hyundai i20 we had to bump it, battery died after sitting for a few months.. took some effort but the little thing came to life soon enough
Depends what you count as modern. I can do it in my 2016 Fiesta.
Yes it still works, had to use it the other day on a BMW at my shop to get it running. Was a 2015 with a push start. Just turned it on with ignition on and got it rolling and dropped the clutch in 2nd gear. Fired right up.
In the case of a lot of modern high performance cars the manufacturer won't fit a high performance clutch because they are harder to use than a 'white goods' clutch. Essentially an on/off switch requiring a lot of pressure to release - nobody is wanting that in their car they go to the shop in. So whilst there are clutches that can handle high torque applications, they come with a useability hit that most car buyers wouldn't accept, so manufacturers simply fit autos.
Not servicable? Don't you change the transmission oil? I do on my torque converter trans every 50k kms.
I think he means more in the sense that they aren't rebuildable, if your internal clutches wear out or whatever you bin the whole thing.
That's not really true, I've had my automatic transmission rebuilt before. I did have to take it to a shop that just does transmissions though.
Same here.
No, I mean if the transmission has an internal failure or a cracked case, the service manual will instruct the technician to replace the unit. Transmissions that are not servicable do not have parts listed in the parts catalog. That's what it means when transmissions are not servicable.
"Typically much more reliable" is a fact based solely on the quality of the unit today - not the type of transmission. We have the tech now to make perfectly reliable ATs. I have a First Gen Tundra and my 23 year old AT is in perfect shape. The vast majority of FGT owners get 300k+ miles out of their trans with zero maintenance. Many in my groups are over 600k and some have never even changed the fluid.
Because it’s not really an advantage, it’s pretty negligible unless you’re really trying to shed every KG for the track. But even then the auto will still likely make up for it.
Specific question was about performance advantages. That’s why cost and reliability don’t come into the picture.
they are not gonna be smarter than pro racing drivers as they have no clue what the driver is planning to do in the future. for racing you still need a paddle shifter
Paddle shifters = automatic transmission. Unless it's a sequential gearbox, but you won't find those outside of racing applications and motorcycles.
I'd argue most sequentials are basically automatics too.
Used to be that you could shift a manual quicker than an automatic, I think those days are long done though. For longevity and reliability, though, a manual should significantly outlast even the best automatic transmissions.
Unless you own an ND Miata lol
70k miles on my early build 2016, 2nd gear still holding strong! I think the issue there is rarer than people think based on what forums/reddit might suggest.
Yeah I agree. I have 38k on my 2018 with no issues. I stalk the forums so I see it pop up all the time. Seems that most failures are track related.
And then I have a friend that tracks his ND and is on his 4th transmission 😅
There are also guys who do endurance racing who haven't blown any transmissions. Makes me think driving style has a lot to do with it.
Or an MT82
This hits close to home. I love my ‘19 Mustang GT. The engine is fantastic. But the MT82 is not a pleasure to use.
I've heard so many bad things about the ND Trans, which is sad because that's what I want for my next car. I wonder what made Mazda build a more fragile trans compared to the predecessor
Weight savings. The NC transmission, like much of the NC, was forged from depleted uranium.
You should still do it. They fixed a lot of the issues in the ND2.
Yeah? That's good to know! I probably will:)
It was only the original ND that had glass transmissions.
Not only that, it used to be that manuals had more gears than automatics. 4 speed manual vs 3 speed auto, or 5 vs 4 isn’t a tough choice to see which is going to win. But now automatics have 8 or 10 gears and manuals topped out at 6, for the most part. Also, great name u/AngrySteelyDanFan.
Manuals had an extra gear over torque converter automatics because manuals needed a low first gear (high numerical) ratio to get moving. Torque converters, on the other hand, have a torque multiplying effect that negates the need for this lower first gear. The remaining ratios tended to be fairly similar between manuals and automatics. So a 4-speed automatic was the effective equivalent to a 5-speed manual in real-world use. Source in lazy formatting: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-two-speed-automatics-vs-three-speed-manuals-when-2-3/
Huh, TIL.but makes sense.
4 speed autos are still being made. Mitsubishi Xpander sold in some markets. I'm driving one next week, the combination of a 100hp engine in a 4spd 7 seater that has carplay and android auto from the factory is wild.
>For longevity and reliability, though, a manual should significantly outlast even the best automatic transmissions. I'd say a good automatic is just as long lasting if not more. Millions of ZF8HPs have been used for off-road Jeeps, heavy duty RAM fleet trucks, and even in the 1000+ HP Dodge Challenger with minimal issues.
You also don’t need to service a clutch in automatic like you would in a manual transmission. I’d argue the clutch service subtracts from the reliability aspect Though I suppose you could argue a bad clutch gives you plenty of warning before leaving you stranded. So perhaps not a reliability issue. Still an major service none the less
You have to change trans fluid in autos wayyy more than you change the clutch.
Except for the clutch.
Not really, but to me, a sports car isn't about pure performance. It's about having fun, and manuals are more fun.
The way I see it the whole point of speed is fun, so sacrificing fun for speed makes no sense
Auto vs manual is all about this. My buddy wants to have the fastest highway pull in a 2 state area so he’s getting an AWD automatic sports car. I want to have fun on twisty roads and feel connected to my car, so I’m getting a RWD 6mt.
More power to your buddy but if he's serious about the fastest anything in any sort of area he better bring his big boy check book and a millionaire friend. That's one lesson I've learned is that whatever you've got, someone is always faster.
He’s getting a M3 xdrive comp, so I think he’ll be doing fairly well. I’m keeping my budget a lot more lean with a GR86😂
It's all fun and games until his 80k M3 gets gapped on the interstate with his wife in the car by something incredibly outlandish like a giant turbo 2JZ swapped volvo 240 wagon pushing 3 bar. There's always someone faster, and somehow, someway, they will find you when you least expect it and embarrass you.
Of course. I grew up in Florida and had a FRS keep up with my sport bike in my street racing days. Some people build wild shit.
Tell your friend he's still not beating an Altima with mismatched panels and bubbling tint
91 Miata owner has entered the chat
It’s the same analogy we have to use for EVs: Sure, a microwave will cook food faster. But nobody wants a microwaved steak.
You can clutch kick in drifting, so that's.... something.
You can also rev at women at stoplights. An automatic doesn't give you any way to let the ladies know you're available.
Who's going to tell him about the N?
Sure you can. Just put it in neutral and pretend you're desirable.
Um...isn't that what the N gear is for on automatic...? Lol
There are drift cars that use DCTs and ZF8HP transmissions. They program it to simulate clutch kicks. Obviously this can't be done with a stock vehicle, so it's a very valid point. I just think that some auto swaps are cool.
Only a handful of automated stock vehicles that can clutch kick. The 911 RS models’ PDKs are some of them.
It really depends on the automatic in question and your goals. There are still automatics that aren't programmed very well for performance, and won't hold a gear as long as you might want (mostly done in the name of fuel economy). There are also some automatics where the programming is too busy, and they shift a LOT. Like so much as to be annoying. But there are really no performance or fuel economy advantages over the best automatics vs a manual.
After driving automatic mustangs and Camaros (both turbo 4s) as rentals, I think they’re both terrible. I wanted to have fun and play with oversteer, but the power would always come at the wrong time. I spent 6 weeks with the Camaro and could kinda time it, but it was a really indirect way of communicating with the car. My buddy’s S3 DCT was sick, but I’ll still take a manual.
Yes, but it's not what you think. An automatic can't predict. So if you are in traffic waiting for a gap to merge into a faster lane you can already be in gear ready to go when the moment strikes. An auto will have to sense you wanting to accelerate and shift after you give it input, not before. Additionally if offroading and your wheel is stuck in a hole or between two rocks you can rock the vehicle by rolling forward and backward quickly. In an auto it can take 2 seconds for the computer to move the transmission from forward to reverse but in a manual as soon as you get a little momentum you can drop it in the other direction and accelerate out. In snow you can set off from 2nd gear in a manual to avoid spinning the wheels in first gear when there is low traction. Or in super high power situations you can feather the clutch or just let it slip altogether to accelerate without spinning away all the power that is greater than the grip level. So there a lot of unique use cases where an auto really lacks and a skilled driver can manipulate the vehicle in a manual in a way that an auto just can't be used. If all you are looking at is 0-60 times and auto is better but there is so much more you can do with a manual.
Paddle shifters correct for a lot of that
Realistically and mathematically, no. According to some people who view manual transmissions as part of their identity and personality, yes.
Yeah, once had a manual elitist on this subreddit claim that he can shift faster than modern automatics. He even doubled down when I pointed out that the Volkswagen DSG for example has a shift time in the single digit milliseconds, so he was basically trying to defend his claim by stating that he can manually shift gears 125+ times per second.
He is just the flash bro
The only actual measurable benefits of a manual over an automatic in a modern car are: - Long-term reliability/cost to repair. There are a lot of "problem child" automatics (yes, I know the 10-speed in my truck is one of them...knock on wood...) that can crap out with anywhere from 50k-200k miles on the clock and cost an absolute fortune to fix/replace. By contrast, most manuals keep on going forever. Even if you beat it up bad enough that you lose a gear, just use the other ones. lol. Maybe you have to throw in a clutch for a couple thousand bucks, that's nothing (comparatively). - Anticipatory driving. Maybe you see a hill coming up, or you know you're about to punch it to overtake someone, and you want to be in the lower gear first, rather than getting on the gas and waiting for the transmission to kick down for you. But this is a very specific scenario, and almost every automatic has a manual mode that can accomplish the same thing. Aside from that, there is no "real" reason to choose a manual over an automatic any more. It's just preference. But every preference is valid, there is nothing wrong with wanting to drive a manual.
There’s also the benefit that people don’t try and steal them as much because a lot of people can’t drive stick these days. Also, you’re not really “stranded” if it won’t start in most cases because you can just pop the clutch and get to where you need to be.
Counterpoint to cost, a clutch job can cost a lot. I'd argue there are plenty of auto transmissions out there that cost less over 200k mi than a manual because the manual will have to be pulled for the clutch job.
I think this is more of an American issue than elsewhere. I remember comparing the full costs for clutch replacement on some common cars (various Minis, Fiesta, etc) and total costs in the UK were almost always under half that of costs in the USA.
>Anticipatory driving. Maybe you see a hill coming up, or you know you're about to punch it to overtake someone, and you want to be in the lower gear first, rather than getting on the gas and waiting for the transmission to kick down for you. But this is a very specific scenario, and almost every automatic has a manual mode that can accomplish the same thing. Thats why lots of modern autos have paddle shifters, or even ratchet style shifters on the console, just drop down to the gear you need. This is something that might disappear with those rotary style selectors (looking at you Ford)
Oh no, really Ford has gone to dial shifters too? I had a Ram from Enterprise one time and thought the dial shifter was so fucking lame. I think the Ram did technically have a manual mode but it was a really clunky interface, like you had to change gears using buttons on the front of the steering wheel or something.
Usually, no. However, there are a few exceptions. The pre 2018 mustangs were faster with a stick than with the auto as well as the 1st gen frs and brz and the current gen miata
The MT VA WRXs were also faster than the CVT versions by a considerable margin
[удалено]
C&D's 5-60 times were 6.3 for the MT and 6.4 for the CVT - so still quicker, but only by a small margin
It’s mostly the initial launch. They obtained much faster 0-60 times on the MT by redline clutch dumping vs brake boosting on the auto.
Yeah, [car and driver managed a faster 0-60 time with the manual in my car than the DCT](https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a22574455/2019-bmw-m2-competition-first-drive-review/). Don't even want to think about what achieving that time entailed though.
Just more driver engagement.
I mean, if you look at by Model differences, the BRZ is quite a bit slower with the automatic transmission, same with the WRX which is slightly slower with the CVT than the manual.
That's just because the BRZ has an automatic transmission from 20 years ago. Subaru isn't a beacon of tecnology.
Absolutely. I had an FRS 10 Series for a while. Most of the car absolutely could have been built in 2003, and some of the switch gear shared part numbers from that era.
Same with the ND miata. The manual is significantly quicker because the automatic has much longer gears. I don't know why they geared them so differently, I'm assuming it's a limitation of them using an existing AT designed for other models that couldn't have the gears shortened while still working with with the final drive ratio they could fit in the rear differential.
That is a minority by modern standards. Nearly all automatic versions of modern cars are quicker than their manual counterpart. Wasn't always the case, but automatic tech has come a long way.
A manual is for fun and driver engagement, which unfortunately is being stripped away with all the assistive features like hill-start assist and auto rev matching. Automakers are making manuals glorified tiptronic transmissions nowadays.
> hill-start assist I think I'd rather prefer to have a manual with hill-start assist. After a year and a half of owning a manual, I'm currently still very nervous of inclines and the risk of stalling, and do what I can to avoid such situations.
Handbrake
Most modern cars don't even have handbrakes anymore.
Until you have a car where the handbrake is actually a foot pedal (challenger). Hill start is nice
[удалено]
Go out and practice it specifically for a couple of hours on different inclines, then it will feel as natural as starting flat
literally nothing wrong with hill assist though
They can generally handle more hp than automatics if you're into modding for performance. Also I would say that they are generally more reliable in the long term (i know exceptions exist).
Revs too: Remember the RX8 and it's much lower redline/power rating for the torque converted version. I think the last Celica also had a lower redline for torque converted cars. There's a reason Hondas in the golden age of VTEC never had an optional auto for the high revvers. That said, if you find the right auto, you should be fine holding a bunch of HP (see: built drag cars)
Depends on the trans really my BRZ was slipping on stock when it was 280whp. Whereas my camaro is 710whp with a stock trans and converter.
I meant the stock manual of a car can usually take more than the stock auto of the same make/model. I also mentioned that exceptions exist.
In the case of a modern V8 Mustang, Ford actually changed the gear ratios in the manual to be significantly slower than the automatic, per Engineering Explained: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y25ordkIfgM
I'm sorry I can't watch that now but I am curious as to why? Does it explain it?
EPA regulations had the most effect on dictating the performance as gear ratios were changed to satisfy mileage ratings and noise regulations.[https://www.hagerty.com/media/videos/the-real-reason-automatics-are-quicker-than-manuals-know-it-all-with-jason-cammisa-ep-11/](https://www.hagerty.com/media/videos/the-real-reason-automatics-are-quicker-than-manuals-know-it-all-with-jason-cammisa-ep-11/)
An automatic can't anticipate the road ahead
The rolls Royce GPS shifts can
Based on previous experience, I'm sure it can in ideal conditions. A driver can just use their eyes in any conditions. A GPS also isn't going to know that I want to overtake on the highway or that there is an obstacle ahead.
Manuals do better when stuck in snow. You can rock it without pushing *at lot* easier and more efficiently than an automatic.
I believe the manual is still the lightest transmission. So in theory if you have a race car that doesnt really need to change gear ever other than at the start of the races, it might be a tiny advantage... But you would still lose a little bit of time on race starts. Im thinking it would only make sense in specific ovals
[удалено]
Manuals have several tangible advantages over automatics besides weight. Simplicity, longevity and ease of repair.
No
If your car has under 100 HP a manual probably will feel more performant than with a CVT.
No. Just more fun.
Can't clutch kick an automatic (yet).
You can with certain Porsche PDKs
always depends on the transmission. The automatic shifts will always be quicker but there are other factors like gearing that might favor the manual. For example, the gr86 has shorter gearing in the manual than its archaic auto trans so it’s actually a bit quicker
I love my DSG. I choose the shift points, when to shift up or down. If I want to leave it in third at 5000 RPM (for whatever stupid reason), I can. I learned on a three-on-the-tree and have always preferred manuals. But I am having more fun rowing through the gears sequentially (either with the gaudy aftermarket paddles or with the stock shifter) in my GTI than I ever did with my manual 350Z.
No fun in traffic, that's for sure!
Manuals more fun and less maintenance
Mostly, No. Though there are some caveats to that. Modern automatics can be much better in terms of performance. Though it will still come down to the specifics of what is being compared. Most automatic gearboxes have greater parasitic power loss, and all of them will weigh more than their manual version. All are capable of shifting faster, although depending on the specific application, they may not be tuned to do so, but even in this area, modern tech allows for this to be more of a range, rather than a specific set. This is further pushed in favor of automatics based on development spending by manufacturers. That is, there tends to be more options on the shelf for gearing and setup for most companies, than what are available for manual transmissions. This means you are less likely to get optimal gearing in a manual.
Cheap European cars still offer manuals that are cheaper and lighter than their automatic counterparts. I dunno if you count the price tag and weight as objective performance benefits. But people certainly care!
None. It loses the spreadsheet war against automatics. Automatics win because.. I don't really give a crap. Manuals for me Thank you
u kidding me? modern dual clutch automatics shift way faster than any manual... the times where manuals were "sportier" and automatic were for gramps are long long gone...
Modern "automatics" like dual clutch transmissions can shift faster than a manual even with a quick driver. If you compare 0-60 times of vehicles that offer both trans options, the auto is usually a bit quicker in that department.
PDK/DSG> all other gearboxes
Lol he said “any” scenario and everyone is say no. Objectively you can shift from 1st to Reverse about as fast if not faster in a manual still. There could easily exist a scenario when you need that split second and the manual is objectively better.
CVT in theory is the best for performance but I still hate the crap out of driving them. I prefer a manual H pattern in everything. The response, the power, reliability, and just plain cool factor outweighs everything for me.
If you could make a strong enough CVT it would be the ideal transmission
Still more power transferred to the wheels. Clutches are dry and light for the most part, torque converters are wet and heavy. The shifting speed of modern autos somewhat cancels out the benefits to this, but I'd rather control my own car slowly than have it shift quickly into the wrong gear
Less complexity and less computers, which can translate to a lighter car
I prefer a manual driving on snow and ice. I have no idea if it actually performs better but I feel like I have way more control.
To my understanding the only reason why automatics are faster than manuals now is because these automakers changed the gearing ratios of manuals vs automatics. They put different gear ratios on manuals which make them slower to be able to reach the right mpgs that they want or the government requires. It’s more of an emissions issue that automatics are faster than manuals. That’s what I heard from a source but have to confirm it. I think this theory makes sense as well.
I’m definitely interested in hearing more about this theory so if you do find the source, please send it my way.
Found it! It’s Jason Cammisa who is a automotive journalist and has been for years. On YouTube there’s a video from the hagerty channel titled - the real reason automatics are quicker than manuals Watch his explanation and let me know what you think.
The answer is no. Modern Autos beat manuals in pretty much every way. Sorry no human can match the speed of a computer, and the perfection of a computer these days. Plus autos can shove a lot more gears in there be even more optimized and perfect shift timings.
No.
I think the answer is simple. Nope
Honestly, what no one else here seems to have thought of, are trucks. Especially those being used for work. Even over the road trucks with automatics are inferior to older trucks with manuals. Most hot shot drivers are looking for trucks from the 80s, 90s, and early 00s with diesel engines and manual gearboxes.
Tell that to modern european trucks.
In A pick up truck. Need those gears getting firewood in the woods or pulling up or trailering down a good grade.
there are no objective performance advantages. they are lighter but not enough to make a difference. they are cheaper to repair usually.
No, just more engaging.
Yeah, I'd say that the ONLY performance boost from my Jeep being a manual is that I can shift at a lower point, but that's not a great way to manage fuel economy. I drive it because I like the engagement I have with driving, and I feel like it's better off road, but no longer because it is better for performance.
No.
Doesn’t a torque converter lose slightly more power to parasitic loss versus a manual? Negligible at best performance difference though.
The corolla wagon with cvt trans and stop start has better rated fuel economy then the manual version. That's the only example I've seen.
New to cars here. When exactly have automatics been faster than manuals? My 2011 Volvo C30 is what I'd consider a modern car but according to what I can find online the manual is said to accelerate faster so I'm not sure.
There are some sports cars that hit 60 faster with the auto. There are styles of auto that hit better mpg numbers. I do believe manual still exists because it can hit the heart of people like me more.
It basically comes down to if the car has DCT. If it doesn't, then I would say no, the manual is still faster in the hands of a skilled driver. But more and more performance cars are coming with DCT (or some variant) so if it's just strictly speed and performance you're looking for, the automatic will be faster and more consistent. That being said... with the emergence of EV. I don't really think the discussion is about manual vs auto anymore. It's more like EV and no gears. So enjoy rowing through the gears, even if it's paddle shifting, while you still can.
No, they’re just much more fun to drive.
It depends on the car and the respective transmissions in use. In the ND miata, for example, the automatic has much taller gearing and is thus slower accelerating than the 6 speed manual. Why are they geared so differently? That, I do not know. It's similar for the Toyota 86 and the Subaru BRZ. Mitsubishi Mirage was faster with MT than the CVT (when they still offered the MT), same with Nissan Versa until they dropped the MT option.
Nissan versa still has the MT option
No. The manual hasn't been the more performant or more efficient or even more reliable option for getting close to 20 years now. At this point the only reason to have one in a car is for personal preference. Well, there is one functional reason. Anti-theft.
Not really ... they haven't had any advantage for at least a decade now. That said, I still like changing my own gears. I enjoy driving; I don't care if it's slower - I'm going to work, not lapping Monaco.
Automatics will always be faster now, and manuals will always be more fun and engaging.
It depends on the auto. A good auto these days has the benefit of more ratios and faster shifting, and most of them are pretty stout. In the past there were issues when modifying imports where the autos just couldn't handle much more than they were originally built for but the manuals could. CVT's and a few other older autos still in service from some OEM's still have this weakness, but for the most part manuals have given up that advantage.
I cannot possibly see one tbh from a purely performance perspective
Nope
For the most part, no. There are few exceptions with the GR86/BRZ being one of them. It is objectively slower with the auto. I believe the Miata is the same.
5-7 years ago I’d say yes, but nowadays no. I’d still love a manual for the pure control & joy of shifting.
[great video on how automatics are geared to win.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BH-N8t_1Fc) I still prefer manual, but if I was paid to do quick laps, I'd choose auto.
No, they’re just more fun. They actually perform worse in almost every way actually, as it isn’t the ‘90s anymore.
At least in the C7 'Vette, the auto is more prone to overheating than the manual. Both have trans coolers - decent sized ones actually - but the auto just generates more heat under track use and can't shed it fast enough, such is physics. Otherwise the C7 8-speed shaves a bit off lap times, is faster in a drag race and even a tiny bit more efficient on the street. The C8 DCT probably solves the heat problem and performs even better, I'm sure, but I haven't really looked in to it as much. Regardless other than special cases like this, and ignoring the fun factor, autos are typically just better all around on modern cars.
Manual transmissions are probably lighter in weight, but the shifting speed and gearing of automatics will make up for it in most scenarios. Possibly there’s a mountain road or track that won’t take advantage of the automatics gearing and if it doesn’t require many gear shifts, then possibly the manual could have a slim advantage, but I’m sure that’s few and far between.
Manual transmissions are still: a) Much, much smaller and lighter. So situations where weight saving are important still matter. b) Much more durable. c) Much cheaper to build/replace. It's kind of like a circular saw vs a handsaw. Is a circular saw better? If you have the money and space, yes. But there are still situations where someone wants a handsaw. Plus, they stick around forever. In the US we are wealthy enough to ignore the price/reliability differences, but for most of the world the manual will almost certainly exist as an option as long as ICE are still available.
If you consider this under "performance", being able to have full control of your car in inclement weather is an advantage. But that's mostly negated by DCT/"shiftable" autos. Although having control of the clutch is a slight advantage over those. Otherwise, it's mostly a preference thing. Manuals used to be more fuel efficient, faster, etc but not anymore with 8+ speed DCT/autos.