There's little argument for manual transmission anymore except in larger vehicles. There used to be an efficiency gap, in that a good manual driver was more efficient than an automatic.
But two things have happened since then, we have computer controlled transmissions and CVTs.
Manual drivers were more efficient because they learned when the vehicle would need to shift, and shifted preemptively. A computer controlled automatic can also be aware of when to shift, and shift early, but much more precisely (since it isn't based on engine noise/judder, it is based on direct electrical feedback).
CVTs are more efficient yet again because you now have "infinite gears" and they're computer controlled.
I'd happily drive a CVT until the day I die, and I learned on a manual. The only thing I wish is that they had better "off the line" response (e.g. stopped at a light).
I think the most compelling argument surely, is that it's just more fun. You actually feel like you're driving, it makes it more of an active experience.
Recently sold a manual car I owned for about 12 years, upgraded to a newer car which is automatic (only because there was no option for manual). Man, I miss driving a manual!
Its absolutely more fun, and that's a pretty compelling argument.
And another one is I tell the car what I want to do. Sure it can try to figure it out, but it will never know exactly what I want to do. I can do something quicker than an automatic will know. For example, I'll know I need to be in a lower gear because I'm about to floor it. An automatic can't know that.
Both my cars are stick shifts, and I prefer them for both these reasons (because it's more fun and because you always control what gear you're in). That said, the better modern automatics (at least in sports cars) have true manual modes that will also let you be in complete control of the gear. (Including not automatically up-shifting at redline when in sport/track mode, which is a near necessity on some tracks, where an unwanted upshift will lose you significant time compared to riding the limiter for a few tenths.) So when the comparison is between a good, sporty automatic and a manual, the fun factor is really the only point for the manual. (Still a good point though!)
Maybe I'll try it in real life someday, but I've tried manual in some sim games (Richard Burns Rally and Assetto Corsa, racing wheel/pedals + oculus setup) and it wasn't more fun, it was just a distracting chore. And that's not even having to use a clutch pedal, which would make it even worse.
As another poster noted, racing simulators will never be able to do anything close to replicating the experience of driving a manual. In an actual car, there's a constant physical feedback throughout the entire vehicle, from the vibration of the pedal to the sound of the engine to the acceleration from releasing the clutch, none of which can be effectively simulated. It's easy to tell you're much more directly connected to the road and in control of your vehicle in a manual than you would be in an automatic, where you have an impressive, but imperfect, software intermediary attempting to translate your actions into vehicular control.
I don't see any reason any of those couldn't be simulated. The sound of the engine and acceleration properties are already well-simulated and I'm pretty sure more expensive setups can do the vibration. All this plus a VR headset and the only thing missing is the g-forces.
I enjoy driving a manual because of how it feels to change gears. I don't think a racing Sim will ever be able to capture that feeling because you are only moving a joystick, not forcing a complex machine to change gears.
Doing it in a video game is nothing like in real life, where the car is shuddering and responding to your movements. No game captures it well at all, even the Gran Turismos and Assetto Corsas of the world.
It seems you fully consider cars to be an appliance.
Today, manual cars aren't about efficiency. Manuals are about driver engagement and the feeling of connectedness with the car and with the road. You can think. of it as more of a luxury than a necessity, and that is still a very valid argument for manual transmissions in road cars, especially those designed to be driver's cars.
And those should get an automatic. The person you're replying to was saying that people who actually enjoy the act of driving usually go for manuals because they're just so much more fun.
I've tried lots of autos and CVTs and still haven't found one that isn't terribly confused about what gearing I want. The worst is when you floor it and it thinks for two seconds before actually downshifting, it can be outright dangerous. And if you're in a powerful car an unexpected upshift that shifts the weight around in bizarre ways, cuts power, and kicks the traction control into overdrive while cornering is a pretty terrifying experience as well.
Some of the paddle shifters seem decent but I often like to change up where I grip the wheel on track days and on sharp turns in mountain driving, so I often can't choose my gearing at all with them.
I can see the appeal of the autos in high traffic tedious commuting situations where you're in some underpowered econobox, which is zero percent of my driving, so I'm sticking with a manual as long as I can keep finding them.
I used to think the same way. But, Mercedes have auto boxes absolutely nailed - and I say this as a car enthusiast from the UK, where most cars are still manual, and almost every car I've owned has been manual. My last car was an E350, and the transmission was amazingly good - every time I would have shifted, the car did it for me. I've a BMW now, and the gearbox is good... but it doesn't quite have the 6th sense that Mercedes have figured out.
I have an E350 and the transmission is very good. I do think you need to make the effort to learn how your transmission responds, no different to a manual really.
And for extra whizz while overtaking use the paddles to preempt the move by changing down a gear or two - exactly as I would in a manual.
I say this having owned numerous manual cars, including BMWs, gen 1 and gen 2 Minis and a ‘74 TR6.
Mind you it didn’t like driving over the Sierra Nevada last week. 9000 ft. saps a lot of power on a normally aspirated engine and it unbalanced the engine and transmission.
I have not driven any Mercedes in a looong time, I'll have to try that. I also live at 8000 feet and regularly drive up to 10000 feet so that might be part of why every transmission seems horribly confused. Some car makers don't seem to test for thin air at all.
Can you elaborate on this? I understand that engine combustion is affected, but how does that impact the transmission? Is the torque curve skewed? Are ambient air changes not compsensated by the O2 sensor? Or does the transmission oil change in viscosity or something?
I don't know the details about how different engines detect air flow and oxygen (and I doubt anyone outside of a few dozen engineers who work at the companies do) but some of the auto transmissions seem to randomly upshift and downshift for no discernable reason, even when not applying throttle at all.
Some brands are just known to throw sensor and airflow codes by mechanics up here, like Kia & GM, while others compensate fine, like VW & Subaru. I don't know how the engine software talks to the transmission software so it's hard to say how related they are.
I've been very happy with the Audi DSG. Absolutely no complaints. Though when I need to pass on a narrow road sometimes I use the paddle to downshift before I hit the gas just to save the car from the split second it takes to realize I'm serious about accelerating (when not in sport mode). But that's not a big difference in actual acceleration time.
I've had the same experience on my Audi 8-speed. When I want spirited driving, sport mode will tend to just be in the gear I want. Responsiveness in my car centers around turbo lag, not gear shifting.
I like the automatic cars that allow you to choose your gear using the stick. I have a 2010 Impreza, which has the god-awful 4EAT, but you can avoid a lot of the issues if you just downshift manually when you'd like to.
You know why automatics are sealed these days? They don't expect them to need service. Here in the U. S., I actually had to call around to find someone that would do a clutch. When I was a Firestone mechanic lo those twenty some years ago, we'd drop a tranny and throw clutch plates in all the time (book time paid more time than it took me to do it). Neither of the local Firestones would touch it when I called.
Point is, automatics are pretty sturdy these days, and there are fewer shops in the U. S. that will work on manuals anymore.
Most modern DCTs are wet clutch which should last more or less forever. Ford/Volvo's dry clutch DCTs probably still require regular clutch plate replacements. Torque converters pretty much last forever on infrequent fluid changes or the whole unit fails.
Ford's dry clutch DCT (used only in the Focus and Fiesta, all of the other Ford/Volvo models are wet clutch) is total junk and you're lucky if the clutch lasts more than 30k miles. They lost a class action lawsuit over it.
A lot depends on the transmission. In BMW land you can take apart the automatics and often get parts for them. The manuals rated higher for higher power (e.g. the Getrag 420G) you may be able to take it apart (even then you'll want specialized jigs), and you may be able to put it back together (with a monstrous press), but you still won't be able to find new parts for it.
Meanwhile you can take the automatics apart in your garage with few-to-no specialized tools.
They may be, but probably not enough so to offset what having a manual transmission does to the resale value of your car in the USA.
I'd be willing to go with a manual on a used car that I am paying cash for, but, if you buy a new manual and need to finance it, you'll likely be upside down on your loan for an uncomfortably long time.
I've heard part of the reason automatics caught on more in America is because Americans had more relative buying power, so manuals being a little bit cheaper wasn't a big deal. Same for better dryers, bigger houses, bigger cars.
Probably it's just the people writing here.
The hip generation that doesn't even need/have a car.
The uber callers where some low wage person does the driving for you.
Those who consider it some "man hobby from the last century".
It's funny how reasonable arguments drown with it too. This is the moment where you hear that American visitor in Europe abusing a rental car or not even getting one because he/she has no license for stick shift.
The up side is: with every year the theft protection aspects becomes more relevant ;)
There's no separate American license for standard shift. You can take your license exam in an automatic, then the next day go out and legally drive a manual car on the road.
But there is here in Germany.
I only learned about it because almost all of our US colleagues have it. Making them a pain in the ass on so many occasions.
Oh, if they've actually been licensed in Germany then it's a different story, I suppose. Very few countries will issue an unrestricted license if you test in an auto but the US will. When I first bought a six-speed Mazda I had only practiced driving manual for a weekend.
Well, the argument for it is the same as the argument for buying a turbo-charged car or a pickup that never hauls anything or whatever else people buy that isn't truly "necessary:" some people enjoy driving it.
I am not sure how in US but here in Czechia manual cars are considerably cheaper than automatic cars. I think many people drive manual for economic reasons.
That's partly a thing of volumes: the models that sell a lot go cheaper than models that need to be ordered specially for specific wishes. So, in the US, everyone assumes automatic and manual gearbox isn't any cheaper. In many European countries, manual shift is the norm and you paid a lot of extra for the rare luxury model with a weird transmission that eats a lot of fuel.
Nowadays, with DSG and other dual-clutch transmissions, the automatics have become more common also in Europe. I think my next car should be a Škoda Octavia with a diesel engine and DSG automatic.
Manual is still usually about $1000 less in cars where it's an option. Probably for this reason, economy cars are more likely to offer it than fancier ones.
I would think this pricing is more based on a commercial positioning decision than actual economics - the manual is cheapest, and it maybe has less options for other fancy accessories, so that there is a very cheap "prices begin at" option which few people actually want. The margins may be even smaller there because of the extra cost of specific models, but it makes sense to have these available because then the volume models can have a slightly higher sales price.
Previous articles I read on the topic said the majority of standard transmissions sold were in economy cars. If you're stretching to buy a new car $1000 counts.
They are rare in larger vehicles as well. Only Ram still makes a manual for their deisel heavy duty, and they detune the engine by 200 ft/lbs of torque. Automatics HD trucks do not disengage/spool down the turbo when shifting, which is important when you are pulling large loads up a hill.
I like that manual transmission cars can actually be started without any battery power (by getting them up to speed by pushing or downhill). I need that option far more often than I would like in my life.
But two things have happened since then, we have computer controlled transmissions and CVTs.
Manual drivers were more efficient because they learned when the vehicle would need to shift, and shifted preemptively. A computer controlled automatic can also be aware of when to shift, and shift early, but much more precisely (since it isn't based on engine noise/judder, it is based on direct electrical feedback).
CVTs are more efficient yet again because you now have "infinite gears" and they're computer controlled.
I'd happily drive a CVT until the day I die, and I learned on a manual. The only thing I wish is that they had better "off the line" response (e.g. stopped at a light).