My dealer did advise me not to rev over 5k during the first 1200 miles. And the car is in break-in mode anyway so it's protecting itself.

 

all the engines go through a lot harsher "break in" at manufacturers when they are built, i wouldn't worry too much about brake in these days

in terms of efficiency and ultimate performance, auto is ahead of manual since years ago. but in terms of fun? manual any day

 

i understand what you're trying to say but this is actually incorrect. when flowing through a wire electrons in fact travel quite slowly, less than a millimeter per second in most cases. the wire however is full of electrons so an input at one end can almost immediately be received at the other, much like if a hose is full of water and someone turns the water on. electrons "do" technically have a measurable mass, therefore by definition it is impossible for them to travel at true light speed.

how about that, a quantum physics lesson in a thread about clutch pedals lol...

 

For everyday commute, I prefer auto. There is not much fun to be had with manual transmission if you're sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic.

 

The real difference, though, is that production tolerances today for engines are so much closer.

 

No problem. We're in a thread that compares manuals and automatics/automanuals, and today's automatics are electronically-coltrolled.

 

My car has two pedals solely because BMW didn't make/source any manuals for the torque monster. If given a choice, I'll always have 3 pedals.

 

The bottom line is that any "debate" is purely an academic exercise. Car companies are not bringing back the manual transmissions--some exotic sports cars come with what is essentially an automatic with paddle shifters (which I'm assuming do not have to be used). The ship has sailed on the MT. I don't think it will ever be completely dead, but it will forever be a rarity going forward.

 

The ship has sailed is about the right descriptor. I was once a 3-pedal devotee, but while we all like to romanticize the idea of doing a little extra work to have more control of the vehicle, when it becomes arbitrary and no longer the efficient mode of operating the car it's an exercise in futility.

That said, I'm not opposed at all to driving small, lightweight economy cars where there are real cost savings and efficiency benefits to a manual gearbox, or on the increasingly slim amount of performance vehicles that actually offer one. But forcing yourself into a manual gearbox on a commuter car for the sake of perceived "driving fun" with no speed or fuel economy benefits (like the old IS250 manual) I find completely pointless. It's like making yourself work harder for less.

I'd drive a rental in a manual if the roads in where I am traveling are favorable to it (long windy coastlines), but I'd never own one again, unless I can afford to fund a 3 car garage.

 

With all due respect, this does not explain why manually shifting a normal automatic transmission (i.e. a transmission based upon a torque converter and planetary gearset(s) or "slushbox") takes so long to respond, even if they do come with paddle shifters or some other type of manual-shift gate or mechanism: manually request a gear change via a paddle or the manual gate, and it takes a measurable (slow) amount of time before the transmission responds.

The majority of automatic transmissions, especially the newest electronically-controlled 8-, 9- and 10-speed units are these types of transmissions with planetary gearsets.

 

If the transmission is set up correctly for sport-type driving, shifts can be almost lightning-quick. I remember test-driving a Hyundai Genesis Coupe (the couple, BTW, is a far different vehicle than the sedan...there is no comparison). The 1Gen Genesis Coupe, IMO, was just stunning as a Drivers' Car...especially the 3.8 Track version I drove. Not only did the power steering and brakes feel like something right out of a BMW 335, but the paddle-shift transmission responded as quickly as I could physically flick the paddle itself...there was basically zero lag. Compare that to, say, a Buick, where the transmission is set up for comfort and smoothness, and shifts are mostly just mushiness and slipping to get that smoothness.

 

when was the last time we see a mass production car that fails because the owner didn't "break in" the drivetrain correctly?

key: mass production car

 

You of course miss the point. You said manu-matics offer the same total control over the transmission and that is not correct. The computer won't give the driver total control, they have total control with a manual.

To to people who would be interested in a manual, that total control and knowing that the car running depends on you making proper shifts is part of the experience.

its like skydiving in tandem vs on your own. Yeah, in tandem you pull the rip cord but if you don't pull it, the guy will. Your life is not really ever in your own hands. That experience is important to some people.

 

OK, I guess we will just disagree on that one. I found the Hyundai Genesis Coupe manu-matic, with shift-paddles, to be the closest thing I've ever seen to total driver-control. Of course, that was in the heavily sport-oriented Track version. Buicks, of course, are the exact opposite.....some of their transmissions take all day to shift.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think bitkahuna, just recently, experienced a sky-jump for the first time. I had a pilot's license (and Ground Instructor's) rating myself, but never had the guts to actually jump out of a plane LOL.

 

It might be "pretty close" but it's not the same, it's not total control. To a purist that's an issue.