Why the end of manual/shift stick needs to concern us !

I've run cars off the alternator alone without the battery hooked up. If newer cars can't do this anymore, it's just further evidence that they aren't so "advanced". More complicated=/=better. And I'll put a little wear on the clutch to avoid paying for a towtruck.

 

battery fails? Ive had that happen once in 40+ years...battery failure is driver error, you can tell when it's reaching the end of it's lifecycle at about 4-5 years...starter failure? Yeah I recall that happened about 40yrs ago too, stone age...rally I should get a horse no battery or starter issues there...

 

Well, driver error does occur. You forget and leave your lights on when it's foggy or something. And as far as I know, they haven't invented starters that never fail, either. Maybe you've been lucky. But just because you haven't died yet doesn't mean life insurance is a bad idea.

 

If the car does continue to run, SEVERE electrical damage can occur if you try to run the vehicle without the battery.

 

yep says the man locked away in a time warp for 20 yrs...times change, (*)(*)(*)(*)te happens....I'll take Formula One racing knowledge of transmissions over yours

2014 VW GTI 4cyl,2.0L, Auto(Am-S6). Premium fuel, city 24mpg, combined 27mpg, highway 32mpg
2014 VW GTI 4cyl, 2.0L, Manual 6-speed,Premium fuel, city 21mpg, combined 25mpg, highway 31mpg.


With the 2014 Ford Focus, it's the six-speed automatic version that performs better, getting 31 mpg combined (27 city/37 highway). (If you spring for the Super Fuel Economy option package, which also uses the six-speed automatic transmission, fuel economy rises to 33 mpg combined [28 city/40 highway].) A Focus with a conventional manual transmission can't match the automatics. It gets 30 mpg combined (26 city/36 highway).

There are other examples as well. For the 2014 Versa, Nissan actually offers three transmissions: a five-speed manual, a four-speed automatic and a continuously variable transmission (CVT). The manual and automatic get the same combined fuel economy (30 mpg), but the CVT blows both of them away with 35 mpg. And it's not just economy cars where you can find this trend: A 2013 BMW 328i sedan will get the same combined fuel economy (26 mpg) whether you opt for the manual or automatic transmission.


even the high performance auto manufacturers Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Jaguar, are transitioning to auto, why? because they're better...but you apparently know better so have fun with your one ton dodge diesel , I prefer living/driving in the 21st century...

the end of days is coming for manual transmissions

 

push start with human power or another vehicle? ...pushing with another vehicle is rather hard on the bodywork...even human power can damage some of softer bodywork on today's cars...

 

I always carry booster cables in my vehicles, I've never used them for my vehicles its always been for someone else who didn't pay attention to their battery or left their lights on...I can't remember when the last time I saw someone get a push start, that would be many decades ago...

 

You're the one running your mouth about transmissions. You put any one ton diesel with a automatic, and I'll leave them behind as well.

 

LOL, thanks, but your answer still didn't tell me what a column shift is - never mind, I Googled it - what a bizarre arrangement! Like I said, I have driven many of my uncles vintage cars, from a 1930's Bentley to 1960's Alfa Romeos, and never saw anything like this -



And is that supposed to be a dashboard - where are the instruments?

 

www.fuelly.com
Real world mileage 2500 diesel rams with manuals do no better than autos....

 

sorry I thought you were joking...I assumed if you were familiar with old cars you had to have driven a column shift...not much for instruments in those days, speedometer, temperature, fuel and optional clock that never worked...floor shift was huge improvement over column shift... simple, primitive, crap but nostalgic for some people, all right as a toy but no comparison to today's cars...even 60s muscle cars are no match for todays cars...

 

I had a 64 chevelle, It had an automatic, awesome!...great in deep snow...

 

Manual transmission's only benefit is racing, and that is a danger to motorists on public roads.

 

LOL, no I wasn't joking - I never heard of a 'column shift'. The old cars I have driven were all European or British - things like Aston Martin, Alfa Romeo, Austin-Healy, Bentley, Ferrari, Jaguar, MG, Rover, and Triumph. None of those had a column shift, I think maybe that was a peculiarly American thing. But now I'm curious, what was the logic behind the column shift? Like it seems to be a more complicated way of going about a less efficient method of changing gears.

And actually, European and British cars had quite a lot of instruments in those days - that's why I commented.

 

Autos are getting better, CVT's are useless for towing.

Manuals are still cheaper to buy and cheaper to work on.

That will never change.

 

excellent question I have no idea, maybe just divergent auto evolution...column shift was a stupid method, lots of extra linkage to the transmission that had to adjusted just right in order for the tranny to shift smoothly...the more direct floor stick/ shift was a far simpler arrangement...I also owned a 67? dodge pickup with a dash mounted shift(automatic)...

simple/crude worked, and it was inexpensive...back then british cars here had a bad reputation for unreliable electricals...

 

Thats no longer always true either...

 

Show me one car that has an equal MSRP with the auto and standard tranny with identical options installed.

Doesn't exist.

 

Problem doens't exist here since our standard has always been manual shiftgear lolz. Anyway there is auto and auto: modern double clutch 7 speed auto gear is very fast and doesn't eat up very much on gas consumption, old 4-5 auto transmission are slow and i like the manual stick better instead. Your standard american 4 gear auto for example, sucks quite a lot compared to our new technology in auto transmission, and eats up to 20% on gas cons.

 

diesels have more low end torque it's mostly in the gear box. They are built that way because they are used to tow lots of weight. Hell I saw trucks that had 13 speed gear boxes. A truck ment to pull a lot of weight will have better off of the line. But they certainly aren't drag racers.

But I have a friend that rides hourses she will race Ferraris in a t
tenth mile and beat them every time. It's all about the race.

I saw people racing big Kenworth trucks against gasoline cars in tenth mile drags and they beat the fastest cars every time. Quarter mile thoughbelongs to gasoline.

 

agreed and transmissions for diesels were most often manual because they could handle torque...but that's changing autos are taking over thete as well...

I think electric will replace gas in the 1/4...instant power...

 

electric cars can certainly out drive gasoline cars but I think the battery and charging technology has to come a long way for them to reclaim their throne.

 

Electric will never compete with gas. They are not designed to. Just like a trolling motor and outboard on a boat. They might TECHNICALLY do the same thing (propelling the boat through the water) they are not designed to compete with each other. Electric motors develop full power and torque and all speeds, including very very slow. Gas engines develop power at high rpm so that low speed grunt from electric motors is good for some stuff, but not to compete with gas.

People have to realize, not ONLY are electric motors and batteries making headway, but gas engines are too. Electrics consistently stay 3 steps behind. A Prius could compete with a geo Metro, but couldn't hold a candle to a 2014 Fiesta 1.0 Ecoboost.

 

Sex change antiques expert attacked