Will your next car will be an automatic? Is it possible?

[six]

The only automatic I would consider is a dual clutch, even then I'm sure I'll still miss the manual.

I feel like I'll get lazy and not use the "manual" mode and just let the computer shift for me more often than not. Yes, I'm lazy like that. I want shifting to be required, not optional. They should make a dual clutch auto that starts in "manual" mode every time you start the car!

Same here. If there comes a time where three-pedal manuals become extinct (GASP ), dual-clutch would be the only other kind of transmission I would consider. Automated manuals. PDK. DSG. E-gear. SMG. etc.

[tankinbeans]

That just reminds me of an episode of Roseanne where Jacque mentions that "[she] was so tired, [she] drove over in 2nd."

These days, a lot of viewers would have no idea what that means!

I have no idea who Roseanne or Jacque are, but it sounds like a person has a manual transmission and is too tired to shift so keeps it in 2nd gear all the time. (Episode suggests television, and I haven't watched television since 1989.)

You would be correct. It's pretty much a show about a working class family who struggled hard to make ends meet and the funny/sad moments therein. I find it funny, but not everybody does and that's okay. I guess it sort of mirrors my experience growing up (it helps that I was growing up pretty much at the same time 89-97).

[ClutchFork]

I guess really I don't mind driving a well-behaved automatic, but my personal vehicle has to be a manual.

[Shadow]

The only automatic I would consider is a dual clutch, even then I'm sure I'll still miss the manual.

I feel like I'll get lazy and not use the "manual" mode and just let the computer shift for me more often than not. Yes, I'm lazy like that. I want shifting to be required, not optional. They should make a dual clutch auto that starts in "manual" mode every time you start the car!

Same here. If there comes a time where three-pedal manuals become extinct (GASP ), dual-clutch would be the only other kind of transmission I would consider. Automated manuals. PDK. DSG. E-gear. SMG. etc.

So the next logical question: Since there will ALWAYS be used cars available with manual transmissions (at least in our lifetime), would you choose a new dual-clutch car over an older, used manual car?

[AHTOXA]

Loaded question. you're talking about an SMG/DSG type trans-equipped high performance lux sedan or an exotic like a Lambo or a Ferrarri vs, oh I don't know, a year old Corolla, there's no doubt which car I'd take.

But if we're talking about, say a 3-4 year old GTI vs. a brand new paddle shifted Corvette or an SS Camaro, I'd take the GTI.

[Stelcom66]

If I was in the market for a Subaru Outback in the 2005 - 2009 year range, I'll reluctantly admit I'd consider the automatic. In those years, the engine rpm at 65mph is around 3200 rpm. I've read reviews of desiring 'a 6th gear', or 'less engine noise at highway speeds'. The automatic is around 2650 rpm. I still don't understand why Subaru decided on that gearing. The engine certainly is capable of sustaining 65mph at lower rpms on slight inclines. The 2010 and newer model Outbacks with the 6 speed manual do keep the rpms much lower, I believe around 2000 rpm, while as usual the CVTs are even lower around 1800 rpm. The better fuel economy of both the standard and especially the automatic reflect the higher gearing. Even if the automatic is rated at slightly better fuel economy I would probably go for the standard shift. I've heard reports of some getting better fuel economy with a standard than the ratings by getting into a higher gear early. I'll sometimes do a 2nd to 4th gear shift with the Forester. Also as mentioned by others here, driving enjoyment is a factor.

[Shadow]

Loaded question. you're talking about an SMG/DSG type trans-equipped high performance lux sedan or an exotic like a Lambo or a Ferrarri vs, oh I don't know, a year old Corolla, there's no doubt which car I'd take.

But if we're talking about, say a 3-4 year old GTI vs. a brand new paddle shifted Corvette or an SS Camaro, I'd take the GTI.

Well, I meant cars that are somewhat comparable. But still, I think there are people on this forum who would rather shift an old Corolla instead of paddling shifting a new Corvette. Hardcore stick drivers for sure

[ClutchDisc]

But still, I think there are people on this forum who would rather shift an old Corolla instead of paddling shifting a new Corvette. Hardcore stick drivers for sure

That's me for sure!

[comingbackdown]

The only way that could happen is in InlinePaul's situation, if I somehow got my left leg cut off, then maybe I'd consider an automatic.

I think there was something on this forum several years ago where someone injured their left leg and pushed the clutch with a baseball bat. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

As I recall, it was GarySheehan, and he boogered his leg up before driving home. Bimmer, as I recall. I recall it being a humorous and eyebrow raising tale.

The only autos I've ever really had any fun driving are: My second vehicle, the new family heirloom. Kelly's old Spirit (that thing was a blast to slam through corners) and my mother's Fusion. Holy shit that thing gets up and goes! It's a damn four popper but the gearing would nearly allow it to keep up with my V6. That ain't right!

[ClutchFork]

Just bought another automatic, a 1997 Ford Escort wagon with 2.0 L and 4 speed OD transaxle. It has all of 36,000 original miles, new tires, new front brakes, tune up including plugs and wires, and no rust. This will be the family spare car, after the 1999 Plymouth Voyager. Both have manual windows and locks. Nice! Now to get rid of a couple of my other cars. Right now my driveway has:

2000 Chevy 454 V8 Motorhome (auto)
2005 Mercury Mountaineer 4.0 V6 auto (going up for sale)
1999 Plymouth Voyager 2.4 3 speed auto
1997 Ford Escort Wagon 2.0 L 4 speed auto
2001 Chevy S10 5 speed manual (ClutchDisc's)
2001 Ford Ranger 5 speec manual (mine)
and absent but owned is a 1992 Ford Aerostar 3.0 4 speed auto (soon to be given away)

[tankinbeans]

BIG BLOB OF OFF-TOPICness

That Aerostar has to be a slug with the 3.0. Mine with the 4.0 wasn't going anywhere very quickly and that had a whopping 161 hp.

Since your truck and ClutchDisc's were direct competitors and are the same age, which do you prefer? Is one better than the other?

The only similar comparison I can almost claim is to understand the difference between my Blazer, 98 4.3 4AT, and my friend's Ranger, 97 2.3 5MT. That's really a case of apples to oranges; SUV trucklet to truck with box, I4 to V6, 4x2 to 4x4, 2700 pounds to 4000 pounds.

I can say that my friend's, less powerful than yours, if I'm remembering your link from long ago regarding the power bump post '00, is a slug without a proper exhaust. Mine seems relatively spritely even though it only has 190 hp and a minor exhaust leak.

[ClutchFork]

Aerostar 3.0 is definitely a slug, but it is also bulletproof. It sucks fuel at 17 mpg and to move out hard you sometimes have to wind it out pretty good, it will 1-2 shift with the pedal matted around 5700 rpm!

I have not driven the S10 much, but will say that it is a very nice truck and I almost wish I had gotten an S10 instead of the ranger. I think it is about 20 hp and 20 torque less than the Ranger but seems to have a little more of it's power band in the bottom end, where the Ranger has a very weak pull right off of idle. The S10 drives beautifully and shifts beautifully. The Ranger is sprung a lot stiffer and so bouncier, where his S10 is softer springs and sits lower. I like that the Chevy has a real oil pressure gauge, not the deceptive dummy gauge of Fords for the past 20+ years. While the Ranger's 2.3L DOHC 16-valve is pretty neat, I still like the old school pushrod engine of the S10. Well, he has said that when he sells it I get first crack at buying it. He should also be aware that I am going to give him more for it than he will get from anyone else.

190 hp is pretty decent power for your Blazer, but that 4.3 sucks fuel. Still, our 2005 OHC 4.0 Mountaineer has 220 hp.

The DOHC 16 Valve came in in mid 2001 for the Ranger (same engine design as in the Focus) and they boosted the power some in I think 2004 with a better cam profile, better exhaust and intake refinements, etc.

I always felt that opening up the exhaust was the first and best mod. That end is usually more restrictive because they try to make them very quiet.

[tankinbeans]

It sucks fuel at 17 mpg...

I was lucky to get 10 in Betty, and this was back in 05 when fuel prices started their climb. I ditched her in favor of a 93 Escort that got an easy 25 mpg (which was really good for me). To this day I still miss Al. He had a stroke when I lent him to my brother. I lost 1st and reverse on the same day, so I drove him to the junkyard smelling some reaking a$$ transmission fluid.

He had a leak in the transmission somewhere, but the previous owner thought it was an oil leak. I was a 17 year old kid who only know the basics and didn't know where to check. I'd taken the seller at his word and kept oil in the car. I couldn't get mad though because I'd only paid $400 for the car and it lasted me about 7 months.

190 hp is pretty decent power for your Blazer, but that 4.3 sucks fuel...

Werd. I average around 13, but I chalk that up to the fact that it's mostly a suburban runabout and I don't have occasion to take it on longer trips. Afterall that's what Clifford is for.

I've said it before and will say it again, Olie has the most dimwitted transmission ever. He'll cycle between 3rd, high revving, and 4th, just above idle, going up an down hills. I'm almost wondering if I should shunt him into 3rd so he'll hold a gear and not get stupid whenever I come to hills.

I always felt that opening up the exhaust was the first and best mod.

Isn't a certain amount of back pressure necessary for proper propulsion? I don't think his has any, or if he does it's very little. I think all of the cats have been lopped off, as well as the muffler.

[ClutchFork]

I had a '64 Dodge Dart that I blew out the tranny seal trying to spin the tires. Guy bought it for $75 and poured several quarts of ATF in it and drove off leaving a red trail.

The aerostar 3.0 had a dimwitted tranny would do a lot of flip flopping or downshift more gears that I wanted it to. It was not the strongest tranny but many fluid changes and use of syn especially Redline AFT after about 90,000 miles I think helped it live on. It has 165,000 miles and still going. Of course Ford added a tranny coolere in '92 which helped a lot too. Mine was 92.

Back pressure never helps says my Ford engineeer neighbor. What is needed is proper scavenging of the cylinder on the exhaust stroke and so to get that you need properly designed exhaust and cam, valves etc. Exhaust pipes contribute to scavenging and since back pressure is the easiest way to quiet an engine, I guess the manufacturers design all the components to work with the backpressure. But my Ford engineer neighbor also said that the Cat will give me enough back pressure that opening up the exhaust behind the cat should not adversely affect scavenging. If you have a super charger it becomes moot, except may still need scavenging at idle when the supercharger is not doing much.

[Stelcom66]

The aerostar 3.0 had a dimwitted tranny would do a lot of flip flopping or downshift more gears that I wanted it to. .

I had an '88 Aerostar with the 3.0 and 5 speed manual. That combination while rare provided acceptable acceleration and fuel economy if I recall correctly.

The other day I was next to a UPS truck. A lot of the time those are driven with the driver's door open in good weather - I could see it was an automatic. I then was next to a good sized dump truck, not one with a pickup truck cab, but a smaller version of an 18-wheeler. Don't know if it was a Mack or what - but I listened and heard it was an automatic! That was strange.

The weekend is here so I'm looking forward to driving a standard shift again.