Opinion: The long overdue death of the stick shift car

[peterp1]

Every vehicle I've ever had, regardless of transmission, had a one-rpm drone on the highway. Set the cruise to 70 and it basically does what it does unless its enough of a hill to force a down-shift.

Also this is why I lost my taste for loud exhaust years ago.

Except in the case of a really loud exhaust (and poorly tuned with the noise peak at the wrong RPM), I haven't experienced a drone on the highway. That's because the engine is under minimal load at steady state speed (and other outside noises at highway speeds (e.g. wind, tire, etc) drown that out anyway). It's a very different scenario during acceleration in stop and go traffic, where the engine is constantly under load while accelerating from each stop sign/light, and is far noisier droning at a fixed RPM. That noise is more prominent in stop and go because the outside noises (wind, tire, road, etc) are largely non-existent when pulling away from stop signs or traffic lights.

The CVT I drove was just like every other car at steady state on the highway. Driving in stop-and-go traffic with CVT was noisy with the engine under load as it accelerates from each stop and it was a constant drone (not crazy loud in a stock/new Honda, but still annoying and not pleasant). Accelerating on the highway in the CVT (rather than steady state), say from 60 to 70, was noisy and very sluggish compared to a conventional multi-speed automatic.

Just curious if you have you driven a CVT? I think there was one post on this thread from somebody saying it was okay, but the rest of the posts on CVT experience were pretty negative.

There is no question CVT maintaining optimal RPM should be superior on paper -- haven't seen that borne out in real life. One reason they drive poorly is that the optimal RPM for fuel efficiency is often very far from the optimal RPM for power -- so it drones all the time under load, but also feels weak on acceleration because it if fixed at the efficiency RPM. That matches my experience in the car.

 

[GChief]

We like our 2014 Juke with a CVT and 170ish k miles.

I am a gearhead and do not see what all the whining is about

But to each their own

 

[peterp1]

We like our 2014 Juke with a CVT and 170ish k miles.

I am a geared and do not see what all the whining is about

But to each their own

Yes, because you like everything.

 

[peterp1]

View attachment 3167105

I like my "stick shift" car.

Nice! Looks like a 2.7 liter (74-77)? Not a Sportomatic I take it

 

[GChief]

Yes, because you like everything.

No I am the polar opposite of a negative Nancy. I take designs for what they are. Nothing wrong with driving our Juke, it's just like the centrifugal clutch on my old Briggs and Stratton mini bike and go carts

 

[GChief]

View attachment 3167105

I like my "stick shift" car.

A Singer should probably be my post in the dream car thread. But I think they only do 964 chassis.

 

[DPotts245]

I'll stick (pun intended) to my 94 Jeep 5sp manual.

If I'm feeling lazy I have my slightly newer Grocerygetter. It's an automatic.

 

[peterp1]

No I am the polar opposite of a negative Nancy. I take designs for what they are. Nothing wrong with driving our Juke, it's just like the centrifugal clutch on my old Briggs and Stratton mini bike and go carts

I mean this very constructively, but you are habitually positive to a fault in my opinion. If a design has downsides, you should state the downsides (along with any upsides), instead of just pretending like no downsides don't exist. You very frequently share overly optimistic views, ignoring any negatives, to paint others acknowledging those downsides as "Negative Nancies". We don't need "negative nancy" posts, nor do we need "positive whatever" posts, everyone should state the good and the bad of their experiences. To mention only the good, and ignore the bad, is to provide inaccurate information.

I agree the CVT feels like a Briggs & Stratton. I think most people would call this a "downside" -- and most have higher aspirations for the way their cars drive versus a lawn mower engine on a go kart. You can be fine with it, but should state the situation more transparently. In your shoes, I would have phrased it something like this: "It drives like a Briggs & Stratton, but I'm fine with it".

There is legitimate value in complaing about issues. In the case of BMW raising their own production costs by fitting every car with heated seats, and then charing a monthly fee to use heated seats, it was customer complaints that made that go away.

 

[GChief]

I mean this very constructively, but you are habitually positive to a fault in my opinion. If a design has downsides, you should state the downsides (along with any upsides), instead of just pretending like no downsides don't exist. You very frequently share overly optimistic views, ignoring any negatives, to paint others acknowledging those downsides as "Negative Nancies". We don't need "negative nancy" posts, nor do we need "positive whatever" posts, everyone should state the good and the bad of their experiences. To mention only the good, and ignore the bad, is to provide inaccurate information.

I agree the CVT feels like a Briggs & Stratton. I think most people would call this a "downside" -- and most have higher aspirations for the way their cars drive versus a lawn mower engine on a go kart. You can be fine with it, but should state the situation more transparently. In your shoes, I would have phrased it something like this: "It drives like a Briggs & Stratton, but I'm fine with it".

There is legitimate value in complaing about issues. In the case of BMW raising their own production costs by fitting every car with heated seats, and then charing a monthly fee to use heated seats, it was customer complaints that made that go away.

Sorry I do not see CVTs as a downside after living with one for 10yrs and 170k miles

Would I like it in a sports car, no, but this is a funky looking little run about.

 

[Pio1980]

All my motorbikes have been manuals, never tried a Hondamatic model. I do occasionally lose count of which gear I'm in.

 

[Pio1980]

Sorry I do not see CVTs as a downside after living with one for 10yrs and 170k miles

Would I like it in a sports car, no, but this is a funky looking little run about.

If the OP diesels a la Comer return, further developed, I'd expect them coupled thru CVT.

 

[oldflame]

Those with cars that have automatic gearboxes probably are unaware of this.
Starting a car with a stick shift. It's best to depress the clutch first. This means it takes less effort from the starter motor to turn the engine over and less of a drain on the battery.

We were victims of the mass layoffs of the mid 80's. For about two months we couldn't afford to buy a starter that I could have installed myself. During that time we parked on the sloped part of our driveway and always had to find a steep enough incline when parking elsewhere. Yup, had to let the car roll with enough speed to let the clutch out and start the car.

 

[Doghouse]

We were victims of the mass layoffs of the mid 80's. For about two months we couldn't afford to buy a starter that I could have installed myself. During that time we parked on the sloped part of our driveway and always had to find a steep enough incline when parking elsewhere. Yup, had to let the car roll with enough speed to let the clutch out and start the car.

You were a victim of progress.
In 1958 when I was seventeen I had a 1937 Austin Seven Ruby convertible.
Like most pre-war cars, it had an electric starter motor and a starting handle. I often used the handle to start it, as it saved the rather weak battery. It always started with just one turn.

 

[peterp1]

Sorry I do not see CVTs as a downside after living with one for 10yrs and 170k miles

Would I like it in a sports car, no, but this is a funky looking little run about.

Yes, but there is a huge difference between "not seeing CVT's as a downside" and the absolute fact that CVT transmissions (like every individual transmission type) have "downsides".

You are essentially using that vague statement that CVT's have value, as a category (which I agree with) -- to exclude any criticsm -- while ignoring the obvious downsides that you yourself see with them. It's just a tap dance of comments from you to spin a rose-colored vague view, to avoid any of the negatives you see yourself, and to label any negative comments from anyone else as unjustified.

If you're going to voice an opinion on something, say "this is what I like, and this is what I dislike". Every design has positives and negatives -- to leave out either is a disservice to everyone (it is inaccurate by ommision).

 

[GChief]

 

[peterp1]

Yes sir, 76.

I had a 1974 911s back in the day. The 2.7 engine has great power delivery once it is sorted. Mine had a Blaupunkt cassette with a microphone that pulled out of the dash. I never tried it, but it was a funky/cool feature I hadn't seen before or since. Sadly, I don't have pic of the radio/mic.

 

[GordonW]

The c1 corvette was conceived by Harley Earl (GM styling exec) as a low cost competitor to 2 seat European sports cars roadsters such as Jag, alfa, etc that guys coming back from Europe were importing after the war. They had gotten a taste of better handling, small bodied roadsters and they liked it. Harley Earl wanted a slice of that pie.

Consequently, it was largely built using production parts. The I6 was chosen because they could hop it up to 150 hp and most of the “hot” european rodstera came with I6’s. People scoff at the I6, but its a design that makes prodigious torque at low rpms, which is what you want in a car meant to handle and drive hard out of corners. The corvette version made 220-225 ft/lbs and that is a lot of “grunt” for back then. It also torque peaked at 2000 rpm, which is nice and low for digging out of a corner or from a start. Keep in mind: the C1 was meant to compete with European cars, which were more focused on handling than outright hp.

At that time, GM didn’t have an “off the shelf” manual that could handle the 150 hp of the I6, so it got the more robust 2 speed powerglide. The powerglide is quite a strong transmission and as another plus (for gm), the “blue flame” I6 already had a poweglife that bolted up to it in the truck lines.

Keep in mind, the 2 speed powerglide was the choice of drag racers for decades aftet the 50’s. That was for both its strength and the fact that it only shifted once down the 1/4.

Also keep in mind we’re talking 1953 here. Which means designing it in 51/52. We’re spoiled these days with the power that can be extracted from an engine and the powertrain behind it that can handle it. These days, want more hp? Just turn up the wick on the FI. Not the same back in 53. It took serious engineering work to gain even 20 hp…

In 1953, 150 hp in a small, light body was nothing to sneeze at…although the cars performance wasn’t received as “powerful” as it had gained weight since the concept car was revealed and using “already in production” parts didn’t help it in the weight, handling or performance areas either. It looked cool enough, but the handling was hampered by production parts and power was received as “lackluster” because it had to deal with the weight the car had gained.

The 53 Corvette was rushed to market and done as cheaply as they could, to see how it would sell as much as anything else. Keep in mind NA automakers were selling road going battleships in the early 50’s and this car was a radical departure for them. They didn’t want to put much money into it until they knew it would sell, hence, no specifically designed manual trans for the uprated blue flame hp. That would have cost too much. Not to the customer, to GM.

Every design has to start somewhere, the vette started with an I6 and 2 speed auto because thats what they had available at the time to get the car out the door as quickly as possible and as low priced as they could.

Simple as that.

I can vouch for the early GM manual transmissions, not being able to handle a beefed-up engine.

Dad had a '56 Chevy 210, with a modified 261 (truck) 6-cylinder engine in it. 90 thousandths of an inch milled from the head (probably close to 10:1 compression ratio), with C1 Corvette cam, exhaust and intake manifolds on it.

Almost instantly destroyed the factory '56 210's 3-speed gearbox.

Someone said to get an early Lincoln 4-speed (apparently that was the hot ticket for the flathead guys). Didn't even make it through the first launch. Parts all over the road.

He finally went back to the original GM truck 3-speed the engine came with- and managed to adapt a Borg-Warner overdrive to the back, for a fourth gear. That lived.

It would handily outrun all the local Fords- even the Y-blocks.

Regards,
Gordon.

 

[GordonW]

A question for all the "Sticksters" here: When do you put the transmission into neutral rather than holding the clutch pedal down? For us, if we anticipate that the clutch pedal will have to be depressed for more than ~10 seconds, into neutral it goes. Since my first stick, in 1967, none of my cars needed a clutch or throw-out bearing replaced. I've probably just been lucky because I've had some driving fun along the way.

Yep, that's about what I do. Clutches tend to live around 150K miles or more, for me, even in suburban traffic.

Regards,
Gordon.

 

[GordonW]

Those with cars that have automatic gearboxes probably are unaware of this.
Starting a car with a stick shift. It's best to depress the clutch first. This means it takes less effort from the starter motor to turn the engine over and less of a drain on the battery.

Most stick-shift cars REQUIRE the clutch be pressed, before the starter will engage. This is a safety measure, to prevent a car from "running away" when started in gear.

I've seen that happen.

Idiots in the 1990s, would put remote start on manual transmission cars. Naturally, they had to defeat the clutch lock-out.

At the car stereo shop I worked at, we would not install remote start on any manual transmission vehicle. But, some weren't that scrupulous. Had one customer that had a remote start put onto his truck by another shop- he came by to gloat to us about it. Hit the button- it started up in gear, and drove out of the parking lot on its own, down an embankment, and wound up at the bottom of a muddy ditch. Cost him $500 to get it towed out, and about $4000 in body shop repairs.

If we ever had a question in our own minds about whether we should be adamant about NOT putting remote start on manual cars- that cinched it, forever.

Regards,
Gordon.

 

[slater529]

I finally got my beloved '92 BMW out on the road today! It's been parked since last October... bad clutch slave cylinder. I had been avoiding the repair all winter - too damn cold on that garage floor! Anyway, it was great to get her out again. I LOVE the 5-speed manual transmission.

BTW... the clutch does not have to be depressed to start it.