On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 16:21:44 -0600, Jon Elson
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

In the past, it was because stick shifts got better
gas mileage, and were cheaper.

Well, adding more gear ratios and the lock-up torque converter helped the
mileage a bit. Now, I have a hybrid that has a continuously variable
transmission and no torque converter. They use a wet-pack clutch like on a
motorcycle to do the initial start. So, it has all the advantages of a
stick shift, but my family can drive it, too.

Thanks. I'm told there's little difference between the gas mileage of
a stick versus an automatic. For example, my current 2001 Subaru
Forester is rated at 21 mpg with either transmission.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=17279&id=17278
Left column is manual transmission while the right column is
automatic. My Acar Android program has about 8 years of mileage
records and shows an average of 22.673 mpg over a distance of 47,215
miles and 2,000.50 gallons of the cheapest regular I can find. This
is a 16 year old vehicle, which does not have the benefits of the
technology you mention, yet still has identical rated gas mileage for
manual and automatic. I suspect the reason lies elsewhere.

Even if the gas mileage was better for an automatic, I would still
prefer driving a manual transmission. I don't feel like it's driving
without the stick. There's probably some symbolism there, but I'll
pretend not to notice.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558