Just to clarify: DSG -is- good. it is smooth and nice and ready. But it's not much about the ability and the touch of the driver, it'is about electronics. You simply press a pedal and you give an indication on what you want to do. The car will interpret it and react accordingly. It matters very few if you ram on the pedal as you were a demon or if you caress it gently to feel the car's feed-back: electronics is electronics. You have to adapt to the car's action and reaction times, not the other way around.i've never driven any DSG, but going by the reviews all over the internet, i figured they were by now as good/as useable as a manual.
thanks for setting that straight!
all hail to the manual!!
You got it completely backwards, underpowered engines are better with manuals because they tend to have less parasitic loss, the car itself is lighter and you can control which gear you are in and for how long.Mine starts to go backwards... I used to be really big fan of automatics since I had my license, but lately I've been thinking that it might not be too bad thing to have a manual. With a proper, big engine to go with it. With unpowerful engines automatic is the way to go, manual won't make it any better.
I so rarely drive in city traffic that the extra pedal wouldn't bother too much.
That's not a misunderstanding.... I drive a 165hp station wagon with a manual... Think about it this way, when you are dealing with a large power number even though you have a bigger drop in power you still have way more power than is realistically going to be used (in normal driving).That's the common misunderstanding. When car does not have power, it does not have it no matter what's the transmission. With an underpowered car you should simply get as comfortable as possible. With high amount of power automatic tends to take the peak out, and makes the car feel less powerful than it actually is.
That's very little, the lowest HP car I've driven was an auto Camry, 125ish I think (can't be arsed to look up) and it was complete and utter shit. You could feel the delay between the flywheel and the TC. "Comfortable" doesn't make sense to me, car's comfort has little to do with its power and everything with the suspension, seats and sound deadening.165 is not little amount of power. I've driven 75hp W124 with an automatic and that was just perfect. A lot more comfortable than the manual I had.
My problem is usually my left foot getting tired but for one my left foot is prone to cramps in general and for two the clutch in the Z is the heaviest I have ever encountered outside of tuner cars.My commute takes about 45minutes to go about 10km (about 6.5 miles) because I essentially have to cross some of the busiest road ways and rail-lines in Australia and it never worries me too much, it's just second nature to change gears
The buick's manual is much more involved, 3spd with the direct opposite pattern of a modern car and no syncros at all
Weren't you just in that other thread talking about smoothness of power delivery? Sounds a bit like comfort to me"Comfortable" doesn't make sense to me, car's comfort has little to do with its power and everything with the suspension, seats and sound deadening.
I've just spent a week in a heavy manual 1.6 diesel with loads of hills and tiny roads... and while it was fun, the optional 7-speed DSG would have been better for comfort and speed. In a traditional few-speed auto it'd be a different story of course, that would eat too many of the few horses it has and not be able to use the narrow torque band well.But I mostly agree. Small engines and autos suck. I live in a hilly area, no journey does not involve a hill of some kind, and small engines and particularly autos with few speeds (like 4) make a meal of it. I find it much easier to maintain a steady speed up hills in a manual where I can select a gear myself rather than leave an auto to get to a hill, start to slow down, refuse to downshift until its too late, then eventually go OH SHIT HILL! and throw it into 1st and jerk you wildly.