# Auto or Manual : What to go for?



## gamerx (Sep 1, 2010)

Guys, I am from India. Here not much auto cars is seen hanging around, and cruze is the one to get it to the public. But It seems that one have to pay an extra 1 lakh rupees in order to get the auto box. Else go for the cruze ltz full option with manual transmission. My doubt is, is it beneficial to spend such an amount just for the auto box or should i stick on to manual itself?? Heard that the turbo lag is no longer felt in the auto one?


----------



## princee18 (Sep 1, 2010)

I think you should gor manual one apart from shedding extra lac, auto one is less fuel effiecient than manual one and it always gives you a thrilling experience changing gears of the car.


----------



## gamerx (Sep 1, 2010)

princee18 said:


> I think you should gor manual one apart from shedding extra lac, auto one is less fuel effiecient than manual one and it always gives you a thrilling experience changing gears of the car.


Ya, changing gears is a thrilling experience on highways. But what about city traffic? We will get irritated. But thank god , I am not in a very big city. So, I think manual will do. Any more suggession?? Getting a feeling that I am not very convienced.


----------



## Machida (Aug 16, 2010)

I will go for the manual since that is all you need to drive a ca. Automatic is just an extra things to which you will be force to pay your money with.


----------



## Jed09 (Oct 27, 2010)

On my part, the traffic here in Manila is horrible. So I opted for an automatic....


----------



## cruze-control (Jul 23, 2010)

nothing beats the feeling of driving a manual car. i dont know how else to describe it. but it is horrible to be stuck in really bad traffic if you drive a manual car. id still pick the manual transmission though.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

*MANUAL* = maximum control of engine, but requires "rowing" through gears and strong left knee (clutch); best fuel economy.

*AUTOMATIC* = less control of engine, but requires no driver intervention; slightly _less_ fuel economy, especially in city traffic.

...note: with the 6-speed automatic, the driver *can* manually 'select' gears using the shifter gate positioner, but it's NOT the same control as with a manual transmission (due to intervening torque-converter(s)).


----------



## motorhedfred (Nov 13, 2010)

I was fortunate enough to grow up on American V8 muscle cars. My first car at age 15 was a 1963 Chevy Impala with a 409 V8 (single 4 barrel, 340 HP) with a 3 speed floor shift. I drove a string of Pontiac GTOs including a 1964 with 3 two barrels and a 4 speed, a 1965 with a later model 400 Pontiac and a TH400 automatic, the last one was a 1969 400 4 speed in Verduro Green with hide-away headlights and Rallye II wheels which my Dad paid off for my high school graduation gift. All that horsepower at the beckon call of a 17 year old.....those were the days. 

Also in the mix were several Chevelles, most with 396 or 454 big blocks and 4 speeds. The car I was driving when I met my wife was a 1967 Chevelle SS 396, 375 horse 4 speed. Somehow she talked me into selling it and buying a ford pinto....power of the pu55y I guess.

We used to call the automatic muscle car "stab it and steer it" cars because all you had to do was aim them and keep the back end from coming around as you fried the back tires. 

When there's lots of power under the hood, an automatic is ok, but 4 cylinder cars need manual transmissions to be entertaining. I personally don't mind driving a manual in the city because I short shift when I'm not driving hard i.e. 1st to 3rd to maybe 5th.

Just my opinion.

MHF


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

MHF -- sounds like you and I are _"...birds of a feather..."_ although from differing _marque'_ "flocks"--you GM, me MOPAR (ha,ha)!

• 1965 Plymouth Barracuda Formula-S (273/4BBL, 4spd)
• 1967 Plymouth Barracuda Formula-S (383/4BBL, 4spd)
• 1968 Dodge Charger (383/2BBL, auto)
• 1970½ Plymouth AAR 'Cuda (340/6BBL, 4spd)
• 1971 Dodge Charger (318/2BBL, auto)

...and, I "wrenched" a couple Hemis and 440/4BBLs and 6BBLs for my 'single' buddies during the same time.

...also, did you happen to read any of the "Auto Shop" articles in HOT ROD Magazine back in late-1973 and early-1974--four of them were mine.


----------



## motorhedfred (Nov 13, 2010)

I owned a couple of mildly fast Mopars...a '67 Coronet 4 door blue with a white vinyl top, full wheel covers, the widest, softest compound whitewalls I could find on the rear with a 383 4 BBL.....what a sleeper. I used to embarrass the 'stangers with it all the time.

I also had a 1970 Charger that someone had swapped a newer 360 with milled 340 heads, Edelbrock manifold with 750 Holley and a purple shaft cam. It had a 904 trans with the stock 318 converter...fast but 3rd gear started slipping so I sold it and bought the '67 Chevelle. 

I also had a 1970 AMC Hornet SST with a 360...fast and fun. But I do favor GM...not gonna lie.

All those were in the late 70s-early 80s and the 70s were a bit.....let's just say hazy for me. I now work for Summit Racing Equipment.....turned an old hobby into a career.

MHF


----------

