[baege]

Had a thought recently that those of us who value naturally aspirated cars also tend to prefer manual.

for me NA is about direct connection with the car and engagement

I prefer manual for similar reasons

if only bmw still made cars with both...

[dreamingat30fps]

I cannot speak for all NA folks... but for me yeah. I was always a manual guy but since I started with VWs and E90 gen BMWs I didn't really appreciate NA until my gf got a 128i manual while I had a 335. I prefered her car, then I got my Z4MR and that pretty much settled it... NA for life!

[MassWholeBimmer]

My first manual (and new car) was a 1985 Mazda 626. Prior to picking it up at the dealer, I probably had a total of 10 miles manual experience driving my brother's VW. It was a long drive home. .. But that was a great car, and nice shifting 5 speed for its time.

The last manual I owned was a 1999 F150. Nice shifting.. not so much. But great truck none the less.

Love sticks....

[freakystyly]

First car also a Mazda manual. Bought without knowing how to drive stick and it's been only manuals since.

On a turbo engine now but do definitely miss the feeling of wringing out the gears on naturally aspirated. Turbo engines are too rubber bandy feeling.

[Efthreeoh]

Diehard manual guy I am; I've owned just one automatic transmission'd vehicle in my 1M-mile, 44-year driving life. I WAS a diehard naturally aspirated guy as well until I wanted to get a new vehicle for my later-life years. The 6th-gen Ford Bronco debuted. It was available with a manual transmission... WTF, a brand-new (truck) model offered with a 7-speed manual transmission? The G20 NOT offered with a manual transmission. WTF, a BMW 3-series not available with a manual? Blasphemy!

Now that the Bronco is in the fleet, with its 300 HP, 2.3L EcoBoost 4-banger, I've since revised my position on the turbo vs. N/A question. The Bronco market desirability gave me the opportunity to buy-and-try the 2.3L EcoBoost with manual transmission with little risk of a depreciation hit if I didn't like it; 18-months into ownership I can still sell it for more than I bought it.

I've come to like the turbo 2.3L EcoBoost engine. Lots of power and relatively flat torque curve. It's a bit buzzy compared to a BMW in-line 6, but other than Honda, no one makes a 4-banger without NVH. The EcoBoost does have turbo lag, but its predictable and not obtrusive. The turbo boost is great once you learn how to use it. It makes for great passing power once you learn to set up the timing. It makes driving the Bronco fun. Fun like a 2-stroke dirtbike comes alive when it hit its powerband, or when the old BMW M20 gets "on cam", but with much more power on tap. Like every turbo engine, it doesn't "breathe" revs like a N/A BMW 6 does; you can't just let it rev endlessly between 2,200 to 5,500 RPM like the M20 or the N52. The EcoBoost does fall off the powerband cliff running through the gears at WOT, but it recovers torque and power almost immediately, which makes up for it.

My 2 cents.

[pbonsalb]

I always bought manual cars for better performance and fuel economy but by the early 2000s, autos had just as good performance and mpg. Now autos have better performance and mpg. Autos also work great with turbos and a lot of engines are turbo now. I had a manual E90 M3 for 10 years and that might be my last manual car. The DCT counterpart was faster and easier to drive. Modern autos shift faster that you can shift a manual, accelerate faster, are faster around a track, and get better mpg. The only thing they don’t do better is occupy the driver. If you need something to do while driving, a manual gives you more to do.

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

I always bought manual cars for better performance and fuel economy but by the early 2000s, autos had just as good performance and mpg. Now autos have better performance and mpg. Autos also work great with turbos and a lot of engines are turbo now. I had a manual E90 M3 for 10 years and that might be my last manual car. The DCT counterpart was faster and easier to drive. Modern autos shift faster that you can shift a manual, accelerate faster, are faster around a track, and get better mpg. The only thing they don’t do better is occupy the driver. If you need something to do while driving, a manual gives you more to do.

I don't think a single person in here who is a fan of manuals likes them for better fuel economy or "performance". Same goes for NA engines.

[ppointer]

For reasons that are not related to this thread, I have several cars at the moment. My favorite daily driver of the lot is my e92 335i MT, as it is simply the most fun. I have an S54 MT as well, and it has its own grand characteristics, but isn't something I would drive daily (or weekly for that matter).

I sold my e91 AT to a close friend in February, and he just converted it to MT. I got to drive it last month and it is great. But I would not prefer it over my 335i MT, all other things being equal.

[gblansten]

I loved driving MT cars. Had several for a while. But, I went with the M-DCT in the E92 M3 and I enjoyed the hell out of that NA V8 with the DCT. I don't think I would have had more fun with a MT.

[Alfisti]

I've been a car guy all my life, there's pictures of me age 3 hooning around the yard in pretend cars. I sat through 6 hours of the bathurst 1000 from age 6. I love cars and I love driving and I love the sound and I love a revvy engine.

As I hit middle age I searched for a sportscar to scratch an itch, it absolutely had to be naturally aspirated and it absolutely had to be RWD, but I have never been all that bothered by how I shift gears, so long as I can select the one I want. There are guys in my 997 whattsapp chat or on Rennlist or BAt or whatever who swear u and down it's only a real sports car if it's a manual..... then I look at their profile and they have a C4S. At least with a modern auto I can still select my gears, but an awd is an awd, i don't get the hate for one and the acceptance for the other, it has become a meme.

I just don't care.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

I always bought manual cars for better performance and fuel economy but by the early 2000s, autos had just as good performance and mpg. Now autos have better performance and mpg. Autos also work great with turbos and a lot of engines are turbo now. I had a manual E90 M3 for 10 years and that might be my last manual car. The DCT counterpart was faster and easier to drive. Modern autos shift faster that you can shift a manual, accelerate faster, are faster around a track, and get better mpg. The only thing they don’t do better is occupy the driver. If you need something to do while driving, a manual gives you more to do.

So let's get some precision here. A DTC is a manual transmission that has two clutches running separate gear sets where the clutches are computer controlled. They shift very fast because the work is divided in two.

A regular slush box manual, with a torque converter, in a non-high performance car does not shift faster than a well-driven manual transmission. And on the street under agressive driving control a DCT in auto mode can't anticipate what gear the driver wants in advance of the shift.

[nicholasn]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

So let's get some precision here. A DTC is a manual transmission that has two clutches running separate gear sets where the clutches are computer controlled. They shift very fast because the work is divided in two.

I see comments like this all the time and it's such a dumb argument. It's like saying AWD is just like RWD except that it also drives the front wheels. Which is to say, it's not.

A manual is manual because you manually actuate the clutch via a clutch pedal/lever, and manually change gears via a physical shift lever going into the transmission (sometimes by way of shift linkage). A DCT actuates the clutches automatically and shifts essentially at the push of a button...you're telling the car to shift, you're not actually shifting.

A regular slush box manual, with a torque converter, in a non-high performance car does not shift faster than a well-driven manual transmission. And on the street under agressive driving control a DCT in auto mode can't anticipate what gear the driver wants in advance of the shift.

BMW would disagree given that it is moving away from DCTs in favor of conventional torque converter automatics from ZF. And transmission "anticipation" is a matter of how it is coded and programmed, not really whether it's TC or DCT.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

So let's get some precision here. A DTC is a manual transmission that has two clutches running separate gear sets where the clutches are computer controlled. They shift very fast because the work is divided in two.

A regular slush box manual, with a torque converter, in a non-high performance car does not shift faster than a well-driven manual transmission. And on the street under agressive driving control a DCT in auto mode can't anticipate what gear the driver wants in advance of the shift.

DCT shifts gears automatically unless you select a manual mode, like any other automatic transmission. Automatic transmission is automatic.

And yes, even slush box automatic transmissions shift faster than manuals, and they do it every time, rather than a certain % of the time due to driver error.

Auto transmissions have gotten a lot better at anticipating gears during hard driving or on slopes. Some are very good. Some are not.

[PhaceN52]

Originally Posted by nicholasn

A manual is manual because you manually actuate the clutch via a clutch pedal/lever, and manually change gears via a physical shift lever going into the transmission (sometimes by way of shift linkage). A DCT actuates the clutches automatically and shifts essentially at the push of a button...you're telling the car to shift, you're not actually shifting.

I think Efthreeoh was referring to the internals of a DCT being more or less the same as a manual transmission but electromechanically actuated, while slushboxes are all basically planetary gearsets with a torque converter, the feeling is much different

My first s*itbox and the later Alfa 147 were manual and I always loved changing gears by myself, the feeling of the clutch, redlining a 2nd and shifting, it feels much more connected to the car compared to a torque converter auto, but again aside from the fun of manually operating clutch and gears I think I'd have the same if not more fun with a DCT. My E90 has the zf 6hp but it's a long story... dreaming of a manual swap and re-homologation in Germany (as in Italy it's basically impossible, ridiculous) when I'll have some spare money
But have to admit that now after all these years I'm appreciating this transmission. Now the input shaft and differential of the 147 are displayed in my house on a shelf

The linearity of a NA engine is imparable, precise, feeling it pulling more all the way to the limiter has something that i'd describe as "classical", drove a lot a VW scirocco tsi and while is certainly fun when the turbo kicks in, feeling the engine slowly dying 2000 rpms before redline is something I don't like, different tastes, don't know. And totally quote what Alfisti said, rwd >> auto, but again, different tastes.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by nicholasn

I see comments like this all the time and it's such a dumb argument. It's like saying AWD is just like RWD except that it also drives the front wheels. Which is to say, it's not.

A manual is manual because you manually actuate the clutch via a clutch pedal/lever, and manually change gears via a physical shift lever going into the transmission (sometimes by way of shift linkage). A DCT actuates the clutches automatically and shifts essentially at the push of a button...you're telling the car to shift, you're not actually shifting.


BMW would disagree given that it is moving away from DCTs in favor of conventional torque converter automatics from ZF. And transmission "anticipation" is a matter of how it is coded and programmed, not really whether it's TC or DCT.

Apparently for you, the words "manual" and "automatic" mean different things than where most people read definitions. If you are telling the car to shift gears via a button push you are manually shifting the gears using an automated actuation mechanism. An automatic transmission shifts the gears automatically without thought or input from the driver.

Most of the reason modern automatics get as good gas mileage as manual transmissions is modern automatics simply have more gears to keep the engine in its most efficient RPM range.

I've driven several different insances of ZF 8-speed automatic in BMWs and which was also used in the Cadillac ATS. In automatic mode it can still be in the wrong gear for the traffic situation or driving intent I want the car to be in. The transmission can't see the road or understand my intent for what I want the car to do.

Your argument is automatic transmissions are better than manuals because autos can shift faster than a human can push a clutch and move a lever. Okay, depending on the automatic's design, no argument there. Shift speed of a manual transmission is also a function of mechanical design, meaning the clutch system design gearset design and shift lever linkage design. But when one is using his BMW to drive to the grocery store or to pick up the kids from soccer practice, who really gives a shit how fast the ZF automatic can shift? It's unimportant. What is important to the manual enthusiast in that same scenario is he gets to choose when to shift.

If you find it too much effort to use your left leg and right arm to manually shift the car's gears (vs. pushing a button) then that's a function of you, not the transmission. If your ZF automatic can shift flawlessly and a bit faster to eek out a few tenths of a second faster in trap speeds, who cares. A manual enthusiast doesn't care because he likes to decide when to shift and appreciates the act of driving more.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by RM7

DCT shifts gears automatically unless you select a manual mode, like any other automatic transmission. Automatic transmission is automatic.

And yes, even slush box automatic transmissions shift faster than manuals, and they do it every time, rather than a certain % of the time due to driver error.

Auto transmissions have gotten a lot better at anticipating gears during hard driving or on slopes. Some are very good. Some are not.

Agree with all that, but it's not a blanket statement that all automatics are better than manuals and all automatics shift faster than manuals. Your last statement is the most accurate.

[baege]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

I cannot speak for all NA folks... but for me yeah. I was always a manual guy but since I started with VWs and E90 gen BMWs I didn't really appreciate NA until my gf got a 128i manual while I had a 335. I prefered her car, then I got my Z4MR and that pretty much settled it... NA for life!

funny enough my NA preference was made crystal clear with back to back test drives of a 128i and a 135i, the 135i was way faster but not nearly as engaging

ended up with an e86 instead of the 128 but my NA preference was solidified through those test drives

the instant response vs delayed for me means more fun

[baege]

Originally Posted by freakystyly

First car also a Mazda manual. Bought without knowing how to drive stick and it's been only manuals since.

On a turbo engine now but do definitely miss the feeling of wringing out the gears on naturally aspirated. Turbo engines are too rubber bandy feeling.

totally, I have had a couple recent turbo cars, an m240i and a M2C, and after a while you get used to it and don't notice the lag and disconnect as much

but as soon as you drive a powerful NA car again, you are like man I need that back in my life!

[baege]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Diehard manual guy I am; I've owned just one automatic transmission'd vehicle in my 1M-mile, 44-year driving life. I WAS a diehard naturally aspirated guy as well until I wanted to get a new vehicle for my later-life years. The 6th-gen Ford Bronco debuted. It was available with a manual transmission... WTF, a brand-new (truck) model offered with a 7-speed manual transmission? The G20 NOT offered with a manual transmission. WTF, a BMW 3-series not available with a manual? Blasphemy!

Now that the Bronco is in the fleet, with its 300 HP, 2.3L EcoBoost 4-banger, I've since revised my position on the turbo vs. N/A question. The Bronco market desirability gave me the opportunity to buy-and-try the 2.3L EcoBoost with manual transmission with little risk of a depreciation hit if I didn't like it; 18-months into ownership I can still sell it for more than I bought it.

I've come to like the turbo 2.3L EcoBoost engine. Lots of power and relatively flat torque curve. It's a bit buzzy compared to a BMW in-line 6, but other than Honda, no one makes a 4-banger without NVH. The EcoBoost does have turbo lag, but its predictable and not obtrusive. The turbo boost is great once you learn how to use it. It makes for great passing power once you learn to set up the timing. It makes driving the Bronco fun. Fun like a 2-stroke dirtbike comes alive when it hit its powerband, or when the old BMW M20 gets "on cam", but with much more power on tap. Like every turbo engine, it doesn't "breathe" revs like a N/A BMW 6 does; you can't just let it rev endlessly between 2,200 to 5,500 RPM like the M20 or the N52. The EcoBoost does fall off the powerband cliff running through the gears at WOT, but it recovers torque and power almost immediately, which makes up for it.

My 2 cents.

I mean turbos definitely have their perks, but when you drive your e86 right after the bronco aren't you like "now that's what I am talking about!" in terms of the engine response and connection?

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by baege

I mean turbos definitely have their perks, but when you drive your e86 right after the bronco aren't you like "now that's what I am talking about!" in terms of the engine response and connection?

100%. The EcoBoost just runs away to redline too fast then you have to shift it fast to keep on boost. I even like the N52 in my 325i E90 (without DISA) over the N52 in the E86 with DISA. The best BMW inline 6 IMO was the M20 found in the E30 back in the day. The M20B25 loved to just walk up and down the rev range from 2,200 (when it got on cam) to 5,800, it was like dialing a potentiometer, pure analog.

The EcoBoost in the Bronco is great for passing, which is one of the attributes I wanted in an ORV. I can see why the Focus RS turbo guys love their cars, the 2.3L EcoBoost with a manual in a hot hatch would be fun as shit to drive. I'd much rather have a 300 HP 3L straight 6 in the Bronco. But it is 2023, not 1987.

[pbonsalb]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

So let's get some precision here. A DTC is a manual transmission that has two clutches running separate gear sets where the clutches are computer controlled. They shift very fast because the work is divided in two.

A regular slush box manual, with a torque converter, in a non-high performance car does not shift faster than a well-driven manual transmission. And on the street under agressive driving control a DCT in auto mode can't anticipate what gear the driver wants in advance of the shift.

I agree with everything in the first paragraph, but disagree with everything in the second paragraph.

[Bc2005]

Several of the later model manuals I owned were NA Honda’s, and they needed RPM to get into a good part of the power band and feel like they could accelerate. Keeping them up at 4-5k rpm or more was common for spirited driving. Similar cars with an automatic felt slow because they didn’t have paddle shifters or any other means to keep the engine in the power band.

Modern BMWs with turbos and a fast 8 speed automatic use the turbo to keep the torque curve nearly flat, and to develop max torque at a very low rpm. The ECM then shifts the automatic quickly and at the right time to keep the engine always in a strong part of the torque curve. The result is an automatic transmission car that provides very smooth power delivery with minimal turbo lag.