I still like stick is better. I'm sure I'll be the old man who doesn't like change when I grow up.

 

I hear ya.

Like I said, oh well.

 

It all boils down to a matter of preference, some people like automatics and CVTs others like manual. Both have their advantages and disadvantages but neither is a clear winner.

 

Well, in truth I like the manual very much.
I just wanted a change of pace.
As you said, it is a matter of preference.
Like i said, it's all good.

I love having complete control of my transmission which a manual IMO gives you and the CVT just gives me an opp to have a little of both.

The CVT is nifty.
lol

peace..

 

After about a month of ownership, I finally seem to be getting some decent heel-toe downshifts with my car. I was very good at this with my 944, which had perfectly placed pedals. Something about the placement of the pedals in the Lancer is a bit awkward for me.

Anyway, a good heel-toe downshift is one of the joys of a manual tranny!

(By the way, for those who don't know, a heel-toe downshift is used to set yourself up to accelerate through a turn! You can see my "rant" on another thread about NOT using downshifting to slow your car .)

 

I have a 5 speed in mine, I test drove a CVT, didn't like it at all. Feels like a slipping clutch, with a manual you drive the car, with a auto you steer the car

 

yes..use your brakes.
do not downshift.

 

It's really too early to compare the two to their fullest extent. I test drove both models and ended up going with the CVT. It seems that it's a better overall package in my opinion. I have road raced for several years and after experimentation I've found it easier to shift on the fly with the CVT then with my other manual vehicles. It makes it easier to adjust your attacks. From a launch the manual is obviously quicker but that seems to be the only major plus the manual has to me. I'm happy with my choice going with the CVT. It's actually a really good design, and like blacksheep stated earlier we'll just have to see in time what it can handle. The CVT just screams smoothness to me. It's a great tranny whether you're on the freeway or in the city. And besides the initial take off the CVT is as fast if not faster then the manual simply because it shifts so fast. Everyones opinion is different but i'm goin with the CVT.

 

One should not place excessive strain on their motor by downshifting without braking, however, donshifting should occur in order to maintain an ability to accelerate in an emergency situation. Placing your car in neutral means you are a sitting duck. The idea should not be to elminate downshifting it should simply be to do so correctly by placing the car into an apropriate gear at the apropriate speed while braking at the same time.

 

I disagree, the engaging and or disengaging process or shock of traditional transmissions vs. a CVT is different. Granted. Shifting into 2nd while going 90kmph is not a smart idea but a gradual down shift pattern in a CVT should be weathered better in our new cars.

Plus no one said anything about not using your brakes at the same time. A properly timed combo of brakes and downshifting is great. Save your rotors from excessive heat and your pads from wear.

 

Oh, i know.
Me an Mark had discussed this extensively on another thread.
He had a lot of great points.
Some were subjective and some were common sense.
But the comment on downshiftin at the appropriate speed kinda defeats the purpose of downshifting; ASIDE from utilizing the process for a quick acceleration.
Thanks though.

 

I love driving standard but I hate those stop and go situations, the tailgater who is smelling your rear bumper on that steep hill, and not having the ability to drink or eat while driving until you get up to cruising speeds. So I'm happy with the CVT I can still engine brake and push the RPM's to the limit

 

Granted, it can be assumed that people who slow their cars by downshifting are also using their brakes. However, if you are downshifting to "save your rotors . . . and pads," then that burden is being placed somewhere, and that's on your motor. It can be debated whether this is a good idea or not. As for me, I prefer to put that burden on the rotors and pads, which are cheap and easy to replace.

I've heard the argument before about wanting the car in gear as you decelerate, in case you need to get on the gas in some sort of an emergency. While this is certainly conceivable, in 24 years of driving I have never been in such a situation. Actually, I can't really think of a likely scenario where the emergency would require me to accelerate. I guess it could happen, but I'm not going to let this possibility determine my driving. For grins, let's consider some scenarios (yup, I've got some dead time ):

1. I'm approaching a red light from 60 MPH. I put the car in neutral and use only my brakes to slow the car (for reasons mentioned previously). At 33 MPH I need to accelerate for some reason. Well, it takes me less than a second to shift into second gear and get on the gas. Maybe that second is too much time and I cannot avoid some accicent. On the other hand . . .

2. I'm approaching a red light from 60 MPH. I leave the car in 5th until I hit 50, then go to 4th. At 40 I downshift to 3rd. Well, when the crisis hits at 33 MPH I will have very little torque to work with in 3rd gear, and I can't accelerate worth a damn. So, I have to shift the car anyhow. Now I'm really screwed because I wasted time trying to get on the gas in third gear.

Drive as you like, but I'll keep using my engine to make the car go and brakes only to make the car stop.

 

I am not quite sure why you are diagreeing with me...I agreed that downshifting should occur

 

Manual > Automatic

Automatic is just as fun though