Good "save the manuals" article

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/02/21/learning-drive-stick-shift-makes-people-better-drivers/

Seems good to me. The premise of a manual requiring the driver to pay attention to driving is something I've always agreed with.

Hence why I want my soon-to-be daughter (and all future children of mine) to learn to drive on a stick. My wife agrees, their first car should be a stick so they can learn. After that they can drive an auto if they want, but they will have to learn stick.

Sounds good to me. I've often thought that, driving a manual car required more attention, but does not add any additional distraction.

(I.e. if driving an auto requires >70% of your attention on the act of driving down the road, a manual requires >80%, but that attention is still all focused on driving, as opposed to attention being split 70% on the road and 10% on reading a text message.)

I'd also say that the driver's written test could stand to have a few basic questions about basic equipment of a car and maintenance of that. Like knowing the basic function of the engine, transmission, brakes, suspension, and tires. Maybe some questions about "what can be the effect of under-inflated tires?" or "What can be the effect of not changing the oil often enough?"

Beer Baron wrote: I'd also say that the driver's written test could stand to have a few basic questions about basic equipment of a car and maintenance of that. Like knowing the basic function of the engine, transmission, brakes, suspension, and tires. Maybe some questions about "what can be the effect of under-inflated tires?" or "What can be the effect of not changing the oil often enough?"

I like that idea. Maybe a practical test of changing a tire, since that's a common real world problem with safety implications. It would be more difficult ti implement than a few more questions on a test, but it's not a bad think to know. Most people won't change their own oil, but if you get a flat in the middle of nowhere, you WILL change your own tire.

The practical test could include knowing how to check oil and identify where you would add more if it were low.

Beer Baron wrote: The practical test could include knowing how to check oil and identify where you would add more if it were low.

And how to jumpstart or bumpstart a car with a dead battery.

BTW, am I the only one who hates the term "drive stick"? It's "drive a stick".

Beer Baron wrote: The practical test could include knowing how to check oil and identify where you would add more if it were low.

With some newer cars, there's no dipstick. just a warning light.

It does seem like some basic knowledge about maintenance is a core safety issue.

A good friend of mine, and a very smart guy, simply came from a family where they didn't know anything about car maintenance, but had a shop that took care of everything. When he got out on his own, he didn't have that safety net, and nobody had ever told him that he needed to check tire pressures. Ended up doing a 360 on Interstate 5 with 10psi in the rears... Fortunately there was only a little damage to his car, none to anybody else's car, and no injuries.

I don't know where to draw the line in what can reasonably be included on the test, but a little practical knowledge about cars seems like a good idea. A bit similar to the manual requiring a bit more attention (as in, you have no choice but to pay attention), modern cars are so close to being maintenance free that you can go a long time without any reminders that it's a complex and delicate piece of machinery in many ways.

check out this semi related article:

Ecoboost 1.0 Focus, only available in manual in USA

Photos of the 2015 Ford Focus leaked earlier today, but now we're able to tell you more details of the global five-door hatchback. Bucking automaker's troubling trend of ditching manual transmissions in favor of automatics, Ford says the new 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine will come only in a six-speed manual in the US, because, well, American drivers aren't as sophisticated as our European brothers and sisters. Ford didn't come out and say it that way, but it has found American drivers are more prone to complain about automatics in smaller-engine cars, Raj Nair, Ford's group vice president of global product development, said at a press conference last week. The recent JD Power Vehicle Dependability Study backs up Ford's claims, pointing out that drivers are complaining about rough transmission shifts, engine hesitation and lack of power, particularly in small cars. In Europe and other parts of the world, drivers seem to understand the quirks of these pint-sized engines, Nair said, so they'll have the option to buy an automatic. Ford is working on tuning its dual-clutch transmissions to make them more amenable to American driver's tastes. Ford will show off the refreshed 2015 Focus at the Geneva Motor Show in early March. The car is due for an update, having been on sale in its current form since 2012. The automaker said it is jamming the car full of new technology – like a USB port that promises to charge your phone in half the time as a regular USB port. Features like Sync and a rear back-up camera will come standard. For a more in-depth look at the car, take a look at the full press release.

While I'm very happy for the additional manuals, especially in a small-for-today car with a turbo, is it in Ford's best interest to not offer an auto, even if people don't like it?

I want one really really badly, but I'm not in the market for a new car. I hope they sell like crazy...

Edit: I actually want the engine/trans in a fiesta. Even smaller car = more better. Should bet pretty amazing mileage, too.

Ransom wrote: A good friend of mine, and a *very* smart guy, simply came from a family where they didn't know anything about car maintenance, but had a shop that took care of *everything*. When he got out on his own, he didn't have that safety net, and nobody had ever told him that he needed to check tire pressures. Ended up doing a 360 on Interstate 5 with 10psi in the rears... Fortunately there was only a little damage to his car, none to anybody else's car, and no injuries.

it's people like him that we now have to deal with tyre pressure sensors

Thanks for posting the article.

My eleven year old daughter is already expressing a desire to learn to drive the FX16. Of course, Mom and Dad say she must be able to drive stick to get her license.

My niece with her manual Civic intimidates all the boys. They can't believe she can drive a stick!

I'm still convinced that a manual transmission give you better control of the attitude of a vehicle in emergency situations i.e. avoiding a close-call accident.

In reply to Rufledt:

Many new cars don't come with a spare. Mine just came with a compressor and fix a flat

Ransom wrote: I don't know where to draw the line in what can reasonably be included on the test, but a little practical knowledge about cars seems like a good idea. A bit similar to the manual requiring a bit more attention (as in, you have no choice but to pay attention), modern cars are so close to being maintenance free that you can go a long time without any reminders that it's a complex and delicate piece of machinery in many ways.

I would say something that does not require you to get physical or dirty. Probably:

Open the hood of your car.
Identify the following items: oil dipstick, oilfill cap, coolant reservoir, and brake fluid reservoir.
Check the oil level.

Gearheadotaku wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: The practical test could include knowing how to check oil and identify where you would add more if it were low.

With some newer cars, there's no dipstick. just a warning light.

I know quite a few people who drive manuals that suck as drivers, and people with autos that don't. Having to concentrate on MORE things in the car does NOT make you concentrate on more things OUT of the car.

In fact young people learning to drive and also learning to drive stick are more dangerous for a time because they are concentrating so much on the mechanics of shifting properly that they often aren't paying much attention to anything outside the car.

Since there is no study, we might be able to extrapolate from instances where there are - the statistically safest forms of human transportation are those that require as little operator input as possible, either by fewer operators and/or by limiting operator control. I believe where safety degrades is where useful human redundancy in the system or shrewd maintenance of said system falls by the wayside. A manual transmission comes into play exactly nowhere in this equation.

There's people that know how to drive and people that don't. Simple as that.

I taught my kids to drive a manual transmission for the simple reason that if they were in a bad scenario, and the only way out was to drive a manual they would know how. My daughter learned with a three on the tree in my yard.

mad_machine wrote:

Ransom wrote: A good friend of mine, and a *very* smart guy, simply came from a family where they didn't know anything about car maintenance, but had a shop that took care of *everything*. When he got out on his own, he didn't have that safety net, and nobody had ever told him that he needed to check tire pressures. Ended up doing a 360 on Interstate 5 with 10psi in the rears... Fortunately there was only a little damage to his car, none to anybody else's car, and no injuries.

it's people like him that we now have to deal with tyre pressure sensors

Yep. But to the point of the idea of requiring some practical knowledge to get a license, since his family didn't tell him, and the DMV didn't ask him, how was he supposed to know?

I was raised in a family where it appeared to be normal to do an engine swap just to have something to drive, so it was hard for me to wrap my head around the idea of just how much a person could not know about cars.

But the thing is that for someone who has no practical interest beyond transportation, it's easy to never be exposed to some aspects of maintenance. He got his oil changed, because even if you don't know much about it, you see Jiffy Lubes and so forth, and it raises the question of what they're there for... And we still read all sorts of family/friend horror stories here on GRM about folks who go from new car to smoking hulk because they never changed it.

That's why I'm in favor of some basic auto education being required to have a license. Hell, driver's ed may not be fresh in my memory, but I don't recall tire pressures being discussed there, either. I'm more inclined to believe that modern cars' reliability fosters a lack of maintenance understanding than to believe manuals improve driving.

It may seem reasonable to expect the basics of using cars to be common knowledge, but it's clear that it isn't working that way. I wish we could go back in time and have tire pressure testing added to getting a license and skip TPMS.

I don't know anything about how a computer works but I abuse this one on a daily basis