whats wrong with automatics pic unrelated btw

>>16740465
Nothing
Just less engaging than a manual transmission

>>16740465

I wonder that same thing. I have an 8speed automatic and it gets

> way better fuel economy (can go "eco" turning 4 of the 8 cylinders off)

>the manual option was a $2,200 dollar addition so mine was cheaper

> the automatic is faster than the manual counterpart
And
> I won't have to pay to replace clutches, ect. over time

>>16740465
Nothing wrong really, just boring.
>>16740601
You don't need the replace clutches if you drive correctly. also clutches don't cost too much.

automatics work at 80-85% efficiency since they have a torque converter

manuals are basically direct drive and lose no efficiency

Most enthusiasts find manual more fun to drive. Busriders have taken this to mean that manuals are the only acceptable form of transmission and some other busriders worship all automatics as the pinnacle of performance because hyper car DCTs perform well.

Basically nothing. Older autos were called slush boxes for a reason but they have their place.

Inb4 driving auto keeps you focused on the road pasta
Inb4 "automatics' place is the trash"

>>16740486
>less reliable
>less durable
>more expensive to buy and maintain
>less repairability
>less engaging
>worse fuel economy

It's still a matter or preference but it's objectively inferior to manuel in several ways.

>imb4 smoother shifts
Wew, time to learn how to drive.

>>16740713
Modern autos actually can have fuckloads of gears and get better fuel economy, but that's in simulation, not reality.

there are 4 active manual/automatic threads right now

fuck off whoever is doing this shit

>>16740713

I can prove all of your examples wrong except more engaging because that is an opinion that was stated like a fact.