You're wrong in this too. Nobody could possibly justify having two pedals and two feet but only using one.
Even if you learned on a manual, it doesn't take long to teach yourself to left foot brake. And swapping between the two presents no problems. Or rather not to normal people.
Oh dear.
For forgot to ad the adjectives 'stupid' and 'incompetent' to 'drivers'
AS I said, this is for grown ups.
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes
I'll try:-)
I have never owned an automatic car (tractors with fluid drives excepted). The consequence, when the only hire car available (America) was automatic, was to put the front bumper on the tarmac at the first road junction I met.
The cure which lasted over 1500 miles was to place the left foot firmly on the carpet and leave it there.
Where do you see the benefit?
>
Do we have to repeat?
1/. Hill starts with an iffy handbrake. use the left foot like a clutch, and you have far more precise control as you do with a clutch, than with a hand brake.2/. Forcing the box to kick down. This was a well known technique used by the police when they had to use autos in chases, and was taught by their instructors. Essentially in the mid corner on the brakes approaching the apex keep the brakes on and the accelerator pressed, the box sees a load and kicks down, allowing full power mid corner without the lurch as the box would otherwise kick down. Use of manual override has reduced the need fp or thios.
3/. When manoeuvring at slow speed, the use of the brake as well as the throttle allows far more precise and rapid transitions from power to brakes, and that's something you need when getting in and out of tight places, especially on a slope.4/. The ability to left foot brake an auto actually makes it better than a manual at slow speed stuff, and that's also true of traction on e.g. snow, where you can fake a limited slip differential by having the brakes on as you accelerate to control wheelspin.
5/. The ability to left foot brake an auto actually makes it better than a manual at high speed stuff, since there is no delay between switching the right foot from the accelerator to the brakes in an emergency.IN fact, with a manual shift option, I find a left foot braked auto superior in every way bar the slight increase in fuel consumption and drop in ultimate power.
You simply have better control.
After all a clutch is simp0ly a way to disengage the engine to avoid damaging the gearbox. It does nothing top help control the car apart from starting off, and its worse than a left foot braked torque converter in that respect anyway.
Sorry. Not been paying sufficient attention. I come from the generation who know that auto gearboxes require huge gas guzzler engines and are never in the right ratio for the downhill bits:-)
In message , Tim Lamb writes
Horses for courses, I guess. I drove an automatic for 18 years (changed last year) and don't think I ever used anything but my right foot for accelerator and brake. Left foot was used only for the foot operated parking (hand) brake. Having said that, whilst it was a nice car to drive, I only ever drive through necessity, not for pleasure. That car clocked up around 80,000 miles over 18 years, at least half our annual mileage being trips to see family down south (NE Scotland to SE England).
So imagine a driver who had only driven an auto trying to cope with a manual?
They require slightly different techniques. So no reason not to make that changing what your feet do.
Of course if you have tried to learn and can't, just stick with what you know. But that doesn't make it a rule for others.
Seems so many base their impressions of autos on ancient clunkers. In which case they'd get quite a surprise with a decent modern one. ie, one made towards the end of the last century onwards. ;-)
I'll give you one fact that may surprise. I had a '94 BMW 525. Genuine road test figures made it more economical at motorway speeds than the manual version.
Friend's dad worked at Dover port for one of the car-hire companies. He rented a manual to an American - he checked that the guy would be happy with manual - yes, that's OK. Guy gets in car and revs up to about 4000 rpm (to avoid stalling, whiuch he's heard is a problem with manuals) and lets clutch in. Car lurches forward, writing off his car, and the two in front. He then goes into reverse to try and extricate himself and repeats process, writing off two behind as well. So in about 30 seconds he has just written off 5 cars. Not sure whether he was made to pay towards insurance costs due to his own stupidity!
In article , Davey writes
In a contest between the ABS and the accelerator the accelerator will win.
Not if they have one foot on the brake and the other on the accelerator
We are talking about the wisdom or otherwise of using the left foot for the brake when driving an auto. Do try to keep up.
Get the handbrake fixed.
You should not indulge in chases or racing on the public highway. It is an offence.
Already agreed that is one exception.
Again exceptional circumstances, a technique also used in off-road driving downhill.
We mere mortals do not engage in such high speed stuff on the public highway.
We are talking normal driving by ordinary people just trying to get safely from A to B. not lunatics tear arsing around.
In article , News scribeth thus
I had a couple of autos a long time ago now around 1994 seem to remember using the left foot for braking seemed to work very well!.. FWIW...
I would believe that, My Intrepid 3.3L would do 30+miles to the US gallon, cruised at 70mph on the US freeways. My 84 Granada 3.3l did
22mpg in the UK .
Not sure why people say manuals are more efficient. I've never observed this. The automatic is always in precisely the best gear.
Official test figures tend to bear out the suggestion that a manual version of the same car with the same engine is more efficient, both on the urban cycle (which presumably involves a variety of different gear ratios) and the extra-urban (which I imagine is in a fixed high gear). It always used to be the case, and looking at figures for modern cars (eg Honda CRV, whose manual I just happen to have at hand) it's still the case:
CR-V SR 1.6 diesel
urban 51.4 (m) / 47.1 (a) extra urban 60.1 / 57.7 combined 55.4 / 53.3
For your info, the manual version of this car achieves about 45 mpg in reality, for a mixture of motorway and dual-carriageway and country-lane driving, showing that official figures come from cloud-cuckoo land :-)
OK, this is just one example. You may find cars where it's not the case, but they are probably still the exception.
I've always understood that losses is the torque converter were mostly the cause of autos being worse than manuals, though I believe that a lot of autos lock-up the converter (effectively making it a direct drive with (you'd think) no losses once the transmission is in top gear.
A multi-speed gearbox with torque converter can be set to vary the combined ratio of gearbox and TC to keep the engine at its most economical rpm (in that sense, it's "always in the right gear") but I wonder whether TC losses outweigh that advantage.
Certainly autos are a lot more efficient compared to manuals than they used to be, but they don't seem to be quite ready to overtake them just yet.
If I drive like a typical driver, I get slightly less than what they quote in any car. If I drive like myself (as fast as possible), I get much less. If I deliberately drive economically, I get MORE than they quote. I managed 58mpg in a car that was quoted as 45. Only did it a few times then got fed up of the dull driving style.
My last 2 autos (CRV and Golf) only slipped momentarily between changes, and when going slowly (as in pulling out of junctions). But I don't think they waste much, especially as it means the engine is in precisely the right gear, which is often halfway between two gears.
I sort of saw that when overtaking, if I was in top gear and going too fast to drop a gear, it would raise the revs a little bit using the TC, but this is only for a short time.
I've been told that the newest Golfs have (I've forgotten the name) a new style of box without a TC, instead they have a twin clutch and 2 sets of 4 gears or something?
I've never known any auto do that.
I've never used my left foot in an auto. Why would you need to use the brake and the accelerator at once? In fact my Golf would cut the gas if I pressed both at once, assuming I'd made a mistake. Slip from P into D. Car remains still on a hill or moves forwards on the flat. An auto will not allow it to roll backwards in D.
But you can use P for that. Brake to a stop using the footbrake, then select P and let go of the footbrake whenever your foot is tired.
There's a trick to avoiding that, use the other side of the pump/ Most people don't know it reaches.
My 1988 Range Rover didn't have anything to stop me, or it was broken. I could rev it up in N, then select D and spin all 4 wheels. Scared the shit out of pedestrians.
Surely a RWD has a front wheel handbrake? Bloody annoying if it didn't when you're changing tyres.
They wouldn't lock. Your engine is turning and your car is moving. What would provide the force to stop the wheels completely?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.