I was once there but found that the constant worry of what might happen was a waste of time. If it happens you deal with it then, not all the time that it is not happening. LOL And newer vehicles really start quick. I would not doubt that the engine is running befor a complete revolution of the engine being turned by the starter. Gone are the days of listening to the starter run for
2~3 seconds.
FWIW ABS is not dangerous. It can out perform you no matter how well you think you can stop a car. Any time a tire begins to not turn at a speed not proportionate to the vehicle speed it is loosing traction. ABS monitors and prevents that.
The link describes situations that are few and far in between. Practicing in a parking lot to learn when the tires will break loose sounds good on paper. BUT not all parking lots afford loose dirt, pot holes, loose gravel, wet spots, oily spots, fresh asphalt, the list goes on. The typical seasoned driver can master braking in any one of these over time. But what if you have a combination of wet, potholes and sand? What if there is water and oil on asphault? Are you prepared? Probably not. ABS is always working and not concerned with road conditions.
The situation described in turning into a parking lot with snow on the road, probably a reckless situation to begin with. I'm guessing that you should be assuming that you need to slow way down before attempting that turn to begin with.
Agreed! I have ABS kick in on dry down hill stops with my Tundra and F150. There probably was sand or loose dirt on the road surface.
If those conditions give you anxiety you really should drive something more dependable. Anxiety will kill you.
Age does matter! And you have to get older to realize that. You are at that age, that you don't know enough to know what you don't know. I say that from having been 26 too. LOL
Simplicity is key! I also dislike
Simple is desirable but also can be inefficient.
The automatic transmission comment above further proves that you simply do not know. Your statement was maybe more true 30+ years ago than now. My son insisted on a standard shift for his first car. So we bough him a Cavalier with manual transmission. The next car that he bought, at about your age, was an automatic. Standard shift requires more driver input, when I was young, that was "fun" and better than an automatic, but that was 50 years ago. At about your age I went with the less trouble automatics. FWIW my son worked at a Chevy dealership while in school and I retired from the auto industry at 40. So I have some hands on experience in HS and college. Today's automatic transmissions mob the floor with manuels. Both in life span and performance.
Life is tooooo short.
Last stick shift I had I sold in 1978. At the time I was 33. Driving stick was a bit more fun at times but the fun factor gets less every year. Last one I drove was about 15 years ago, a rental in Italy.
Apropos of this conversation, I somehow happened upon this Youtube video of a young lady having modern problems with a modern car:
In another video she drops the transmission and fixes it.
Ah, that makes sense.
I've noticed this with late model cars also, like if I ride in my mom's, super fast start. Some newer cars, turning the key just sends a signal, you only have to turn it for a moment. On older vehicles, you have to keep the key turned until it starts - or else the starter will stop before the engine starts.
It seems like the older the car, the slower the start. If a 90's car has a hot engine, it will start in a second or two. 2-3 if it's cold, unless it's winter perhaps. Back to the 70's and carburetor vehicles especially, it might be 5-6 seconds while pumping the gas from a cold start.
I'm not in traffic too often, maybe call if a very lose form of "shell shock"... it's happened enough times, that I just prefer when the car is moving vs. stopped waiting... lol
I'm not ignorant, I'm well aware that they have developed automatic transmissions that are far more efficient than manuals. In the cars that I can drive and afford, standards still win, especially since era autos were mostly 3 speed, and some you almost have to floor to get them to downshift.
Personally, as you said, my main point is that I prefer the "drive input" aspect. I'm a control freak, but more over, I am one of those people that really enjoy driving, and an automatic sucks the fun out of it and makes the experience boring.
I've heard that most European countries still have more standard transmissions than automatics, but I'm sure that will change with time.
I've heard a story similar to yours from many people, as they age they just don't care to shift anymore. I'm sure that in my 70's I'll likely feel different than today.
Also, tell that to the dart enthusiasts. I've seen someone that dropped a 440 in a Dart... vroom!
Honestly, I can't remember the last vehicle that I owned with *working* ABS or even ABS at all... it's been years; I'm not sure that I recall what it feels like working.
Many of the small cars had little power and the old automatics really killed any performance.
I'm not adverse to driving a stick once in a while, just don't want it for my daily driver.
This is a tricky statistic--CVT, dual-clutch, and electric are all regarded as not being "automatic" even though all of them shift for themselves. To get an accurate picture you need to look at manual vs non-manual, not manual vs automatic. Worldwide about 57% are non-manual but only 34% are "automatic".
You can thank all of those mass air flow sensors, temperature sensors, computer modules, injectors, crank shaft sensors, barometric pressure sensors, and what ever else is involved for today's fast starts.
And they are much more reliable today than they were 30 years ago.
Understood but your experience is with unreliable vehicles. I live in the Houston area. Traffic is heavy just outside of my drive way. Well maybe not that bad, but I don't give being stranded a second thought.
Don't like shifting and replacing clutches. :!)
LOL that comment, small cars had little power, reminded my of when "The Smart" car was introduced on the Today show.
Mat Lauer asked the rep about relatively poor gas mileage for such a small car. IIRC the car got a bit over 40 MPG.
The rep responded that they wanted to focus more on the performance and sacrificed gas mileage for more HP. IIRC the HP was around 46.
To put that into perspective, My son drove a much larger Chevy Cavalier. More than twice the HP, possibly triple, and got about 36 MPG.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required