With the exception of stop and go girdlock uphill, I prefer driving a stickshift in traffic. First of all, it gives me something to do and, second of all, I don't like how automatics deal with the unpredictable throttle and slowing that comes with bumper-to-bumper traffic. No matter how good an automatic is, it can't predict what gear I want like a human being stirring a stickshift can.

I like the fact that driving stick is a skill. It takes a little time to learn the skill but the payoff is great. Plus, when someone hands you the keys and says, "Oh, do you drive stick?" you can just smile, take the keys and say, "No problem."

And it's good for hyper-miling too.

It's no surprise. Say only half the population chooses to stay with stick after learning how to drive both stick and automatic. The other half never teaches their kids stick because they don't have one - so only half of the other half of kids learn stick. Repeat a couple more generations and the percentage is far lower.

There's also less benefit to driving stick when it's so easy to buy a powerful car here. In the 80-100hp cars I grew up with, I never could've put up with an automatic, but the average engine is a lot bigger than that in this country.

The first two generations of Miata had something like an 80% stickshift take rate. That says more to me than any reputation for girliness, and I ended up buying a used one. Sure enough almost all of them for sale were stick.

Ron, I also prefer a stick! I think there are several reasons why sticks are almost "extinct" in the US:

1. All the reasons you gave.

2. All the reasons carlisimo gave. People aren't teaching their kids to drive sticks. And I got the shock of my life when I found out that driving schools here don't use sticks either! Back home (South Africa) no one would go to a driving school that uses automatics!

3. One problem I've seen in the US, especially with mid-sized cars, is that it is very hard to find a stick in an appealling trim. Want a stick Honda Accord or (since 2008) Mazda 6? You can't have the V6! Want a stick Mazda 5 or VW Passat? Forget about leather, dual-zone AC and all that nice stuff. Let's not talk about a stick Altima! Even cars like the Evo now have the stick in the basic trim only!
Stick models here are equipped so badly that they appeal only to enthusiasts who want the stripper model.

4. Dealers don't often stock sticks. I once went to a dealer who had about 40 to 60 new Honda Civics and not a single one was a stick!

5. I think there is a culture in the US that stick are only for cheap cars (or expensive sports cars). If one doesn't drive a BMW or a Porsche, having the stick seems to be a reduction in "status".

6. Sticks lose value more easily, unless of course, the car is a sport/sporty model.

As a consequence of the last four points I listed, only dedicated fans would buy sticks!

Ron,

When my mom first taught me how to drive, she taught me in a stick. I was so scared i feared the worst would happen like getting stuck in the steepest hill in the city with a line of cars in back of me, honking and waving that i had made them miss their green light three times!!! Well it did happen, i was 17 and since then every time i have to drive a stick i remember that day!

I too am a control freak and i think i might try stick one more time and take control of my own driving experience...

I just drove a stick for about a mile for the 1st time in my life (of 28 years) and loved it.

I can see both sides. I personally dislike alot of the 'cult' of the stick, they are very over the top in benfits. (esspically in mpg, these days with gearing auto generally get better mpg)

However, my next car will probably be a stick, because I found it that much fun. I just wont rub it in anyways face.

Most people are lazy. For proof, look at this: http://www.terranova.net/content/images/irony.jpg

The bigger question here, is that if stick shifts only make up 2-10% of the market, how come they make up most of the car reviews? Or the reviewers complain so much about a model lacking a stick shift? As sticks behave differently to automatics, it doesn't help the reader figure out whether its a worth while car to buy or not (ditto with this obsession with rear drive vehicles, I don't think it matters it the 'tail' smokes out round a corner, most people just want the car to get round in one piece).

I understand the objections to driving a stick in certain situations... my commute is short and relatively traffic free and my car has a manual transmission. If I were to be sentenced to a lengthy stop-and-go commute I can honestly say I'd probably go back to an automatic (if I can't move, find a different job, or if my first commuting-induced suicide attempt fails). Other than that I can't imaging driving an automatic again. Every time I do, I feel so disconnected from the car. I almost feel like I have to force myself to stay awake and pay attention rather than being fully engaged with what's going on with the car and my surroundings.

Chalk one up to good old American laziness. Learning a new skill is too much trouble when all you want to do is cruise in a hot car.

Remember, we're dealing with a population that would rather play Guitar Hero than actually learn how to play a guitar. Obviously, posing in the family room is enough.

Ha! Love the guitar hero analogy. I also blame video games for the demise of the stick and the rise of the "flappy paddle".

I actually like my manual gearbox in traffic. It's almost become a game to see how little I can touch the brake pedal. Use engine braking and then go into neutral when the revs drop too low. Leave a little cushion in front of you so that you can creep along in first gear without coming to a complete stop. By the time you get up there, the car in front has started to pull away again. I love being in line behind another driver with a manual who is employing the same technique. You can tell because you don't see his brake lights much, and because he's not holding a damn cell phone.

It means less tailgating, and therefore occasionally those jerks who wait to the last second to merge from a lane that's about to end will find a place to squeeze in. But I worry about them less and less as I get older and more mellow.

Good point about requiring an automatic to get the higher trim levels. That annoys me too. But there are exceptions. Most of the time, at least in the smaller cars that are so popular these days (Civic, Mazda3, etc.) and sporty marques (BMW, VW, Mazda), you can still get leather, alloy wheels, sun roof, and all the major electronic toys with a manual. You can even so equip an Accord or Camry if your dealer is willing to look hard enough or special order.

Also, the "small" engine these days is often plenty powerful enough (not long ago V8's barely broke 200 hp), and more fuel efficient, so I'd probably want it anyway. Mazda6 is a good example. 170 hp is enough for a car that size, and the 6-speed manual makes it fun. Or 190 hp with an Accord EX-L. As they always said with BMW's of a few years ago, it feels more powerful than it really is because the engine, gearbox, ride & handling are so smooth and enjoyable. Sure the V6 would be even faster, but I probably wouldn't buy it.

As fuel prices rise, the car makers will hopefully produce more variants and trim levels so that you can get higher mileage with all the luxury options.

Let me preface this by saying that I drive a car that one can no longer get with a stick due to low sales numbers (Forester Turbo). It is our only car -- while I do occasionally grumble when stuck in DC traffic (normally I have a reverse commute) and see the benefit of an auto , I don't think I could ever have an auto as my/our only car. My wife feels militantly about this, so rendering my opnion almost moot.

+1 for feeling connected to car. "You don't drive an automatic; you point it."

+1 also for "Chalk one up to good old American laziness." Actually, in Britain, if you take your test in an automatic, your license then has "Automatic only" emblazoned across it, and, more importantly, is not considered a "full" licence (for employment purposes, etc)

May my wife and I continue with our cult-like ways.

I have to echo the comment about people not teaching their kids. My dad's a big stick fan, but by the time I hit 16 he had a company car, and the company only did Buick Park Avenues. He didn't like driving stick enough to pay for his own car instead, and my mom dislike sticks (and good luck finding a full size station wagon in stick anyway). The driving schools were all auto-only. So he borrowed a car to teach me stick one afternoon and i loved it, but the next time I had a chance to touch a stick was five years later, and I'd of course forgotten everything from that three hour period. The second time I stalled the owner decided he wouldn't let me keep trying.

At the moment I'm weighing the idea of talking my friend into teaching me so we can rent a manual on my honeymoon in England, but driving a stick with my left hand on the "wrong" side of the road my be a bridge too far.

I've never noticed getting better mileage with a stick than automatic. The whole point of a stick is to keep the revs UP, isn't it?

I'm serious though; in automatics I often seem to be under 2,000rpm, whereas in a stick I never drop below 2,000rpm - it doesn't sound like it's healthy for the engine.

I turned 16 in 1991, and many, if not most, of the used cars kids my age could afford w/o help from mom & dad were standards. I didn't pick up an automatic until my fourth car purchase in 2001, and we did that primarily because of the trim issue blackadder brought up.

I'm torn regarding our next two car purchases, which will probably happen within six months to a year of one another. On the one hand, there are great automatics out there. And because we want lots of goodies, I'm not sure I want to limit our choices by demanding a manual. On the other hand, I really miss the involvement of a stick. They are good fun.

As for the fuel economy argument:

I've had two GTI 1.8Ts back to back, both with the 2002 and up 180 HP version of the motor. The first was a 5-speed tiptronic and my current one is a 5-speed manual. I almost certainly drive this one more aggressively.

Comparison:
Best tanks
Automatic: 29 MPG
Manual: 33.5 MPG

Worst tanks
Automatic: 19 MPG
Manual: 25 MPG (well, 13 on the race track...)

Lifetime average
Automatic: 24 MPG
Manual: 28 MPG

Now the 5-speed tiptronic in the MkIV Golf was never the greatest automatic, but still, I definitely saw the mileage difference between auto and manual.

"They get slightly better mileage and are less expensive."

Not really.

(cribbing from a Karl blog post)
Mazda:
3s 5sp Man 22/29MPG
3s 5sp Auto 22/29MPG
6s 5sp Man 17/25MPG
6s 6sp Auto 18/25MPG
RX8 6sp Man 16/22MPG
RX8 6sp Auto 16/23MPG

Honda/Acura:
Civic Man 26/34MPG
Civic Auto 25/36MPG
Accord Coupe EX V6 6sp Man 17/25MPG
Accord Coupe EX V6 5sp Auto 19/28MPG
Acura TSX base 6sp Man 20/28MPG
Acura TSX base 6sp Auto 21/30MPG

BMW:
135i man 17/25MPG
135i auto 18/26MPG
550i man 15/22MPG
550i auto 15/23MPG
650i man 15/22MPG
650i auto 15/23MPG

again why do so many stick drivers feel the need to bash/look down at auto drivers?

Does it make you feel better about your choice?

Sure, as autos get more efficient as they pick up more gears, and in a couple of cases the auto is a no-cost option. No, the stick is not *always* cheaper and higher mpg. But more often than not, it is both, especially in the subcompact Fits and Minis and Yarises that everyone is rushing to buy these days.

Anyway, the main point of the post is that it seems fewer people are interested in controlling their vehicles with a manual transmission. I suspect that a lot of people just don't know what they're missing. Many would probably enjoy it a great deal but never learned.

What bashing are you talking about, opfreak?

"I suspect that a lot of people just don't know what they're missing. Many would probably enjoy it a great deal but never learned."
I agree!

7-driver, a couple of things:

1. The Accord Coupe is not a good example because, believe it or not, the manual and auto use different engines! The manual uses an older technology engine that has better torque spread and doesn't have VCM.

2. If you've read any Mazda 3 forums (try the ones on Carspace), the Mazda 3 auto is notorious for getting far lower mileage than the EPA estimates. I don't know why, but that seems to be the case.

3. I don't have hard evidence to prove it, but I'm pretty sure the manuals will get better "real world" fuel economy than the autos, especially if driven by someone who knows a few "tricks".

4. Everybody is looking at the fuel economy figures and forgetting that the manuals are still much faster than the autos. I think the manual Mazda 3 does 0 to 60 in 7.3s or so, whereas the auto does it in 8.5s! Big difference.

Black posts like this:

syke Chalk one up to good old American laziness. Learning a new skill is too much trouble when all you want to do is cruise in a hot car.

which -drwales argees with.

I see, opfreak. You have a point....it's bashing. Although that statement might be partly due to the difficulty (and frustration) in finding decently-equipped manuals.......if nice manuals were easy to get he'd probabaly not say that.

"I actually like my manual gearbox in traffic. It's almost become a game to see how little I can touch the brake pedal."

This is dangerous. There is a reason brake lights are categorized as safety equipment.

"Everybody is looking at the fuel economy figures and forgetting that the manuals are still much faster than the autos. I think the manual Mazda 3 does 0 to 60 in 7.3s or so, whereas the auto does it in 8.5s!"

Most of that faster comes from dumping the clutch and getting a quicker launch. Which will break things when done on a regular basis.