One popular myth?

Can you be more specific? At first, I'd be inclined to say - no. Certainly 'speed' (the car's velocity) itself is not necessary to keep an engine in good operating condition.

But, very short distance trips in which the car never (or very infrequently) reaches operating temp can have detrimental effects. And driving such that the engine is always at a fairly low RPM (but not necessarily the car's 'speed') can have detrimental effects.

Can you be more specific? At first, I'd be inclined to say - no. Certainly 'speed' (the car's velocity) itself is not necessary to keep an engine in good operating condition. --------------------

No, I can't be more precise.

Another alternative to the myth could be to run at certain rpm's to preserve the motor.

I know every manufacturer's owners manual I've seen encourages varying RPMs during new engine 'break-in' period.

I've heard of people claiming that running an engine hard for a few minutes straight every once in a while will help it by purging soot and carbon deposits from the cylinders and valves. This can be accomplished by running it up a long steep inclince for a while, like a mountain climb, or by going fast for a few miles on the interstate. I think that might be a myth in itself though. With today's engines and gasolines, which have detergents, soot and carbon build-up isn't much of an issue. It would seem that nowadays it is more an excuse to drive a car hard than a reason to drive a car hard. But that's just my opinion. I'm open to changing it if someone can presetna good argument to me. I'm curious what that might be. Just a few weeks ago someone (nobody?) posted something suggesting a lengthy bit of running an engine hard will help fill the hydraulic lifters. I could see how this MIGHT degrade engine performance if your lifters were nearly dry. But I'm not actually sure that the tolerance taken up by hte hydraulic pressure in a hydraulic lifter is just to keep the valve snugged up to the cam, or if it is enough that missing fluid would actually cause the valve to open less. I imagine that might vary from engine to engine. Anyone know?

Bill

The rotaries (rx-8) seem to get stronger as they age. but the more mundane ic engines are slowly loosing power as they age no matter how you wring them. Besides, with the all american reliance on automatics and engines subsequently working at half of their capacity who would really give a f*ck, honestly.

Woo Hoo, that was a real opinion, thank you, it reminds me of the good old days.

Nils

WTF would anyone want a stick shift on a non high performance car? No warranty, no mpg gains, hands off the wheel and driver fatigue leading to accidents.

Just because that's the way you drive a stick, that doesn't mean others do. My OBS came with a warranty, don't know about the difference in mpg, doesn't matter much since we all have to run scam gas in Wisconsin. Do you really take both hands off the wheel to shift? How fatigued does your foot get from pushing in the clutch several times an hour?

David

Well, I drive a slow non-performance car. The reason I wanted the manual is BECAUSE it has no power. The manual makes the most of the little power it has.

I don't know about your mileage claims. Since most manual transmission cars get better mileage than their auto counterparts, or at least that was the way it was until quite recently, but I'm not shelling out the money for a car built in the last five years.

I don't know what warranty stuff you're talking about. They are covered under a warranty just like an auto would be. If you abuse them, then that isn't covered, but just learn how to drive one.

As for hands off the wheel and driver fatigue, if you are getting fatigued to the point of causing an accident just from the extra work of moving a shift lever and your left foot, you shouldn't be driving.

Perhaps if you were to learn to drive a stick properly, you'd understand the answers to your questions. You sound more like someobdy who toasted their manual transmission doing stupid stuff, then when they found out that destroying one's car by doing stupid stuff isn't covered under warranty, they became bitter to the idea of a manual, and now wants to complain. For those of us who learned to drive one well, it is a satifying thing to have more control over the car, save gas, be able to push start or bump start the car if the battery dies, decide to start in second in snow to reduce wheel spin, downshift into a corner to use engine braking, not have to wait for a slow transmission to shift down, and--for some--to have the opportunity to pull off a nice heel-toe downshift while trailbraking. This can be done with any car, whether performance oriented or not.

Well, I drive a slow non-performance car. The reason I wanted the manual is BECAUSE it has no power. The manual makes the most of the little power it has.

I don't know about your mileage claims. Since most manual transmission cars get better mileage than their auto counterparts, or at least that was the way it was until quite recently, but I'm not shelling out the money for a car built in the last five years.

I don't know what warranty stuff you're talking about. They are covered under a warranty just like an auto would be. If you abuse them, then that isn't covered, but just learn how to drive one.

As for hands off the wheel and driver fatigue, if you are getting fatigued to the point of causing an accident just from the extra work of moving a shift lever and your left foot, you shouldn't be driving.

Perhaps if you were to learn to drive a stick properly, you'd understand the answers to your questions. You sound more like someobdy who toasted their manual transmission doing stupid stuff, then when they found out that destroying one's car by doing stupid stuff isn't covered under warranty, they became bitter to the idea of a manual, and now wants to complain. For those of us who learned to drive one well, it is a satifying thing to have more control over the car, save gas, be able to push start or bump start the car if the battery dies, decide to start in second in snow to reduce wheel spin, downshift into a corner to use engine braking, not have to wait for a slow transmission to shift down, and--for some--to have the opportunity to pull off a nice heel-toe downshift while trailbraking. This can be done with any car, whether performance oriented or not.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had an '86 GL with a 3 speed automatic and also a '92 Loyale with a 3 speed automatic and I thought I would have to get out and push. I had a 5 speed on an '85 4WD Turbo and irregardless of the turbo, the 5 speed made quite a difference in the power. I now have a 2000 Forester with 4 speed automatic which is vastly superior to the former configurations. My point is that the better gearing of a manual transmission is sometimes much superior to the slower automatic.

I think he meant no additional warranty benefit.

Shifting can be a distraction, over time does indeed contribute to some fatigue, certainly to many accidents.

Manual can be fun and makes better use of power.

I think age and type of driving also play a role in ones preference. Personaly, I wouldn't want to drive a stick shift to work as I like to concentrate and focus a bit before the workday begins (need no distractions no matter how small). On the other hand, I would hate to drive an automatic on weekends when its time for some fum.

As you may suspect, I drive both an auto and a manual.

Basia