Clutch control involves clutching, declutching and “balancing” (most drivers should be familiar with this term). So it looks like an auto is much simpler to drive than a manual.

But is it necessarily better? Those that had a rough time with clutch control back at the driving school will raise their hands shouting “Aye!”, but there are more than a few naysayers around, myself included.

Simpler is not necessarily better, especially when we introduce the concept of driving pleasure. Driving an auto is boring, to summarise things. Movement is centred on the throttle and brake only. The autobox robs the driver of a sense of control.

The experience from behind the wheel is bland, to say the least, and on long trips, soporific.

Driving enthusiasts say there is no better feeling than depressing the clutch with your left foot and selecting the gears yourself through the gratuitous H-gate; simplicity be damned.

Hill starts are also a bit of a challenge, and nobody can claim they dislike a challenge — look at the number of people, drivers included, that rush to fill Sudoku grids in our local dailies. Is that not a challenge?

The counter-argument is this: The pleasant sensations of clutching, declutching and selecting gears are best enjoyed on an open road.

When trapped in the worst of Nairobi’s gridlock, it becomes a pain, a heavy cross to bear, more so if you are trapped on an uphill stretch.

Summary? Automatics are for beginners, the inept and city-dwellers. Manuals are for the discerning autophiliac, the true petrol head.
What group do you fall in?

Performance

Sharpen your swords everyone, for here we put paid to a long-standing fallacy. Manuals are always quicker and faster than automatics, given that everything else is kept constant.

Those that claim otherwise do not know how to get the best out of their manual transmissions (see Driving an Auto Vs. Driving a Manual, coming soon). The reason behind this lies in the clutch mechanism and the gear ratios chosen for each transmission.

As explained earlier, most automatics use a fluid clutch. The power losses involved are markedly higher than those of a friction clutch (with zero per cent loss if the mechanism is in good working order) as seen in manual transmissions.

Therefore, the power channelled to the wheels via the torque converter is only a fraction of that out of the engine, meaning stunted performance. Not so with a friction clutch.

The gear ratios also determine performance. Because of the power-sapping torque converter, automatics are equipped with tall gears (slow acceleration to maximise on speed). Some slush-matics have boxes geared for 100KPH in 1st.

Fancy, yes, but acceleration is pathetic. Automatics also tend to have fewer gears: four is the norm, while freaks like the Dodge Neon have only two or three. Manual gearboxes typically have four, five or six.

More gears means less spacing between the gears, meaning the engine revs can be maintained at peak power levels without long stretches of revving up in between. Performance-wise, manuals take the cake, without exception.

Economy

Economy is not just fuel economy; it is the general pocket-friendliness of the car. Any driver that has ruined his automatic transmission will tell you (tearfully) of the hole he burnt (or is still burning) in his wallet trying to get it fixed or replaced.

While fixing a manual box is not exactly a holiday in the Maldives, it is a lot less painful compared to an automatic.

You might be able to force an auto to downshift, but you cannot force it to shift up.

If your car decides that second gear is what is required to ascend that slope, while you in your infinite wisdom clearly know that third has enough torque to do the job, there is little you can do to have your way.

In a best-of-three contest, the manual transmission takes two: economy and performance. Driveability is a 50:50 affair; subject to the individual and prevailing circumstances.

Where does your vote lie?