Battle of the Transmissions: M/T vs. A/T

[Jun aka Pekto]

driving A/T is more convenient but for me its not as easy as M/T

I can do everything with M/T without the worries of hurting the tranny, engine brake to stop, accelerate to full then shift, rev & swift at high speed and rpm, engine brake to cut corners, down shift to overtake, etc etc

even the new A/T can do most of these, but I don't anyone who has a A/T will drive the car as a M/T,

I try to find a tutorial in driving a A/T or faq on how to properly drive a A/T but still can't find one, may be someone can guide me where I can be educated,

A M/T is still prone to abuse. I had a friend force a downshift from 5th to 3rd in a freeway. It's like we hit a wall. Everything (including us inside) but the car lurched forward. Good thing he managed to re-press down on the clutch. But, it scared the crap out of me and I was so ticked off I punched his shoulder raw.

As for engine braking.... Whether engine braking with a M/T or wheel braking with an A/T, you're stressing something. With the A/T, the stress is on the brake pads while with a M/T, the stress is on the engine (just watch the rpms fly) and whatever gear the stick is at plus the clutch. Personally, I rather stress the brake pads. They're way cheaper to replace.

When I round a corner, I obviously have to apply the brakes, but just enough to make it through safely. Soon as I'm through, just punch the gas and the car goes. No need to row the gears or worry about a sub-optimal clutch release with each shift.

I'm not the most experienced driver around. But, I've driven stick almost exclusively for 13 years plus another 13 driving both stick and A/T cars. I'm comfortable with either transmission. I'd probably notice more the differences in transmission if my cars were underpowered. But, I haven't had a car lacking in hp since my 1986 Nissan Pulsar NX (55hp, 5-spd M/T).