I have driven manual transimissions all my life. Never had an auto in a car until I was in my 40s. Those cars included both foreign and domestic. In none of them was left foot on brake and clutch a reasonable way to do it.
While use of handbrake on hills is an easy, simple method, using footbrake+accelerator accomplishes the same thing and results in no more wear on the clutch than the handbrake does. While hold the brake you release the clutch until it begins to grab, add a bit of gas while releasing the brake and you are off. That description applies to both hand and foot brake. The OP's reference to "reving the engine" has been taken way out of context IMO. All he meant was to increase the gas a bit.
Heel and toeing while driving is a totally different thing than starting from a stop doing it. I myself have never been able to do it well, even in a couple Volvos (59 PV544 and 62 122s - both new). I can shift clutchless much better but that is slower than using the clutch.
You do have a point about manual transmissions in modern cars. They are just as fuel efficient (in some cases more so) than the manual. The old perjorative "slush box" went out the window 30 years (or more) ago when the torque converter lock-up became standard. IMO there is no benefit to a manual in standard pbuttenger cars. For sporty type cars, give me a manual just for the sheer fun of driving.
Now for a PU, I have never bought a new one, always well maintained, medium mileage used. Always I insist on a manual. That is just me and I have been in a spot or two when I would have better off with an auto.
Harry K
