Your view on Automatics?

Mailman

MercMad wrote:

I feel an automatic transmission adds a touch of refinement to any car, once it has a decent amount of power.

The transmissions are very advanced nowdays and from an acceleration point of view its easier to floor it, than to give it 5000RPM and dump the clutch, easier on the car anyway !

I bought a new C180 6sp. manual, then a C200K auto, then the CLK auto and I have never noticed any difference in economy on either vehicle !

Both my cars are auto's and I would never buy another manual, in fact I am hunting for a good used C180/C200 auto to replace my Dads one which is manual, and hateful because of that !

That 1.8 litre engine even in Kompressor form isn't a good example with the E and CLK's weight. My father has had three of them in various model years and shapes and I find that the auto has to work very hard due to the small capacity of the engine and changes too often.
Once it's spinning it's not so bad but getting up to speed is a pain with the 1.8.

Gerry

smemon wrote:

the argument about it being heavier on fuel is debatable...

automatics change gear at the correct revs, correct speed... it's very rare a manual driver will change gear at correct revs and speed.

anyhow, if i had the cash, i'd buy an automatic. Ideally, a semi-automatic with steptronic control paddles

Its debatable in terms of modern automatics. An automatic has a torque converter between the gearbox and the engine, its not a direct drive. This torque convertor transfers the power through hydraulic fluid, and you lose some power in the process, hence you'll use more fuel to keep pace with a manual car. BUT, modern automatics are increasingly using torque converters that can lock up once the car is up to speed, stopping the power loss. So on a long run, a modern automatic shouldn't be any thirstier than a manual. But I think it would still use more fuel in stop start traffic.

Correct revs and speed - I'll agree insofar as a manual gearbox is wasted on a lot of people, because they don't know what they are doing, the gearbox is viewed purely as an inconvenience, and so they waste petrol and cause undue stress on the engine by being in the wrong gear. But if you know what you are doing, its nice to have full control, particularly if pushing on a bit, or in situations like a steep downhill twisty road ( yes, I know you can full control with a steptronic auto as well ).

MercMad

That 1.8 litre engine even in Kompressor form isn't a good example with the E and CLK's weight. My father has had three of them in various model years and shapes and I find that the auto has to work very hard due to the small capacity of the engine and changes too often.
Once it's spinning it's not so bad but getting up to speed is a pain with the 1.8.

...........its a good example since there are billions of them out there. We'd all love a silky six cylinder or a rumbling V8 but few here would consider them due to prohibitive running costs !

Obviously the more torque the better for an automatic but hey........

unkel

Interesting debate! My points below are based on comparing very modern 6-speed manuals to 5-speed tiptronic auto boxes. E.g. current BMW 530i and BMW 530d

SouperComputer wrote:

Its not really debateable. If the AG is running through a torque converter you can be pretty sure that even a driver with the most basic of skills will be getting less ecomomy. A torque converter is horribly inneficient until it reaches its stall speed

True in the official MPG figures but only really for city traffic as Gerry pointed out. The figure can be up 5-10%. In practice it will depend a lot on actual gear changing behaviour of the manual driver and it could well be down to only a few percent

SouperComputer wrote:

Advancments in technology has meant that the gap in economy and peforamanc e between auto and manual is smaller than ever

True. Also automatic cars don't need to weigh any more than manuals these days. They used to be a lot heavier, explaining a significant part of the worse economy in city traffic

SouperComputer wrote:

but manual still has the upper hand. Generally an auto is going to be marginally slower

In theory but the differences are small. In practice the auto can be actually faster in acceleration, because of:

ned78 wrote:

an Auto knows when useable power tails off on the rev range, you're average dunce doesn't

I'd go as far as saying only a professional test driver with either a lot of testing time or access to engine power / torque data could accelerate as fast as the official 0-100km/h time in a manual car

mike65

Like it matters on the M50!

Mike.

unkel

mike65 wrote:

Like it matters on the M50!

Very much so! Moving one's right foot from the brake pedal to the acceleration pedal and back now and then is so much easier