Why aren't all cars automatic?

shamblertine

What reason is there for still making manual gearbox cars? Can't think of any advantage myself to having a manual gearbox.

Blazer

shamblertine wrote: »

What reason is there for still making manual gearbox cars? Can't think of any advantage myself to having a manual gearbox.

Automatic cars are for old farts and woman and F1 drivers..
Haven't you watched "Fast and the Furious"? Did you see how sexy Vin Diesel or Walker looked when they were rapidly changing gears?
Now let's imagine that they were driving automatic cars? Now see how fcuking boring that would be?

PCPhoto

because manual cars go faster !

I've driven Automatic and Manual and I prefer manual ..... probably nothing to do with the amount of time driving each very disproportionate.

if you want to why not ask - why arent all cars fitted with tachographs (to assist insurance companies/gardai/emergency services with the actual speed on impact)

....or

maybe get all cars fitted with GPS Navigation control (if every car was controlled by GPS we'd have no crashes as the car could override the manual user and slow down to avoid collision .... but too far ahead technologically ....nope !!! ...bit of a sci-fi movie thing ....maybe - but it wouldnt be too difficult to do it, but then car sales would drop and so would repairs/spares)

NiSmO

This post has been deleted.

Stevie Dakota

Cheaper to make is the main reason, public expectation is another. We are used to manuals, just as the Americans are used to autos. Having lived with both it is hard to argue for a manual.

NiSmO

This post has been deleted.

PCPhoto

Stevie Dakota wrote: »

Cheaper to make is the main reason, public expectation is another. We are used to manuals, just as the Americans are used to autos. Having lived with both it is hard to argue for a manual.

Faster speed is the main reason ....

Dont get me wrong Auto's are great .... but I prefer manual

shamblertine

PCPhoto wrote: »

Faster speed is the main reason ....

Dont get me wrong Auto's are great .... but I prefer manual

but come on, the difference would be barely noticeable, and its not like your average road user is gonna be bombing along at 140mph anyway

rowanh

I have only driven an automatic a couple times, i didnt like it at all but then maybe it is a matter of getting used to it.. Id say automatics are better for people who are driving to work in traffic or who drive all day for work etc where manuals are better for people who are really into driving. I wouldnt mind trying a car with paddles or a tiptronic thing but i dont think id like to own either really..

unkel

PCPhoto wrote: »

because manual cars go faster !

We're talking 0-100km/h acceleration, I presume? On a modern decent car with a tiny bit of performance (I'm not talking a 1l Micra here) a manual is typically only faster on paper. This means the acceleration times when it is driven by a professional racing driver who knows the car very well indeed.

For you, me and everyone else who has ever posted on this forum, the manual is slower

shamblertine

Mathew Reilly wrote: »

Automatic cars are for old farts and woman and F1 drivers..
Haven't you watched "Fast and the Furious"? Did you see how sexy Vin Diesel or Walker looked when they were rapidly changing gears?
Now let's imagine that they were driving automatic cars? Now see how fcuking boring that would be?

Yeah but the majority of people aren't boy racers trying to look good, they just want to get from A to B. The reason I brought this up was seeing the top gear episode where their reviewed early cars and seeing all the sh1t you had to do just to get the fcukers started, and then you'd need about 3 arms and 3 legs just to get the thing moving. And I just thought why haven't we advanced anymore in recent times where all cars are automatic. If cost is the main reason then fair enough.

Creamy Goodness

because i wouldn't like to fall asleep at the wheel, manual gears prevents that.

leitrim lad

because those of us who know how to drive are able to change gears ourselves,

however you will get the odd geenious who lets on they know how to drive but use a baby gearbox:eek:(auto)

copacetic

unkel wrote: »

We're talking 0-100km/h acceleration, I presume? On a modern decent car with a tiny bit of performance (I'm not talking a 1l Micra here) a manual is typically only faster on paper. This means the acceleration times when it is driven by a professional racing driver who knows the car very well indeed.

For you, me and everyone else who has ever posted on this forum, the manual is slower

+1 The 0-100s for manuals are done by a racing driver, without using the clutch, they just force the gears in. The real life 0-100 is much closer to the official times for an auto than a manual.

It's a silly discussion, it's purely economics at the moment, manual will most likely be phased out eventually, when porsche, ferrari etc stop offering manual it will trickle down over the next 15-20 years to all cars. Especially since a lot of the newer autos are now as economical as the manual versions.

Eoin

Creamy Goodness wrote: »

because i wouldn't like to fall asleep at the wheel, manual gears prevents that.

I think I'd fall asleep quicker in the likes of a manual corolla or similar, rather than my auto. Would you consider the likes of a DSG or SMG box boring too?

leitrim lad wrote:

because those of us who know how to drive are able to change gears ourselves

I also know how to wind up a window and tune a radio manually, but I'd still rather not.

Stoned Hippy

A manual provides a much more engaging and enjoyable driving experience, you're not fully in control when driving an automatic.

shamblertine

Stoned Hippy wrote: »

you're not fully in control when driving an automatic.

how do you work that one out? with an automatic you're more in control as you dont have to worry about using the clutch and changing gears

Stoned Hippy

Are we talking about semi autos or full autos here?

In full autos you can't choose what gear you're in at all.

Nearly all semi autos i've driven (haven't been lucky enough to drive anything with a DSG gearbox or similar) the shifts take up to a couple of seconds after pressing the paddle which is very frustrating and not "engaging" at all.

Eoin

Stoned Hippy wrote: »

A manual provides a much more engaging and enjoyable driving experience, you're not fully in control when driving an automatic.

I'd say most people who come out with that line can't really make the difference count significantly anyway.

Edit: I do agree that some tiptronic boxes can be quite slow to shift but up to two full seconds to change seems a bit of an exaggeration. I very rarely use mine, but that's also because I find the auto box reactive enough. If I plant my foot, it drops a gear or two and speeds up just fine. The brakes are more than able for the job as well, so I don't feel I've missed out with reduced engine braking ability either.

Havermeyer

Because automatics are for the old, the gay and the female.

Stoned Hippy

You don't have to be an experience driver to be able to tell the difference between being able to change gears smoothly whenever you want and uncomfortably about a second after you decide you want to change.

I reckon a good DSG gearbox wouldn't have these problems but all the autos i've driven recently (Saab 9-5, BMW 520, Subaru Outback) did.

For sitting in traffic i'd take an auto any day but give me a twisty country road and i'd be frustrated by the lack of control very quickly.

rowanh

eoin wrote: »

I'd say most people who come out with that line can't really make the difference count significantly anyway.

Id agree with you to a point though id say a lot of people just like the action of changing gear, it makes them feel connected and in the driving experience at times. For me id say it makes a big difference having a clutch for doing several things like heal and toe, maybe this is just totally unnecessary in an automatic though??

Does anyone here who has an automatic drive their car really hard like to an extent where it would oversteer or understeer?

Eoin

Stoned Hippy wrote:

I reckon a good DSG gearbox wouldn't have these problems but all the autos i've driven recently (Saab 9-5, BMW 520, Subaru Outback) did.

I've a 525 auto, and love it. I've also test driven a 740 and also found it excellent to drive.

rowanh wrote:

Does anyone here who has an automatic drive their car really hard like to an extent where it would oversteer or understeer?

I don't know about here, but I am sure there are many people with the likes of an SMG M3 who would drive their cars that hard.

nummnutts wrote:

Because automatics are for the old, the gay and the female.

Genius stuff, good chap.

bazz26

The same reasons why all cars are not diesel. Alot of people just prefer one to the other.

ottostreet

Driving an automatic is the lazy way out. I had two automatics, and I had to drive my sisters Punto Sporting a few times just so I could drive a manual again, because I was so bored and frustrated driving the automatics. If you are able bodied, and interested in driving, then you should be driving a manual car IMO, or else youre not a real driver.

Eoin

ottostreet wrote: »

Driving an automatic is the lazy way out. I had two automatics, and I had to drive my sisters Punto Sporting a few times just so I could drive a manual again, because I was so bored and frustrated driving the automatics. If you are able bodied, and interested in driving, then you should be driving a manual car IMO, or else youre not a real driver.

As I asked earlier, what about DSG or SMG boxes? Or must there be a clutch to be a "real driver" like you?

SV

There must be a clutch.
There's no way I could enjoy driving with a clutch.. Sure, for sitting in traffic and the likes it's perfect but for driving pleasure..manual is far superior.


That said though, i don't know what any dsg box is like so i couldn't tell you if i'd like that but.. i highly doubt i would.

As for the comment about manuals only being faster on paper and noone being able to reach those figures on this forum? I'll accept that challenge. ;-)

MarkN

I had an automatic car, twin turbo with 300+bhp and paddle shift and I don't think you'd call it a boring car to drive or any other of the negative comments posted above.

If you're talking everyday run of the mill A to B cars then yes, maybe the auto box doesn't change that quick, doesn't engage you etc but not everyone uses an autobox in that type of car.

I now have a manual and it's a different car altogether so I think manual is a must but in my last car, even trying to sell it in manual would've been difficult.

TomMc

You could have the slickest of manual gearboxes but with an underpowered or inflexible engine - poor power delivery, numb steering, sloppy handling and weak brakes, the drive would be memorable for all the wrong reasons. The transmission is only one part of the overall package. All the best tiptronic autos or DSG type gearboxes will change quicker than the manual equivalent. Even a good auto (if floored) would out drag a manual from a standing start in all but the most experienced drivers hands. Some people still think autos are like old 3 speed ones without manual overide. They may have been painfully slow at accelerating (especially when overtaking) and the driver not having the same control that they have in a manual. But that was then, this is now.

cruiser178

always had a manual and do prefer manual,but now i have 4.2 td jeep auto,wouldnt change it for the world.excellent on long jouney even better around town.only thing is its a bit more thirsty then manual about 4 mpg less

_Kaiser_

I'm on my 4th auto (and first DSG box) - it's great.. lot faster off the line (if that's an issue ), lot more comfortable on long journeys (and I spend most of my week in the car anyway), and when you drop it down into Sport mode it becomes a completely different animal!

Would never go back to a manual.

S-Murph

The main reason I would imagine, and as someone mentioned already, would be that they are more expensive to produce. Similar to rear wheel drive in cars, its more expensive.

Then also there is less fuel efficiency and automatics are generally considered less reliable than a manual. 'More can go wrong'.

I wouldnt mind driving an automatic but I wouldnt for those reasons above.

igglou

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I'm on my 4th auto (and first DSG box) - it's great.. lot faster off the line (if that's an issue )

Compared with what cars is it faster??

I'm afraid I prefer manual and always will. Like others have said, I like being in control of what gear I'm in and my manual car was 4k cheaper than the same car in an auto. Plus the tax was only 150e as opposed to over 400e for the auto. You can't argue with thatin these current times of the big R

Also, a friend of mine has an X5 and the auto gear box has gone and its gonna cost €10k to replace it! :eek:

MarkN

igglou wrote: »

Plus the tax was only 150e as opposed to over 400e for the auto. You can't argue with thatin these current times of the big R

Yeh you're right... sure €250 is a lot in the road tax difference in a recession when you're talking brand new car depreciation ! :pac:

NewApproach

For some people, a car is more than just a method of getting from A to B. This is why.

mickdw

Alot of the argument against auto is no longer there since the arrival of dsg etc. Previously a typical auto was hopeless for hard/fast driving. With the older systems you would be braking for a bend with no idea what the engine was doing or where the down change was going to kick in. This doesnt lead to confidence in the car as an ill timed downchange could well throw you off the road when near the limit. Alot of the tiptronic setups were not much better in that you could select a downchange but it would take a second or so to actually do it. Again this would really mess up an approach to a bend when really flat out. Now some will say, this only relates to race track driving but in an emergency on the road, Id rather have direct control of gear selection to pull off emergency move.
Having said all that, DSG takes it all to a different level. I would have one of those as it really is instant

nialler

auto all the way for me, was very happy to hop back into my auto car after a ripping around in a mazda 2 and formula sheane in mondello, excellent fun but all that hassle changing gears was a complete pain but I do agree with a previous poster about engine braking combined with brakes is good going into a corner, but whoever said auto boxes are for people who can't drive, grow up, and drive a manual through dublin city in rush hour, then you'll see the benefit of an auto box.

Motorway & cruise control the most comfortable way to travel in this country (although with the outside lane always full of gimps it's sometimes impossible to get a good run) you also get wayyyy better fuel economy when using cruise.

Stephen

The only autos I've driven are terrible 4-speed American ****boxes, so based on those I'd say no to autos. However, I'd love to try a DSG or equivalent modern autobox sometime. I reckon that might be enough to get me to change.

Matt Simis

Anyone else see the "Best Motoring" test of the new M3 M DCT (same as DSG basically)? The M DCT M3 compared to the 6m was not very composed through the Slalom and various other tests. It changed gears the way it figured which made the car lunge out when he was trying to zig-zag. Fast yes, but even DSG boxes cant see the road ahead and plan for it like a driver can.

Both my cars are Tip. Sensible in the Diesel, annoying in the petrol. There is approx 5 years in advancements in the Diesels Tip box compared to the older petrol though.

Lobelia Overhill

I prefer an automatic, it suits me as I have sciatica problems with my left leg

copacetic

Matt Simis wrote: »

Anyone else see the "Best Motoring" test of the new M3 M DCT (same as DSG basically)? The M DCT M3 compared to the 6m was not very composed through the Slalom and various other tests. It changed gears the way it figured which made the car lunge out when he was trying to zig-zag. Fast yes, but even DSG boxes cant see the road ahead and plan for it like a driver can.

Both my cars are Tip. Sensible in the Diesel, annoying in the petrol. There is 14years in advancements in the Diesels Tip box compared to the older petrol though.

missed that, but presumably they left it in full auto? Anyone driving an M3 through a windy course would put it in manual mode I'd assume.

A lot of the comments above (not matt) seem a bit outdated, lollers at the guy who thinks shifts take 2 seconds, and one post later it's ben reduced to a second, maybe keep posting and see do you get it right in the end.

A step or trip system with latest software and paddles is pretty close to a manual. You can usually put them in a sport mode that won't change at all unless you use the paddles or go close to damaging the engine or gearbox.

The rest of the time you have a full auto mode that is great for long distance cruising or sitting in traffic. I never would have thought I'd end up in an auto until I did and don't really see myself going back.

Other misconceptions above which are wrong are that the tax for my car is the same for auto or manual, the emissions are the same and the mpg is the same. The 0-62 quoted is 0.2s slower for the auto, but imo the auto 0-62 is much more achievable for your average driver than the manual.

For the newer DSG cars in fact the emissions are often better for the DSG than the manual.

mickdw

nialler wrote: »

you also get wayyyy better fuel economy when using cruise.

I wouldnt agree with that. My car when on cruise (as I assume all cars do) will apply the breaks when on a downward slope to hold the car at the set speed. This is a terrible waste of energy.
On a flat open road, you will get good fuel economy but other than that, driver is more intellegent so can manage the fuel better if trying to.

damo86

I like to move it move it.... I like to move it move it:rolleyes:

MarkN

mickdw wrote: »

driver is more intellegent so can manage the fuel better if trying to.

I've met quite a few people on this planet that would be out-smarted by an ECU!

I think I'd admit driving a manual is more enjoyable when all is considered but it really depends on the car.

damo86

He likes to move it move it..... he likes to move it move it...MOVE IT:D

ninty9er

S-Murph wrote: »

Then also there is less fuel efficiency and automatics are generally considered less reliable than a manual. 'More can go wrong'.

The majority of the VAG DSG boxes are a tax band lower than their manual equivalent. Even the 150bhp 1.8 petrol which comes in a €447 in the Octavia.

ottostreet wrote: »

If you are able bodied, and interested in driving, then you should be driving a manual car IMO, or else youre not a real driver.

I'm able bodied, 22 and only drive a manual because a) to get a decent auto I would have to exceed my affordable insurance limit and b) because I couldn't find one before my Corsa drove me mental and had to go....I did spend 3 months looking though.

nialler wrote: »

.....but I do agree with a previous poster about engine braking combined with brakes is good going into a corner

Did ignition last week and failed on this because "gears are to go and brakes are to slow"

copacetic wrote: »

missed that, but presumably they left it in full auto? Anyone driving an M3 through a windy course would put it in manual mode I'd assume.

I'd be fairly certain that most S-Class or 3-Series drivers aren't even aware they have a manual shift option. An M3 driver probably would, but that's only a probability.

The_Conductor

I've driven both manuals and automatics and just prefer a manual for the better control it gives me. At the moment I'm driving a car that looks boring as hell (a Volvo V40 Estate), but then I don't need everyone knowing that its got sports tuning, a sports gear box, hardened suspension etc. It also has cruise control- which I rarely use- but if you're on a motorway or dual carriage way its a handy way of sticking just below the limit and/or maximising fuel efficiency. I don't have any penalty points- and I have done the IAM advanced driving test.

The Punto Sporting is a fun car to drive- I had one for a few weeks- I'd rather a sports gearbox though than the tiptronic gear change (on the model I had). At the moment I'm subtely encouraging my OH to learn to drive- she is in love with the new Mini- I've the intention of getting her a Cooper DS eventually (when my finances are better).

Why aren't all cars automatics- most people probably buy whats readily available to them without thinking- but a sizeable number of people enjoy the extra control and driving experience that a manual gear box gives them.

Matt Simis

copacetic wrote: »

missed that, but presumably they left it in full auto? Anyone driving an M3 through a windy course would put it in manual mode I'd assume.

Yeah, I think they were trying to show it on full auto vs a manual. It was all in Japanese with no subs tho. Could also be that BMWs 1st gen dual clutch tech isnt quite there yet? VAG by comparison put their DSG boxes into considerably slower cars to begin with an have been evolving the box "up" the range for a number of years.

LIGHTNING wrote: »

The large percentage of autos on the road are the old fashioned 4 speed boxes which are truely awful.

Afaik BMW switched from 4 to 5 speed autos in the mid 90s. Every recent (last 10years) auto Ive seen since has been 5 speed, so I would guess most Autos on the road are 5speed with the shift (gearbox humour) now on from 5 to 6 speed.

The Phaeton is 6speed Tip and its 2004. Pretty good box, couldnt fault it. Big diff in Sports or Drive mode too, which is nice. Has manual changes (like all Tips) but largely useless on a diesel.
The allroad is 5 speed Tip and its 2000. Its not wonderful when mixed with the ECU remapping due to the way it interpets when to change gears (based on torque). Guess it was very "ok" before hand though.

Iguana Bob

copacetic wrote: »

+1 The 0-100s for manuals are done by a racing driver, without using the clutch, they just force the gears in. The real life 0-100 is much closer to the official times for an auto than a manual

Did you really just say racing drivers dont use the clutch, im not a racing driver but know this aint true. you can force a bike into gear, yea. but you will have a lot more trouble doin this on a car the gear box would probably last abou 4 min

copacetic

Iguana Bob wrote: »

Did you really just say racing drivers dont use the clutch, im not a racing driver but know this aint true. you can force a bike into gear, yea. but you will have a lot more trouble doin this on a car the gear box would probably last abou 4 min

No, I said that the 0-62s are done by racing drivers, without using the clutch to get the best possible time. The gearbox only has to last 3 or 4 runs. Which is pretty clear if you just read the post.

As it happens most racing drivers don't use the clutch in races either, what with the cars not having them.

Matt Simis wrote: »

Yeah, I think they were trying to show it on full auto vs a manual. It was all in Japanese with no subs tho. Could also be that BMWs 1st gen dual clutch tech isnt quite there yet? VAG by comparison put their DSG boxes into considerably slower cars to begin with an have been evolving the box "up" the range for a number of years.

Could be, but SMG has been around for a long time now. It's more likely that they left it in full auto and it's not a fair comparison, the SW will be looking at Yaw and Lean to work out what to do and flying through a slalom isn't much of a real life situation, after 2 or 3 swerves it'd be expecting DTC to take over, if they turned that off they should have gone into full manual mode too.

MarkN

Iguana anyone with a bit of experience (never had to do it myself) can drive a car without a clutch as a temporary measure say if the clutch is gone in the car...