Automatic vs. Manual

milltown

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

I am 20 and a student ... sitting there and doing feck all with my left hand.

Well when I was 20... Actually, no, that's more suited to after hours.

:P

kazul

kazul wrote: »

Or, now bear with me this is a bit radical, you could place both hands on the steering wheel.

Well I was being facetious but you probably feel a little better for clearing that up

Top Dog

Dartz wrote: »

Manual.

When an auto malfunctions, it's expensive(DPO box -ick). When a manual goes wrong, you learn to double-clutch

Unless of course the manual in question has been fitted with a DMF, in which case you're fairly guaranteed a large transmission bill at some point in the vehicles life span

Like keeps being said over and over in this thread, if you haven't tried an auto yet - then go out and try a decent one before knocking them all as being uninvolving and crap.

Personally I bought an auto for the simple fact that the DMF is a known weak spot in the manual version, and you're pretty much guaranteed that it'll need changing at the 100k mile mark (in my case that'd be a €2500 bill). Now that I have it though, I love it! My driving style has relaxed considerably, fuel consumption differences are negligible compared to the manual, and I can always slot it over in the gate for tiptronic if I want a little more involvement (or when towing - comes in pretty handy then). Its a big heavy diesel, and the auto box seems to suit it to a T.

When it comes time to change, then I'll be giving both auto & manual equal consideration, where in the past I'd immediately dismiss the auto option due to a mis-informed thought that it was for some reason crap.

Chris_Heilong

my Auto box is actually a Multimatic which means I can switch it to sports mode but it also does not have a torque converter, it is actually based on a heavily modified CVT. This is my first Auto car so I have nothing to judge it on but it is certainly fun and snappy, just hope the normal Autos are as good for when I buy my next car.

here is some info:
http://asia.vtec.net/article/DriveMMT/

unkel

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

just hope the normal Autos are as good for when I buy my next car.

You will be fine, Chris. The only way is up

The cheapest / smallest cars usually have CVT boxes, wait till you try a good dual clutch system on a hot hatch or a modern ZF box on a powerful saloon :cool:

meoklmrk91

Okay then guys in order to give an honest and frank opinion I will at the very least test drive an auto once I have my test done as I am planning on getting a new car.

In fact I went on DD last night to look at cars I can't afford and came across one which really took my fancy, that surprisingly was an auto AND and Diesel:eek:, I never thought I'd see the day. I am only averaging around 50MPG on the polo so the only real advantage is the lower tax.

http://cars.donedeal.ie/for-sale/cars/2796831

Rob C

I've had a mix of manuals and auto's in my time. I just went from a 520D Auto to a 520D Manual and it makes very little difference to me to be honest. In that particular car the manual is actually in the lower tax bracket as well and is slightly more economical on juice. A tad quicker as well.

Diesels are so forgiving anyway that it's not problem in a manual, especially for something like a 2.0 litre and above, you can be as lazy as hell in it with the gear changes.

Auto's are great in heavy traffic, no question. My commute is along the M50 every day so the Auto didn't really give me any huge advantages. This 520D I'm in now is a peach and has a nice guide on the display to tell when to change gear for maximum economy.

200motels

I drive a auto and I like it, I can drive a manual as I've driven them for years, if your into driving then don't get an auto as a manual is more fun, the engine can last longer in an auto as it's always in the right gear, where as with a manual it all depends who's driving it regards gear changes, most people are never in the right gear.

Matt Simis

Voodoomelon wrote: »

In fairness, manually shifting an auto box in Steptronic mode in a saloon is never great. They have it there just so you can shift manually if you wish, but why you'd spec a large saloon with an autobox to then change it manually is beyond me. Unless its a performance semi-auto box, the manual feature is purely a gimmick and doesn't have to work too well in my view. As long as the auto shift is smooth and on time, that's all that matters.

Maybe on BMWs...

The Audi S8 was originally designed with a manual, but sadly all the RHD models are Tiptronics. The big power converted turbo ones usually have to convert back to manual at huge expense. If I was demo'ing the car to someone I would do it in Tiptronic (as I drive it mostly). Feels so much more powerful when you are in the perfect gear. As I said before, no auto will ever know what gear to be "waiting in" to rapidly overtake that tractor up, or the perfect point/gear to punch it out of a bend. Sure, they definately got faster at shifting.. but that demonstrates that the stupid thing was in the wrong gear to begin with.

If the autobox was a guy moving pedals for you, you wouldnt congradulate him on making that drop from 5th to 3rd in record time, you would smack him upside the head for ignoring your wishes and trying to be stupidly high gears at every given opportunity and not paying heed to the road in front.

Economy be damned, you drive as I tell you dammit!

Tea 1000 wrote: »

I'm attacking the Polo for being dull to drive, and highlighting that putting a manual box in it doesn't make it fun.

But good god, imagine driving an Automatic 3pot Polo? I swear to god I would just refuse and walk.

turbodiesel

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

I have a polo because I am 20 and a student and I can't afford anything else so don't be attacking me.

When I got it first I thought it was boring too, but you can get good fun out of it if you drive it properly. And I know I only mentioned the polo but I have driven plenty of other manual cars, beamers, scoobys etc and I just can't imagine sitting there and doing feck all with my left hand.

Lads, when I was 20 driving a hiace/corolla k20 was fun, you're first few tin boxes are always fun. It's part of the apprenticeship on the way to you bigger cars that you own now.

As a general coment i think auto boxes work well in large cc cars like my old '97 e300td that i just sold. I'm now driving an '07 primera P12 1.8 petrol auto and the gearbox has no mechanical sympathy for the engine when you accelerate or are overtaking with 3 or more adults in the car. It drop to third quite easily and revs pretty hard......

Mr Benevolent

I used to be a huge auto fan, bu I find I've gotten used to the manual fairly easily. It was a pain in the Corsa but essential in the Alfa as the auto Alfa is notorious for expensive autobox problems. Anyway, manual boxes suit the Alfa's more spirited driving.

mcwhirter

unkel wrote: »

Another misconception. A good modern automatic uses not a drop more fuel than a manual. That's on paper. In real life, an automatic uses less fuel as it knows better what gear to be in than any human driver.

Thats not what my friends have reported to me,autos much heavier on fuel on an equivalent car and engine size. Its well known autos use more juice.

copacetic

mcwhirter wrote: »

Thats not what my friends have reported to me,autos much heavier on fuel on an equivalent car and engine size. Its well known autos use more juice.

It doesn't matter what your friends have reported to you, test stats don't lie. Newer autos are as good as the equivalent manuals. things being 'well known' is pretty much always a misconception of ill informed people

mcwhirter

mcwhirter wrote: »

Thats not what my friends have reported to me,autos much heavier on fuel on an equivalent car and engine size. Its well known autos use more juice.

What modern auto boxes are they referring to?

GL scrappy

Like a lot of people here, I disliked automatics until I owned one, before that, the only auto I had driven was a 67 AMC Rebel Rambler, massive and with the selector on a stalk (3 on the tree I think they called it), was so awkward to park, it put me off for a long time.

In 08, I bought a car which was only available in auto, a 93 with a jatco 4ec-at with the intention of converting it to manual at some stage in the future, after a few weeks of driving it, I had changed my tune, it seemed to know the right gear to be in all the time, and had so many settings that negated the need for me to put a manual box in it. Any time I used it in "manual mode", the fuel gauge moved nearly as fast as the speedo, only in the opposite direction.

Then in 2010, I upgraded my daily driver to a subaru vivio with ecvt (also a 93), didn't think the auto would work as well in such a small engined car, but it does work, and makes me wonder why I ever wanted to change gears myself. It still has a lower ratio setting, which can be handy for a bit of extra engine braking. It might sound a bit like a milk float, but it's worth it for the lazier driving experience it offers.

Maybe I'm just getting old.

I still drive manuals fairly regularly, and I often forget to change down in gear when coming to a stop, thinking that the car will do it for me, have come close to stalling a few times for that reason.

I can see how a sportier car would benefit from a manual box when being driven in a spirited way and I would like to think I'll always own one for that reason, but for normal daily driving, long distances or driving in traffic, I consider myself an auto convert.

mcwhirter

copacetic wrote: »

It doesn't matter what your friends have reported to you, test stats don't lie. Newer autos are as good as the equivalent manuals. things being 'well known' is pretty much always a misconception of ill informed people

I'm talking about the traditional autos, this thread is called automatic vs manual. Maybe it should be 'new automatics vs manual'.

unkel

unkel wrote: »

Another misconception. A good modern automatic uses not a drop more fuel than a manual. That's on paper. In real life, an automatic uses less fuel as it knows better what gear to be in than any human driver.

mcwhirter wrote: »

Thats not what my friends have reported to me,autos much heavier on fuel on an equivalent car and engine size. Its well known autos use more juice.

copacetic wrote: »

It doesn't matter what your friends have reported to you, test stats don't lie. Newer autos are as good as the equivalent manuals. things being 'well known' is pretty much always a misconception of ill informed people

mcwhirter wrote: »

I'm talking about the traditional autos, this thread is called automatic vs manual. Maybe it should be 'new automatics vs manual'.

Well you quoted a poster who specifically was referring to a good modern auto so claiming you were on about "traditional autos" now doesn't really tally

mcwhirter

RoverJames wrote: »

Well you quoted a poster who specifically was referring to a good modern auto so claiming you were on about "traditional autos" now doesn't really tally

Exactly, thread is mis named.

voojeq

a vid about the CVT box thought ill put it here ;]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c47caRqbbnE