The subject of Automatic v Manual has been raised on a number of occasions and it is simply a matter of personal choice which suits.
I suspect that the majority, like me, drive manuals because an Automatic saps power, costs more to buy and you get a lower mpg.
However in a Mercedes brochure, extolling the virtues of an automatic, it claimed that for ?everyday motoring? mpg was the same as a manual as you were always in the correct gear for optimum economy, (for the speed you wished to travel at) It would change up and down the box in a short distance, where a manual driver might not bother.
As for performance, leaving the car in ?D? I can accelerate as fast as any racing driver(in the same car) ? every time.
So my question ? has anyone got statistics on fuel consumption, running costs etc of manuals and automatic models of the same car? From a fleet user perhaps.
Bob
|
|
the best time to get an automatic, is if you do alot of city driving.
|
|
You may well find that the auto rover uses the honda engine, as at the time, rover didn't make one.
|
|
|
|
Thank you, most illuminating.
Bob
|
|
sorry about that, i couldnt think of anything else good to say about automatics (i prefer to be in control of the gears, unlike my mother who prefers an auto box).
|
Bob H - He`s an idiot, but he is always around late at night and feels the need to write one-liners everywhere.
If you wait until the morning, you`ll get plenty of intelligent answers, so don`t get put off by the fool.
|
|
the only idiots on this forum come from brazil.
|
|
If you read the contributions from 'Brazil' and the contributions from North East England it won't take you a second to see where the idiot is!
|
Guys, you are ruining this forum with your insult trading.
Ladas, it might help if you refrain from commenting with such 'authority' on matters that you appear to have little experience of. It is good to see your enthusiasm but, from the car buying recommendations and other comments you have made, I get the impression that you haven't long been driving. Note that this is not meant as an insult -- we have all been there!
|
|
ok, i have only been driving for 4 years, but i do know a bit about cars, i have been helping my dad restore cars since i was 11 years old.
|
|
|
|
|
Sauce for the goose......
|
|
|
|
now now you have forgot your pills again
|
|
|
|
|
sorry mark, i got a relapse.
|
|
|
|
|
A fair number of manager's at the firm I left in March 2001 had BMW 5-Series cars as their company car and these were a mix of manual and automatic. The consensus was that the manuals were most economical in town but the autos were most economical on the open road.
My own 'previous model' 1992 BMW 525iSE Touring has a five speed automatic box with lockup (overdrive) and averages 28 mpg. It is driven roughly 60% on urban/extra urban roads and 40% on the open road and I don't drive for economy (far from it!).
|
|
|
|
Following on from David's comments, I agree that autos give worse consumption around town although are at their best, but give slightly better consumption in open road conditions. Overall they are slightly worse for consumption. Interestingly, auto transmission is just about the only optional extra that will increase your trade-in value over the base price. Nothing like the full amount but a contribution never the less. Modern autos give several modes to play with:- Normal, Winter, Sport, DIY and are particularly relaxing in conjunction with cruise control. Unlike a manual, the cruise control doesn't disengage on an auto if you change gear for a hill.
|
|
|
Bob,
The attraction of an auto' transmission car re fuel consumption alone, will not be favourable, although it is closer to the performance of its manual option these days, with current lean burn and low emissions control technologies. I suspect you know this already.
I too would like to see the comparative data to which you refer, So I watch this post with interest.
What I do want to shout about, is the extraordinary improvement it has in reduceing the tensions in everyday driving, and generally making it a more pleasant experience. Aspects that come to mind are:
Precise controlability when reversing ( I don't use the throttle normally)
Easier driving in a traffic jam on a hot day, togeather with aircon.'
The five speeds give excellent performance and the car does not feel torpid.
A preoccupation with the road ahead rather than finding the right gear in a
mediocre gearbox, ie changing from 5th to 3rd gear quickly to overtake.
As well as my own car, I have driven a very large milage in an MB G wagon (A company vehicle) this too had an auto box plus a diesel engine, and I was initially sceptical of this combination as I had used a manual Range Rover previously. The G Waggon and its autobox to me were an extraordinary eye opener. Although sluggish, the ability to pull a heavy 4 wheel trailer hundreds of miles without me feeling knackered at the end was a revelation. The engine/gearbox alone (for a short time) would hold the vehicle trailer combination on a hill at traffic lights in a busy market town, to then gently accelerate away; or perhaps to also negotiate a sharp and tight corner simultaneously, with infinite ease. It was a wonderful machine and taught me a great deal about the wisdom of the auto box, particulary in the traffic this country experiences today.
Regards,
Julian.
|
|
I, too, have that combination of a diesel engine and automatic gearbox in my imported Toyota Masterace. With it's size and shape, there are no thrills to be had when accelerating away from the lights, (except seeing cyclists unable to catch up) but, it's overall "driveability", and economy, make this engine/gearbox combination quite satisfying for my type of driving.
|
|
|
|
|
I notice that the Rover 216 automatic quotes different type numbers for items connected with the engine - ECU for example - which suggests some differences in engine performance. So is one really comparing like with like? And also, if not why not - why do autos need slightly different engines? It is not obvious why with torque converter lock-up there should be any difference in performance or fuel consumption.
|
|
|
The reason there's a difference in performance / consumption, even with identical engines and torque converter lock-up is that the overall gearing of an automatic is usually higher which improves consumption but reduces top speed. The reason they are higher geared, is that the torque converter acts as a 2:1 reduction gear so that a four speed auto has a wider range of effective gears than a five speed manual.
Rovers did use totally different engines for their auto versions, I think because they used the Honda gearbox which is designed for Japanese engines which rotate the other way to european engines. this is why some Rovers have the engine on the right of the engine bay and some on the left.
|
|
|
Roger,
Would be appreciative if you would expand on how toque converter "lock up" works. I know how a standard torque converter transmits drive via oil.
My immediate reaction would be that a higher gearing, manual or auto, would provide the same vehicle with a higher top speed. What would provide an advantage in favour of the manual box, would be the comparative box efficiencies. An auto box has greater internal frictional losses, slightly undermining fuel consumption and HP available at the wheels, when compared to its manual counterpart.
Regards,
Julian L
|
|
|
Torque converter lock-up is a electronically-controlled hydraulic clutch which "locks" the input and output shafts of the torque converter together. This only happens when the two shafts are nearly the same speed. The transmission ECU controls when this can happen.
If you exclude the torque converter of an auto and the clutch of a manual, then an auto is more efficient because a manual has four or five gears plus reverse which are constantly being driven through the oil, not just the gear set in use. An auto by comparison only uses one set of gears at a time. It is the torque converter (not locked-up) which is inefficient and makes an auto less economical around town.
The top speed suffers on an auto because the gearing, usually, doesn't have the engine at max power revs because it is deliberately over-geared to improve economy. Many five speed manuals are over-geared in fifth (achieving max speed in fourth), auto are just higher-geared than this.
For instance the 95 Cavalier 2.0 16v Auto was geared for 29.2 mph per 1,000 revs, so was only doing 4246 revs at max speed of 124 mph, way below the max power revs of 5600. The manual could only get to 125 mph.
|
|
|
Agree with the comment above from Julian about a generally more relaxing drive from autos.
There is one aspect I don't like though which is that it seems, on the autos I have driven at least, that the compression braking effect is less.
To explain what I mean. I like to drive so that I use acceleration sense to keep the car in position, keep a nice space in front, look well ahead, see stuff slowing down so lift off the gas and use the engine compression to slow down. Someone previously commented on a thread about the traffic in front used their brakes 50x to his 1x, well that's my road driving style these days.
I find in autos it is far more difficult to do this and end up with using the brakes more, or deliberately forcing a downshift, not life threatening but personally irritating as I judged it wrongly and defeats the object of having an autobox.
Another thing I dislike, but have only come across this on big autos in USA, is where the parking brake automatically disengages when you engage something other than D or P. Means you have to sit at the lights with the footbrake on dazzling the poor sod behind. Quite how you deal with the parking brake of the Renault Vel Satis which appears only to engage, and automatically at that, when you turn the engine off. Hand brake turns be a bit of a sod then!
|
|
You can't expect an auto box to replace all the functions of your brain! I live in a very hilly area, and am continually slapping the shift from D to 3, and even 2, and I too like to think I use the brakes less than the guy in front. At 65k I am still on the original shoes and pads, with plenty of meat on them. The really relaxing thing about an auto is that doing nothing at all is almost never hazardous , but sometimes you can help it if you feel like it.
|
|
|
|
RogerL'
Perhaps I am missing a trick here.
If Autos were higher geared that would explain the better out of town mpg.
However all of the official consumption figures for Urban, extra-urban, and the steady state consumption figures for 56mph & 75mph(90 & 120Kph) show the Auto having a lower mpg than the otherwise identical manual versions.
Surely at 56mph & 75mph with the transmission locked up, and higher gearing, the Auto should have better mpg.
D
|
|
|
