Small engines autos are slugs and totally pointless.
I was of that opinion until my Mother in law bought a Daihatsu Cuore auto some years ago. Tiny car, tiny engine, slushbox auto and quite nippy with it.
My advice to the OP would be try it and if you like it, buy it. Each to his own.
|
|
|
|
They may well be pointless if do don't need one or simply don't like them. However if you DO like them or just want an automatic they're fine for you. I did buy a new 1200cc automatic Hyundai i10 which my Mrs loves and I tolerate due, mainly, to the fact that I don't like Hyundai UK's Customer Service's approach to their customers - and the fact that it's not good on mpg. But it's competent and reliable and you don't have to change gear. If you don't want one, don't get one but don't knock them just for the sake of it or if you don't happen to like them yourself. I also have a 1200cc Skoda Yeti which has one of those DSG boxes that you refer to as unreliable. Strangely enough it hasn't gone wrong...and if it did I'd take it back and they'd fix it under warranty. I agree that out of warranty it is still an unknown quantity...so I'll perhaps replace it at 3 years. It's a cracking car and I absolutely love it. And it does more to the gallon than the Hyundai. Equally strange is the fact that my Jazz CVT wasn't horrid to drive and also didn't go wrong during the three years I had it and was quite economical and easy to drive.
If you have a medical need then yes, good advice, buy an automatic. But equally, the OP might quite like driving an automatic and it would be wrong to put him off because you don't like them yourself.
I happen to have owned 36 cars and all were manual up until relatively recently, so have had a bit experience with both sorts and am not especially biased.
Await Jamie to pop up now and abuse the prospect anything automatic if it's less than 3 litres and has leather upholstery....but nobody takes any notice of him anyway.
|
|
just make sure its a proper auto or DSG. CVTs not good. Most autos are a pleaseure to drive and the boxes are well sorted these days and often drive better than a manual.
I have a Landrover 2.2 diesel auto and it can still return 42.2 on a run, sluggish it is not and 0-60 the auto is quicker than the manual. It also changes down gear as it slows down so no need to sit on the brakes.
I jhave also had VW Passatt DSG's and used to get better mpg with the DSG than with the manual. The DSG was a dream to drive except reversing in parking spaces as it wouldnt creep.My manual passats used to return 47 av and the DSG about 58 av
Autos are brilliant and you will a;lways beat a manual away from the lights and at busy jubctions they are a dream
|
|
"just make sure its a proper auto or DSG. CVTs not good."........... Obviously I'm not going to disagree about the DSG, although, in my view, even with them there are certain aspects which you need to get used to when first driving one, but when you say "CVTs not good", they may not suit you, or should I say may, not suit everyone, but to say "not good" isn't entirely the case, I feel. My experience during the three years I owned one, was that if you wish to drive enthusiastically (fast)...well, a CVT Jazz isn't for you...but even if you just accelerate quickly with your foot well down the engine note will raise to a somewhat unpleasant degree - and stay there - and eventually you'll get to your desired speed. It won't however be a particularly relaxed experience. But if you drive somewhat more sedately (as most people in Jazz's do) then the RPM stays down and you get where you want to go in a relaxed and smooth fashion. Not for everyone, as we've said, but you can't say it's 'not good' just because it doesn't suit you....it's easy, relaxed, economical enough and if you don't want (or can't) change gear manually there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. [In my opinion, anyway :-) ]
Edited by KB. on 22/01/2013 at 14:00
|
|
|
|
|
TeeCee said "My advice to the OP would be try it and if you like it, buy it. Each to his own."
That would be my advice too. I've changed to an auto, after years of manual gearboxes, and find, to my surprise, that I like it. It's a small engine too, but I don't mind that. I enjoy the kind of driving where you have to think ahead to keep the speed up.
|
|
I have driven autos on and off over the past 30 years : the odd Jag and Mercedes.
As for small cars and autos being slugs, bull excrement..based on out of date information - at least one decade out of date:-)
I drive a Yaris CVT 7 speed aut with torque convertor and it goes as fast as the manual in Sports Mode and fuel consumption is the same.. Seamless gearchanges as well..
Makes an old man very happy:-)
|
|
I had a Smart for four auto 1.3 it was superb to drive and the gearbox behaved fantastically the same box as used in smaller Mitzys I presume.
|
|
I'll stick my nose in but it's probably irrelevant since I have never owned an auto but having driven a few (including a Transit!!!) I do have an opinion.
Dad owned a couple a few years back. First was a Honda Accord in the early 80's. Not really an auto, more a 3 speed manual with a torque converter. the gate was marked 1, * and OD. Always stayed in the gear selected and in town that was *. Out of town OD dropped the revs, don't think he ever used 1. It was magic, none of this changing up and down gear and jerking about.
Next up he had a Rover 200 with a 3 speed plus OD which had a torque converter lock up, probably one of the reasons Rover died, horrid. Not unreliable but loads of revs and no action and if the torque converter ever locked up I never spotted it.
Drove a Rover 3.5 auto once, magic, could have happily lived with that one but for the fuel consumption (and rust).
Test drove a Skoda Octavia 1.4TSI with the 7 speed DSG. No intension of buying it but it was all the dealer had with the trim, tyre and engine combo in stock. Quite liked it but having seen how many owners are now having issues with the box I am happy I didn't.
Not even going to mention the Transit.
|
|
I have to admit, a small auto with a proper torque convertor can be a nice nippy point and squirt type of car around town which I quite enjoy, especially in traffic..I have owned and run both auto and manual for many many miles and I have to say I dont prefer one over the other, although if im buying something a few years old with some miles on it a manual will most likely be less costly. If you are running something newer within a warranty period then its of no concern I suppose!
Fuel economy with most types will most likely be worse than a comparable manual, with the exception of most DSG equipped cars. The worst compromise is CVT, even a good one like Hondas just allows too many revs, wastes fuel and feels like a slipping clutch in my opinion, horrid.
I ran 2 5 series BMWs years ago, both 520i 24v one manual and one 5spd auto..the manual had a direct 1:1 top gear, the 5th ratio in the auto was an overdrive ratio so the auto was actually better on fuel than the manual when cruising, think that was a BMW thing now and hard to find to these days!
|
I. The worst compromise is CVT, even a good one like Hondas just allows too many revs, wastes fuel and feels like a slipping clutch in my opinion, horrid.
Rubbish
Maybe true for older ones. Try a 2012 Jazz with CVT..
But hey I am only an owner with one so know nothing :-)
|
|
I have tried one, spent 2 days with one in fact after dropping a 2011 Accord back to Honda...still not for me, on 'kickdown' the engine still flails wildy at high revs, accelerating yes but noisily. Lets not forget too that to improve the CVT, Honda has fitted a torque converter anyway to improve low speed driving. Its your car and I am sure you love it, but its not for everyone and not for me im afraid, just my 2 cents.
|
|
The CVT linked torque convertor was only fitted post 2011..
"Still flails wildly" ... not mine.
I emphasise: I am talking latest technology Honda..
Edited by madf on 22/01/2013 at 16:51
|
|
Yeah thats what I'm saying, previous to TC linked CVT it was the hopeless i-Shift automated manual and before that (Gen 1) was a standard CVT with start clutch.
|
|
|
You're very welcome to stick your nose in :-)
Although the Honda and the Rover experiences were a while ago and hopefully things haved moved on a bit ?
Having a Yeti, I subscribe to the relevant forum which is frequented by loads of Yeti owners and don't see a mass of defective cars reported upon. Can you point me to all the dissatisfied owners? As I noted above, DSG ownership within the warranty periood is great - but beyond the warranty I'm less certain as the DSG hasn't been around as long as torque converters and CVTs. So I'm not being dogmatic on this and accept that two heads are better than one.
|
Having a Yeti, I subscribe to the relevant forum which is frequented by loads of Yeti owners and don't see a mass of defective cars reported upon. Can you point me to all the dissatisfied owners?
Just look on this forum. Several threads with owners with problems all of which appear to be with the 7 speed dry clutch versions. The 6 speed wet clutch appears to be far more robust.
In fairness to the Yeti its still under 3 years old, its older VAG cars just out of warranty that keep cropping up.
|
|
I'll note your comments.... Mine is, of course, the 7 speed. I confine my observations on the forum to the Yeti section generally....and as we've said, they're all under warranty - but even so I don't see a lot of Yeti DSG issues. But I accept it's early days and am prepared to live and learn.
It might be that, come three years, I'll change to a DSG diesel just for a change - and to get another three years warranty. Will see how it goes until then.
|
|
|
|
In the early '90s I regularly had to take a car into inner London visiting sites - one day I checked the number of gear-changes in the morning rush-hour - gave up at 250. Changed to an automatic and stayed with them. Manuals don't make sense. As I've noted before - if all current cars were automatic, and somebody "invented" a manual and presented on Dragons' Den - they'd struggle to find an investor.
|
In the early '90s I regularly had to take a car into inner London visiting sites - one day I checked the number of gear-changes in the morning rush-hour - gave up at 250. Changed to an automatic and stayed with them. Manuals don't make sense. As I've noted before - if all current cars were automatic, and somebody "invented" a manual and presented on Dragons' Den - they'd struggle to find an investor.
Quite.
ANyone who drives in heavy traffic all the time longs for an auto if in a manual car. The "drive 3 meters and stop" and "repeat 20 times" is very tiring...
As for the stuff on worse fuel consumption, most drivers in manuals are so poor at selecting teh right gear.. etc..
Seems most of the commenst are based on hearsay .
|
|
Should have added to my previous messages that when dad bought a Jazz in 2003 he tried the CVT version as well as the manual. What a poor car we thought. Just loads of revs everytime you put your foot down with no real change of speed. When they brought out the new Jazz they stopped the CVT and put in a proper auto but the 80+ year olds all revolted against it forcing Honda to change back. Must be us, 1000's of old persons cannot be wrong, they won the Battle of Britain after all.
|
|
Re. the Jazz............agree the CVT wasn't for everyone. It just happens that with our relaxed style of driving, without needing to accelelerate fiercely most of the time, it was OK for us. However I must add here that when they dropped the CVT in the new model Jazz they didn't replace with a 'proper auto'....they fitted it with what they called "i shift" which was an automated manual - and which most people (indluding my dealer) agreed wasn't good. I drove it and hated it. But now they've dropped it in favout of CVT as I understand.
|
Re. the Jazz............a But now they've dropped it in favout of CVT as I understand.
Yes and it has 7 defined ratios. Changes are imperceptible... Just like a slush box but 7 gears.
I treat all remarks on autos which judge anything based on pre 2000 technology as totally out of date and worthless as the world has changed a LOT>.. especially in the past 5 years.
|
|
I have lots of experience of automatics, and I will not go back to a manual for my main car.
If the car was invented now, it would not have a manual gearbox, but some form of CVT simply due to keeping the engine in the most efficient part of its range.
However each to their own and for my type of driving which is mainly urban and suburban, a manual is a pain. On the open road it doesn't make a huge difference.
|
If the car was invented now, it would not have a manual gearbox, but some form of CVT simply due to keeping the engine in the most efficient part of its range.
I'm not so sure that's true. Automatics have been around for ~70 years and haven't completely displaced manuals. The electro-mechanical apparatus for changing gear isn't particularly challenging-interpreting driver intent is. This puts the auto at an advantage compared to a lazy driver, but still at a disadvantage compared to a dilligent one. The auto must either hunt for cogs, or have enough grunt to do the job in the wrong cog.
As for too much effort? pfft! If changing gear is too much work, God knows what your mirror work is like. I've, like, checked my mirror 5ive million times today, I don't think i'll bother this time...
Driving is repetitive manual or auto.
|
The auto must either hunt for cogs, or have enough grunt to do the job in the wrong cog.
CVT's need electronically set gear steps to gain driver approval - so the apparent advantage of CONTINUOUSLY variable goes out the window.
I'm happy to drive a "slush-box" with torque converter + planetary gears, provided it's a modern design which is less inefficient than older ones - the modern ones also get a "tiptronic-style" sequential manual facility so you get most of both worlds.
A good turbo-diesel with a good slush-box is just so relaxing to drive.
|
|
"A good turbo-diesel with a good slush-box is just so relaxing to drive"............
Suggestions, recommendations - on both counts, the box, the engine...?
|
|
Suggestions are easy - mate the Ford/PSA 2.0TDCi engine with the six speed slushbox (as I have in my S-Max) and you have a decent combination of performance, relaxation and economy.
|
|
I've never understood the built-in bias against automatics we have in Europe. No-one has a manual in the USA. We accept help with braking, steering, why not in adjusting the engine speed to wheels speed ratios?
|
|
I looked at Ford's website and agree that this combination is available on the S Max....but drop down to,say, the C Max and you have to have the Powershift. And I don't want something as big as an S Max.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
