Automatic or Not... To Be ?

Honest John Back Room » Motoring discussion
View Threaded
Thu 26 Jun 2014 21:34
Automatic or Not... To Be ? - Bycro
Why do car manufacturers not fit automatic gear boxes in new cars as standard and manuals as extra ? Surely this would negate the extra cost.

Would not most drivers prefer an automatic ? Is it not a chore having to change up and down the box ? At the start of a 200 mile round trip earlier this week I decided to see how many gear changes I would need to make during the journey. Well after covering only two or three mile I counted 26 changes...Then got bored of counting.

A good few years ago I was working for an American company, and when ever they came to visit the UK they always hired automatics. Stick shifts , as they always called manuals were pointless.

Surely now, they must be as reliable as manual boxes ?

Any thoughts comments ? Are there any CEO's of large car manufacturers reading that May like to comment also ?



Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 26 Jun 2014 22:01
Automatic or Not... To Be ? - Alby Back
For a personal take on it, autos are lovely to drive if the engine has plenty of torque. Less strong engines are in my view anyway, better suited to manuals.

I like to drive my E Class auto and don't think it would suit a manual but equally if I hire a little Fiat or something when I'm visiting our Italian suppliers I love to rag about in a small manual and don't think it would suit an auto.

Like I say, just my own preference.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 26 Jun 2014 22:40
Automatic or Not... To Be ? - RT

Automatics generally use more fuel than manuals - which matters with the UK's very high fuel prices - and because emissions are linked to fuel consumption, the BIK tax % is often higher for the automatic version on top of a higher price, so many company car drivers choose manuals.

Automatics efficiency has improved with torque converter lock-up and more ratios to spend even less time on the converter but there's still a gap.

As above, an automatic with a high torque engine is well suited.

Edited by RT on 26/06/2014 at 22:40

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 26 Jun 2014 22:39
Automatic or Not... To Be ? - alan1302

I don't find it a chore at all - part of the enjoyment for me.

Not sure why you think it would negate the extra cost of an automatic if all cars had them as standard - car companies would just put th base price of the car up!

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 26 Jun 2014 22:53
Automatic or Not... To Be ? - Hamsafar

I aree, most people 'prefer' manuals until they try an auto and then they 'switch sides' Auto boxes still cost considerably more than a manual gearbox as parts from the gearbox makers, they are much more complex and require additional ECUs (and patent licenses etc..)

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 26 Jun 2014 23:39
Automatic or Not... To Be ? - Sofa Spud

I've always owned manual cars but have driven other people's automatics on many occasions over the years.

After a long drive in an automatic I'm always struck by how easy and relaxing it's been. One assumes that because manual gear changing becomes second nature, it requires minimal mental effort and minimal physical effort. But driving a car on which one doesn't have to think about gearchanges demonstrates that this isn't the case.

The thing that will change the game in coming years is electric drive. More and more cars and vans are likely to be range-extender hybrids or pure electric - both types are powered by an electric motor, usually driving through a single-speed gearbox, so no gearchanges and since an electric motor can provide adequate torque from 0 rpm right up to max rpm, no clutch either.

Edited by Sofa Spud on 26/06/2014 at 23:47

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 26 Jun 2014 23:47
Automatic or Not... To Be ? - galileo

I've had several of both autos and manuals here in the UK and driven autos extensively in the US. If I had to spend a lot of time in congested city traffic, I agree an auto is much less effort.

But driving for pleasure on open roads I prefer a manual, I can choose the gear I want, not necessarily the one an auto would choose for me.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 26 Jun 2014 23:50
Automatic or Not... To Be ? - Trilogy

I've had several of both autos and manuals here in the UK and driven autos extensively in the US. If I had to spend a lot of time in congested city traffic, I agree an auto is much less effort.

But driving for pleasure on open roads I prefer a manual, I can choose the gear I want, not necessarily the one an auto would choose for me.

Nowadays, I believe you can change in many automatics manually. The best of both worlds.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 26 Jun 2014 23:56
Automatic or Not... To Be ? - daveyjp
Even an automatic when driven well will require gearchanges, whether this be lock up, or tiptronic changes to ensure the gear is correct to allow proper control.

This is even more so with modern autos which have 7-8 ratios as it will choose the gear for the speed, not for control and the car ends up driving the person behind the wheel.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 27 Jun 2014 01:39
Automatic or Not... To Be ? - Smileyman

my dad will only drive an automatic car, me I'm open to either, but would not buy one as it costs more, unless communting in London where the car would rarely get beyond third gear, or second gear in Islington with their stupid blanket 20 mph regime.

If hiring a left hand drive car I prefer to hire automatic just because it reduces the number of things to do, what with sitting on the wrong side of the car, finding my way around etc I might just forget and open the door when going to change gear!

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 27 Jun 2014 17:39
Automatic or Not... To Be ? - Ed V

I like the choice one gets nowadays on good automatics. I have a sports setting, which keeps revs above 2000 or so, and allows engine braking; and manual overide which enables manual changes without a clutch.

So I have 3 choices and consider this a huge improvement on a manual, even if I can only travel 9,000 miles for the same cost as 10,000 (roughly). Since fuel is still a relatively small part of the cost of motoring (excluding banger-nomics of course!), I think I'll take it.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 29 Jun 2014 18:38
Automatic or Not... To Be ? - John F
Why do car manufacturers not fit automatic gear boxes in new cars as standard

Some do.

Modern autos give virtually the same mpg as manuals, especially for inexpert drivers who might either hold low gears for too long or labour the engine in too high a gear.

There is also no problem with either clutch failure or failure of its actuation. Hydraulic master cylinders often fail and clutch cables can snap, especially on cars designed for LHD. We once had a Passat GL5 which had to route the cable round a pulley for RHD. It snapped every 40,000 miles or so.

I contend that autos prolong engine life. It is saved from stressful revving or labouring.

You can also improve mpg by the ease of coasting - flick from D to N when approaching roundabouts/slip roads and down hills. This technique can also be used on undulating A roads [known as 'ride and glide' in the US]. And no more arguments about fuel shut-off on lift off negating savings, please. This has been well and truly refuted; an engine revving at higher revs requires more energy than at low revs whether connected to the wheels or not. If it is not getting any fuel it just provides more engine braking than if it is getting fuel.

For secondhand buyers like myself, the extra cost of these wonderful gearboxes [I still can't get my head round how a ZF 5HP 19 actually works, let alone the later ones] has usually disappeared. It's a far cry from the days when I could crawl under my Ford Anglia, remove the 3 speed gearbox, open it up, replace the mangled 1st gear cog, and reinstall it!

Reply | Report as offensive | Link