Because we know how to drive properly
Why is it "properly"?
I'd prefer an auto, one less thing to worry about.
|
|
I love autos. I have had one car in the last 20 years that didn't have an autobox (that I can remember). I wouldn;t ever go back to a manual.
|
Auto - I'm told the technology today is way better than it used to be.
If autos were invented first, can you really see anyone suggesting they should develop a manual?
|
Auto or manual?
It's like buying a dog and barking yourself..
|
|
|
I hate automatics, think they are for people who can't drive or are too lazy to drive properly.
Just my opinion...nothing a perfectly timed downshift and overtake to really make a journey. Where's the fun in simply using the kickdown?
Boring cars for boring people.
|
>>think they are for people who can't drive or are too lazy to drive properly.
I am assuming that you do not have remote central locking, electric windows, power steering, servo-assisted brakes, ABS, or anything vaguely similar ? Because they'd be used by people who don't have the ability or are too lazy to operate their own car the hard way.
Well, that or you know not of what you speak.
>Boring cars for boring people
Foolish opinons for foolish people. But don't worry, you will grow up in the end.
|
|
Surely a good modern auto transmission allows a driver to concentrate on the task in hand, ie maximum safe, smooth driving with less fiddling with hands and feet. Manual gears are really for old fashioned stick in the muds when you consider today's superb microchip control systems.
|
|
|
I am assuming that you do not have remote central locking, electric windows, power steering, servo-assisted brakes, ABS, or anything vaguely similar ? Because they'd be used by people who don't have the ability or are too lazy to operate their own car the hard way. Well, that or you know not of what you speak.
I own a Fiesta LX - seeing as you know everything, I won't need to quote the spec here...
Foolish opinons for foolish people. But don't worry, you will grow up in the end.
Thanks, that's very reassuring.
God forbid anyone actually get involved with driving.
|
>>I own a Fiesta LX
I know what a Fiesta is - I would have no clue what the LX might mean. I guess it means its got all four wheels.
>>that's very reassuring.
You have no idea how much.
>>God forbid anyone actually get involved with driving.
Thinking of giving involvement a go, were you ?
|
Look at the disscusion at the top of the list.
|
|
|
LX means it's near the top, so it means the seats aren't cardboard,they're plastic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lady Badger reckons that only a man could have thought of three pedals for two feet. I've never found an answer.
>>I hate automatics, think they are for people who can't drive or are too lazy to drive properly.
That isn't thinking, it's stupidity. We too prefer automatics, but having driven everything from motorcycles to 3-litre sports cars (rallying) to Land Rovers (off road) to ambulances to wagons I find TimW's remarks grauitously offensive. Grow up, sonny. If you really find pushing a pedal up and down 50 times a minute in town traffic entertaining then perhaps you should get out more.
|
|
|
|
|
As somebody else pointed out in another thread, if we all drove autos then manuals would seem absurd.
"Look, we got this clever mechanism: it forces you to take a hand off the steering wheel while driving, wiggle a stick around the place, and play foot games with a pedal".
"So what does that achieve?"
"Well, half the time it makes a nasty crunching noise when you move the stick at the wrong time".
"Yes, but when you do it right, what does it achieve?"
"Umm, it does the same thing as the auto gearbox does".
"Anything else?"
"Yes, it lets the car roll backwards downhill when you are starting off, unless you play another game with the handbrake".
Thinks ... and calls over the cop.
"Officer, now you've booked me for driving while talking into my mobile, please look at this car. It cannot be driven with both hands on the wheel".
Cop: "I know. But we aren't really enforcing the rules on this, because the car manufacturers charge British drivers a whole lot more for a proper gearbox than they charge everywhere else."
|
|
Reactionary old bore that I am I have stuck with manuals for years. Maybe my next 5 will have an autobox....which are just as good but am I going to pay 1500 quid for a (slightly) slower dirtier (CO2) car ? - perhaps not. Stick to stirring the cogs with a stick.
|
|
They are only slower at top speed, but are faster at accelerating because they don't ever disengage drive, the best for this is a CVT.
|
|
Don't think BMW make a CVT 5 series :-(
|
|
They're just as good but you can't feel a CVT change gear and they can carry on accelerating whilst the revs die down.
|
They're just as good but you can't feel a CVT change gear and they can carry on accelerating whilst the revs die down.
No, this is not the case. Performance automatics are indeed just getting to the stage where they are as quick as, and in some cases quicker, than a manual. The VAG DSG is an example of this.
But in almost all regular cars the manual gearbox is quicker - sometimes considerably. For example, my 4 cylinder car is quicker than the automatic version of the 6 cylinder.
|
|
|
|
I'm with PU on this one.
Whilst autos are easy to drive, I feel so disconnected and eventually get bored. Mind you, I do like my country roads and there's nothing better than double declutching into 3rd for a fast bend!
That's not to say autos are a worse drive, I just like having something to do!
After all, you should be in the right gear at the right time so shouldn't have to worry about hands on the wheel! ;-)
Manuals all the time!
--
Adam
|
|
Drove a Volvo 66 CVT in the 70s (before the rubber band broke) it could outrun a Rover 2200. But as I say it broke.
|
No. As I say I'm a reactionary bore.
Pastime: using a 5 to straighten the bendy bits.
|
|
What car have you got now?
|
All the above are interesting, as always, but pay attention only for interest. It's entirely a matter of personal preference: decide on the car you want (per your other thread) and then if possible try both manual and automatic versions.
For what it's worth, I enjoy both (Audi CVT and manual Civic), but I think if your engine is under 2 litres an automatic will take too much performance away (less so a CVT).
It may also depend on whether your nom de plume indicates genuine or wished-for youth....30 years ago I wouldn't have been seen dead in an automatic.
PS - when Pugugly talks about a 5 he means a BMW 5-series, I'm fairly sure.
|
when Pugugly talks about a 5 he means a BMW 5-series, I'm fairly sure.
Maybe he's till saving up for a Renault 5.
|
|
BMW 530d...manual of course.
|
If you want to play 'boy racer' you can always change up and down gears, as required, in an automatic by moving the lever.
If you get satisfaction from a perfectly executed down-change in a manual, then progress to double de-clutching and then 'heel and toe' while doing it. All pretty pointless but if it makes you happy - go for it!
The reason why we have grown up in UK with manual gearboxes is that automatics are less economical, have less performance and are more expensive to purchase.
I suspect that having owned an automatic, few would willingly revert to a manual car; unless outright performance or economy was required.
|
|
There's nothing funnier than seeing the 17 year olds in the car next to you at the lights set off and trying to change gear while your automatic just delivers one continuous surge, They are at the side and slip back as they change to second, then when the auto slips into 2nd your gone. And they are in a car with extra special trim and trinklets with a really noisy silencer with a shiny end too.
|
Yes but could you say the same for a 3.0 MV6 Omega manual?
Hardly comparing similar cars are we?
--
Adam
|
|
i own both and love driving both, it really depends what you are doing at the time. why have a manual for motorway cruising you dont need it, auto boxes can be fun ...cheers...keo.
|
If you want something different, try driving an oldie with a Wilson pre-select gearbox, a fluid flywheel, and a hand throttle. You can have a semi-automatic type change, a manual steering column mounted gear selector and a third pedal on the floor as well.
Autos, in my youth, were rare, expensive, unreliable, and only fitted to big engined stuff. I have driven both, and when I lose the use of my left foot, I will not hesitate to get one. Until then I will very happily live with a manual. I find that changing gear requires no more skill than manually altering the volume of the radio. If you havn't that sort of skill level, then fine, go for an auto.
A manual also gives me the opportunity, when I feel like it, to go and enjoy toing and heeling, double-declutching, and generally driving for fun.
|
It really depends on what kind of driver you are. If you want to get from A-to-B in an easy comfortable, relaxing manner, an auto is perfect.
If you want to drive your car hard however, what you don't want is power being sapped just when you're enjoying yourself. The best automatic will never suit everyone because it was designed by a sole engineer (or a relatively small group of them) and has to compromise between urban driving and hustled driving (unless it's a sophistcated one with different settings, of course).
Auto's also (generally speaking) pollute more and use more fuel. While Ribshab's auto may be faster, it doesn't really say a lot about the driver (which is what the boy-racers like to believe is they're top of the heap at) - it's not him controlling the power, really. (Though of course, they don't know it's a computer that's just beat them...hehe)
|
|
Saabs can lurn your driving style so this closes the compromise gap a bit more.
|
|
Auto's will never be totally attuned to a human individual - they can't compensate for what we want when we want it immediately (though I believe the VAG DSG system is pretty damned close). They're not telepathic, so they just won't react quickly enough. That said, in towns and traffic their merits are far higher, and let's be honest, unless you live in the countryside (and while i do, even i get stuck in traffic jams), auto's make a lot of sense in the stop-start traffic we've now become accustomed to.
|
"Pastime: using a 5 to straighten the bendy bits."
We really need a classic quotes section... nice one PU !
|
Way back in Poll 9, 42 people prefered an auto, and 46 prefered a manual. Almost a 50/50 split for backroomers I'd say.
|
|
|
If you're going to have an auto, then for gods sake have one with enough grunt to drive the box properly. Theres nothing worse than a 15 mousepower shopping/economy special with an auto thats up and down more times than a brides nightie.
WTM
|
|
I agree with WhitetruckMan --- nothing worse than a gutless car with a power sapping autobox. Some years ago the wife had a sierra with a 3 speeder and it was a dog. I currently have two cars totally different - VX Omega estate 2.5 V6 with 4 speed autobox and drives like a dream. Also have a Celica GT 2.0 with manual box and have no problem sitching between either. The omega certainly has enough grunt to handle the autobox and overtaking is certainly no problem -- she will fly, but I admit likes to drink unleaded when the performance is used.
|
|
|
|
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=25...3
Kevin...
|
Had the recent experience of road testing a 6K miles '04 1.4ltr Fiesta semi auto for my dad. Lovely car but in "full auto" mode the gear change was consistently jerky and uncomfortable, notably from 1st to 2nd but also throughout the ratios, and was the deciding factor in rejecting the car. We were physically thrown forward and then back in our seats. The salesman said theyre all like it, but that may have been a sales pitch. If thats an example of a modern auto matched to a small engine then there is still some way to go.
In semi-auto mode, ie auto clutch, the drive change was very, very smooth.
Andy
|
I prefer auto, but do like to get into a manual car from time to time, especially on the open road or in a slow car, so I can ring its neck and still not get stopped for speeding.
However, for 99% of my driving, auto is the only way to go.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
I've driven automatic rental cars several times in the US, and they're very relaxing.
But I wouldn't fancy buying an auto as my only car back here in the UK, for the following reasons:
1. I don't like the feeling of "fighting" the car when holding the car on the brake in Drive.
2. The fuel economy isn't as good as the equivalent manual car - often because the auto gearbox has 1 less ratio than its manual equivalent.
3. You're not fully in control of the car, and occasionally autoboxes do strange things like changing gear in the middle of a corner which upsets the balance of the car.
4. HJ's stories about autoboxes leaping forward (and the need to left foot brake to avoid this problem) scare me a little.
No doubt people will tell me that problems 1 and 3 have been solved by various pieces of microchip trickery that adapt to your driving style. And I'm aware that the latest BMW/Merc autoboxes have six or seven ratios, which address problem 2, but these boxes are not cheap!
|
>>(and the need to left foot brake to avoid this problem)
Complete and utter stuff and nonsense. I've tried left foot braking, and I'm hopeless at it so goodness knows how I get away with allthe automatics I have/have had without accidents. Its a trendy device which has no place in normal driving other than showing off down the pub. I've never had an autobox leap forward although I have caught the throttle once or twice; on the other hand I have had my foot slip off a clutch and the car leap forward then as well.
Its a trendy, fashionable thing to suggest we all need to do based solely on a belief that its feasible to drive along with your left foot hovering over the brake which will somehow save you about 2.78 nanoseconds in an emergency and thus avoid accidents on a daily, if not hourly, basis.
My wife wouldn't even know what left foor braking was and would laugh at me if I tried to explain - and somehow she's managed to avoid sticking an auomatic through a wall as well.
|
HJ seems to think it's quite a serious risk in his FAQ section.
Like you, I am sceptical of the advice to left foot brake, and I find it difficult to believe that a driver could not move his right foot to hit the brakes in sufficient time to stop an automatic car leaping forward.
However, the fact that you and your wife have remained accident-free without resorting to left foot braking does not mean that there is no risk.
I was hoping for some more scientific explanations as to why HJ seemed to be so concerned about this.
|
|
|
(left-foot braking) "Its a trendy, fashionable thing"
Fantastic, that made me laugh. I?ve been doing it for 12 years and I wear cowboy boots and denim flares! My father has always done it and he has a huge white beard and wears brown chords with chord shoes! As a "trendy device for showing off down the pub", it?s about 3000 topics below hookers and cocaine.
It?s how I was taught and it?s second nature. And my left foot doesn?t hover, it rests on the foot rest when I?m not crawling in traffic.
|
|
|
|
1. I don't like the feeling of "fighting" the car when holding the car on the brake in Drive.
Modern auto's tend to drop the gearbox into neutral when the brakes have been applied for more than a couple of seconds. This helps to save fuel, and as soon as you take your foot off the brake pedal the gearbox resumes normal operation.
2. The fuel economy isn't as good as the equivalent manual car - often because the auto gearbox has 1 less ratio than its manual equivalent.
Before changing over to an auto, my old manual gearboxed Cavalier at 60 mph was doing 2000 rpm. When I replaced it with an auto Cavalier, the revs were exactly the same as the manual box was.
3. You're not fully in control of the car, and occasionally autoboxes do strange things like changing gear in the middle of a corner which upsets the balance of the car.
Only if you do daft things like floor the throttle and engage kickdown. If you floor the throttle in a manual you'll still unbalance the car.
4. HJ's stories about autoboxes leaping forward (and the need to left foot brake to avoid this problem) scare me a little.
If you're uncomfortable with left foot braking, then don't try it. As for autos leaping forward, that only happens if you stab at the throttle rather than tough it gently. Most people who've never driven an auto make the mistake of not realising there is a slight delay between applying the throttle and the gearbox engaging. They touch the throttle and because nothing instantly happens, they press it some more.
|
|
After almost a week and 650 miles with my A3 DSG I can say I made the correct choice and the extra was worth it. A 6 speed manual box with fully auto if you want, or changes with the gearstick or paddles for when more control over gearchoice is required - on twisty roads autos can feel as though they are controlling you and will keep too high a gear when entering tight bends, only changing when you slow down. With the DSG move to manual mode (either permanently using the stick or temporarily by changing manually in auto mode) and change gear manually to match the gear for the road conditions. No torque converter so mpg is virtually the same as the manual and acceleration is brisker than the manual - apply power gently and changes happen seamlessly at about 2,000 revs, 5th gear is reached by 30 mpg. The clutch disengages when the footbrake is held so no feeling of fighting creep.
|
|
|
>> 2. The fuel economy isn't as good as the equivalent manual >> car - often because the auto gearbox has 1 less ratio >> than its manual equivalent. Before changing over to an auto, my old manual gearboxed Cavalier at 60 mph was doing 2000 rpm. When I replaced it with an auto Cavalier, the revs were exactly the same as the manual box was.
Autos don't need first gear because the torque convertor takes care of take-off and hence can do it perfectly well with a second gear ratios. It also takes care of intermediate speeds where the torque convertor isn't running at "synchronous" speed.
Let's say a manual Cavalier has gears 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
An auto Cavalier would have gears 2, 3.5 and 5.
Not running at synchronous speed all the time causes the torque convertor to waste engine power and hence is one of the reasons why autos give worse fuel economy.
--------------
Mike Farrow
|
|
|
DD, I never said I was uncomfortable with left foot braking, I just wanted to further understand the cause(s) of sudden uncontrolled movements in automatic cars.
I fancy a used Merc SLK as my next car (possibly following change of insurer and/or postcode) - which will force me to go auto whether I like it or not. Hence my interest in the risks and compromises that auto 'boxes bring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Had the recent experience of road testing a 6K miles '04 1.4ltr Fiesta semi auto for my dad. Lovely car but in "full auto" mode the gear change was consistently jerky and uncomfortable, notably from 1st to 2nd but also throughout the ratios, and was the deciding factor in rejecting the car. We were physically thrown forward and then back in our seats. The salesman said theyre all like it, but that may have been a sales pitch. If thats an example of a modern auto matched to a small engine then there is still some way to go. In semi-auto mode, ie auto clutch, the drive change was very, very smooth. Andy
The semi-auto gearboxes(particularly on the Fiesta)are nothing like a 'full' conventional automatic gearbox, which I agree are horrible; certainly when you first try them - you may get used to them after experience I guess.
SWMBO has a fully Automatic Yaris 1300cc and it is excellent; however the semi-auto box on the 1000cc Yaris is unpleasant to drive.
|
As someone said previously, it's all down to personal preference. I once owned a Scirocco Mk1 woth an auto box (don't ask). In normal driving it was OK (but scarcely a ball of fire) but my problem was with low speed manoevering or parking. I never felt I had complete control as I couldn't feather the clutch. The acelerator was not very sensitive and I never got used to left-foot braking. Caused me to reverse smartly into a gate post one day.
Next car was a Sud and I've never had the slightest desire to own an auto-box since.
|
I never drove an auto until I was almost fifty and I can't understand the worry about suddenly shooting forward, etc. I have never tried to brake with my left foot and never will, the right foot works perfectly well. I don't have any trouble with parking.
In addition, a tiptronic gearbox is every bit as smooth and quick as any manual box. The only downside to autoboxes, is the extra expense of buying and repairing/replacement, and the increased fuel consumption of the torque converter type.
|
|
Dose anyone know of a good auto diesel, the new Saab 9-3 sounds good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
