|
When I use my C4 EGS in manual mode, I get worse mpg than when in auto, because in manual I tend to 'give it more berries' (as our Nige (Mansell) used to say).
|
Autos seem to be getting better. Twin clutch thingy needs to prove itself over high mileages though. There are already some autos that do better official economy figures than the manual.
Still, what's wrong with a gearbox, especially one of these silky and indestructible (or almost) modern jobs....Cheaper and still, just, usually, in the hands of an intelligent driver, more economical, and certainly quicker again in the right hands.
|
The short-sightedness of the lobby groups beggard belief sometimes (or is it deliberate?).
By making an important part of a car as complex as these newer autoboxes are is just storing up a big bill for when the car reaches 8 or 9 years old -- at which point it ends up being scrapped, as opposed to the simpler manuals which are usually patched up even if something does go wrong on them.
They should be designing cars that are quick an easy to fix, and so last longer, if they want to curb environmental damage. Everyone knows by now that the creation and destruction of a car constitutes the major part of the damage that car does to the environment, so the ideal should be a simple manual box with a clutch that can be replaced in-situ, like the old Cavaliers used to be.
These overcomplex £3000 autoboxes and manuals where you have to take both box and engine out to do the simplest of tasks are simple carp design.
|
|
|
Still what's wrong with a gearbox especially one of these silky and indestructible (or almost) modern jobs....Cheaper and still just usually in the hands of an intelligent driver more economical and certainly quicker again in the right hands.
Are they then used a lot in motor racing?
|
jase1, I agree with you, but there are 2 problems.
1. Rising affluence means a lot of people change their cars just because they fancy a change, rather than because it is worn out. Cars are becomming more and more a 'fashion' item.
2. The only way to meet ever more stringent emmissions standards is by having computer-control on the various functions of the car. Simple cars (like my old 2CV) pollute more and would never be allowed on the market. Of course to scrap my 2CV and buy a new car would probably increase emmissions overall due to the manufacture of the new car, but greens/politicians often don't see the wood for the trees :-)
|
>>Are they then used a lot in motor racing?
I don't think you'll see a clutch pedal in an F1 car.
|
Fothers and bathtub: nor will you see a F1-style 'auto' in a production car.
And I wonder if you've noticed how often they screw up and cause retirements?
|
nor will you see a F1-style 'auto' in a production car.
Good Lord. I had no idea that they had a sort of "auto" gearbox! Aren't the gears changed by a lever mounted just outside the door any more?
And I wonder if you've noticed how often they screw up and cause retirements?
Unfortunately not. I'm afraid I find F1 rather dull to watch, generally. What is the approximate mechanism of operation of one of these gearboxes?
|
Search me Fotherington. All I know is that they work by flappy paddles behind the handlebars - you can't call that thing a wheel - and are perhaps similar to the twin clutch twin mainshaft arrangement that does now appear on road cars. But a F1 clutch is tiny by road-car standards, and the whole system works - when it works - absolutely instantaneously transmitting through those little fist-sized clutches the sort of power and torque that everyone except HJ and OldHand can only dream about.
That may be why they sometimes only last five minutes, and very likely have to be renewed between races.
|
|
|
|
I used to hate autos. But I think that was because I'd never driven a really good one. The autobox in my Lexus IS250:
1. churns out less CO2 than the manual;
2. is faster than the manual in the real world;
3. is smoother than the manual;
4. tells you which gear you're in;
5. has a manual (semi-) override; and
6. has 6 ratios.
What's not to like?
|
When I look on Saab forums, the only time you see mention of a 900 Sensonic (clutchless manual), it has either broken and the owner is asking for advice, or it has already been converted to a standard manual.
The preferred option is to scrap the sensonic system and fit a manual clutch rather than have the former repaired.
So I hope the current/ future technology, with its advanced control software to make it driveable, is going to be more reliable in the long term. No doubt it will be, lets hope so.
(Insert comment about Saab reliability here ............).
|
I wonder how reliable, and how much resistance they met from the motoring public, disc brakes met when they were first introduced into motor sport?
Radial ply tyres?
Alloy wheels?
Limited slip diffs?
Seat belts?
Turbos?
Any more anyone?
|
I wonder how reliable and how much resistance they met from the motoring public disc brakes met when they were first introduced into motor sport?
snipquote!
Well, all of these actually have some use apart from Alloy Wheels.
Why would anyone want alloy wheels? Cost more, easily damaged, look silly.
The resistance to automatics is largely down to perception - the motoring press is always going on about 'driving experience' and such like - neglecting the fact that 99% of driving is done in town or on motorways, in both of which cases an auto is clearly a better option.
Only for motoring journalists testing a car along a nice twisty mountain road does a manual gearbox make sense; for everybody else, it's really a case of the heart ruling the head. Many of those against automatics haven't actually driven one, or have only driven an old fashioned slushmatic.
But given that people will still pay over the odds because of the badge on the fornt of the car, I don't expect things to change any time soon.
|
No one resisted disc brakes. They were a huge breakthrough bringing cheap, powerful, fade-resistant braking to run-of-the-mill cars for the first time. Everyone who had lived with cheap production four-wheel drums, especially pre-war ones, heaved a sigh of relief. At last! You could go fast without looking for escape roads!
Good drum brakes, which some luxury and sports cars had, were expensive to make and needed proper maintenance. Most cars simply didn't have them. Citroens did though.
|
in both of which cases an auto is clearly a better option.
I think the main point is, it's a matter of personal preference and nobody is right or wrong. It's what suits you as an individual.
Apart from my earlier comment on the evils of the torque convertor, there is a lot of satisfaction to be gained from using a good manual gearbox in the most mundane of driving situations. The gearbox and clutch are among the last direct mechanical links between a driver and a car that are not electronically controlled, fly-by-wire or power assisted, and you can actually feel the mechanical components that your hand is moving around. You don't need to be on an Alpine switchback to appreciate that. Call me a fetishist if you want, but I do like to feel that I'm operating a piece of machinery rather than a brace of sensors, switches and potentiometers.
As I said before, automatics definitely have their place in traffic. On a motorway though, I still prefer manual. Any half decent car will pull top happily from 50 mph upwards (even the ropey Ford TD) so shifting isn't an issue, and I can moderate my speed with engine braking, and accelerate now rather than after the slight, but noticeable delay imposed by the torque convertor.
But each to their own of course. It would be boring if we all wanted the same thing.
Cheers
DP
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
|
DP you're a fetishist!
There, I feel better now!
|
DP you're a fetishist!
No he isn't. He likes driving cars, not operating throwaway passenger-carrying devices.
So do I actually.
|
IMO, most of the errors and mistakes are caused by the driver's input - removing the dullard, and allowing the computers to do their work has to be progress. I can't wait for the day when you just enter a postcode, and sit back, possibly getting on with something productive, letting the machine deal with all the low-level tedium of taking you there.
I fail to see how pressing a clutch and moving a gearlever can be so interesting - surely it's one of the last anachronisms, and should have been consigned to the motoring museum many moons ago.
Number_Cruncher
|
>>Why would anyone want alloy wheels? Cost more, easily damaged, look silly.
Because they reduced the unsprung weight, allowing more rubber to be carried, although the early magnesium alloys had interesting pyrotechnic abilities.
|
I fail to see how pressing a clutch and moving a gearlever can be so interesting - surely it's one of the last anachronisms and should have been consigned to the motoring museum many moons ago.
'... the sensuous exercise of a cluster of skills resulting in rapid or anyway agreeable movement, analogous to a fondness for horses...' (Lud, published essay on the automobile)
There doesn't have to be anything interesting about it, as such.
Still NC, I note that you are often here taking what can only be described as an interest...
|
The days of "stirring the box of cogs with a stick" cant come fast enough for me, I gave up manual gearboxes by accident, but wouldn't go back - ever!!.
Been "trying" to teach G/f the very basic rudiments of driving in "her" car, (yep, she bought one first as an incentive to pass!), oh! how she tortures the poor beast , trying to "reverse" before shes stopped going forwards, or, how she continually thinks the brake-pedal is the clutch, thats if she remembers that there is a clutch!! but the best is when she changes down to 3rd from 5th at 40, and gets 1st by mistake!
Ban the Man(ual) says I - sharpish!
Billy
|
|
By the way, I don't mean to imply that I am left cold by auto gearboxes or automated pushbutton programme-the-satnav-and-start-playing-cards marvels of modern white-goods user-friendliness. I like all vehicles. It's a curse.
|
|
I'm afraid that it sounds to me as if she should sell the thing and take up knitting. Less dangerous for others!
|
I find it quite odd - in most areas of endeavour and innovation, if you removed a tedious repetitive chore it would be a big selling point. The manual gearbox and clutch somehow manages to defy this. Most wouldn't trade their automatic washing machines or dishwashers for the old fashioned equivalent.
OK, there are some effeciency gains in using a manual, but I can't imagine that's the dominant thought which has kept the automatic gearbox down. In years past, there were problems with reliability, but that isn't the problem that it once was.
Perhaps the desire to do something manually that is generally better done automatically can only be defined as some kind of automotive deviance?
Number_Cruncher
|
Perhaps the desire to do something manually that is generally better done automatically can only be defined as some kind of automotive deviance?
It's only recently that small autos have been remotely efficient or refined. Ever drive an AP auto-equipped Morris 1100? A bit jerky although oddly more efficient than the refined, slurring slushpumps that worked best, if you didn't mind the waste. Typical BL not to get the thing working properly.
But the point is that the auto is only just becoming capable of the sort of fuel efficiency a manual can achieve. And it is more complicated, less proven, than a manual gearbox and clutch. At one time it would have been heavier too, but I don't know if these DSGs and so on are heavier than manual boxes. To me any simplification is good if it doesn't detract from the car's overall ability.
It's true when you see some people drive you want them to have an auto. But they are probably going to be a danger on the road as well as murderous to their cars.
Conservative with a small c perhaps, but hardly deviant.
|
I find it quite odd - in most areas of endeavour and innovation if you removed a tedious repetitive chore it would be a big selling point. The manual gearbox and clutch somehow manages to defy this. Most wouldn't trade their automatic washing machines or dishwashers for the old fashioned equivalent.
I *like* changing gear, pressing the accelerator, turning the steering wheel, using the brakes, switching the headlamps on when I want to, ditto the wipers, etc., etc., etc. Unlike "most", I have no desire to drive an autometic washing machine or dishwasher, thank you very much. Sometimes I like driving very old vehicles, which have not the refinements of current ones. To remove the "tedious, repetetive chore" of driving, people ought to be compelled to journey everywhere as passengers, perhaps?
|
DP you're a fetishist! There I feel better now!
Why thank you! :-)
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
