May be thinking of purchasing a 2nd car as her indoors has passed her test. The second car will be for my use and are thinking of purchasing an automatic as a fair proportion of my driving is done in stop start driving, but would like to know if would be a wise choice to go for an automatic based on the following
Journey to work: 15 miles(10 miles on twisty A Roads + 1 miles on dual carriageway + 4) miles in town
Leisure 3000 miles a year (1500 on long journeys + 1500 on short pottering around journeys & jounreys of not more than 45 miles each way)
Also is there a lot of difference between manaul and automatic fuel consumption, any car purchased will be between 5 to 7 years old with around 60000 to 80000 miles on the clock.
Cheers
Edited by Car on 22/10/2007 at 00:24
|
|
Avoid automatics like the plague. All arguments as to fuel consumption, etc., are secondary.
|
Avoid automatics like the plague.
Why can you elaborate
The reason why I was thinking of going for a diesel is that I'm starting to get fed up with clutch pumping.
|
I'm not a big fan of autos on older cars - it was the ecu on an auto box on my Audi that caused me really big problems - but that is a sample size of one, so perhaps not conclusive evidence.
I drive an auto box now in my Subaru but I find it really annoying, the ratios seem daft. I am pondering my next car and I suspect it will be a manual because having exactly the revs I want when I want them is more important to me than the ease of not having to think about the clutch. I find that in the split second decisions you need to make progress in heavy traffic the kick down is just too slow on the auto boxes I've tried.
|
My wife and I have owned cars with torque converter type auto transmissions for decades.... from a Vanden Plas Princess 3 litre in the 60's to Mercs and Suzuki Vitaras / Grand Vitaras to date without any problems whatsoever.
|
|
|
I would only have auto for the forseeable future (proper auto not a helltronic) for the ease and comfortable and constant acceleration.
As for kickdowns being slow the auto's we have owned have all been very quick and delightful for overtaking/roundabouts as just stick the boot down and instant power.
Mind you i prefer engines that are not peaky but have a broad power band and if you choose similar, and obviously RWD for the comfort and handling, i bet you wont go back to manual.
Maybe a small penalty on fuel consumption, but offset that as you may find a nice auto pleasant and relaxing to drive and you may find your mpg no worse.
|
|
|
FT said:
>Avoid automatics like the plague.
Mmmm, over the last 30yrs or so I've owned a pretty wide mixture of autos and manuals. Not one of the autos has failed in any way yet I've needed 2 clutches replaced in the manuals.
Both of my current cars are automatics and I wouldn't even consider a manual now unless it was for a track day or weekend toy.
>All arguments as to fuel consumption, etc., are secondary.
Quite. There's very little difference in fuel consumption between modern manual/autos. In fact the new Merc 7-speed auto is more economical than the 6-speed manual as well as being faster.
Nsar said:
>I find that in the split second decisions you need to make progress in heavy traffic the kick down
>is just too slow on the auto boxes I've tried.
The kickdown on my Jag takes about 1 sec if it's in normal mode before it decides whether to change down a single cog or more. That appears to be deliberate for the sake of passenger comfort. If it's in 'Sport' mode the changedown is there as soon as your foot hits the floor.
On the whole though I find that using instantaneous kickdown in "heavy traffic" only gets me to the next queue 1.16 seconds faster.
The only question I would have for Car (the OP) is why he thinks he needs a diesel when he/she's doing that mileage? I'd go for a petrol auto every time.
Kevin...
|
|
|
|
|
After two automatics I've gone back to a manual (all diesel), and I don't miss the auto at all, as I thought I might.
The main reason, for me, is that 6-cylinder diesel automatics are too expensive, and 4-cyl - even CVT where performance loss is minimal - lack that extra zing, especially starting from rest where you set off from idle speed instead of a bit over 1000 rpm in a manual.
I'd imagine you'll go for a petrol as you're not doing a huge mileage: personally I don't think you'll benefit from an automatic unless you find one you really like. A manual will be more economical, more accelerative, and slightly less likely to need major repairs at the age of car you're looking at.
|
Auto vs manual argument will never end!
Neither is good or bad compared to the other. It's just what you prefer.
However, after driving an auto for long time, people are usually reluctant to revert to manual.
|
I have driven automatics for over ten years and had no problems. For the mileage you are talking about, the difference in economy over a manual diesel will be no more than about £300 each year at current fuel rates.
I have also driven manuals over the last ten years, including one stint of at least four months in a Fiesta. It was fine, but for me, the question comes down to the type of driving conditions you will experience. On a motorway it is irrelevant which type of transmission you have. In town, especially in heavy stop start traffic, or on a motorway queue, an automatic is an automatic choice (!). On nice bendy roads, yes have a manual, but how many times do you have the chance to go on nice bendy roads.
I prefer automatic, but would never criticise someone who bought a manual car, unless the type of car was such that its second hand value was hammered becuase it was a manual (e.g. Mercedes E-Class, Jag S-type).
|
|
|
Automatic will be much more relaxing, particularly in a commuting environment BUT will use noticeably more fuel in those conditions.
Modern automatics are fairly reliable and will outlast engine and bodyshell on most cars. Torque converter type (not CVT) autos will make the engine last longer by cushioning it from transmission shocks and generally giving it an easier life.
Comparing like-for-like, as far as possible, an auto will give almost the same fuel consumption as a manual at motorway cruising speeds but will be significantly worse in-town, ie accelerating/braking all the time.
Go for a car using the Japanese-built Aisin-Warner autobox - it's used in Toyota, Lexus, Volvo, Vauxhall and some very recent Ford and Land-Rover.
|
>>..... but will be significantly worse in-town ie accelerating/braking all the time.
Not necessarily, RT; many drivers of manual cars over-rev and brake hard in town traffic - whereas an auto can often be left to 'creep' along, held in check by gentle braking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've driven automatics for the last ten or more years - though they have been large-ish cars, which suit an auto over a manual 'box.
Much of the driving has been in queueing (sp?) dual-carriageway traffic and the auto transmission makes this far less stressful IMHO.
As mentioned in another post, fuel economy in a modern automatic - driven sensibly - is not that far behind a manual version (and may even better it).
Perhaps the die-hard manual adherents still prefer to advance and retard the spark manually, too :-)
|
see if you can hire an auto similar to the car you are thinking of purchasing as some autos drink fuel, like my primera (slow it aint though).
|
|
|
I think the OP needs to suggest some cars he is looking at so anyone who may have owned a similar car can comment. There are conventional autos, CVT, auto clutch, DSG etc etc all are autos, but comments re one type are not necessarily applicable to the other.
Re fuel consumption. I read a letter in a paper yesterday from someone with a Hyundai Getz 1.3 Automatic. They were concerned they were getting about 25 mpg round town and 30 on a run, the answer suggested this was to be expected as it wasn't far off official figures. I'm sure a manual version would be getting quite a bit more than that.
From my experience small engined cars benefit from auto clutch systems. I have never enjoyed driving small engined cars with 'traditional' auto boxes.
|
|
Has anybody had any experience of the fuel consumption on the auto on a vectra 2.2? I do a mixture town driving (15miles) and motorway (18 miles) on my daily commute.
|
|
Not auto, but a neighbour has just swapped his Vectra 2.2 Direct as he was getting low to mid 20s mpg doing predominantly urban journeys. I can't see an auto being better.
|
|
|
Bhoy wonder,
Around town I get approx 25 to 28 mpg. On a 75 mile run to Bournemouth (single carriage roads) I get around 34 mpg. Pretty much the same when I've travelled 80 odd miles from Oxfordshire to Warwickshire (Start on the A34 then onto the M40).
I tend to drive with a heavy right foot, btw.
|
|
|
|
bhoy wonder, my zafira 2.2 auto on mixed driving achieves 200 mile for 27 pound of fuel, ive done about a 1,000 mile in this vehicle, its done 7,000 mile in total , and i keep putting twenty pounds in, and i have been what i would call a steady driver.
|
|
|
|
I have always reckoned that torque converter type autos need at least a 2.0 litre engine to work well. Smaller engines usually have too narrow a power band and lack the torque to drive the box efficiently.
In heavy stop start traffic the auto can be useful in saving the left knee and ankle from cramp although you shouldn't really just creep forward at idle and hold the car with the brakes, most handbooks for autos will tell you this accelerates wear on both the box and the braking system. Selecting neutral and using the handbrake is still the correct procedure.
Kickdown on my 2.4 Previa works fine - mind you in the Thames Valley chances to use it are increasingly rare!
|
although you shouldn't really just creep forward at idle and hold the car with the brakes.........
Can't really agree with you there, Nick - I'd say flicking between drive and neutral causes more shock loading on the box. Modern autos decouple drive when stationary (with foot on brakes) anyways, so I don't think it's a problem.
As to wear on the brakes, well my Volvo S80 had a front pad change at 57k miles and is just about in need of another at 133k.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not about the car, it's about you. If you want try an auto; go for it. If you want to do a long term personal road-test comparing the foibles of automatics with the challenge of manuals; don't bother. Don't try to make an auto suit your manual driving style and complain about the differences. Nsar puts it in context when he talks about split-second responses; if this is your view, an auto probably won't suit. If you are content to drive in a relaxed fashion in tune with the car, you are likely to benefit from an auto. If you do get an auto of the age you mention, read HJ's advice;e.g. learn to use your left foot and have the fluid changed at the first opportunity. Good luck.
Hawkeye
-----------------------------
Stranger in a strange land
|
|
|
I changed from Manual to Auto a year or so ago in my car (SWMBO has had an auto for longer), much easier to drive in traffic, much calmer driving as well. Mine is a 10 yr old Accord 2ltr and box is fine on it (101k miles) SWMBO has a Honda Shuttle with an auto 2.3 vtec and that is a real pleasure to drive - Neither of us has any intention of going back to a manual.
The accord gives about 33mpg on a run dropping to 26mpg if doing a lot of town work. The shuttle gives high 20's to low 30's all the time. For the age of the cars and the size of the engines I don't think I loose more then 2-3mpg over a manual, so really not that important on the mileages we do.
|
Had Autoboxes since late eighties, Vauxhalls, Honda's, no problems whatsoever, not a great deal of difference in my opinion regards fuel consumption, etc, but theres a big difference regarding driving pleasure, its just so much more relaxing on any journey to let the car do the work, they have two pedals and you have two feet for a very good reason! ;-)
Billy
|
Even in traffic I find autos much less pleasant than a manual.
|
Even in traffic I find autos much less pleasant than a manual.
Huh? What can so pleasant in operating the clutch pedal at ten to the dozen in traffic?
|
Huh? What can so pleasant in operating the clutch pedal at ten to the dozen in traffic?
Leaving a sensible gap between the car in front and mine and trickling along on tick over rather than brainless, sheep-like, bumper-to-bumper automation.
Not having to drive forwards with the brake on for miles.
Being able to choose the minimum speed of the car purely with the clutch rather than whatever tickover equates to in bottom gear on an auto.
|
Can't say that I've had to drive forwards with the brake on for miles.
Neither has it ever been an issue letting the car tick over in D whilst crawling along in traffic.
Slipping the clutch to control the speed of the car, coupled with forever moving the clutch pedal up and down in traffic isn't for me.
Each to their own I suppose.
|
The only downside with using the brakes to control speed in traffic queues is the potential to cause dazzle to those behind. I sometimes wish I could temporarily disable (or at least dim) the brake lights in this situation.
However, many drivers of manual cars habitually queue with the clutch down and footbrake on, so maybe no-one cares anyway....
Oh, and changing brake pads is far cheaper than changing a clutch!
|
However many drivers of manual cars habitually queue with the clutch down and footbrake on so maybe no-one cares anyway....
Why do people sit at lights with their foot on the brake? It really dazzles and annoys me at night time. I actually find it more comfortable to put the hand brake on anyway.
I've taken to putting my lights on full beam behind anyone who sits with their foot on the brake at lights now - I don't suppose they'll get it though.
|
Why do people sit at lights with their foot on the brake? It really dazzles
Same reason they'll sit there with an indicator flashing away - thoughtlessness. As for putting on full beam, they'll probably retaliate by sticking their rear fogs on too :-(
|
|
|
I've taken to putting my lights on full beam behind anyone who sits with their foot on the brake at lights now - I don't suppose they'll get it though.
IMO what they will get is irritated at that idiot behind who does not know the law or is so blind as to not see the blue light on the dash.
I hope you leave an escape route in case you get a close encounter with a Krookloc ( or a starting handle in the old days).
You are taking a very big risk in this day and age. Are you unaware of road rage ???
|
|
|
Why do people sit at lights with their foot on the brake? It really dazzles and annoys me at night time.
Then don't look and stare directly at the brake lights. Surely you wouldn't stare directly at the sun on a bright summers day?
|
>> Why do people sit at lights with their foot on the brake? Then don't look and stare directly at the brake lights.
HJ has a stance on this, if I recall correctly. I agree with it. People should not "sit at lights with their foot on the brake".
|
|
I've taken to putting my lights on full beam behind anyone who sits with their foot on the brake at lights now - I don't suppose they'll get it though.
Mmmmm. For that to be effective you would have to be far enough away from the back of the car in front so the driver can see the force of your main beam, therefore also blinding other motorists opposite. If you drive close enough not to blind other motorists, the driver in front won't see be able to see your main beam and therefore your protest is futile.
|
|
|
"I've taken to putting my lights on full beam behind anyone who sits with their foot on the brake at lights now - I don't suppose they'll get it though."
In my car, and of course many others, the mirrors will simply autodim anyway if you do that, so probably wouldn't notice to be honest.
|
|
|
|
|
on an empty drivers road in a decent car (handling and gear ratios, with a bit of grunt) i'd choose manual
for the rest of it......which in reality means 99.9% of my life, i'd choose an auto every time ... (as long as the auto was big enough, which for me means at least 2.0 petrol or turbo diesel, if not more)
the difference between a bigger engined cars manual and auto performance is so marginal I can't see i'd ever need it......which means I then have the advantage of the auto for more normal driving.
Have managed to persuade 'er indoors to go auto, so when her model is made in auto it's on the maybe list
Edited by Westpig on 22/10/2007 at 14:07
|
|
I do like the idea of an automatic but I think I may be scared with the mpg that is being quoted. My present car is a Passat and I put in £30 worth of diesel every 2 to 3 weeks. I may look at a diesel automatic but I do not think I want to pay the higher price for the car, as the mileage I do does not justify paying the higher price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
find an auto that works then mss1tw not an old micra thats worn out (smiley)
auto and traffic is so civilised it should be the law (smiley)
|
Said before x ??
E320 petrol Mercedes. N reg. 55k when bought. 4k cost. 145 mph potential. 0-60 probably low 7's. mid range acceleration startling. Leather. Sony stereo I can't fathom. No boys, it ain't an 8 track. Use 'E' mode in lovely Auto and it drops into fifth at about 30-35mph. Pulls like a train and won't kickdown in this mode unless one is silly. North Devon-Southampton and back. Mainly 'A' roads. Rapid acceleration where required and where I played. 110 at one point, don't ask, but never wanting. Didn't try to be economical cos I don't. Returned 29.5 MPG. Fact. I could repeat it tomorrow.
Secret......Use cruise wherever and whenever it is safe. Not cruise just to hold, but cruise to accelerate. Gentle linear increases do not eat fuel as would my Builder's boots. The 29.5 is true. Manual makes no sense for the ordinary motorist.
Big cheap big engined petrol cars make big sense for low mileage persons like me and 'er indoors....Mrs. Sainsbury..bless 'er. x
VBR.....MD.
|
Many thanks for all the replies given so far.
I would estimate my mileage will be between 9,500 to 13,000 year say an average of 11,000 a year.
Budget is max £3,000 but hopefully nearer £2,500.
Have just had a quick look through Auto Trader and the models that I may consider are
Ford Focus
Citroen Xsra
Toyota Corrolla
Mazda 323
Nissan Almera
Honda Accord
Plus any other suitable vehicles which are no more than group 8 insurance
Many thanks
|
Mazda 323 & Nissan Almera production stopped. Though Mazda 323 is a legend on reliability!
I reckon Honda Accord and the Toyota Corolla are best of the lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
