Manual vs. Automatic - The debate

Post by **Thunderbird** » 05 Apr 2005, 01:35

Ladies and Gentlemen, please give your important contribution to this debate, letting your experience and knowledge constitute the ultimate guide to automatic and manual gearboxes. [:D][:0]
Reliability, conection with HP suspension, etc.
Your statement is very important in a era when manual transmissions start to fade out...

cornishbx16v · Post by **cornishbx16v** » 05 Apr 2005, 03:58

does this refer to modern day auto's vs manuals or just in general????
if i was buying a new car toady (which i am not!!!!) then i would most likely be looking for an auto! plainly as for me and the wife they are a lot easier to drive, and also would stop me driving like a loon!

Homer · Post by **Homer** » 05 Apr 2005, 04:14

Automatics are still nowhere near as good as a manual gearbox. They always think they know better, forever changing gear when you don't want and not when you do.
Then theres the performance and ecomomy hit.

Mosser · Post by **Mosser** » 05 Apr 2005, 04:30

Why not get a semi automatic ?, manual when you want it to be, automatic when you are feeling lazy, and no performance or economy hit at all as it has a normal clutch setup,
My wife's Alfa Romeo 156 selespeed even gives you the option of gearchange on the steeringwheel buttons or the push for up gearchange, pull for down gearchange option on the gearstick,
It is very nice to drive and mostly i drive it in fully auto mode as i class myself a lazy driver !, i am not after performance usually but do like the economy of it

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 05 Apr 2005, 04:33

The best automatics are getting close to manuals, especially the "flappy paddle" variety where you can choose gears manually, unfortunately Citroen don't produce any auto boxes anywhere near as the best. Mercedes has 7 speed autos with lock ups and complex electronics controlling them. Citroen has a 4 speed slushbox....

FrenchLeave · Post by **FrenchLeave** » 05 Apr 2005, 04:58

The ZF autobox that is fitted to my XM has lock up on 3rd and top, so no apparent losses there . The "slushpump" that operates on moving off and on 1st and 2nd is not a fluid flywheel, it's a torque converter with a two to one torque multiplication, so effectively it acts as two further variable gears within the first and second gear spectra. There are, of course, losses there; but there are also large losses with a clutch and smaller losses with a conventional gear train (I was once told 5% for each pair of meshing gears). The only losses that can occur on locked up auto gears are churning losses which are probably higher with epicyclic gear trains than conventional layshafts. Overall, the reduced efficiency probably adds about a second to the 0-60 time and 1-2 mpg on fuel consumption, but that acceleration is available every time with no effort on the part of the driver and you can still treat it as a semi automatic box if you must hang on each gear to the rev limit. Me, I'm well satisfied and wouldn't go back to a stick stirrer.

Post by **Peter.N.** » 05 Apr 2005, 05:04

Depends on how much money you have, as auto's are thirstier, slower and much more expensive to repair should they go wrong. If you can afford a new or low mileage one, go for it but if you are motoring on a tight budget, steer clear. I personally dont like them to drive, but then I very rarely drive in traffic

alan s · Post by **alan s** » 05 Apr 2005, 05:08

I remember reading years ago that the DAF belt driven infinity system was the way the autos will eventually go.
Tip-tronics are all the go at present and they seem to be getting close to the best of both world's but repair costs and reliability may be an issue in time to come.
In the past of all the systems on offer, by far the best was the Citroen C-matic. I had one in the CX I had and that car gave phenominal fuel consumption, had power to burn when overtaking and low down torque that would shame most diesels. I've pulled trees over 30 foot long with it across a paddock, towed a trailer that went over 2 ton fully loaded and increased speed going up hills so much that I've had to use the brakes to slow down behind much more powerful cars that couldn't hack the pace.
It had a torque converter attached to a standard 3 speed gearbox; no clutch, just an electro-valve controlling the fluid to the torque converter.
It's only drawback was it was sluggish off the mark to the first 10mph due to having to get that big torque converter and flywheel moving, but after that, few cars would catch it in any respect.
There are still a few left over here in CX and GS form and where once you couldn't give them away, they are now extremely popular.
The Tiptronic is almost a kind of variation on this system I believe, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Citroen one day, reinvented the C-matic and updated it and without doubt, any manual driver would enjoy driving it as much as an auto driver would feel at ease with it.
Alan S

Mosser · Post by **Mosser** » 05 Apr 2005, 05:29

That DAF belt system you talk about has already been modernised and audi tiptronics use it, it uses a double link steel chain running on hydraulic cones that give infinitely variable gearing,
The economy and performance (0-60) are actually better than the manual version now and audi only added 6 detent positions as people would apparently be put off by the single speed infinitely variable drive if it wasnt called a 6 speed tiptronic !

alan s · Post by **alan s** » 05 Apr 2005, 06:10

The only thing that frightened me about the DAF system (apart from the obvious "belts break" syndrome) was that I had a Ride-on mower that employed a similar system. When it got a bit older, the belt used to occasionally hop from wherever to the highest speed position. 'tis a sight to behold, a pipe smoking wannabe cowboy hanging on for grim death as the suspensionless grass cutter heads off at a rate of knots through thick grass, stones, water and sticks and usually always points in the direction of the barbed wire fence.[:0][:0][:p]
I have since reverted to a more "manual" system.[:D]
Alan S[;)]

DoubleChevron · Post by **DoubleChevron** » 05 Apr 2005, 06:30

Hi Guys,
Personally I can't stand any slugomatic gearbox. With the modern cars out here, the automatics if anything are slightly quicker than there manual counterpart. They don't use much more fuel either. I'm talking 3.5 -- 5.4 litre V6's/V8's. There average car out here has a minimum of a 3.5litre V6 bolted upto a 4 or 5spd automatic. I've driven my fathers new all wheel drive quad overhead cam 3.5 litre V6 Verada with 5spd tiptronic gearbox. The whole thing works really well together in a very effortless sort of way. Personally I'd still take a proper manual gearbox, but they aren't even available anymore [:0]
I HATE with a pasion slugomatic gearbox fitted to small 4cylinders, ie: BX's and any older french car. The french just don't know how to do a decent automatic. The BX automatic out here has a terrible reputation. I'm not sure if it's derserved or not, but owners are now charged multiples of the cars value to fix one of those awful slugomatic gearboxs.
The only time I'd even consider a god awful slugomatic gearbox is if I lived in the middle of a heavy traffic area and spent 95% of my time sitting in stationary traffic (then again I think I'd rather shoot myself than live like that).
seeya,
Shane L.

James.UK · Post by **James.UK** » 05 Apr 2005, 07:13

My personal preferance has always been an auto box, most of them give you the option to shift manually (my ZX does) should you wish to do so..
Fuel wise my ZX is poor around town as it will not go into top gear at less than 40mph.. So I only get about 32 mpg.. Once its on the open road its very good, I have a recorded best of 55 miles per gallon on a run from Manchester to London N1 then on down to Poole in Dorset.. Approx 350 miles. [:D]
Auto versions are more expensive to buy, and they are normaly less economic with fuel, though this cost problem is being sorted year by year.. But one thing I do know, and that is that I often lost manual versions of the same car by using the auto box manually when cornering fast on long windy (bendy) country roads. With practice an auto is faster under those conditions. and as a driver you are far less busy than a bloke driving a manual would be.. heh heh.. [:o)]
I have also managed to get myself out of deep snow or mud a few times by 'rocking' the car from drive to reverse and back, increasing the length of movement each time untill the car pops out onto firmer ground. [:D] its very hard to do that in a manual and maintain your motion. [B)]
I put 2 new clutch plates in my old ford zodiac, and did clutch changes on lots of other cars over the years in my youth, fortunately none had transverse engines, but they all cost blood, tears, money and sweat! [:I] In all my years of driving I have never known an automatic gearbox to break down in any way whatsoever, and I have owned Rovers, Daimlers, Jags, Stags (with the rover v engine) Scimitars (reliant), Mitsibishi's, Honda's etc. etc. [^]
So in sumation, my vote goes to the automatic gearbox.. [:)]
.

Homer · Post by **Homer** » 05 Apr 2005, 08:02

On the other hand I've known as many auto's break as manuals (my brother is an auto freak). The difference is you usually only lose one or two gears with a manual and can limp home. An auto generally leaves you at the mercy of the breakdown service.
It's not just driving an auto which I find annoying. Being a passenger is almost as bad. You just don't know what the dumb thing is going to do.
And if I want to be lazy with my manual box I can just leave it in 5th most of the time anyway (2nd in heavy traffic). And how much effort does it take? left foot down, left arm out, left foot up. I'm sure it's good for avoiding deep vein thrombosis too.
I've tried manually shifting auto's but its just not the same and you still don't get the instant reaction you do with a manual.
Not tried the triptronic style box but from what I've heard they still have some way to go to match the finesse of the human foot.
So no, as far as I am concerned the manual gearbox is here to stay. We wouldn't be seeing so many 6 speeders otherwise.

ScottFromNZ · Post by **ScottFromNZ** » 05 Apr 2005, 11:21

For me it depends on the car. Some cars suit auto better, some suit manual better. I love my BX TZD Turbo as a manual and my Mazda MX5 as a manual, BUT my big, lazy Rover 3500 SD1 suits it's auto gearbox just perfectly. If costs are a consideration I think long term a manual is cheaper to own. Auto's require regular fluid changes to reach big mileages. I used to get my auto transmissions serviced every year at about $120 each time. On a manual an occasional gearbox oil change is beneficial but most gearboxes do big miles on the original factory oil.

Paulmi16 · Post by **Paulmi16** » 05 Apr 2005, 13:57

Automatic for me due to modern traffic density, as long as the engine is large enough to cope. I've had two 405 1.9's one was auto the other manual. They were the same overall on petrol, as the auto was higher geared so what you lost around town, you got back on the open road. The auto used to kickdown 2 gears if required, so performance loss is'nt that big a problem.
Now I have a 306 with a manual box, and as I do a lot of town/urban driving I regret not having an auto, especially as the 306 has a heavy clutch.
Paul.