Death of the manual gearbox.

Jez said:
Not much point in a CVT when traditional auto's are so good.
Click to expand...

Lack of torque converter and infinite ratios would be one. Ive driven some pretty premium autos, the smoothest was deffo the Murano CVT. You can still feel a gearchange, be in a Range Rover, Merc ML, X5 or Lexus LS600h.

I was looking for stuff like that though as it was around the test track at JLR.
 
Last edited:
You cant unless you are *REALLY* looking for it and watching the dials in high end cars (Read Bentley/Merc, the two of which i go in regularly), the Lexus is one such car which has eluded me.

I dont know much about CVT, if they are the answer why are manufacturers still pouring money into automatic boxes? (Genuine question) :)
 
Im trying to see if it has changed, I know the US EPA system had a revised test fairly recently which introduced results closer to real world.

NEDC is ass though, theres % undershoot you can do so if you have a nice robot controlling the throttle you can sit right on the threshold of that and go even slower than the test suggests. Also includes test temp of 20C and no heaters, AC and of course no air resistance.
 
Last edited:
Jez said:
I dont know much about CVT, if they are the answer why are manufacturers still pouring money into automatic boxes? (Genuine question) :)
Click to expand...

They cant deal with the torque, as highlighted on here to me fairle recently it seems Nissan are the ones who have cracked on with the higher rated stuff but you're only looking at 250lbft or so.
 
Jez said:
I dont know much about CVT, if they are the answer why are manufacturers still pouring money into automatic boxes? (Genuine question) :)
Click to expand...


I think it's because most CVT boxes will have the previous stigma of being unreliable and having the "rubber band effect" as with the old CVT boxes (DAF etc). But the Nissan one I drove was very nice, the CVT attached to the Jazz seems to have positive reviews as do the Audi Multitronic boxes, and they seem to be becoming much more reliable using steel instead of rubber belts etc.

I think another reason against them is that as people grow up, cars accelerating has always been associated with a rise in revs, then the fall as the gear is changed, and it is a weird sensation driving a CVT where the revs barely rise yet you still accelerate, or where you floor it, the car accellerates, as does the engine up to peak power (usually around 6k rpm) and then stays there whilst the speed catches up. It feels (and sounds) like a slipping clutch would and is a peculiar sensation to get used to.

They offer massive benefits IMO, particularly with motorway driving, as they seem to allow a higher top ratio, allowing you to sit at high speed with as low rpm's as possible. And if they approach an incline, rather than booting it, the CVT box reduces the ratio slightly, the engine smoothly speeds up to provide a little extra power rather than having to force the pedal down and induce kick down.
Again, I've not driven a high end car with a very good auto box so I can't comment, but it's very smooth. The same goes for on cruise control, rather than it taking a couple of seconds for the car to realise it needs a lower gear to keep the car at speed, and then feeling the change and surge of power, it seemlessly stays at speed with only a slight increase in engine note.


I think the main reasons are for now, getting the reliabilty topnotch. Modern CVT boxes are still relatively new technology (to be able to handle modern engine power anyway) but I think manufacturers are getting there, and I can see (or at least I hope) CVTs replacing traditional planetary auto boxes! :D
 
The only auto I have driven is a merc C180 the other week as a courtesy car. tbh it was annoying as when you pressed the accelerator the gear change was so slow it appeared like the car was merely depressing the clutch allowing the revs to rise and then releasing the clutch again in the same gear. It did have the paddles as well which were a bit better. I did like it on hills though and in traffic.
 
PMKeates said:
I don't get how unless you brake and accelerate at the same time, but then you could do that in a manual :p
Click to expand...

Using the left foot on the brakes in an auto leads to the habit of covering the brake with your left foot, which leads to pressing it lightly.

Assisted a friend in finding an auto for him and his Mrs, the whole way back from picking it up his brakes where on. And it was smelling a lot like hot brakes, kept trying to stop him but he didn't really get the idea. He had previously only driven in America, where you are taught to use your left foot.

The left foot should live on the rest when doing nothing, and should never do anything in an auto. Covering the clutch and pressing it slightly will wear that out quickly too.
 
thecremeegg said:
If you think about it, manual gear changing is a very outdated and antiquated activity. All these fancy gadgets and what not in the car and we still have to move out feet about on the clutch and move a stick about in order to make it move. Whilst it may be more involving for the driver, joe public would probably rather not have the hassle.
Click to expand...

I remember seeing an interview with David Lapworth of the Subaru Rally Team where he was talking about when Subaru were the first team to introduce auto/semi-auto gearboxes into WRC. Though they were much more complicated than a manual, they found the new boxes were much more reliable as the box changed gear perfectly every time, and didn't make mistakes like a human operator can.

They might be less involving than a manual, but I prefer autos or semi-autos, the only hurdle for me is that autos always used to be less economical to drive than manuals - or is that not the case now?
 
Vampire said:
the only hurdle for me is that autos always used to be less economical to drive than manuals - or is that not the case now?
Click to expand...

They're close now if not better. In my car's case, the quoted fuel economy is greater with the DSG fitted than the manual, though as pointed out further up in this thread, they don't test them in real life driving conditions so it's hard to say which is truly more efficient in practical terms for a given model.

Suffice to say they're now very close to each other.
 
DSG is a manual with an automatic shift mechanism that employs twin clutches. The basic premise of an auto being worse of fuel is things like torque converters that sap energy unless they are locked.

I dont know why the word 'automatic' is being so general when there are several technolgies that give you an automatic transmission.
 
WTF @ left foot comments :eek: Your left foot shouldn't come into driving at all, how can that come naturally to anybody.
 
Jez said:
WTF @ left foot comments :eek: Your left foot shouldn't come into driving at all, how can that come naturally to anybody.
Click to expand...
I use it every so often when driving autos... mainly if I need to get away quickly, or sometimes as a swap from my right foot if I'm in traffic.
 
Doubt I would buy another manual...

Got Easytronic on the Corsa and while it's not as good as a full automatic (sometimes tries to pull away from a stand in 2nd or 3rd) it really reduces the workload and lets you focus on situational awareness, both hands on the wheel etc.

Have driven full automatics in the States/Canada on holiday and previously had an Astra auto from 1999 - 2004, it's just so much better than manual I'm really surprised manuals still dominate in the UK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom