automatics cars?

[TW]Fox · 23 Nov 2010 at 21:02

Jonny69 said:
It'll just be a bit slower. Back to my original post. It's not a sports car, it's a shopping/kiddie wagon.

I'm not really sure why you've even mentioned sports cars. If you think my point is that a small automatic is a bad idea because it isn't as fast as a Porsche 911 then I see little point is continuing to discuss it.

[TW]Fox · 23 Nov 2010 at 21:03

Morba said:
So a 1.6 struggles on everyday roads? What absolute rubbish.

A 1.6 automatic is underpowered and struggles, yes.

At this end of the market you want something cheap to run with no hassle. An autobox contradicts both of these. Change gear yourself.

The benefits of a manual over an auto in this market are clear:

a) More reliable and if the worst does happen, the repair costs are considerably lower
b) More economical
c) Much more efficient use of the power of the engine

For an autobox to be a help not a hinderence you really need to pair it with a reaosnable torquey engine - this is why they tend to suit diesels quite well. Smaller petrol engines require revs to get the most out of them, something that a a bog standard autobox is just.. not going to be best suited for.

You won't waste your time because you know I'm right.

You can think that if you want.

Morba · 23 Nov 2010 at 21:07

[TW]Fox;17853792 said:
A 1.6 automatic is underpowered and struggles, yes.

At this end of the market you want something cheap to run with no hassle. An autobox contradicts both of these. Change gear yourself.

The benefits of a manual over an auto in this market are clear:

a) More reliable and if the worst does happen, the repair costs are considerably lower
b) More economical
c) Much more efficient use of the power of the engine

You can think that if you want.

Manual boxes go wrong also, no?

A 1.6 does not struggle with every day roads. Your opinion that they do is laughable tbh.

I will think that as funnily enough I am talking about 2 cars I own and drive regularly. But hey, you tell me different

[TW]Fox · 23 Nov 2010 at 21:10

Morba said:
Manual boxes go wrong also, no?

Not with anything like the regularlity of an autobox. Which stands to reason, as automatic gearboxes are more complex.

Simple and economical is the way forward for a car of this type at this end of the market.

I will think that as funnily enough I am talking about 2 cars I own and drive regularly. But hey, you tell me different

It just means I don't trust your judgement any further than I could throw it

Six6siX · 23 Nov 2010 at 21:23

Morba said:
A 1.6 does not struggle with every day roads. Your opinion that they do is laughable tbh

I'd have thought a car that big, fully loaded, with only a 1.6 would struggle tbh

Mr^B · 23 Nov 2010 at 21:33

My current "other" car, is a 1.8 Xsara Picasso (normal sized, not a grand) and it's a gutless piece of plop which I never drive.

Joshy · 23 Nov 2010 at 21:50

Six6siX said:
I'd have thought a car that big, fully loaded, with only a 1.6 would struggle tbh

It will. Especially when what little power it does have is put through a slush box. The opinion that they will not is laughable tbh.

As for "Manuals go wrong also" being a counter point for the proven "Automatics break more often and are more difficult to fix" - LOL.

Stripping a manual box is utter child's play compared to cracking open a modern automatic transmission and playing with it's guts. Seriously, I still have nightmares

.

Automatics are cool in their place - Behind a powerful engine with 6 or more cylinders in a car that has a leather clad interior and preferably wood grain trim. Putting them anywhere else is against the laws of nature.

Morba · 23 Nov 2010 at 22:02

Six6siX said:
I'd have thought a car that big, fully loaded, with only a 1.6 would struggle tbh

A 1.6 manual wouldn't do much better though will it. Fox is under the impression that a 1.6 auto struggles regardless of being fully loaded and seems to think that 3 kids are the equivalent to adults.

Joshy - if me saying a manual also goes wrong is a stupid argument then what the hell is thinking most people are going to strip their own gearbox if it goes wrong?!

Kenai · 23 Nov 2010 at 22:08

[TW]Fox;17853477 said:
2 litre is rather pushing away from 'small engine' though. The petrol auto in a Picasso will be a 1.6 will it not?

Parkers only show Autos for the 2.0 Xsara Picasso, all the 1.6 models appear to be manuals.

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Summary.aspx?model=141

Morba · 23 Nov 2010 at 22:13

Kenai said:
Parkers only show Autos for the 2.0 Xsara Picasso, all the 1.6 models appear to be manuals.

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Summary.aspx?model=141

Which perform not to differently to a 2ltr manual mondeo it seems.

Joshy · 23 Nov 2010 at 22:16

Morba said:
Joshy - if me saying a manual also goes wrong is a stupid argument then what the hell is thinking most people are going to strip their own gearbox if it goes wrong?!

The more difficult a job is the more a garage is going to charge to put it right.

Welcome to economics 101.

Lashout_UK · 23 Nov 2010 at 22:24

I've driven some really nice four cylinder automatics. Sub two litres too.

Just thought I'd leave that here.

-runs-

Six6siX · 23 Nov 2010 at 22:25

Morba said:
A 1.6 manual wouldn't do much better though will it. Fox is under the impression that a 1.6 auto struggles regardless of being fully loaded and seems to think that 3 kids are the equivalent to adults.

At least with the manual you would have more control over the gears and could get at what relatively little power was there when you needed it, more easily. I think that would help things somewhat.

Joshy - if me saying a manual also goes wrong is a stupid argument then what the hell is thinking most people are going to strip their own gearbox if it goes wrong?!

I don't believe that was the implication. Complex job = more money, surely that is obvious?

Morba · 23 Nov 2010 at 22:27

Does anyone know how much fixing an equivalent fault on a manual and auto is?

[TW]Fox · 23 Nov 2010 at 22:28

Morba said:
Does anyone know how much fixing an equivalent fault on a manual and auto is?

lol, seriously?

Lets google to see how much it costs to fix a torque convertor on a manual or perhaps change a clutch on an auto?

What equivilent fault would you like given there are virtually no equivilent parts?

Kenai · 23 Nov 2010 at 22:29

Well what would you term an equivalent fault? They are fairly fundamentally different so the sort of thing that will typically fail on a manual is going to be different to what would typically fail on an auto.

edit - ffs

About the only equivalent fault I can think of is 'completely ****ing broken', in which case, a new auto box is more expensive than a new manual box

Morba · 23 Nov 2010 at 22:33

Well yeah a new box is more expensive, that's a given

Auto won't go into 3rd gear, manual won't go into 3rd gear. That's an equivalent fault (to the driver), no?
Or would that not happen?

Wicksta · 23 Nov 2010 at 22:38

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/automatic-transmission.htm

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/transmission.htm

To give you an idea how different they are.

Morba · 23 Nov 2010 at 22:42

Thanks, can't see on poo phone though

VFM Addict · 23 Nov 2010 at 22:46

Mr^B said:
My current "other" car, is a 1.8 Xsara Picasso (normal sized, not a grand) and it's a gutless piece of plop which I never drive.

Fair enough. But the reason that you keep it as your "other" car may be the very reason that the OP needs it if he is only going to run one vehicle.