automatics cars?

[Participant]

You're all making it sound like the difference between a manual and an auto on a Picasso, is the difference between breaking a hill climb record and barely spluttering up that hill. It really isn't so dramatic, even with a loaded car. You just get in the slow lane and wait for the flat bit, just like you would with the manual, except it might take you 0.5 seconds more to get up said hill.

It wasn't broken, that's the way they drive

That's the way you drove it, you mean. It's not (or shouldn't be) difficult to adapt your driving style to an autobox.

It's nothing to do with that - autoboxes sap power, power a 1.6 litre engine doesn't have. The result is a frustrating combination of dreadful fuel economy and a ridiculously unresponsive engine

All gearboxes sap power. The question is, is the power that the autobox saps so much more significant than that lost in the manual. For your average Picasso driver, no, of course not. An autobox doesn't instantly transform this car from acceptable to unacceptable as you are making out. It's a simple preference.

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.

Yeah, cause a leather interior has so much to do with the suitability of an autobox. Back to your advanced Bentley training, I think.

No-one is (or should be) arguing that an autobox is more expensive to fix if something goes wrong. That's obviously the case. But to try and pretend that they turn a 1.6 into something barely driveable smacks of failing to consider the reality, for the average Picasso driver that can't be arsed to changed gear.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Driveability aside what is the point in buying a cheapo economy vehicle and then picking an option which removes the economy and the cheap repair costs and adds a massive failiure risk?

 

[Participant]

Driveability aside what is the point in buying a cheapo economy vehicle and then picking an option which removes the economy and the cheap repair costs and adds a massive failiure risk?

Because you bought it primarily for ferrying people, and consider an autobox worth the 'massive' failure risk (!) as you can't be arsed to change gear yourself.

 

[[TW]Fox]

You seem suprised I consider an autobox to be a high failiure risk. Do you not beleive this to be the case?

Failiures on automatic gearboxes are so common that despite the relatively low number of autoboxes against manual boxes in the UK, there is enough work to fund an entire industry of auto gearbox specialists. I know of no manual gearbox specialists, at least not on the same scale. Because they mostly simply work, and when they dont, they do not require specialist attention to repair.

 

[DRZ]

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?

There are relatively few faults in an autobox whereby you would lose all drive. Sun and planet gearboxes are remarkably different to how you would think (and are a little mind-boggling).

I had an auto in my 3-series, I have driven crappy small engined cars with autoboxes. They have no place in underpowered cars, it just leads to a horrible driving experience.

 

[Participant]

You seem suprised I consider an autobox to be a high failiure risk. Do you not beleive this to be the case?

Failiures on automatic gearboxes are so common that despite the relatively low number of autoboxes against manual boxes in the UK, there is enough work to fund an entire industry of auto gearbox specialists. I know of no manual gearbox specialists, at least not on the same scale. Because they mostly simply work, and when they dont, they do not require specialist attention to repair.

Of course I believe this to be the case. The auto on my dad's signum recently failed, with a bill for 1700. However if the expected value of choosing an autobox, i.e. the chance of it failing times the value you placed on not having to change gear less cost of failure, is greater than the corresponding entry for a manual box, then you should still choose the auto.

There are relatively few faults in an autobox whereby you would lose all drive. Sun and planet gearboxes are remarkably different to how you would think (and are a little mind-boggling).

I had an auto in my 3-series, I have driven crappy small engined cars with autoboxes. They have no place in underpowered cars, it just leads to a horrible driving experience.

Whereas their manual counterparts are just so fantastic. Nobody's seems to be talking in relative terms. For someone that doesn't want to have to change gear, the relatively small drop in driveability is worth it for the autobox.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Of course I believe this to be the case. The auto on my dad's signum recently failed, with a bill for 1700. However if the expected value of choosing an autobox, i.e. the chance of it failing times the value you placed on not having to change gear less cost of failure, is greater than the corresponding entry for a manual box, then you should still choose the auto.

I don't know what planet you live on where the average £5k sprog-wagon buyer is happy to cop a highly likely £1700 autobox bill because they 'can't be bothered to change gear'.

They are simple, boring cars to do a job. Keep them simple or it defeats the purpose.

 

[Morba]

Horrible driving experience - surely that only matters where you give a damn about the 'experience'. The op isn't looking for an experience, just a car that does the job. Would a manual really make the same car a better experience? Highly unlikely.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Horrible driving experience - surely that only matters where you give a damn about the 'experience'. The op isn't looking for an experience, just a car that does the job.

A manual does the job of being a reliable, cheap to run small engined A to B car better than an automatic does.

It's pointless buying cheaper cars and picking the one which has the big repair bill millstone around its neck.

If you are buying a £20k car then sure, what the hell, but value for money and low cost is surely important when the budget and car purpose is as it is in this thread.

The Citroen Xsara Picasso automatic delivers more or less the same combined MPG as my 530i! Thats just ridiculous, why would you want that level of fuel consumption from a car like that?! It's supposed to be a cheap to run family car!

(I still stand by the driveability points, but it seems we've done that argument to death so I'm focusing on the more quantifiable reasons why you just dont want an automatic Picasso).

 

[Morba]

I don't know what planet you live on where the average £5k sprog-wagon buyer is happy to cop a highly likely £1700 autobox bill because they 'can't be bothered to change gear'.

They are simple, boring cars to do a job. Keep them simple or it defeats the purpose.

Highly likely? More likely I can understand, but highly?

 

[Morba]

A manual does the job of being a reliable, cheap to run small engined A to B car better than an automatic does.

It's pointless buying cheaper cars and picking the one which has the big repair bill millstone around its neck.

If you are buying a £20k car then sure, what the hell, but value for money and low cost is surely important when the budget and car purpose is as it is in this thread.

How in anyway is that related to the driving experience that i have quoted?
I've not said that a manual isn't better than an auto for this?

 

[beermonster]

I would just by a reasonably specified 2.0 petrol mk3 mondeo hatchback over a picasso or the like, you don't really need the extra rear headroom with kids in the back.

Unless you want an auto I wouldn't consider it just because the car just happened to be local and handy. But at this price point it can be an unnecessary risk.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Highly likely? More likely I can understand, but highly?

In a high or esteemed manner; extremely; greatly; awfully

 

[Joshy]

Yeah, cause a leather interior has so much to do with the suitability of an autobox. Back to your advanced Bentley training, I think.

Actually, it makes perfect sense.

Having a cloth interior in a car is a quite clear indicator of someone being a peasant. Peasants tend to drive small engined, cheap to run cars because they cannot to run anything with a proper engine, and for reasons that have been pointed out time and again in this thread, small engined, cheap to run cars have no place for an automatic transmission.

See. There's method to my madness .

 

[End Creditz]

Be honest who gives a **** what the gear change is like, i think those Picasso things are a mile in front of anything else for that money when it comes to space and general usability.

You aint got to like this sort of car, its just there to do a job. You aint even got to spend any money on them 3k gets you a good one.

+1 Mates had the HDi thing for 3 years now and it's not, yet, let him down. Comfortable and goes sufficiently well to not be a danger to the driver or other traffic Don't like the looks but as DM says, it's there to do a job and it does it. Just go through all the usual checks as you would when buying any motor.


Edit: his is a manual though and I have absolutely no clue at all what the slush box on one of these might be like new or 2nd hand.

 

[DM]

Actually, it makes perfect sense.

Having a cloth interior in a car is a quite clear indicator of someone being a peasant. Peasants tend to drive small engined, cheap to run cars because they cannot to run anything with a proper engine, and for reasons that have been pointed out time and again in this thread, small engined, cheap to run cars have no place for an automatic transmission.

See. There's method to my madness .

No one likes a peasant, especially at Christmas time, they are all so needy

 

[Mr^B]

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.

I keep it as my other car is because; 1. it was inherited for free, 2. I use it to transport large items (such as straw/hay) around, and it's cheap to keep a free car which is vaguely suited to my needs than spend a few thousand on a car which is only probably going to be slightly better; and 3. There are times when we need two cars, it's currently a Picasso because it's already there, if I was buying something new it would be something like an Aygo/Fox. You categorically do not need a large 4/5 door car simply because you have kids.

That's the way you drove it, you mean. It's not (or shouldn't be) difficult to adapt your driving style to an autobox.

Oh, look here, from "What Car?":

"The automatic gearbox has a jerky action as it moves between gears, so is best avoided."

 

[DM]

You categorically do not need a large 4/5 door car simply because you have kids.

You dont need a lot of things, it just makes life easier if you have them.

 

[ubersonic]

Never driven an auto is it easy to adjust to automatic cars?

Well its sort of a long curve, you can get in and drive straight away, its a simple case of go faster pedal on right, go slower pedal on left, not that complicated. However it will take a while to master it because contrary to popular myth the driver of an automatic is in complete control of what gear he is in and when gear changes occur its just it is all done by throttle manipulation. Given time owning the car you will learn how to make it shift from any gear into any other gear simply by moving your foot and how to make it change quickly/slowly.


Its strange to watch arguments like this because the UK probably has more "auto hate" than any other country on earth, in places like North America, Australia and Asia automatics have been more popular for some time but for some reason the stigma that they are useless and break all the time (a modern auto box will last the life of the car and requires less maintenance than a manual box) is still alive and well in 2010.

At the end of the day automatics make life easier and unless the car your buying has known design issues with its transmission then the box will usually be bulletproof, yes they do "sap" more power that a manual but its not a massive difference and at the end of the day almost all supercars are automatics as are F1 cars so they can be that bad

 

[DRZ]

Whereas their manual counterparts are just so fantastic. Nobody's seems to be talking in relative terms. For someone that doesn't want to have to change gear, the relatively small drop in driveability is worth it for the autobox.

Did you miss the word 'relatively' there or something?