Auto boxes on "superminis"

RoboCod · 10 Jan 2012 at 18:27

Hi,

can anyone tell me what the autoboxes are like on small cars that we are looking at, namely the Clio and the 207? (I'm guessing they are horrible, but maybe I could be pleasantly surprised?)

The missus currently drives a 1.0 Micra Auto. It's 53bhp and it's abysmal, particularly now she does more motorway/carriageway driving. She needs something with a slightly bigger engine now she does more than just city driving. I'm still working on convincing her to do her manual test - women!

[TW]Fox · 10 Jan 2012 at 18:30

Absolutely horrible - autoboxes really need a nice torquey engine to work well.

JRS · 10 Jan 2012 at 18:48

Yep. Anything running a torque converter auto 'box behind a small engine is a recipe for frustration, ****-poor fuel economy and bills when something inevitably breaks.

OpenToSuggestions · 10 Jan 2012 at 18:49

[TW]Fox;20999459 said:
Absolutely horrible - autoboxes really need a nice torquey engine to work well.

I have heard this over and over and know it is true, but am interested to why

.

ash_scotland88 · 10 Jan 2012 at 18:53

JRS said:
Yep. Anything running a torque converter auto 'box behind a small engine is a recipe for frustration, ****-poor fuel economy and bills when something inevitably breaks.

When parents had the 57 focus, the 1.6 auto was pushing out 26mpg according to the computer. Shockingly bad!

RoboCod · 10 Jan 2012 at 19:02

This is what surprised me about her 1.0 Micra. She has to rev the hell out of it to get up to speed, it sounds like it is going to explode on the motorway and the fuel just falls out of it!

Brookert · 10 Jan 2012 at 19:25

takes waaaaaaaaaaaay too long to shift........... didn't have the heart to burst my dads bubble though, he seems fond of his cooper s

Confused · 10 Jan 2012 at 19:25

You lose power through the losses in the torque converter. When there's little power there in the first place to spin the converter up and create the centripetal force, you'll have to rev higher to create this - which again affects both power loss through the transmission, and fuel economy - running a small capacity engine at high revs and high load uses lots of fuel.

Therefore - conventional torque converter autos are better suited to larger engines, where the power loss is less noticeable, and there's more power in the first place to work the transmission.

Uriel · 10 Jan 2012 at 19:33

Forget a torque converter auto but do consider Honda's CVT on the Jazz. I have CVT on my insight and it's the only small engine autobox I've found pleasant to drive. CVTs get excellent fuel economy, on par with a manual unless you're into hypermiling techniques.

The Jazz with i-shift Auto box gets decent economy but the gearbox is generally otherwise pretty horrible.

My parents have an i10 auto with torque converter and fuel economy is dismal unless they take it to higher speed and the box locks up.

Brookert · 10 Jan 2012 at 20:01

I thought the dsg boxes in vags were meant to be the bees knees?

wesley · 10 Jan 2012 at 20:05

dsg is not an automatic gearbox, its more auto-manual (a robot changing gear for you)

Dr Who · 10 Jan 2012 at 20:36

wesley said:
dsg is not an automatic gearbox, its more auto-manual (a robot changing gear for you)

Well it has 2 pedals and defaults to automatic, however, it is not an old style auto, and it uses clutches rather than a torque converter.

In terms of it's legal position, it is an Auto.

Minstadave · 10 Jan 2012 at 20:47

My first car was a 1.0L Corsa with a automated manual box and it was perfectly acceptable to be honest, as long as you stay away from a torque converter automatic it's not that bad.

[TW]Fox · 10 Jan 2012 at 20:50

Dr Who said:
Well it has 2 pedals and defaults to automatic, however, it is not an old style auto, and it uses clutches rather than a torque converter.

In terms of it's legal position, it is an Auto.

It's got two clutches - it's not an automatic.

Minstadave · 10 Jan 2012 at 20:52

We have this argument every few weeks.

[TW]Fox · 10 Jan 2012 at 20:57

Yea, not really sure why.

Twin-clutch gearbox is undoubtedly a revolutionary technology for manual transmission. Its impact to the automotive world is even greater than automated manual gearbox such Ferrari F1 system. Twin-clutch gearbox was first put into production by BorgWarner, which calls it "DualTronic". It was first used in Audi TT 3.2 in the name "DSG" (Direct-Shift Gearbox).
Like automated manual gearbox, BorgWarner’s DualTronic can operate as a semi-automatic, where the driver changes gears via buttons, paddles or conventional shifter. There is no clutch pedal, because the clutch is automatic while the gearshift is implemented by electro-hydraulic actuators. For relax driving, there is also a full automatic mode, where computer determines which gear to be selected.

http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/gearbox/tech_gear_manual.htm#Twin-Clutch

Uriel · 10 Jan 2012 at 21:21

As far as I'm concerned, if you don't have to change gears it's automatic. That's probably what your average joe thinks too.

Makes no difference to most people whether it's 'automated' or 'automatic'. The outcome is the same, give or take a little smoothness or fuel economy.

NathWraith · 10 Jan 2012 at 21:34

DSG is win

squerble · 10 Jan 2012 at 21:43

Just echoing a previous comment, I had an 07 Focus, 1.6 automatic. For scootching around town it wasn't too bad at all, and could sit at 80mph on the motorway, but terrible otherwise, especially for anything more than moderate progress anywhere.

That said, the box itself was a poor 4 speed jobbie (probably from the 80s), and even driving conservatively I struggled to get above 28mpg. Horrible from a 100bhp 1.6

Shoei · 10 Jan 2012 at 21:45

The TCT in my Mito is great. Leave it in D for easy drive through town, or stick it in M and use the paddles on the wheel.
The auto in my mums Yaris isn't to bad. Think its a CVT.