Automatic vs Manual

[Jotun]

One final thing - most of the buses are automatics round the Keele area, and there's one particular hill where they start off at the bottom doing 45 or so, and gradually slow down to about 35 before the automatic lowers the gear sufficiently that they can actually maintain their speed/accelerate.

The bus for my daily commute had the opposite problem. It was fine up hill, but coming down a hill it'd stay in a higher gear and the driver would be using the brakes to slow it down. At the bottom of the hill, there is a bus stop which the driver often stops for, and most days the bus would stall as the auto box didn't want to shift down for some reason There were loads of buses doing that route, all the same make so I don't think it was just one faulty unit.

 

[miniyazz]

How anyone can put up with using a manual clutch in heavy traffic baffles me, get into the 21st century, the only place for your left foot is on the footrest.

I'm not even sure if I have a footrest for my left foot, being a small car. Certainly I've never attempted to use it; I'm perfectly happy driving long distances with my left foot over the clutch, ready for nothing in particular. But then my left ankle's probably just being weird when it doesn't care

Welcome to the world of large HEAVY vehicles!

Are you telling me that you really think with a manual 'box the bus would not slow?

I can assure you, a truck with anything upto 14 gears, empty or loaded, automatic or manual will slow on that hill (Keele Bank I guess?)

The reason i bring trucks into this is simply because most busses are based on truck running gear.

There's that, and the fact that if the buses there use the same auto as the ones round here do then it's about the worst auto in the world.

All auto's have a kickdown whereby it will drop a gear or more when the throttle is passed a certain point so there's no reason an auto would bog down if you actually press the throttle. Above that, any box within the last 20-25 years thata even a quarter way decent will have a load sensing capability and will drop a gear or at least drop out of converter lockup mode when it senses the load increase of going up a steep hill.

It's not that I think cars would slow down going up that hill (yes Keele Bank), it's more that I don't want my speed to suffer while the automatic faffs around trying to find the right gear - if the buses were manual, the bus driver could switch down to 2nd/3rd whatever as soon as they come off the roundabout, and thus maintain their speed.
However I accept that not all automatic boxes are the same, and others perhaps don't have that problem, especially if they kick into a lower gear when the throttle is depressed far enough. Just as long as the auto is smart enough to switch down a gear as soon as it is needed, not ten seconds later.
How does that work with going near the maximum speed of the car, anyway? You wouldn't want it switching down a gear just because you've got your foot to the floor trying to go as fast as you can!

 

[Tom|Nbk]

I'm happy driving long distances with my left foot over the clutch

Another bad habit

 

[richolmes72]

They both offer different advantages and disadvantages - I have no real preference.

Big cars do suit autos more though, having said that it depends on the box and the car.

You haven't lived however, until you've driven the 0.8 litre Automatic Chevy Matiz

 

[miniyazz]

Another bad habit

Heh, I'm sure I'm full of bad habits now

That one, however, I'll dispute - if it's a comfortable driving position, which for me it is, it leaves me in more control of the car, quicker to change gear if need be, no?
Although I agree that if it's not comfortable, it's far better to have a comfortable position next to the clutch and then be in a position to use it rather than have your foot over the clutch but all seized up from holding it there too long..

 

[Fido McNasty]

I believe 'coasting' is technically illegal. Not sure on that though.

If you like to be a part of the action, go manual. If you are lazy, go auto.

 

[Dogbreath]

Heh, I'm sure I'm full of bad habits now

That one, however, I'll dispute - if it's a comfortable driving position, which for me it is, it leaves me in more control of the car, quicker to change gear if need be, no?

If you are actually resting you foot on the clutch pedal, combined with coasting around with the clutch disengaged then your poor clutch is not long for this world. Both very silly bad habits that will cost you money or worse.

 

[DannyDan]

How does that work with going near the maximum speed of the car, anyway? You wouldn't want it switching down a gear just because you've got your foot to the floor trying to go as fast as you can!

I've never driven an auto so I may be wrong, but surely it takes other things into account, e.g. how fast the accelerator was pressed, the current revs, etc.

 

[Concrete]

The R34 is a tiptronic and to be honest I can't see me ever going back to a manual again.

An automatic car is:

Faster - yay, full throttle upshifts.

More comfortable - no more stupidly heavy clutches - Supra 6 Speed I'm looking at you

Safer - When overtaking you concentrate on the road, not worrying about shifting to keep power up

To be honest, it makes driving more enjoyable for me. I also drove a 1.3 old school Corolla with an autobox not to long ago and was really really impressed, it shifted supprisingly well.

 

[miniyazz]

If you are actually resting you foot on the clutch pedal, combined with coasting around with the clutch disengaged then your poor clutch is not long for this world. Both very silly bad habits that will cost you money or worse.

Nope I'm not sufficiently dumb to rest my foot on the clutch.
And I'm weaning myself off the coasting, apparently it's firmly rooted in my brain and will take a few drives to eliminate it!

So driving with the clutch disengaged is bad for the clutch? I assumed it would just be engaging/disengaging it that would be bad.

 

[EvilDreams]

Also, i don't know how you'd go about wheelspinning an auto.

Trust me, you can still wheelspin in an auto, it's just not as easy, but then again that's the sort of thing chavs in petrol station carparks do at 2am so why would you want to?

 

[Clarkey]

It's not that I think cars would slow down going up that hill (yes Keele Bank), it's more that I don't want my speed to suffer while the automatic faffs around trying to find the right gear - if the buses were manual, the bus driver could switch down to 2nd/3rd whatever as soon as they come off the roundabout, and thus maintain their speed.
However I accept that not all automatic boxes are the same, and others perhaps don't have that problem, especially if they kick into a lower gear when the throttle is depressed far enough. Just as long as the auto is smart enough to switch down a gear as soon as it is needed, not ten seconds later.
How does that work with going near the maximum speed of the car, anyway? You wouldn't want it switching down a gear just because you've got your foot to the floor trying to go as fast as you can!

Seems like you have a lot of wild ideas about how auto's are crap, drive one and see.

 

[raptormonkey]

Auto is a joy.

 

[frosty03]

1) Lower MPGs with Autos. Not entirely true. If you assume that if you change manually at the optimal revs, then it may be slightly lower for an automatic. But most people over/under rev changing and your fuel usage may actually be higher than an automatic, which does it automatically and at optimal revs

2) Most autos have a shift down when you press your right foot. Some even have a button that will shift down as well. Others you press a button to goto "manual" and then shift down. So no argument on the "control" aspect.

3)Downhill. You can put your auto into a "low gear", for pecisely that purpose.

4) Maintenence. Just have to change fluid every 2 or 3 service intervals. No biggie. True that it'll hurt more if it goes bang. Then again, anything can go bang.

Dont knock it until you've tried it.

 

[PMKeates]

1) Lower MPGs with Autos. Not entirely true. If you assume that if you change manually at the optimal revs, then it may be slightly lower for an automatic. But most people over/under rev changing and your fuel usage may actually be higher than an automatic, which does it automatically and at optimal revs

In the kind of automatic transmissioned cars that most consumers would be able to afford to purchase, you are likely to get quite worse fuel consumption in the manual than the automatic. The optimal rev argument works only if you are a particularly poor shift planner. A human has the advantage of seeing the road ahead and planning accordingly - an automatic just has to guess. Numerous times I will be in full auto mode, ready to accelerate, when it changes up. Then I accelerate, it changes down. This isn't economical. Add the fact that typical torque converter automatics are not called slushboxes for nothing, and that they are normally heavier enough than their manual counterparts to impact economy, and you will generally find that, unless it's a premium car with a large engine, economy between manuals and automatics will almost always be in the manuals favour. There are some exceptions, but not many in the grand scheme of things.

2) Most autos have a shift down when you press your right foot. Some even have a button that will shift down as well. Others you press a button to goto "manual" and then shift down. So no argument on the "control" aspect.

Shift down when you press your right foot is reactive rather than proactive. If I want to accelerate hard in 3 seconds time, then this does not help me when it comes to the event. In a manual transmission I can preselect my preferred gear at my leisure. The downshift is often poorly actioned by the automatic, and I've many a time where it's double-downshifted, to ride out the remaining 400 revs of a lower gear.

3)Downhill. You can put your auto into a "low gear", for pecisely that purpose.

Maybe. Not all automatic transmissions have enough gear selections to always allow the selection of the appropriate one for a given hill. In a manual you have freedom of choice.

4) Maintenence. Just have to change fluid every 2 or 3 service intervals. No biggie. True that it'll hurt more if it goes bang. Then again, anything can go bang.

True, but the whole point is it's just as likely to go bang, but will cost more. Chance * cost weighs in the manual transmissions favour. Most people's clutches will not randomly stop working one day and land them a 2000 pound repair bill!

I like automatics, but not really for any of the reasons you have mentioned. Sorry

 

[ChrisJSY]

It's all about torque-weight to be honest. I was driving a 4.7 V8 auto the other week, and it wasn't as relaxing as the 3.5 V6 auto I drove the week after, that was in a much ligher vehicle. If you've enough torque to mean that the transmission barely changes gear, then it's nice to drive

Depends on the technology though, I own a classic v8 mustang manual and have also driven an auto.
Can't downshift to get those horses screaming and when you do get to those lovely notes at a high rpm, next gear kicks in!

But it's a whole other world when we talk about classic cars

 

[mackie]

You haven't lived however, until you've driven the 0.8 litre Automatic Chevy Matiz

I suspect the Kia Picanto auto I had as a courtessy car once (they were very appologetic) is a similar deal. Pressing the accelerator seemed to change the level of noise but not much else.

 

[Ring Peace]

Not all automatic transmissions have enough gear selections to always allow the selection of the appropriate one for a given hill. In a manual you have freedom of choice.

I don't think you have driven the most modern of automatics, my Skoda had 6 forward gears, Volvo XC90 has 5, Galaxy has 5, new Golf has 7 same as the new Merc.

 

[This Side Up]

Having had a 1.6 Focus auto i'd say its the lowest engine size you'd want in an auto, it was quite fine for any road and accleration was'nt tooo bad, perfectly fine for overtaking but would'nt want a smaller engine and i agree the bigger the better.
I actually went back to manual cars, autos are no fun imo. As someone stated, when they go bad they cost loads to repair, the transmission was slipping in mine and cost 1100 to rebuild.

+1

An automatic transmission is a tool designed for a purpose. It makes driving easier and, for some people, less stressful.

However it is less engaging; there is less driver involvement, and some would argue that people pay less attention to the roads because they are that much more detached from the whole driving thing.

Also +1 on the transmission costs for an autobox. If you get a good automatic and look after it, it'll go on forever. It's when they don't go on forever that your wallet (and your bank manager!!!) cries.

From owning both an automatic and a manual, I would say automatic every time for commuting. Manual for everything else. In saying that, driving a manual is so much more rewarding when you plan ahead and anticipate traffic/hazards ahead of you so you can get into that perfect gear. There is a sense of satisfaction in that. Unfortunately that sense is lost on the majority of people who only drive manuals because 'they always have'.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Just got my booking confirmation for my rental car for next week - Toyota Aurion/Ford Falcon XR6 Auto or similar, so I'll see what I think about proper autos for a long period of time