Manual

clockwork.satan said:
Another contentious issue with automatics is their emissions and efficiency, as they're generally more polluting and have less MPG than manuals.
Click to expand...
The BMW and VAG auto boxes are more efficient and use less fuel than the manual version. Other auto versions from other manufacturers probably do the same too.
 
SDK^ said:
The BMW and VAG auto boxes are more efficient and use less fuel than the manual version. Other auto versions from other manufacturers probably do the same too.
Click to expand...

Even the French are in on this - the new auto box in the facelift 508 is more efficient than the manuals. I believe Volvo are using a similar 8 speed auto to the BMW one in the D4 models too.

At this point, there are probably more autos which are more efficient than those which are less efficient - although it's a fairly new phenomenon
 
As much as I love the box in my s2000, like with any manual car, it does get tiresome in traffic at times. The clutch isn't at all heavy either. Driving an old automatic nissan micra can feel more relaxing. I seem to spend less and less time driving a car like this how it's meant to be, so would happily go dsg next (then probably say it feels disconnected whenever going on quiet b roads).
 
iaind said:
Even the French are in on this - the new auto box in the facelift 508 is more efficient than the manuals.
Click to expand...

If it's anything like the box in the 2008 it's utterly horrible. It's not unlike being driven by a learner driver.

Have to say I quite liked my auto Volvo but that was from an era when autos did use more fuel.
 
What's with all the CVT hate? Granted that they're not on par with something like 9G-Tronic, but they're fantastic at economic, effortless driving. I'm yet to hear of any concrete, rational reason why someone would hate a CVT. They're good boxes suited for their purpose.
 
Ricochet J said:
What's with all the CVT hate? Granted that they're not on par with something like 9G-Tronic, but they're fantastic at economic, effortless driving. I'm yet to hear of any concrete, rational reason why someone would hate a CVT. They're good boxes suited for their purpose.
Click to expand...

Only when used for their intended purpose - providing a usable automatic transmission in a small engined compact car. This is the benefit of them.

CVT's are used because they are cheap and for packaging reasons. Great when you want a 1 litre Micra but less so when you want something more substantial. You tend to get CVT-hate when manufacturers put them in cars which arguably are better suited to a conventional automatic box (Hello Audi) which, once it has the right engine behind it, is better.
 
K.C. Leblanc said:
If it's anything like the box in the 2008 it's utterly horrible. It's not unlike being driven by a learner driver.

Have to say I quite liked my auto Volvo but that was from an era when autos did use more fuel.
Click to expand...

Not even close, that'll be the EGC thing which is dreadful, I agree. I had a 208 courtesy car with the 1.4HDi and that EGC box which was just like being driven by someone who had never driven a car before. They're manual gearboxes being operated by a robot - standard clutch etc, just operated by electronics.

They fit the same box to the 508 with the 1.6 HDi engine, the 508 is a BIG car so god knows how that even moves. My old 508 was the 2.0 which had a 6 speed torque converter auto which was silky smooth and sutied it well - the newer models have the new torque converter box with the 1.6 in place of the EGC and the 2.0 HDi has now replaced the 2.2 in the 30k+ GT (:eek:) with the same box.
 
[TW]Fox;29018636 said:
Only when used for their intended purpose - providing a usable automatic transmission in a small engined compact car. This is the benefit of them.

CVT's are used because they are cheap and for packaging reasons. Great when you want a 1 litre Micra but less so when you want something more substantial. You tend to get CVT-hate when manufacturers put them in cars which arguably are better suited to a conventional automatic box (Hello Audi) which, once it has the right engine behind it, is better.
Click to expand...

Dont Audi tend to package the CVT with smaller diesels? Are these not arguable the right sort of engine to pair with a CVT? I actually really liked the way the 140bhp 2.0 TDI with a CVT drove as it did mask the downsides of that sort of engine. I thought the larger engines had DSG boxes...
 
iaind said:
Dont Audi tend to package the CVT with smaller diesels? Are these not arguable the right sort of engine to pair with a CVT? I actually really liked the way the 140bhp 2.0 TDI with a CVT drove as it did mask the downsides of that sort of engine. I thought the larger engines had DSG boxes...
Click to expand...

A 2 litre TDI is more than powerful enough to do justice to a torque converter automatic (and indeed does - you will find many 2 litre diesel 3 Series and not a single CVT in the range...).
 
My Megane is a 2L petrol with a Japanese CVT and the power delivery and response is great - I am not dissapointed at all. I'm comparing this to a like for like Golf and Focus - both which I drove recently. The Golf's DSG was better and snappier at just finding the "sweet" spot and changed at just the right time (the CVT never "truly" changes gear). The Ford's Powershift (also a dual clutch system) had some minor lag when you put your footdown - obviously these cars are no Bentley Flying Spur. Neither do they have Ferrari 458 levels of power. The cars I drove were designed to get you to work, do some shopping, perhaps put your foot down once or twice to crack a smirk and that's about it. I'm wasn't expecting miracles - I was expecting the boxes to perform well given today's technology.

In all fairness all automatics I drove were great. Some slightly better than others. But I wouldn't go out and say I hated any of them. At the market I was looking at I wasn't after ample power, but I wasn't after something gutless either. In my car I find that the CVT is able to transmit the power well to the front two wheels, smoothly and responsively.

I think the CVT does get a lot of undue stick.

Now what is a seriously great gearbox is the 9G Tronic.

Edit: I forgot to add I did also drive my aunty's mk4 Golf 1.6L automatic - an x reg! Goodness it was poor!
 
Last edited:
Poor example of trying to get my point across then. Saying that, gearbox alone is not enough - if you have a **** poor engine no level of DSG will help that.
 
Put it this way, as much as I love manuals (my e92 335 and m3 were both manuals) I went for DCT this time around. The enjoyment from the manual was simply always second best to the tediousness of driving one in traffic etc. In an ideal world I'd have a manual 'weekend car' but frankly I don't have the time anyway!

The M DCT provides 90% of the enjoyment and 100% more practicality.
 
[TW]Fox;29018666 said:
A 2 litre TDI is more than powerful enough to do justice to a torque converter automatic (and indeed does - you will find many 2 litre diesel 3 Series and not a single CVT in the range...).
Click to expand...

I've owned one!

Personal taste I guess but I looked at the 2.0 CVT Audi and the Peugeot 508 I ended up buying (torque converter auto) - I preferred the way the Audi drove but preferred the 7 grand price differential of the Peugeot :)
 
Because I like driving.

I don't find it that tedious in traffic, and the enjoyment I get from driving with complete control over the car on open roads outweighs it anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom