Is an auto a better bet than a manual for the budget conscious motorist?

[Mally]

My father teached me that "Automatik" is only for people who can't properly drive or disabled persons.

I trust my dad.

 

This was exactly my thought..................Then my wife became disabled.

I love them now I've had to try them.

[Rod/b]

I disagree, all the dsg equipped cars I have driven have been fantastic, (Golf R32, Passat TDI, Golf TSFI, Polo tdi) and I really rate them, I'm just not brave enough to dip my toe into the muddy waters of £2k dsg equipped cars just yet.

I've rented a fair few Polos, Fabias and Spurebs with DSG and formed the opinion that they're all snatchy, horrible dogshit around town.

[carlo]

Oh dear, that's the one I've got. I'll probably live to regret this post!

 

Yes, unfortunately semi-automatics are probably worse than manuals for reliability.

 

Out of the five 405 automatics I've driven over the last twelve years only one gave any trouble.  So I just replaced it with another car costing £250.

 

No clutch expenses, reliability, better in traffic, less stress.

 

This is what Junkman meant to say really.

[Rod/b]

This was exactly my thought..................Then my wife became disabled.

I love them now I've had to try them.

Exactly how I thought in the past too. My reason to change was different (manuals are a rarity here) but i'd not go back out of choice.

 

The general view here is that manuals are only suitable for trucks, off-roaders and people who can't afford a proper gearbox.

[kfsgo]

On moving over here I ended up with a Chevrolet Malibu - automatic, 3.something V6, total weight with everything I stuffed it with is I imagine almost twice what the Felicia was; it does exactly what you want it to when you want it to and fuel economy is essentially the same. You can probably consider me converted...

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

Worst auto I ever drove - apart from the Metro A Series nonsense - a 318Ti 1997. Four speed GM box, bloody hopeless. Drove a Z3 and they're just as bad. Wouldn't pull a greased stick out of a dog's arse.

 

Six cylinder, at least 150 bhp and a five speed ZF. And cheap enough to throw it away if the box goes south. Clean/inspect the fluid pipes, check the level and change the oil if/when it starts acting up unless the car is a keeper. Which at my customary 350 pounds, it won't be.

 

Spend £100 on a filter and 6 litres of special ZF Megatronofluid 3095845698OMG-958WTF! and the head gasket will shit itself the next day. Never show a car you love it.

[purplebargeken]

Large auto cars are fun, smaller are ok but the i10 drinks a lot for a small car, however, my right foot is a bit heavy. Manuals are also fun and I have only ever had to have two clutch replacements in my entire driving history.

[cpjitservices]

I am all for Autos, though they are usually more expensive to run fuel wise on a big engine. My old S Type for instance (3.0 litre) was a thirsty old bird. Largely I think to being an Auto. Though, it sort of evens itself out as you dont have a clutch to change so I guess by the time you weigh up owning a manual and having clutches changed and weighing up the cost economy wise in an Auto its probs the same.

 

I have been tempted by an Allroad 2.7T (2000 plate) with an Auto but with it being an Auto the fuel bill put me off. Though the cost of a clutch would be very expensive in a manual version. 

[Rod/b]

I suppose it's worth pointing out at this juncture that the smallest engine i've had with an Auto is a 2.7 V6 Sportage, the largest the 5.7 V8 in the Charger, and all sizes betwixt, so i've got no reference point for smaller cars.

 

I suppose it figures that with a torque converter slushbox you need the engine to produce torque to convert so the smaller ones might be a bit rubbish, hence cvts and all that sort of thing.

 

Its all academic anyway, we'll all be driving electric cars with direct drives before long anyway.

[Stanky]

You've all forgotten the most important advantage of any auto over an equivalent manual - you can eat a packet of crisps while pulling out onto a roundabout. Try that in a manual and you don't have enough hands to steer, change gear and eat crisps all at once.

 

Extensive testing of the viability of this has resulted in several near misses, redlining in 1st gear, and most frequently a footwell full of crisps which then get pulverised by your heels as you desperately try to find somewhere to stop and retrieve them.

[cpjitservices]

You've all forgotten the most important advantage of any auto over an equivalent manual - you can eat a packet of crisps while pulling out onto a roundabout. Try that in a manual and you don't have enough hands to steer, change gear and eat crisps all at once.

 

Extensive testing of the viability of this has resulted in several near misses, redlining in 1st gear, and most frequently a footwell full of crisps which then get pulverised by your heels as you desperately try to find somewhere to stop and retrieve them.

You dont know how true this is, my wife said the Jag had crap cup holders.. You didnt need cup holders... Not when you have an Auto. You hold your cup in your left hand lol.

 

Id have another S Type in a heartbeat. It was such a nice car to drive. Sailed through every MOT I had it too. Except for a washer bottle pump. No Great Shakes. 

[Longblackcoat]

You've all forgotten the most important advantage of any auto over an equivalent manual - you can eat a packet of crisps while pulling out onto a roundabout. Try that in a manual and you don't have enough hands to steer, change gear and eat crisps all at once.

 

Extensive testing of the viability of this has resulted in several near misses, redlining in 1st gear, and most frequently a footwell full of crisps which then get pulverised by your heels as you desperately try to find somewhere to stop and retrieve them.

 

And drink a coffee whilst overtaking on the motorway without spilling it!

[John F]

The day I buy an automatic is the day I accept that I actually don't like driving.

 

I hope it never happens.

[stripped fred]

The day I buy an automatic is the day I accept that I actually don't like driving.

 

I hope it never happens.

That's what I thought until I tried one for a bit. I do still like a manual, depends on the car and what I'm using it for. I wouldn't want an auto in my mr2. For everyday stress free driving, especially on traffic clogged roads, I think the auto has the advantage.

[stripped fred]

Also, just to say I started this thread not for a manual v auto debate, although that is interesting, but instead to see if an auto could be more cost effective in the long run.

[Sloth in a bowl]

One thing in favour of buying manual in an older vehicle is that it is usually easer to spot a dodgy clutch/box on a manual than an auto.

 

Also if you don't drive like a muppet, you can drive around the issues of a dodgy manual box more easily than a dodgy auto.

I've had a clutch in the Puma that has needed replacement for 7,000 miles and is not really any worse now than it was then.

[John F]

stripped fred, on 26 Apr 2017 - 10:21 AM, said:

That's what I thought until I tried one for a bit. I do still like a manual, depends on the car and what I'm using it for. I wouldn't want an auto in my mr2. For everyday stress free driving, especially on traffic clogged roads, I think the auto has the advantage.

 

I have tried modern autos â€“ a newish Subaru Legacy and a demo Bentley Continental GT. Older autos are utter shit, continuously hunting for the right gear with an imbecilic soundtrack of engine revs. No thanks.

 

IMO modern auto gearboxes are the automotive equivalent of a cardigan... functional but naff. They turn what could be engaging, dynamic cars into 'transport'.

[Supernaut]

I have tried modern autos â€“ a newish Subaru Legacy and a demo Bentley Continental GT. Older autos are utter shit, continuously hunting for the right gear with an imbecilic soundtrack of engine revs. No thanks.

 

IMO modern auto gearboxes are the automotive equivalent of a cardigan... functional but naff. They turn what could be engaging, dynamic cars into 'transport'.

I do generally prefer manual boxes in a majority of cars.

 

However, some cars just suit autos. Just try pushing the 'power' button in a Lexus LS400 then stomping on the loud pedal. It's hilarious.

[lisbon_road]

I've had or used a couple in recent years and been surprised how much I liked them.  They turned the proverbial corner when lock ups made them more economical I think, and when they got past three speeds, which often left them undergeared.  Also, perhaps not a direct result of an auto, I've had a couple of autos where the manual equivalent was undergeared, which has made the auto seem preferable even if it is a car by car thing.

 

I've replaced clutches when cars are apart but never actually worn one out.  Release bearings can be a pain though, and it always seems daft that a part so buried should be so vulnerable.

[chodweaver]

EFA

 

IMO modern auto gearboxes are the automotive equivalent of a cardigan... functional but naff. They turn what could be engaging, dynamic cars into 'transport'.

 

^ I think that's a valid point too. When I was in my teens, a mate's dad was a bit of a petrolhead - his last treat car that I recall was a Vauxhall Magnum (?) - a late four door Viva with the 1.8 engine, in signal yellow. Noice. Anyway, his verdict on autos was that you didn't drive them, you commuted in them. I'm still inclined to think he was right, even though I will quite happily drive them now. But driving has changed in the intervening years - the majority of people in the UK do the majority of their miles in a traffic jam, or hoofing it down a few miles of motorway, on their way to the next jam. This is not driving for pleasure and autos are pretty much ideal for it.

 

And to answer the OP's original question, I think they're not cost effective, due to their slight thirstiness over a manual - in a manual, you're in control of how much slip is wasting fuel; in an auto, it slips most of the time, to my mind, wasting fuel, most of the time.

 

I think the reliability/cost of repair of traditional autos v the mechanical simplicity/cost of replacement of a traditional single plate clutch is a dead heat* - I've never had a clutch wear out on me and I've not had an auto let go yet either. I've changed one clutch ever, because I felt it didn't have long before it stranded me somewhere, but judging by other opinions here, I was probably being overcautious...

 

 

(DSGs and DMFs are not factored in here - I have no experience of them and will be avoiding them like the plague)

[CreepingJesus]

The turbo brick is the first auto I've actually owned. Never had anything against them per se, just never bothered. Must say, it works in that car and I doubt it makes much odds on fuel economy either. Fantastic continuous drive at full boost away from the lights too: I've heard one or two DSG VWs get confused when they come off the rev limiter. Mirrors my experience with electronically controlled manuals in trucks.

[tommytwo]

I recently got a 2 litre Mondeo auto petrol with 168 k on the clock and the auto box works fine. As I live in a hilly area, the fuel consumption is not that great. When cold, it hangs on to first gear too long (to 3000 revs) for my liking but that's in the program.  Designed that way for quicker warm up purposes and to avoid stressing the gearbox when cold. Its a 3 speed box with an overdrive. Decided on an auto as did not fancy a car with DMF to go wrong and a big garage bill down the road. So far has cost me £400 with car price, repairs for a new MoT included. If it goes wrong, I can afford to scrap it.

 

So if you fancy an auto, go for it. Take your time, choose carefully. Make sure the box does not clonk into gear,and the changes are smooth with no flares or judders.  You dont want to be sitting there at the lights with the revs rising and then find yourself doing a drag strip take off! Ideally, make sure you pay so little for the car that you can afford to scrap it if it all goes wrong.

[sierraman]

Check the tax though. The difference over a few years might pay for a clutch. Don't forget Auto boxes aren't immune to failure, whilst most manuals will soldier on with the same oil, an auto 'filled for life' probably won't. Known of plenty that's expired at 100k

[andy18s]

And drink a coffee whilst overtaking on the motorway without spilling it!

This x 1000....its great to just floor it whilst supping a hot drink....

All my Land rovers have been autos,my fav being the v8 Disco that Skizzer currently is bouncing his wife on the bonnet...

Getting the engine roaring and letting it do its thing made for big grins...

P38 was the same although let down by the clackety clack from its diesel engine

D3 was good to,much much better than the manual we tried on an extended test drive

No real grunt from the engine meant giving it the beans to get anywhere,narrow powerband meant changing gear like a fast and furious pro

And god help you if you dropped off the turbo at a roundabout....

[406V6]

Having owned autos and manuals for 30+ years…

 

With a torque converter autobox, provided the engine is reasonably powerful (2 litres or more) I think the cost difference in fuel consumption between auto and manual is negligible. Far more significant is the cost and inconvenience of replacing a broken clutch cable or worn out clutch plate in a manual. The autobox only needs new oil when it gets to 100k+. Either manual or auto can sh*t itself at any time due to faults.

 

A small engine auto needs to be caned to get reasonable performance, hence the higher fuel consumption.

 

In my 3 litre V6 the engine is turning at less than 2000rpm pretty much all the time around town thanks to high gearing and decent low-end torque so the engine is hardly working and not burning up too much fuel due to speed. More significant on fuel consumption is the effect of starts from cold as the engine warms up and sitting stationary in traffic queues.

 

Auto is far superior in reducing tiredness in stop/start traffic and from a safety perspective where you concentrate on what’s happening on the road rather than controlling the clutch and gear stick.

 

If the petrol engine car was invented today it would only be sold with an auto box. No-one would even consider the absurd level of interaction & co-ordination needed with a manual transmission which belongs in the first half of the 20^th century.  

[alfetta]

lexus is200 auto, 300000 miles no problems. Never had a fluid change either AFAIK. Still it was only a 4-speed and economy wasn't the best...was doing around 17mpg round town but  did have a slightly dragging caliper. Not very quick either, I now have a manual E36 316i and it feels almost as fast...

[John F]

...the absurd level of interaction & co-ordination needed with a manual transmission...  

 

It's called "driving"

[dollywobbler]

Also if you don't drive like a muppet, you can drive around the issues of a dodgy manual box more easily than a dodgy auto.

I've had a clutch in the Puma that has needed replacement for 7,000 miles and is not really any worse now than it was then.

 

I've owned more manual cars with iffy gearboxes than autos. I mean, yes, I've owned more manuals full stop, but an amazing number have had knackered linkages, shagged synchros or had clutch issues (hold on, I think they were mostly Rovers/Land Rovers!). 

 

I've been driving around an auto gearbox fault on the S-MX since I bought it. It's done about 6000 miles in that time, and might actually be a little bit better than it was when I bought it.

[dollywobbler]

Older autos are utter shit, continuously hunting for the right gear with an imbecilic soundtrack of engine revs. No thanks.

 

Wow. That's an amazing sweeping generalisation! There are plenty of really nice older autos, usually fitted to larger vehicles, I'll concede. The Borg Warner 35 in my Rover P6 was pretty smooth, and generally got into top gear (and then stayed there) as swiftly as possible. Super relaxing. Loved the gearbox in my W124 Merc too. The Daimler is only let down by a thump as the torque converter locks up. The XJ-S I had last summer is much the same. 

 

The ZF three-speed in my Citroen CX was amazing. Occasionally needed to hold it in second when hooning on tiny roads, or uphill, but very smooth and very effortless - just a bit short of gearing.

 

A BMW E39 petrol auto infuriated me, because it'd kickdown at the drop of a hat. Similar story with the seven-speed MG GS Dual-clutch thing I drove earlier this year. Super-tall 7th gear, so it'd kick down to 5th on the slightest motorway incline. Was a bit lumpy around town, but not bad overall. I dread to think what such a gearbox will be like in 20 years' time though.

[Bren]

The problem with modern autoboxes is that many of them cannot be overhauled to the same standard as when they left the factory - it's why many of them only have a short warranty.

 

I read in car mechanics a few years ago that audi wanted £9k for an A4 autobox. Much more than a clutch and DMF.