Demise of the big engine/manual gearbox combo.

[r.welfare]

Speaking of Senators - I seem to recall the autos were more economical than the manuals, but I'm not sure if that just applied to the 3-litre 24 valve, or indeed was borne out of real world findings rather than comparison of Gov't figures.

[John F]

A few other thngs I don't like about auto boxes:

 

1. Incessant swapping up & down between ratios at certain speeds - possibly affects some auto boxes more than others, and can possibly be more or less laboriously eradicated on newer ones, but this characteristic is bloody annoying.

2. The sound of an automatic vehicle changing gear, especially as in 1. above - the acoustic equivalent of belming?

3. Being compelled to brake to decelerate or maintain speed on downhill gradients instead of using the gears (on older auto boxes, or without having to press some button etc. on newer ones)

4. The fact that it's the vehicle that decides when to change gear, not me. See also 1. above.

5. Paddle switches turn the whole driving experience into something out of the Fisher Price catalogue.

 

But as already said, I can understand why people would prefer an auto for the daily commuting chore, etc. Just can't see any fun in them.

[cort16]

People who buy cars with paddle shifts use them probably about 5 times over a 3 year ownership. Twice when they buy the car and the other 3 times when they're showing off the fact they've got flappy paddles to someone who's just got in the car. The rest of the time they just leave it in drive.

[406V6]

A few other thngs I don't like about auto boxes:

3. Being compelled to brake to decelerate or maintain speed on downhill gradients instead of using the gears (on older auto boxes, or without having to press some button etc. on newer ones)

Was out in mine yesterday and faced with a long downhill 1 in 5, pulled the shifter back into third gear then second, just like in a manual box you might put the car into third or second gear. No difference between an auto and manual.

 

On the subject of fuel consumption this is a thread for big engines and manual gear box and with the big engine I doubt there's much difference, if any between auto and manual. On my day out yesterday of about 200 miles with mixed driving but a reasonable amount of open road I got over 34 mpg. Much of the time the engine is working between 1200 and 2200 rpm which contributes to fuel efficiency.

[garethj]

An auto can be fun, kickdown is a huge laugh.  It's when you floor the throttle and the car takes a deep breath, counts down a gear or two and then takes off.  Even that funny engine noise that sounds like it's slipping the clutch is good because the big old car zooms off like a motor launch, nose in the air.

 

Good point made earlier about mpg, Mrs_garethj's Jaguar S Type has a 6 speed auto, 70mph is 2000rpm in top gear!  By a strange coincidence* it changes into top at 54mph so the 56mph fuel economy is absolutely maximised.  The downside is, when you're on A roads following traffic the thing hardly ever changes into top because most people are terrified of that speed.  In a manual car I'd slot it into top gear at 50 and leave it there when going a bit slower.

[John F]

Was out in mine yesterday and faced with a long downhill 1 in 5, pulled the shifter back into third gear then second, just like in a manual box you might put the car into third or second gear. No difference between an auto and manual.

 

lol I've not yet driven a manual car that has decided to change up a gear whilst driving downhill...

[Cavcraft]

The only automatic I can recall owning that was a 'mare to drive was a Volvo 940. You just couldn't get the bastard thing to do what you wanted, if you floored it it just took forever and ever to shift and the kickdown only seemed to work when it felt like it, quite often when you didn't want it to. It was a pig to drive because of this and was awful on fuel.

 

Looking back though I always preferred automatics when I drove for a living, as coming home after a stressful day in a yellow van meant the bonus of an automatic car was great.

[skattrd]

I do like an automatic, but there is a time and a place for them. for me a car with a big engine with loads of torque is ideal for one.

I've not driven a modern car with fancy autobox, or one with more than 4 gears, so can't comment on those.

 

I do prefer auto's for work, but real world economy isn't as good as manual. I seem to be swapping between the economy of the manual boring with the ease and comfort of a big auto. The S80 I had was lovely, loads torque from a 5-pot dizzler with the autobox and cruise control. I could easily do 400+ miles a day in it and get out feeling nice and fresh at the end of the journey. Sitting in traffic jams in a big auto is much more relaxing. It was costing me £20-30 a week more in diesel than the boring, so it went.

 

My old RVR was an interesting drive. About 220bhp from a slightly de-tuned Mitsubishi evo engine mated to a 3spd + overdrive auto with permanent 4wd. The trick with overtaking in that was to pull out fully before flooring it, once kick-down and the turbo come in you are moving forward very quickly. Having to navigate around the back end of a truck when you are suddenly accelerating can be entertaining to say the least. That would have been better with a different gearbox, that said though, once you got used it it was quite relaxing to drive, and quite rapid. That went shortly after I had to fill the petrol tank twice in a day.

[chaseracer]

Some interesting points on fuel economy.  I haven't yet worked out a way of breaking it gently to the Owd Giffer that my 176000-mile 1990 Merc with 3-litre-six-and-slushbox is only 4/5mpg behind his much newer diesel manual Audi with 80k up.

 

Then again, I hardly ever get more than 38-40mpg out of the Dyane, which must say something...

[r.welfare]

My 2000 Accord auto gets about 27-28 to the gallon, mixed driving. I think that's pretty poor for a modernish mid sized car with a 1.85 litre engine, but then the manual models are not particularly economical either. That said, as is usual with Honda the engine delivers the peak of its pitiful torque at something close to 5000rpm, so in my view it's not a natural bedfellow for an automatic transmission.

 

It is relaxing and restful in heavy traffic though.

[dieselnutjob]

I love my 607 HDI automatic as a daily commuter, especially for regular trips into central London, and given that I have a bad left knee.

 

The only thing is that pulling out onto busy roundabouts is an utter nightmare as acceleration from zero is terrible.  I have to stop 15 feet back from the line, anticipate a gap and do a run up into it.  I need that 15 feet for the turbo to wake up.

[cort16]

Just spotted this rarity on ebay for a grand. I'm very tempted by this.

 

 

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Jaguar-S-TYPE-2-5-V6-Sport-1-Full-Years-Mot-/200957789041?pt=Automobiles_UK&hash=item2eca048371

[Spiny Norman]

I'd quite like a manual XJR or the X Type R but that 2.5 just smacks a wee bit of base model mean-ness to me, like a BMW 518i.

 

I tend to be ambivalent about whether a car is manual or auto, although I prefer luxobarges to be self shifters, but I don't think I'd turn down an otherwise nice car because of what gearbox it had fitted.

[Tayne]

.

[Spiny Norman]

Did they ever officially make the V8 XJR with a manual box?

[warren t claim]

Did they ever officially make the V8 XJR with a manual box?

Nope, mores the pity.

[RichardMoss]

It really has nothing to do with laziness and much more to do with emissions and fuel consumption. Small engined turbo cars are de rigeur these days in order to squeeze the last few mpg out of a gallon of go-juice whilst simultaneously avoiding chucking out too much CO2. The resultant engines are very peaky and would be almost impossible to drive in manual form - hene the 5, 6 or 7 speed auto transmission that enables acceptable progress on the road.

 

A modern auto can be shifted manually (lever, buttons, paddles) and that is how the Stepspeed and Selespeed CVTs create a semi-auto by utilising pre-set ratios.

 

Some cars just don't suit manuals - especially luxury saloons - and I am with my honourable friend Lord Sterling on this one. I had a manual mk1 Sterling a few years ago and it was indecently quick and great fun but still somehow "wrong". An auto Sterling is how God intended the species to be - and the same applies to Jaguars but this doesn't affect the fun (my 4L V8 S-Type always puts a smile on my face when I drive it). Manual cars are a pain in heavy traffic and my manual XJ Cherokee is a real chore to drive in Dubai (but brilliant off road).

 

Horses for courses.

[RichardMoss]

Just spotted this rarity on ebay for a grand. I'm very tempted by this.

 

 

 

At 2 tonnes and 2.5L I bet that thing can't afford to be an auto - much like the manual 2.9L XJ40 it will need to squeeeeeeeeeeeeeze every drop of the performance out of the drivetrain

[Junkman]

Before a Vauxhall specialist** bollocksed the entire electrical system with a MIG welder, the Owd Giffer had a Carlton CDX with the 2.6 'Dual Ram' straight-6 and Getrag manual box. Quite rare, apparently, and rumoured to be something to do with Plod.

This was mine:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even back then I was told how OMGrare it is.

It was a hateful piece of shit and yes, this was a copcar.

The manual sucked in two ways, one because it is a manual and two because the gear ratios are all wrong.

Gladly replaced it with something automatic. I love automatics.

 

Apparently some poor soul still shifts about in it:

 

https://www.taxdisc.direct.gov.uk/EvlPortalApp/app/enquiry?execution=e2s3

[cort16]

A flickr contact (and sometime poster on here) has stated that he's keeping his eyes open for a scrap Aston DB7 to get a manual box to fit into his x308 XJR.

 

There was an X300 XJ40 for Sale in Glasgow a couple of weeks ago with a manual box. You see the occasional S-Type come up with a manual but that's the first XJ of that generation I've ever seen with one.  The autobox in the X308 XJR doesn't even have anykind of tiptronic (probably for the best it would break) it just has a sport button.  I kind of like that but I've no doubt one with a manual box would be pretty special.

 

That S-Type is 200bhp, 0-60 in 8.2 seconds. Not fast but not bad either. If you take it with the autobox it goes up to 9.4 seconds, which is probably why they offered it with a manual.

[ChinaTom]

The X300 XJR could be had with a manual box. I have a friend with 2 of them. Quite a stretch to select 1st though. You really have to lean forward in the seat.

[garethj]

Small engined turbo cars are de rigeur these days in order to squeeze the last few mpg out of a gallon of go-juice whilst simultaneously avoiding chucking out too much CO2.

 

A pedant writes...

 

mpg and CO2 are linked as you can see here

 

So my Porsche 924 emits 185g/km whilst the old Pug 205 diesel did a mere 135g/km.  These are using actual figures on the road, I heard an internet rumour that new car emissions figures are done on a rolling road?

[fiatdaft]

And small engine turbo'd cars usually aren't that peaky tbh!

[Hawkeyethenoo]

I was running an X-Type 3.0 Sport manual up until last month when I sold her on. Phew! Not the most unreliable car I've ever owned, but it was a bastid to work on when things did go wrong - wheel bearing, ABS sensor and on the day I sold it! The PS pump went tits up. Thankfully the new owner was okay with me replacing the PS pump and delivering the car right back. Access to said PS pump wasn't the total mind feck we first thought, as access can be gained from the O/S front wheel arch.

 

It was a dream car of mine when new and I sure enjoyed my time owning it - I'll certainly miss its go anywhere ability when the snow comes. There she is look. Lovely. 

 

Cheers!

[RichardMoss]

A pedant writes...

 

mpg and CO2 are linked as you can see here

Er - yes, I know that.  More fuel = more CO2 so..........................eeking out the MPG simultaneously reduces the CO2 emissions. 

[RichardMoss]

And small engine turbo'd cars usually aren't that peaky tbh!

They are compared to most big engines

[fiatdaft]

I would actually say the opposite,non turbo petrols are peaky.

[eddyramrod]

206 big??????????

 

No, in fact it's a rollerskate, but it's also a threshhold.  This is big enough for learners, anything bigger needs a proper (ie self-shifting) gearbox.

 

The louche red MG ZS that was winking at me yesterday suffers from one crippling disadvantage: too many pedals.  Not unexpected given that it's supposed to be a "sporty" model, but it does fit this thread.  2.5V6, manual box.  Actually it's handicapped by another factor too: it's far too modern and blobby.  Anyone fancy such a thing?  I can show you where it is (and no, I'm not on commission).  It's the saloon version if that makes any difference.

[Mike D]

It depends on the car for me, some things like my Camaro (5.0) Merc (3.2) and the BMW 840, suit an autobox, however I must admit to being a lover of manuals, I wished my 928 was a manual, and I absolutely ADORE my 330ci Clubsport, the manual box suits the big six to a tee It's also pretty damn good on juice, It gets a good dose of manfoot, and round town it gets 27mpg, on a run it does 36

[chaseracer]

 

So that's what the rear door-shuts on a Carlton are supposed to look like!