Manual or Auto. What is your preference and why?

[Bobthebeard]

As title really....

I find myself massively preferring a badermatic nowadays. I like the relaxed feeling of wafting around and also being relieved of much clutch pedal pressing in traffic jams. Clutch pedal pressing in heavy traffic has been causing me a lot of left foot pain for some weird reason. Automatics seem (to me) far more relaxing to drive...

How about you?

[Felly Magic]

TBH I drive a badermatic works van and I absolutely hate it. It's bloody heavy on juice and is forever hunting up and down the box, because it only has 4 cogs. 

[overrun]

I like both. Automatic is invaluable in traffic etc or when the car has a bit of clout and you just wanna hoof it about with both hands on the wheel, like a go-kart.

 

The rest of the time, manual wins for me.

My daily already talks to me and seemingly records my voice, I don't need it making any more decisions, or I may as well stay at home.

[spike60]

Depends on the car, autos and big engines go well together but soak up the reduced go in a less powerful one. Autos spot on in traffic, manuals better when playing in the lanes etc. Manuals usually better than autos if transmission going wrong.....

[Negative Creep]

Depends on the car, autos and big engines go well together but soak up the reduced go in a less powerful one. Autos spot on in traffic, manuals better when playing in the lanes etc. Manuals usually better than autos if transmission going wrong.....

 

 

This, basically. Autos are fine in big car and when you just want to make progress without effort, but not as nice in smaller cars

[320touring]

I dont mind either auto or manual

 

Only issue with auto is working out what (if any) engine braking is available whilst pressing on;-)

[Spiny Norman]

I really don't care that much, although I prefer an auto in anything vaguely barge-like and manual in a supermini or anything vaguely sporty.
Think I'd get fed up with a manual 7 series or Jag XJ long before I'd get tired of an auto Clio though.

[saucedoctor]

Manual for anything with 4 cylinders (or fewer).

 

Auto - depends on the car. I briefly rolled a manual X Type 3.0 company car, and while it was bastard quick, I didn't really think the 'box suited the car. My late missus had a manual E46 M3, and it was (whisper it) brilliant, though.

 

I had a drive in a manual Aston Martin Virage, years ago, and it was murder after 3 or 4 miles in Belfast traffic.

[Junkman]

Auto all the way, since I can't be arsed to shift myself, when a machine can do it better.

Besides, I'm fascinated with how those old boxes work. Pretty tricky stuff.

I admire the people who thought it up originally.

[vulgalour]

From the ones I've driven I'd say I prefer manual, it's easier to make them be what you want them to be.  With an auto you're stuck with what's been designed and if that doesn't suit your driving style then you'll never get on with it.  There is a time and a place for the automatic gearbox and I would agree that they make more sense in larger, more relaxing cars and if you have to be in a lot of stop-start traffic.

 

Autos

Rover 216sli - absolute joy, changed gear when I wanted it to, sprightly, comfortable in traffic

Rover Maestro 1.6 - thumpy in regular driving, but relaxing and intuitive in heavy Sheffield commuter traffic

Mk1 Lexus LS400 - adequate, changes gear a little later than I'd like but comfortable in most situations

Mk2 Lexus LS400 - weird dogleg gate is confusing, feels too jumpy, makes me feel quite hesitant as a drive.  I don't know what they altered but it's one thing they made worse.

Vauxhall Omega - changes too late, throttles power, always felt like it was bogging down and hard work in traffic.

 

 

Manuals

Ledbury Maestro - woeful in every way.  Too short, too close, absolutely power strangling and seemingly no available torque.  Get it in 5th as quickly as possible and spend the rest of the journey being frustrated as old people on motobility scooters overtake you.

Austin Princess - rubbery, vague, notchy but somehow well suited to the car as it encourages you to relax.  I imagine the auto box makes more sense overall.

Mk2 Polo - great compromise of ratios for round town and motorway but quite revvy in fourth when trying to maintain 65mph+.  Good sharp gear change and a good fit

Reliant Rialto - Sensible little box making the best use of the engine for razzing around a field, never really got out of third and never took it on a run or used it in traffic but it felt not too dissimilar to the Polo box

Volvo 240 and 740 - Spot on, wouldn't change it at all.  Confident change, gears in the right place, suited the feel of the car.

[rml2345]

Not sure which I prefer really. Manuals are more fun in the countryside, particularly on roads you know well but autos are handy in towns. Overall the absence of one or the other wouldn't put me off a car if everything else appealed.

Not sure a small auto would be much cop though.

[AlabamaShrimp]

Always manual! I've had 3 automatics and driven others but I never feel like I'm actually driving the car and feel less involved.

 

It feels weird with the left foot not moving but that the car always is unless your pressing the giant break pedal. I don't like how they change gear for you either but I suppose that's the automatic part

[the judge]

Front wheel drive autos aren't as tough as manuals. rwd car, big engine, auto all day for me

[Sloth in a bowl]

Manual all the time.  I want to be in control of what the car is doing and the clutch and stick add to the tactile nature of driving as well as meaning faster acceleration and less juice used.

 

The gear change is part of the car's character like the steering feel and engine noise. Even the slightly duff selection for 2nd in the Kia, adds to the car rather than takes away from it. 

[lisbon_road]

Generally prefer autos to drive, though don't like the economy.  The modern ones which seem to lock top gear are better in that respect.  I have recently had:

 

Mk3 Astra 1.6 DOHC auto very smooth 38 mpg overall 44mpg on a run horrific economy round town.

Mk3 Astra 1.4 SOHC manual 50mpg overall.  Higher geared makes it very smooth but annoying to have to keep changing down on the motorway.

 

Because of that I'd opt for the manual.  One day I'll have to buy something more modern (sadly) and an auto might be considered.  I do dislike undergeared cars in particular, such as a Corsa C I had that seemed to do over 4000 rpm at 70.  Perhaps that would have been better as an auto.

[beko1987]

Have to say manual as well due to the above mentioned car control. As much as I did love wafting around in the XM I did find myself wishing it changed up/down at different times, and I reckon the economy would shoot up even with the same engine with a manual box. ZX is great, I can stay in 4th o even 5th at barely above tickover just plodding along where the xm would drop a gear and hold onto it as I wasnt going fast enough to change up.

 

I wont discount a badermatic anymore though, but I think they suit bigger cars more than smaller ones. I wouldnt buy an auto ZX, I imagine it would be horrible but an auto xantia/xm/75/big then I'd look into it.

[HillmanImp]

My thinking is that an automatic is better 90% of the time, when you are in traffic, on the motorway or tootling about to the shops etc but every now and then you find a good clear country road where you can drive it on the edge of being a statistic and you really need a manual for that.

 

Thats why I prefer to  drive a manual, just for that 10%. 

[Mr Livered]

^agreed, Mr Imp.

 

I think the reason I prefer manuals might be that I live in deepest darkest Dartmoor so most of my driving is on twisty country roads. I don't do much town or motorway driving.

 

There is an advantage to autos, though: it can be jolly useful to have your left hand free to grope the person in the passenger seat.

[Sloth in a bowl]

My thinking is that an automatic is better 90% of the time, when you are in traffic, on the motorway or tootling about to the shops etc but every now and then you find a good clear country road where you can drive it on the edge of being a statistic and you really need a manual for that.

 

Thats why I prefer to  drive a manual, just for that 10%. 

 

 

I don't get this automatics are better for motorways thing. Once i'm off the sliproad I'm going to be in top gear and not have to change till I'm back on a sliproad again.

Surely the motorway is the prime example of where the choice of gearbox should make no difference to the car.

 

However I do accept that if your motorway of choice is the M25 then top gear may not be an option.

[beko1987]

I don't get this automatics are better for motorways thing. Once i'm off the sliproad I'm going to be in top gear and not have to change till I'm back on a sliproad again.

Surely the motorway is the prime example of where the choice of gearbox should make no difference to the car.

 

However I do accept that if your motorway of choice is the M25 then top gear may not be an option.

 

It's great when you go from 75 to 0, then a few miles at 15-20mph, then back to 0, then maybe 30, then 0, then back up to 75 with no clue as to why the fuck the whole motorway ground to a bastard halt...

 

Not hit traffic in the zx yet, I imagine I'll miss an auto there! Just flicking it up to N and then back to D as required is much easier!

[Asimo]

I like driving both but would rather own a manual in something old.

I am much better at "driving around" old vehicle problems than any automated system and fault finding is easier, bump starting is often useful, cold running easier to manage etc, etc.

 

My Connect van is manual but would be much better suited to a torque-converter auto, the Subaru is manual too because their auto does not seem to me to suit either the car or the engine.

 

Lots of manual cars are spoiled for me by their awkward clutches; I think this problem is worse with right hand drive versions, the worst clutch pedal ever is in the RHD VW beetle.

 

Semi-autos of the old school (C-matic Citroens, Ro80 etc) are quite fun, but under no circumstances will I own an "automated manual".

[Jim Bell]

I was taught when I was young that Autos were for posh lazy people, and manuals were for the working classes.

Thats why you only got autoboxes on expensive cars.

 

As said earlir, I agree that it depends on the car.

I can get away with an autobox if its funneling loads of power and torque, but an auto 1.0 micra or similar would be absolutely unacceptable for me.

[bub2006]

I was bought up with large cars towing vans so auto was always the weapon of choice. I prefer auto boxes and the Clio 1.4 i had very briefly was good fun as was the mk4 1.4 escort. The bx diesel with auto box was very lethargic. The last auto we owned was the Mercedes e200 estate and that was enough to put anyone off auto boxes. Pulled off in second so was labouring and slow pulling out of busy junctions unless i toed it to engage kickdown and first gear which in turn caused awful fuel consumption. I think the 2.0 lump was way too small for the car

[Partridge]

Depends on the car. Revvy engine, three pedals for the win. Big squishy, powerful saloon, two pedals please.

[jonny69]

In theory I prefer autos, but in practice all of the small-engine autos I've driven have been terrible. Her 207 auto enrages me, I hate it. I tried out a couple of the newer 'automatics' which are in fact electronically shifted manuals and they were even worse and a lot slower to respond than a conventional auto box. All the bigger engined autos I've driven have been fine and the VAG DSG box is great too.

 

I don't mind manual, but I find hacking around the gearbox is a bit backward and frustrating. Autos really ought to be made better. Since these things are all controlled by the computer, how difficult could it be for manufacturers to take a car out for 5 minutes, note a few things on the take-up and shift that are shit and simply reprogram the computer to improve it?

[Lord Sterling]

Another vote for "depends on the car" for me. All of my Rover 800 are autos including the D-reg 820E. I always prefer autos in big engined cars.

 

For smaller cars it has to be manual, they're great zipping about the place as Ma_Sterling's Micra and my company Fabia proved.

 

However, FATHA_Sterling's V40 TD isn't bad as a manual, though I'd probably prefer it as an auto.

 

I was taught when I was young that Autos were for posh lazy people, and manuals were for the working classes.

 

Thats why you only got autoboxes on expensive cars

This wasn't something I was actually taught but it was more of an observation. Back in the day my Mum's Fiesta was a manual, it was a sparse little car whereas my Dad's full-optioned Rover Sterling was an auto.

[Stanky]

I had an auto 206 with a 1.4 75bhp engine, it was dire - the gap between 2nd and 3rd was vast and it just sapped all the power. Overtaking at motorway speeds was almost impossible as 4th (top) was such a long gear, there was just no power to make it go, and dropping down into 3rd at 65mph equated to about eleventy billion RPM.

 

I'd like to try an auto in a big engined car as I can imagine it would work a lot better.

 

The one saving grace of the auto 206 was that you could eat crisps as you drove around roundabouts. Following extensive testing, this can't be done anything like as smoothly when driving a manual.

[Junkman]

For the first time in decades, I have a small car in the fleet. I also believed, that auto only works in big cars with big engines.

To my surprise, the Mitsubishite is really nice to drive, despite it's only a 1500.

[Rocket88]

As Mr Kinnock has stated, small engine  capacity autos are usually dire..........my mum's Panda being a prime example. Nicest auto I've ever driven was a 65 Galaxie with a 352 and an old 3 speed Ford auto.......it were lovely, why you need more than 4 speeds in a slushbox [as long as you have a decent sized engine] baffles me.

[Stixy]

I was lent a Diahatsu  Sirion ?   3 pot auto a few years ago and that went quite well 

 

The worst auto ive ever owned was a mk1 escort  1.1  auto   it was utter misery  but i wish i had got it now 

 

I drive auto's through disability rather than choice

 

  big manual cars   just seem wrong

 

a bit like these modern big cars with bluemover badges  on the back  ?  for a car that probably costs 40k they are worried about how much fuel it uses while ticking over  ?