Manual or Auto. What is your preference and why?

[Junkman]

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  ? 

 

Yes, they are. They just bought a new 40k car BECAUSE it is supposed to need a teensy wee bit less fuel than their old one.

[Mr Livered]

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  ?

 

That's because of the groupthink going round, and which we're not supposed to challenge. Basically, spending 5 grand to upgrade your car to save you 3p a day on pez is a Very Good Idea Indeed.

 

Why wouldn't it be? There are marketing men who make good money explaining the advantages of upgrading to the next disposable product. They know full well that few people actually calculate the fuel savings; they just hear that there will be savings and get their wallets out.

[Wilko220]

Manual generally but I can appreciate the advantages of a decent auto, especially in a big barge.

 

I'm just getting used to the CVT box in my new Rover 45 and it's a great system which delivers a smooth ride and an effortless drive. But being a control freak I generally favour most things being driver operated and hate the trend towards automation of everything in cars (which started with chokes and now seems to have reached wipers, lights, etc).

[Angrydicky]

I don't really mind, can drive both although autos are much nicer in traffic. Most of the cars I've owned are manuals anyway, as autos didn't really take off until the 70's.

[Negative Creep]

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  ? 

 

 

A 1.1 Escort auto!? There must be continents that could out accelerate that

[forddeliveryboy]

Older Merc diesels set off in 2nd with the 4-speed autobox - fantastically smooth, quiet and easy in traffic. More economical than manuals, too, away from the open road -  the torque converter acts like a freewheel. A sharp prod of the right foot brings bottom gear in and the tyres chirrup away as you set off with a smooth jolt, engine briefly whining to 5000rpm or so. Love 'em.

 

Best solution of all was Citroen's trafficlutch in their little twin cylinder models - as the revs dropped to idle, springs would pull away concentric friction plates from their drive surface on the inside of the flywheel disengaging the drive, meaning there was no need to use the clutch. To set off, you simply squeezed the accelerator. The clutch was used normally for other gear changes, though you could ignore it when trickling along in second.

 

Their C-matic system was similarly ace if a bit more complicated, refined and clever, just a shame they couldn't be arsed to squeeze more than 3 gears into the box. All the benefits of a conventional box without the clutch misery.

[danthecapriman]

Autos for me. I don't really like small cars and always go for bigger stuff with the auto box. I don't really care about performance or omgmpg, I'd rather waft around in a big comfy, relaxing cruiser.

I don't mind the extra looking after with autos either, ok if it goes bang it's probably a specialist job to fix but that rarely happens anyway. Oil and filter changes/levels are easy. I'd much rather look after an auto box than have to change clutches and heave gearboxes in and out.

 

Manuals have a place too though, my Transit and works Sprinter are manuals and in a big van it's fine, probably more an advantage than an auto. My Capri is a manual too but that was just the way it was! If it was an auto I'd still of had it.

 

Small cars are defiantly better as manuals, I do a bit of work on a K11 Micra now and again, it's a 1.0 auto and it's utterly vile to drive! Gutless as hell! The kickdown doesn't do sod all but make the engine note change. It's a hideous thing!

[carlo]

^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.

 

Auto for me now, although the period of my life when I started to prefer automatics (back & leg problems mainly) coincided with a distinct lessening in the opportunities to grope passengers.

 

The trouble with small autos, and it's even more prevalent now, is that they're ill-suited to multivalve engines, especially small ones.  Automatics really need low down torque.  The reason why I love my 405 2.0 petrols so much is that they are such a good compromise.  Nimble and dart-like handling of a smaller car with the cruising ability and ride of a bigger car, and all combined with a 2.0 engine developing its maximum torque at 2800 rpm.  It can even do engine braking; up to a corner in fourth, flick the box down in to third (takes 0.003 second) and you have instant braking with the down change.  Using an auto with manual changes when you are in a driving mood is great fun.

 

And it ain't that much slower than my 3.0 V6 406 Coupe...

[Lukas]

It really depends for me.

 

When I am driving an old Pajero around the austrian country lanes, I prefer the manual. Because the car does exactly what I want it to do and it´s fun.

 

But with my daily driver, I only drive auto-boxes nowadays. Because it´s comfier in traffic, much more relaxing around town and I like the way the auto-box pulls the car from standstill.

 

So: Weekend-car -> manual. Daily -> auto

[Junkman]

A 1.1 Escort auto!? There must be continents that could out accelerate that

 

The nice thing about those bader Essy shells was, that you could drop in a 2 litre with Sierra 5-speed box, without having to modify the tunnel.

You could then proceed to hit a tree with considerable velocity.

[anonymous user]

I'm happy with any form of transmission that works, I assume those preferring manual are talking about a manual box with synchromesh, non-synchro can be a bit of a pain in traffic as can anything with a dragging clutch.

 

No-one seems to have mentioned the pre-select box

[Jim Bell]

Ps.

What's everyone's view on Flappy Paddle gubbins?

I've never had the pleasure.

 

Does it make you drive like that Harold Schumaker, or that Frank Spencer?

[Lukas]

I forgot to mention the worst of all:

 

The automatic manual gearboxes. Gearboxes with a clutch, operated my a machine. Like the Toyota MMT or the Citroen EGS6.Horribly slow gearchanges like in a manual car driven by an old man that feel even slower because you (the driver) only sit there waiting for the fu**ing gearbox to change into the next gear. Not reliable too.

[Junkman]

Ps.

What's everyone's view on Flappy Paddle gubbins?

I've never had the pleasure.

 

Does it make you drive like that Harold Schumaker, or that Frank Spencer?

 

I'd like to try that once, just to confirm that it is as horrible as I imagine it to be.

On a different note, I think that Wilhelm Shoemacher type hasn't flapped any paddles for quite a while now, which makes me wonder what the latest news is on that story.

[derskine]

Manual for me every time.

Nothing quite like approaching a corner, dropping a gear and putting the foot down to come out of it .

[JohnDeere]

I always thought autos were like driving through a condom, you couldn't feel the car. But with the V6 disco the auto is great, suits the car perfectly. The flappy paddles are a total waste of time, you soon get bored going up and down 8 cogs, and because you can't really hear or feel the engine you have to go by the rev counter. So for me, 4 cylinders needs a manual, 6 or more works best with an auto.

[RoadworkUK]

Manual for flicky, lightweight cars; auto for torquey, grunty stuff.

 

If it's got a revvy engine, or has a turbo, you need a manual otherwise the gearbox tends to shift entirely when you don't want it to.

 

If it's a diesel you're forever changing gear anyway so might as well have an automatic. Also, modern turbodiesels are ridiculously easy to stall; they seldom let you pull away in second while slipping the clutch, in most petrol cars I can do that when I'm being lazy or doing a rolling start at a roundabout, for example.

 

I drove a Chevy Corvette C3 the other day. It was appalling, of course, but the three-speed auto was exactly right for it. Same with the Jenson Interceptor. When I drive an automatic I tend to accelerate with my right foot and stop with my left, and the car basically becomes an enormous go-kart.

 

Things like AMG Mercs are auto-only, and the SMG and dual-clutch semi-auto's are frighteningly good these days; though their inherent complexity scares a bit once they're out of warranty.

 

The manual box in my KV6 motivated 800 is, definitely, the wrong gearbox.

[Asimo]

When I drive an automatic I tend to accelerate with my right foot and stop with my left.

Left foot braking definately, despite all the "advice" that I will die. Cruise buttons for acceleration.

 

*Both foot braking available in emergency.

[tooSavvy]

My Savvy went 'sans marche arrière' on me yesterday......

 

The bottom of the gearstick has a slider - up/down - which you lift for reverse. It is screwed onto the bottom of the sprung bit & had 'unscrewed' enough to be too low to clear the STOP BLOCKER, moulded into the gear base assy, and thus no reverse selection.

 

I pulled the gaiter up... screwed the end back up really tightly... and hope that's the end of the fault!!

 

I had to push my own car back, to get it out of a parking slot... what a ballache 

 

I have no objection to Badermatic... wafting is a nice experience [had a 626 2.0pezz with 4speeds+lockup...niceeeee] & 2.0LPT SAAB Sal [Very 'point & Squirt!!].

 

 

TS

[Stixy]

A 1.1 Escort auto!? There must be continents that could out accelerate that

 

It was just about ok on the flat or downhill  but any type on incline needed carefull planning , overtaking wasnt a problem though as it never caught up with anything that was moving 

 

but to be fair to it  , it was a 1970 Escort   in 1989 and  was about completely wanked out  

 

 Only 19 years old and the only thing that wasnt rotten was the key    they dont make them like they used to   

[Magnificent Rustbucket]

Definitely an automatic. I haven't driven a manual car for so long now I'm sure it would feel very strange. I only really like big saloon cars anyway. Sporty stuff feels a little too frantic and doesn't suit me.

 

I have never really thought about it, but I brake with my right foot and don't use my left foot at all when I'm driving. If I had a Silver Shadow, my left foot wouldn't feel left out because I could use it on the dip switch. I'm a long way one affording one though, so that's not going to happen any time soon!

[purplebargeken]

The i10 is auto and is pretty good 99% of the time. Mostly do the commute in it and the M25 is part of that. Petrol consumption can be a bit woeful for a small auto but then again I do boot it. Big Rover is auto and all is well in the world. The 45 was CVT and was a pleasure to use (for the brief amount of time I drove it). 

 

The Amazon and MGF are manual and are good fun. The F in particular is bloody good in manual form, never driven the steppie version though. People in t he know say it is good.

 

The Amazon despite being in none original GT spec is still a heavy, wallowy beast and it has overdrive fitted which makes it quite civilised. 

 

The TR7 powered Toledo has a really heavy clutch and gas pedal, not sure how that will pan out long term. Watch this space.

[Chas4545]

I like to grow my own shite , I have had my volvo V70 Auto for 6 years and 120k miles. It will be cooked in about 10 years when I will be an old git and therefore able to retro fit a hat on the back seat . Auto is the only way to go due to knackered left foot - back injury.

 

I  am sometimes tempted by a petrol 740, auto of course

 

How about a grow your own thread? .

[steve_earwig]

Another vote for the small engine manual/big engine auto here. I've driven plenty of autos and I love 'em but for me they're too much paranoia in a car I actually own - what's that funny noise/wasn't that a bit harsh/I'm sure it's not meant to do that... I can feel my wallet twitching again

 

Big engine, automatic, cruise, empty highway - stick it in drive, engage cruise, fall asleep...

 

My dad had a Freelander a few years back, 2.0 TD4 coupled to the legendary Jatco auto box. That was interesting in traffic - wait for a gap, spot it, stand on throttle and... isn't that a lovely flower bed? Do you thinking it's coming on to rain? I think it's about time I got a hair cut...oh, and we're off! The only way to drive it seemed to be to sit there with one foot standing on the brake, the other standing on the throttle and hope a gap comes up before the torque converter explodes.

[NorfolkNWeigh]

As most people have said auto for barges/4x4s and Manuel for sportyshite. Im in a minority in liking manual Jags and over the years had S1&2 XJ6 man o/d and 4.0 5 speed XJ40 which was pretty epic and I'm sure you could have used the gear knob to play boules.

I also love column changes on manual and auto, I wish my 300C had a column selector and bench seat.

As for paddles , I once drove a V10 M5 and thought it was fucked,the gear changes were so fierce it felt like a B/W 35 with a bad leak. The owner reckoned it made sense when you nail it but the fact Mrs N was following me in a Disco I never got the chance to find out.

[Asimo]

^^^^ BMW owners also bring out the "makes sense when you nail it" cliche when trying to defend the harsh ride of their ultra low profile tyres.

[Junkman]

Column change is a different story altogether. I'd love a antediluvian gearbox with such a feature.

However, there is another thing I dread when it comes to crashboxes - clutch replacements.

[Asimo]

Renault 16 has column change / manual 'box; More choice!

[PhilA]

I've driven a few of each. I'll agree with the majority that automatic gears on a small engine (for the weight of the vehicle) is horrible. Go to pass, down a gear, down another gear, torque converter winds out due to revs, revs hit redline immediately, back up a gear. Wait for the impact of whatever was moving faster than you.

 

I've driven the middle ground also- engine, clutch, torque converter, gearbox. That's an interesting combination, great for heavy stuff (Rolls diesel moving an old Seddon-Atkinson) stuck it in the gear you want to be in two hundred feet down the road, bring the clutch up... when ready to move apply throttle pedal appropriately. Change gear later.

 

Having moved to the USA, most passenger stuff here is automatic. Some is utter shit, doing what the people at the accountancy and emissions department say and changing all at the wrong time. Or possibly because the kickdown cable was attached with elastic, considering how long the engine would labor then scream then labor again.

 

I like the gearbox in my Challenger though. It's well geared (5 speed), changes gear appropriately (drive it slowly and it'll slush along, drive it hard and it'll kick you in the back) because the engine has oodles of torque and is at the same time very revvy. Poking the down-shift lever and stomping on the loud pedal does just what you'd expect- squeak of tires and a rapid progression forward.

It locks the torque converter in third, fourth and fifth, and if you slow down it'll change down at about the point I would and use the engine to brake.

The ratios are actually close to what I'd expect from a manual gearbox. It's as close to a manual as a fully automatic box I've driven. I like it a lot.

 

So, mixed bag really.

 

Phil

[steve_earwig]

My bro had an automatic R16, wonder how many of those are left...