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

[stripped fred]

Having now owned my first auto car in the sharan I bought recently I'm quite a convert. It got me thinking, does an auto make sense financially due to the lack of a clutch and dmf (on a modern)? A lot of manual cars I've owned have needed a clutch at some point and as i'm unable to change this myself it can cost quite a bit. Also, is there an argument for the engine being under less stress due to the smoother nature of the changes? This night all be b_____s but thought I'd just put it out there. I know you lose a bit in terms of economy and if the auto box itself starts playing up then it's game over as they're costly to fix but assuming it behaves itself am I onto something?

[dollywobbler]

I'm fast becoming an auto lover. Never thought I would. Auto gearboxes can go wrong, sometimes very badly and very expensively - especially post-2000 ones. Ask some Volvo owners...

 

Mind you, manual gearboxes can fail, and they do, as you say, also have clutches to wear out, gear selectors, sometimes DMFs too.

 

In conclusion, swings and roundabouts. Actually given fluid changes, I think most pre-2000 auto boxes are pretty reliable. But, people just don't bother, then wonder why the drive has gone.

[robinmasters]

Having now owned my first auto car in the sharan I bought recently I'm quite a convert. It got me thinking, does an auto make sense financially due to the lack of a clutch and dmf (on a modern)? A lot of manual cars I've owned have needed a clutch at some point and as i'm unable to change this myself it can cost quite a bit. Also, is there an argument for the engine being under less stress due to the smoother nature of the changes? This night all be b_____s but thought I'd just put it out there. I know you lose a bit in terms of economy and if the auto box itself starts playing up then it's game over as they're costly to fix but assuming it behaves itself am I onto something?

YES. Yes it does.

 

A proper oily propeller type auto though, not one of them electrically-operated manual jobs. They're shit.

[stripped fred]

YES. Yes it does.

 

A proper oily propeller type auto though, not one of them electrically-operated manual jobs. They're shit.

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

[EssDeeWon]

I'll let Junkman respond on my behalf.

[eddyramrod]

Swings and roundabouts, as said above, but I'm firmly on the side of the auto box, and preferably an old RWD one.  You only have to look at my signature.  All the cars currently listed are auto, even the Blob.  Yes if the box goes wrong it's deep shit financially, but so is any major failure on my cars, and lots of less-major failures too!  To me, the benefits outweigh any possible risks.

[Captain Furious]

Dunno about saving money but they're better because you don't have to change gear.

[mercrocker]

Clutch changes aren't cheap (unless you like being pinned to a concrete floor by a ruddy great gearbox)....I reckon I have spent far more on clutches than I ever have on auto box problems.   In 14 years of budget Merc autoshiting its only cost me an inhibitor switch.   Across 4 cars.   Wouldn't piss on a modern one, though.

[djimbob]

Agree with the above, autoboxes rarely shit themselves, and can be swapped out for second hand ones usually, at much less than the equivalent clutch change in the rare occasion they let go.

 

I am a huge fan, especially in larger vehicles, completely changes the driving experience of a motorhome etc

 

All those captains of industry drive luxury autobox equipped motors, for very good reasons, and if you drive them properly they can shift and are a hoot as well

[cort1977]

I have to say that since moving overseas I have become a convert to a slushbox for most driving.  

 

If you are really on a budget though a manual gearbox will save you 10-15% on fuel if driven sensibly as they are intrinsically more efficient.

[bub2006]

I love autos and will have another after the c2. Wouldn't recommend a smaller engine in a larger car though. The 1.6 in the vectra wasn't too bad but the 1.6 in the focus auto did like a drink and didn't really move. The kia carens was a 1.8 and really need a shove to get going. The volvo 440 wasn't too bad being a 1.7 but damn it was thirsty. A 2.0 or larger I reckon us needed with a petrol engine. Folk I've spoke to with larger engines nearly always have bettered my mpg bar the vectra B I had. Volvo and kia were both low 20s,focus was mid-high 20s.

[eddyramrod]

 if you drive them properly they can shift and are a hoot as well

Let me just say here: Bullitt.  You don't imagine that "rental" Charger was manual, do you?  And that certainly shifted!

I'll add to that: just about any Hollywood chase scene you care to name.

 

Also: the General Public is suspicious of autos, which keeps prices down on the "used" market, although not by a whole lot.  But every little helps.

 

[Captain Furious]

Yeah it's definitely a replace rather than repair situation if they shit themselves, rebuilds are heinously expensive. I've got a known* good* replacement standing by for mine which I picked it up for £50 on an unspecified internet auction site. Probably be borked if I ever have to put it in, but also by having it it lessens the probability of the original dying.

[Conrad D. Conelrad]

Me waking up one day and realising all the cars I have are automatics:

 

 

[dollywobbler]

In the real world, my experience is that out on open roads, an auto doesn't necessarily drink more juice, even without a torque converter lock up. Around town, where you get most advantage, the difference seems more noticeable, perhaps because you're always fighting forward propulsion with the brakes. Depends on the gearbox too. Good autos allow you to use the engine's torque and keep the revs low. Both my Honda and the Jag do this unless you cane them. Some autos kick down far too readily though.

[STUNO]

Another yes for autos, especially if you spend a lot of time in city / stop-start driving, using neutral for long waits does save fuel. I have had one auto box fail, at 300,000 km and mostly because it was not properly serviced. That was replaced by a second hand one and that outlasted the car. Manual gearboxes are very much outdated technology . I was surprised to see so many manual cars in uk a few years ago.

[Ghosty]

I like autos, they make life so easy. You don't realise until you try it.

 

Just don't get a CVT.

[Guest Hooli]

Auto good, unless it's a tiny gutless engine pulling too much weight.

[Noel Tidybeard]

Just don't get a CVT.

 

why not? i had one for 4 years oh so smooth to drive- no jerks between gears

 

if i felt the need for jerky gearchanges i put it in manual mode and used the 6 fake gears

[Junkman]

That question is too stupid even for the Stupid Question Amnesty thread.

 

The mind fucking boggles.

[chodweaver]

I certainly hold a proper auto in higher regard than I used to. They don't suit all cars/situations/drivers/engines and I suspect that you always lose a bit of fuel economy over a manual on a like for like basis. And I've not had the pleasure of one crapping out on me yet, and I'd rather not so I'm trying to get to grips with the black art of fluid level measurement, and regular fluid and filter changes. But the slush box/3.3l V6 combination in the voyager is a joy to drive and I ignore its mpg. Even the driving school Corsa C 1.4 auto is alright to drive, but again not as frugal as a manual.

As for cvts, I have no experience of them. But Mrs CW does, and she will do anything to avoid repeating it, judging them to be dangerous in an underpowered modern when you need to blast off the end of a slip road and it goes all nanny state on you.

 

Sent from my BV6000 using Tapatalk

[martybabes]

Autobox FTW

[Rod/b]

I'm a massive convert to automatics over the last 6 years; I never thought i'd say it but i've owned 11 autos in that time, proper torque converter types. The 5 speed job in my Charger is considered an antique but it's a bloody lovely box.

 

The only problem i've ever had is when the shifter cable came off the shift handle in a Pathfinder and left the car without drive but that was easily sorted.

 

Manuals seem like some sort of weird anachronism that Brits remain obsessed with.

 

Wouldn't ever have one of these modern DSG things though. They're awful to drive

[Dirk Diggler]

^^^^and they still have a DMF to shit itself

[Snipes]

I'd like to go Auto after trying a few here and there but I do struggle to overcome the suspiciousness previously mentioned. It would have to be an old school Auto, not some robotised piece of shit.

 

Driving the rental C4 Cactus last week, id be controlling the speed with the cruise +/- but then having to change gears to suite. That really needed an Auto 'box.

[Cavcraft]

Absolutely. Especially the bit about 2.0 petrol ones being the best.

[Guest Lord Sward]

Autos FTW.  Except those robotised manual changes.  Awful.  

[Tamworthbay]

I love my Auto, also guarantees a win at the traffic light Grand Prix!

[Jazoli]

Wouldn't ever have one of these modern DSG things though. They're awful to drive

 

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.

[pshome]

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

I trust my dad.