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

[Captain Furious]

As mentioned above, an automatic is essential if your car is from the pre cup-holder era.  As I'm sure all ours are, because all modernz...etc

 

I don't really think its a financial decision though, marginally more expensive to run and its the same "will it shit itself or not" lottery as a manual clutch\DMF.   Difference being an autobox failure will almost always be terminal in a <£2k car unless you're good at spannering and willing to fit a 2nd hand replacement yourself, whereas a clutch replacement might only be a few hundred quid.

[eddyramrod]

Fuel economy is a red herring.  Under normal domestic conditions there won't be much to choose between similarly spec'ed auto and manual; 2.0 pez Mondeo, say, to take an example at random.  If the auto does prove to slurp a little more - and it will only be a little - that can be offset by the relative lack of stress in  almost all situations, especially around town.  Lack of stress is priceless.

Replacement after major failure?  One presumes we will be buying a used gearbox, so I would not expect the prices to vary much.  Labour will cost about the same, as dropping a gearbox is a basic job - which, incidentally, will probably have to happen to replace the clutch on a manual.

Modern auto boxes tend to have many speeds.  I've seen new Jeeps advertised as having seven or more in the box!  WTF?  The only reason you could need that many gears is your engine has a tiny torque band.  Modern boxes also tend to be electronically controlled, which really is the work of the Devil.  I infamously borrowed a 2004 BMW 530d auto when it was about a year old, just for a day.  I couldn't wait to get out of it.  The gearbox simply wouldn't do what I needed it to, when I needed it... simple things like applying drive!  It stranded me on roundabouts too many times (in the course of ONE DAY, remember!) while it hunted for what it considered the right gear.  I was in an area I knew well, and I would have expected to be kicked-down-and-gone in my 3.8 litre 25-year-old Buick. 

Small cars?  My MR2 was automatic and I thought that was a right laugh.  I now have a 1.3 litre Rover auto, which is pleasant, but as slow as the garage that's supposed to be fixing it.  Buy big.  My 7.7 litre Cadillac has all the torque you could dream of, and it's a hoot if I decide to use that.

 

So, economically?  Unless you're pounding the motorways for thousands of miles a week, don't worry, the difference will be marginal.

The actual driving experience?  Totally recommended, with the proviso that older and bigger will ALWAYS be best.  Just for the de-stress factor it's worth going auto.

[Bobthebeard]

For a daily driver doing the stop start urban/ motorway stuff it is an Auto all the way for me. The last two cars (Honda and now the Saab) are both automatic. Fuel consumption difference was very marginal to say the least. The previous Honda 2.0 manual did circa 35 mpg on a run. The 2.4 auto did circa 38 mpg on a run. 25 around town. The manual one did 28 ish around town. So no real difference. The Saab has consistently seen 40 mpg on motorway runs, 28 ish around the doors.

The difference is huge in terms of driver comfort. Much less stressed in an automatic, more wafty and much less of a pain in heavy traffic.

The MG and the Rover are both manuals, but I only do roughly 2000 miles a year in those as opposed to over 30,000 a year in the daily.

Horses for courses really. IMHO.

[Roverageous]

Auto for me, every time. My first auto was my diesel Rover 75, followed now by the V6. 

 

The box in the diesel is lovely and does exactly what you expect / want it to. The box in the petrol behaves largely the same, but sport mode / holding gears manually is a must as the 2.0 is just a little on the underpowered side. The only annoying behaviour the petrol auto exhibits is a tendency to thump down the box quickly when braking down hill. At 50mph it will select 3rd which will mean the revs are 3k+

[Supernaut]

A BMW E39 petrol auto infuriated me, because it'd kickdown at the drop of a hat.

 

Probably the biggest factor in why I got rid of the Omega I had after only 3 months. It was the 2.6 petrol V6 (perhaps the diesel one you have / had is more relaxed).

[Rusty_Rocket]

I have a Mini automatic on the fleet currently- a proper one, 1990.

It is the most miserable experience known to man, is in top gear at 15mph and doing over 4000rpm at 60 mph.  Your reward for putting up with this nonsense is 25mpg.  How a 998cc A-Series can use that much fuel carting 650kg around is beyond my understanding.

 

I liked the autobox in the Omega V6 I had, it was so smooth and seemed to know what gear to be in.

[RayMK]

I have only had to replace a clutch twice on manuals (Renault 12ts and a 1995 Hyundai Sonata), thanks to the previous owners' driving styles.  My son had an autobox fail on a newly acquired 70K, £700 Citroen Xsara - the sort with the 'sealed for life' transmission.  Apparently, this is common on the sealed autoboxes.  The dealer bought it back as a gesture of goodwill because the warranty was limited to £500 per claim - it needed twice that to get a reconditioned box.  The car was then scrapped by the dealer.

 

The economics of manuals versus automatics have, for me, balanced out showing no advantage of one over the other.  Small engines, automatic? My Mitsubishi i was a 660cc turbocharged 4 seater with a conventional slushbox. I had it for 83,000 miles and economy was 45mpg.  With just me on board it was great fun, with perfectly adequate acceleration which left all the stop/start brigade standing.  It eventually ate its turbo and waste gate making it beyond economic repair, but the autobox was still fine.  CVTs?  My Volvo 66 (x2) were interesting to drive and thirsty (28mpg) but totally reliable apart from engine trouble (big ends shot at 50,000 miles; Renault engine!).  Nissan QX 2litre V6 auto: Beautifully refined engine and transmission, 28mpg, only let down by unrefined suspension on B roads.  Currently, the car I use most often is a Peugeot 205 automatic.  Economy is around 32mpg and performance is good.  At 75K, the autobox has had an oil and filter change and remains healthy. I would not touch any of the 'modern' autoboxes 2nd hand because too many of them seem to fail expensively at around 70k miles.

[Bobthebeard]

I have dropped the fluid from the autobox and replaced it.(Saab) Barry Cade did the same when he owned it. So far so good... It is the least I can do. Changes smoothly and no issues so far (140K).

Fingers crossed!

[DSdriver]

I have not read anything after the first couple of posts so might just be repeating others but here we go:

 

Auto is great if you are in a traffic jam. Auto saves on handbrake parts if like me you never bother with it in an auto - just leave it in park. You can rest your hand on the gearchange lever with an autobox without fucking the synchromesh. 3-0 to the autobox

Manual might* be slightly quicker for a 0-60 burn off. 3-1 to the autobox.

You can downshift an autobox for steep hills and more control on corners so manual doesn't gain anything there. Still 3-1 to the autobox.

 

So, for driving the autobox wins.

 

Longevity is just luck and on second hand cars dependent on previous owners driving styles.

[rainagain]

My Volvo has been the first auto I've ever owned. I love it especially with cruise, just hit the resume button after a village, round about, etc and let it effortless waft you back to your speed.

 

However budget wise I would say you're cheaper with a non DMF manual. On a test drive you can normally get some idea if the clutch is past it or the synchro is weak. With an auto it can feel fine then shit itself next week. A normal clutch is buttons compared to even a second hand auto box.

 

But as mentioned you cant beat an auto for stress less driving

[dollywobbler]

Auto saves on handbrake parts if like me you never bother with it in an auto - just leave it in park. 

 

Er, what do you do at traffic lights? Personally, I always use the handbrake then. Autos need good handbrakes!

 

Regarding clutches, I realise I've only replaced the one in my very first car (once it stopped being able to climb hills), and my current 2CV (once just after I got it, and again during the recent engine-out rebuild, because it was an easy time to do it. Found a broken clutch finger, so glad we decided to do it!)

[Asimo]

Apart from a broken cable or two my only clutch failure was a warranty job (MR2) and my only autobox failures were a Cavalier Mk2, warranty @ 6 months old, and a seized torque converter on an otherwise utterly fucked Volvo 145. So neither sort of transmission has ever cost me much.

Automatics do require that the engine works properly, it is harder to drive around problems in an auto. They can't be push started either and they definitely eat more pads and discs.

 

I like both, but I also really enjoy driving the semi automatics like Citroen's CMatic and the VW / NSU / Porsche Sportomatic.

 

edit - I just remembered that I had a replacement gearbox under warranty after 1 week's Lancia Gamma ownership. Glad I bought from a Lancia dealership!

[sierraman]

I have a Mini automatic on the fleet currently- a proper one, 1990.

It is the most miserable experience known to man, is in top gear at 15mph and doing over 4000rpm at 60 mph. Your reward for putting up with this nonsense is 25mpg. How a 998cc A-Series can use that much fuel carting 650kg around is beyond my understanding.

 

I liked the autobox in the Omega V6 I had, it was so smooth and seemed to know what gear to be in.

Christ 25mpg! A 3.2 Jaguar auto would probably better that. What's going on in there? Where's the fuel going?! That can't be right surely?

 

At least you've got the horsepower there though if you need it.

[DSdriver]

Er, what do you do at traffic lights? Personally, I always use the handbrake then. Autos need good handbrakes!

 

If its looking like a long wait I put it in park, on a short wait wait I sometimes put it into neutral and hold it on the footbrake but usually just hold it in gear on the footbrake.

This is a driving style I adopted many years ago when we used to have our Citroen CXs serviced by a main dealer who at every service told us that they had to replace the handbrake pads.

As we never used the handbrake we told them that they must have adjusted them badly at the last service and that we weren't paying for them.

[Rod/b]

So there we have it. Manuals are for peasants, and proper torque converter autos are for gentlemen.

[stripped fred]

It is bloody annoying for other road users though.

 

Still who gives a fuck about them, eh?

 

Ben

Very few drivers seem to use the handbrake in traffic, manual or auto.

[stripped fred]

Very few drivers know how to drive.

 

Ben

Very true.

[carlo]

I have only had to replace a clutch twice on manuals (Renault 12ts and a 1995 Hyundai Sonata), thanks to the previous owners' driving styles.  My son had an autobox fail on a newly acquired 70K, £700 Citroen Xsara - the sort with the 'sealed for life' transmission.  Apparently, this is common on the sealed autoboxes.  The dealer bought it back as a gesture of goodwill because the warranty was limited to £500 per claim - it needed twice that to get a reconditioned box.  The car was then scrapped by the dealer.

 

The economics of manuals versus automatics have, for me, balanced out showing no advantage of one over the other.  Small engines, automatic? My Mitsubishi i was a 660cc turbocharged 4 seater with a conventional slushbox. I had it for 83,000 miles and economy was 45mpg.  With just me on board it was great fun, with perfectly adequate acceleration which left all the stop/start brigade standing.  It eventually ate its turbo and waste gate making it beyond economic repair, but the autobox was still fine.  CVTs?  My Volvo 66 (x2) were interesting to drive and thirsty (28mpg) but totally reliable apart from engine trouble (big ends shot at 50,000 miles; Renault engine!).  Nissan QX 2litre V6 auto: Beautifully refined engine and transmission, 28mpg, only let down by unrefined suspension on B roads.  Currently, the car I use most often is a Peugeot 205 automatic.  Economy is around 32mpg and performance is good.  At 75K, the autobox has had an oil and filter change and remains healthy. I would not touch any of the 'modern' autoboxes 2nd hand because too many of them seem to fail expensively at around 70k miles.

 

Those PSA AL4 automatic gearboxes were very fragile, you were lucky if you got more than 100,000k out of one.  Just one reason the 406 autos didn't appeal to me much (although the V6 did come with a ZF one I believe.).  405s/205s/306s with the mechanical ZF 4 speeder are tough as old boots.

[SiC]

Those PSA AL4 automatic gearboxes were very fragile, you were lucky if you got more than 100,000k out of one. Just one reason the 406 autos didn't appeal to me much (although the V6 did come with a ZF one I believe.). 405s/205s/306s with the mechanical ZF 4 speeder are tough as old boots.

Kiltox FiL has a Scenic that I used to own with the DP0 (Renault's designation of the AL4) with 160k on the clock. So not necessarily die early. Main issue was the pressure control solenoid failing - given the cars are cheap, people just ignored the fault. Not helped it usually had the problem when cold and restarting when warm cleared the fault.

[SiC]

I've seen new Jeeps advertised as having seven or more in the box! WTF? The only reason you could need that many gears is your engine has a tiny torque band.

Ford and GM are coming out with a jointly developed 10speed slush box. Going to be coupled to n/a V8 in f150/Mustang/others. Definitely not low torque application!

 

It also can short shift between gears. Idea being that it can have many ratios and ensure the best ratio for the given time can be used.

[New POD]

As the owner of a couple of Manuals and an auto (BINI cooper, and Mx5 in the former, and MV6 omega in the later, I can safely say there is only one manual that I'd want to own from a reliability and serviceability point of view.

 

That is GM's F16 gearbox as used in various mk2 and mk3 cavaliers (and probably the Astra's which had the same engines). Clutch changes in 1 hour by an amateur and 35 mins  by a lazy professional. Typically they last about 100K plus or minus a bit.

 

Had to replace the clutch in the Mx5 at 105K and obviously paid someone as CBA.

[DSdriver]

It is bloody annoying for other road users though.

 

Still who gives a fuck about them, eh?

 

Ben

The only time I have found this annoying when done to me was a modern Mercedes with a huge rash of overpowered LEDs that left me with ghost images for about five minutes. My rear lights are neither high level or too bright.

[Lacquer Peel]

Probably the biggest factor in why I got rid of the Omega I had after only 3 months. It was the 2.6 petrol V6 (perhaps the diesel one you have / had is more relaxed).

Possibly the same gearbox, BMW used GM auto boxes for a while I think.

 

Do the new fangled 8 and 9 speed gearboxes hunt a lot?

 

The three automatic cars I've driven impressed me, a Colt 1.3 three speed auto sounds dire but it really suited the car and was fine for hooning around Cyprus.

Volvo 5 cylinder TDI and auto box is a good combo, the Aisin 4 speed autos are long lived and suit the engine well.

 

Sent from my Z100 Pro using Tapatalk

[John F]

Rod/b, on 26 Apr 2017 - 7:52 PM, said:

So there we have it. Manuals are for driving enthusiasts, and proper torque converter autos are for cripples and dodgem pilots.

 

FTFY, pal.

[Noel Tidybeard]

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 right hand with your elbow out the window 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. 

 

EFA as you were mentioning a Jaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag

[Noel Tidybeard]

i've got an i-shift at the mo and a cvt before that (with torque converter i believe)

 

overall i prefered the cvt for most of the time just the i-shift if far superior in mpgs

both have been good for a hoon!

 

they neither are a type that can be just judged by a short experience

 

the biggest complaint usually about i-shift is approaching a traffic island and having a moment of indecision which can be avoided if neccessary by manually selecting 1st or just addapting your driving style

[Sheefag]

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.

 

You're too short to reach the clutch, mind.

 

[M'coli]

Never tried to bump-start an auto, but I've only driven 3 and only one of those for long enough to get used to it (the work's Hyundai Lapland*).

[5speedracer]

Very few drivers seem to use the handbrake in traffic, manual or auto.

A lot of modern autos have a hard press "brake lock", effectively a foot operated handbrake that releases on acceleration. Downside is it keeps the brake lights on.

[Hendry]

All my cars so far have been manual and ive never had to change a clutch, to my knowledge the clutches were all original too because i generally buy cars with wads of service history.

 

A lot to be said for the issues on cars with DMFs etc. but i honestly believe things have moved on so much from years gone by, i remember my dad and other family members and friends parents having clutches go on Escorts, Orions, Maestros, Metros, Novas, Astras etc. of 1990ish vintage at like 50k miles, although that said they were relatively cheap to replace.

 

When a clutch and DMF goes it is mega money, my dads had to do 2 now, once on a 2.0 DTI Vectra C at ~140,000 miles at around £800, and on the Jetta i now have at around ~130,000 miles at around £800 as well, but these were cars which were driven with very little care, hammered day in day out, ran into the ground and constantly in and out of gear in city traffic, stop start driving, constant traffic lights and picking up/dropping off fares, i dare say if they were driven more like a prviate car with more motorway driving and so on, they wouldve lasted even longer, and certainly with private mileage these couldve lasted 10-12 years, or maybe even still been original when the cars were scrapped, so I think they unfairly get a bad press tbh.

 

As for autos, Id have one in a "prestige" car or something powerful, driven many Mercs, BMWs, Audis, Lexus, Range Rovers with autos and thought the fact they were autos was ace, nice and relaxing. However the ones in low power cars or from volume brands are generally very frustrating, laggy, and quite often lots of noise but dont go anywhere. They have the ability to turn cars like a Focus 1.6 Zetec which is normally a decent drive with a manual gearbox into an utterly horrible car to drive when fitted with an Auto, Citroen C4 Picasso with the EGS box and the lever behind the steering wheel are horrific, as are C4 1.6 autos, Pretty much the entire range of Vauxhalls from the last 15years are hopeless, Corsa and Astra Easytronics, Astra H 1.8 autos, Insignia 2.0 CDTi SRI autos, all very jerky, rev their tits off at 70mph, constantly changing up and down gears because they seem to keep picking the wrong gears, and put your foot down and nothing happens for about 10seconds then they pick up speed. Only really useful around town in continual stop/start traffic. 

 

I may be shot down in flames for the above, but thats my take on post-2000 auto box volume cars. The best ive found are C and E class Mercs, and Volvo S60, S80, V70 and XC60.