‘Inevitable given that EV have no manual gears. Maybe we're just catching up with the Americans who've tended to prefer autos.’ Driving a Genesis GV60 at the moment. Not only can it generate a synthetic engine noise in the cabin, it can add the sound of simulated gear changes….
It would be good if it could also generate the sound of a pair of galloping horses in harness with the occasional whip crack. The galloping noise could be related to road speed to give a more realistic effect.
|
‘Inevitable given that EV have no manual gears. Maybe we're just catching up with the Americans who've tended to prefer autos.’ Driving a Genesis GV60 at the moment. Not only can it generate a synthetic engine noise in the cabin, it can add the sound of simulated gear changes….
It would be good if it could also generate the sound of a pair of galloping horses in harness with the occasional whip crack. The galloping noise could be related to road speed to give a more realistic effect.
That's an excellent idea for letting folk know a "vehicle" (EV) is approaching in town. You can just imagine the look of confusion when they turn round, expecting to see a horse!
|
|
There is no need for any manual cars now. Of course you may want to drive a manual and there are plenty of options available.
I now drive automatic and can't say I'm enjoying driving less by any means. Not having to use a clutch is a great thing and I can still change gears (if I want) with paddles.
|
|
I'm not surprised manuals are going rapidly out favour, its because the typical modern engine is gutless and prone to stalling at low revs, including sad to say some Diesels.
There is little more frustrating than having to constantly work a gearbox to account for r****** power delivery, this was something i found particularly annoying about rthe Mondeo and Focus Diesel pool cars of around 12/14 years ago where i now work, having read here and elsewhere about those Fords being the best thing since Y fronts i found the complete opposite, gutless below 2000 rpm and running out of wind at 3500 rpm, boneshaker ride over Northant's third world road not helping.
My car transporter work was an eye opener regarding what was easily driveable and what wasn't, odd cars like the little 3 cyl Aygo/107/C1 had bags of low rev torque and proved reluctant to stall...unless someone unwisely ticked the auto transmission box which utterly ruined the car, wouldn't stall just wouldn't pull, same as 1.2 Fiat 500, but the 3 cyl Vx Corsa was the most gutless driving experience since the 1.4 lean burn Escort from hell.
My recent use of daughter's manual 1.8 Civic wasn't a joyous experience (though appreciated as second class ride better than first class walk), quite apart from the ridiculous lack of all round vision out it just wasn't a nice drive being manual.
No i wouldn't go back to a manual car by choice, but never say no, though i'd never have a robotised/automated manual box in a car (and won't be having a battery car), truck wise manual every time except almost no european truck maker offers manual tranmission even as an option any more and the automated manual boxes (Volvo and to some extent Scania excepted) are frustrating enough but massively more reliable than those found in cars.
|
|
When I drive a manual these days I tend to find the whole thing a bit crude and very tiring for my dodgy left knee.
I'd also tend to agree that a good auto can make up for a poor engine. I absolutely hate most BMWs because they have such inflexible engines. You need to keep them in a very narrow band to get any torque out of them. For those that like to drive like they're in Fast and Furious, it is no doubt more fun, but I find it very tiresome. Anyway, they seem utterly transformed as autos, when the gearbox sorts it all out for you.
I do find with my Karoq (1.5tsi DSG) that it is still too eager to kickdown and rev for my liking. It's not like my gran's 1986 Astra auto, which was unbearable, but I would probably prefer it to hold on to the higher gear for longer and just accelerate a bit slower - that's how I drive a manual.
Ultimately, I suppose it's probably correct that modern engines don't develop the same sort of torque as some of their predecessors. The facts probably state otherwise, but some do seem a bit weedy. Perhaps it's just because all engines have been downsized so we expect too much.
|
You need to keep them in a very narrow band to get any torque out of them. For those that like to drive like they're in Fast and Furious, it is no doubt more fun, but I find it very tiresome. Anyway, they seem utterly transformed as autos, when the gearbox sorts it all out for you.
So presumably the engine was designed to mate with an auto-box, not a manual ?
|
|
My daughter is currently learning in a manual and is driving our manual Yaris, but it is purely to have the flexibility of a manual licence.
She has also briefly driven my auto she has already said once she has passed she can't ever see herself buying a manual car.
|
|
|
You need to keep them in a very narrow band to get any torque out of them. For those that like to drive like they're in Fast and Furious, it is no doubt more fun, but I find it very tiresome. Anyway, they seem utterly transformed as autos, when the gearbox sorts it all out for you.
So presumably the engine was designed to mate with an auto-box, not a manual ?
No, it was designed to be driven by someone who likes to keep their revs in a narrow power band and change gear all the time.
|
|
|
|
Ultimately, I suppose it's probably correct that modern engines don't develop the same sort of torque as some of their predecessors. The facts probably state otherwise, but some do seem a bit weedy. Perhaps it's just because all engines have been downsized so we expect too much.
The problem isn't really the amount of torque (within reason), but how it is delivered. A small capacity turbo will usually offer considerably more torque than a n/a equivalent, and that torque will come in much lower in the rev range. While that may sound like a recipe for less likelihood of stalling, there are a couple of other factors. One is manufacturers tendency to have very long gearing which gives better economy in artificial test conditions, if not in the real world. Another is that there is still a torque "hole" in between idling speed and when the turbo starts working, and a third factor is the weight of the car.
The last turbo car we have had, which also happened to be the last with a manual gearbox, was a Vauxhall Meriva 1.7 CDTI. I found it very tiresome to drive in stop start conditions because of a combination of the factors described above (plus a heavyish clutch pedal). That it had a fairly substantial 300NM of torque from 2000rpm didn't count for very much at all under those driving conditions. All the previous manual cars we had before that had n/a engines (all but one was petrol), and all were easier to drive under similar conditions.
My soon to depart Caddy 2.0 n/a diesel will happily pull 3rd gear from walking speed. In stop start conditions, the accelerator pedal can be left alone, just let the clutch out (even in 2nd) and it will amble along quite happily. In fact a few times coming home through a village with a 30mph limit, I would only realise I was still in 5th gear when negotiating the two sharp corners followed by an uphill section on the way out (didn't result in any labouring, just less acceleration)!. In fairness though, it does have very low gearing.
|
|
Now I think about it, I learned to drive in a diesel MK1 Seat Ibiza where the tickover was set so high you could pull away just by lifting the clutch. Perhaps that has clouded my expectations.
Edited by Adampr on 11/09/2023 at 14:03
|
|
|
|
Indeed BBD, having had Diesels for many years, the easiest to drive were all NA Diesels, though of course they lacked ultimate performance on the open road compared to turbocharged equivalents they were uniformly more tractable in general use, as evidenced by your Caddy.
A good TC auto masks the flat spots and turbo lag allowing the engine to remain its peak torque range and the turbo providing constant intake pressure.
One of the reasons for popularity of remaps is people trying to iron out turbbo lag or at least bring the spool up revs down to a more realistic figure, its not all about maximising bhp.
With turboDiesels once you get up to around 550+cc per cylinder things improve dramatically, by the time you reach 750cc per cyl the turbo is win win all round.
Edited by gordonbennet on 11/09/2023 at 15:03
|
|
|
|
....... I suppose it's probably correct that modern engines don't develop the same sort of torque as some of their predecessors.....
Correct - they are actually much better! Our Peugeot 1.2puretech 130 (max 230 nM @1750) delivers far more torque at many fewer revs than our predecessor, a Ford 1.6 Zetec (max145 nM @4000 rpm).
The facts probably state otherwise......
Indeed so.
....but some do seem a bit weedy.
You clearly haven't tried this one!
|
....... I suppose it's probably correct that modern engines don't develop the same sort of torque as some of their predecessors.....
Correct - they are actually much better! Our Peugeot 1.2puretech 130 (max 230 nM @1750) delivers far more torque at many fewer revs than our predecessor, a Ford 1.6 Zetec (max145 nM @4000 rpm).
The facts probably state otherwise......
Indeed so.
....but some do seem a bit weedy.
You clearly haven't tried this one!
This must be a first, praise for the 1,2 Puretech engine?
|
....... I suppose it's probably correct that modern engines don't develop the same sort of torque as some of their predecessors.....
Correct - they are actually much better! Our Peugeot 1.2puretech 130 (max 230 nM @1750) delivers far more torque at many fewer revs than our predecessor, a Ford 1.6 Zetec (max145 nM @4000 rpm).
This must be a first, praise for the 1,2 Puretech engine?
Yes, I'm still a fan. There are literally millions on the road now around the world, mostly working absolutely fine as long as they have a well made cambelt and the correct spec oil; something most owners have to trust their garage to use when in for an oil change.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/ownerreview/editreview?review...5
|
|
|
|
....... I suppose it's probably correct that modern engines don't develop the same sort of torque as some of their predecessors.....
Correct - they are actually much better! Our Peugeot 1.2puretech 130 (max 230 nM @1750) delivers far more torque at many fewer revs than our predecessor, a Ford 1.6 Zetec (max145 nM @4000 rpm).
The facts probably state otherwise......
Indeed so.
....but some do seem a bit weedy.
You clearly haven't tried this one!
I have driven a 1.2 puetech in a C3 aircross. It was certainly lively, but it did feel a bit lightweight. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, but it's different to what I like.
|
|
I have a Peugeot 308 with the 1.2 engine and 8 speed auto.
Currently on 50k and running fine with no problems since purchase 4 years ago. Despite only three cylinders it cruises at 2000rpm at 70mph. A slight prod of the accelerator and it changes down a gear or two to accelerate.
It returns low 50s mpg on a long journey and low 40s if used exclusively in town. So no noticeable mpg penalty either.
Would I ever revert to a manual - not a chance. On the motorway auto/manual makes absolutely no difference. In town and stop start traffic it beats a manual every time.
|
|
WOW! 50k and 4 years old eh?
Must be a new bizniz model. Whatever happened to planned obsolescence?
|
|
|
|
|
