Hi
I will be purchasing the new shape Mazda 6 2.0 TS2 in a few months time, however I am having trouble deciding on whether to opt for the manual or the automatic version.
I live in London and only do 5000ish miles per year; however a lot of these miles generally involve stop/start traffic, and bumper to bumper crawls on the A406. When I am sitting in these traffic jams, I dream of how easy life would be in an automatic, and how much my left leg would thank me for one!
However the dilemma is this, I guess compared to most people my mileage is very low, and the Mazda 6 automatic seems to perform worse than the manual in almost every respect.
- The auto costs £1000 more from the get go.
- The MPG on the auto is about 4-5 mpg worse than the manual.
- The performance of the auto is worse than that of the manual.
- The auto will cost around £85 more per year for road tax.
However despite all of this I still dream about how nice it would be to have an auto when faced with London traffic.
So what do you guys think.....manual or auto?
Thanks for any replies.
Edited by Pugugly on 10/04/2008 at 00:12
|
Auto.
Depends how long you keep it (I suppose)
Is MPG that important with that mileage ?
Will you need the performance in London Traffic ?
OK so that's £85 per year....hardly a fortune.
The question I would ask myself is why I want a car at all to do that mileage (especially in London, where citizens moan about Public Transport but is light years ahead of rural Britain) and if the answer was yes I need a car I'd buy a 97 Nissan Primera.
Edited by Pugugly on 08/04/2008 at 19:22
|
If you do a lot of stop start driving then auto I'd say. You might get less MPG but it will be a more relaxing drive. And as PU at 5000miles per annum the difference will not be huge versus the benefit.
And for most of us an auto will be similar performance wouldn't it?
|
The auto is about a second slower to 60 and about 7mph off the top end of manual.
|
|
Thanks Jayboy... you confirm what we say. Nobody will notice the performance difference only fuel used, road tax extra, etc.
|
|
London black cabs are auto, aren't they?
|
|
Yeah all the ones I have seen have been autos.
|
|
remember also that while you may say that the manual is slower 0-60 I reckon you'd not manage to beat the auto driving yourself. Driving a manual 0-60 requires very careful timing of gear changes. With an auto it's just plant it...
|
|
|
|
Go for the auto if I was you.
The £1000 difference now would possibly turn into £500 at trade in time (in London autos are worth a lot more than there manual counterparts)
Performance not really relevant if its all bumper to bumper traffic.
I dread coming to London in anything but an auto.
Hope this helps.
Just a thought for you try buying an auto ooopppp North as there not as popular around these parts (any auto's we take in PX normally head darn sarrf)
|
Thanks for the advice niceguyeddy.
The Mrs and my colleagues think I am mad to want to get the auto over the manual, due to all the negatives over the manual.
I am slowly thinking that due to my low mileage and my initial savings upfront, I may opt for the manual.
What Mazda really need is an auto box like the VAG groups DSG, which actually improves performance, MPG and emissions.
|
Jayboy
I have a Mazda Xedos 9 Auto - buy your 6 auto - worth every penny for the relaxed drive - OK so I only get 24mpg but it's so relaxing - I hate having to drive mates 6 speed manual - been a Auto driver since my 20's (40yrs) and I cannot understand why we didn't follow Yanks and go purely auto.
|
My HIMBO has a VW Eos which has DSG and is brill to drive and economical, returning around 44 mpg ( Its a 2.0 Tdi )
Another option could be the Mk3 focus that now comes with the 2.0 tdci engine mated to a "powershift" gearbox, which is Getrags verson of the DSG, ie a 3 shaft box with twin clutches operating in much the same manner, with no greedy torque convertor.
|
Certainly auto for London - check out the number of ambulances, Police vehicles & Local Authority fleets - including vans (think how much extra an auto costs in these situatiins & yours is a bargain!!
& as you don't specifically have a date to buy, it's worth keeping friendly with the Mazda dealer, to get advance warning of one of their many special editions, which regularly appear. Then you'll be able to have a better spec model, for similar/lower price than your chosen model.
VB
|
Thanks for all the advice guys, you are slowly but surely turning me round to an auto again.
I think deep down I would like one after having manuals for the past 15 or so years.
Do autos in general cost alot more to service?
|
|
I've driven an auto for six and a half years and paid out only for normal servicing. I don't know if they're more expensive to fix if they go wrong buit HJ always recommends a specialist when warranty is finished.
|
Jayboy,
I have gone off Mazda's in general in a big way lately since I read about owner's technical problems here:
Mazda 6 turbo diesel failures (Vol 1)
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=57098
Mazda 6 turbo diesel failures (Vol 2)
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?f=4&t=62...7
Mazda 3 petrol engine piston slap
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=59379&...f
I realise the car you are looking to buy has a different engine but when knowledgeable people like screwloose say that Mazda turbo diesel engines are 100 times less reliable than an equivalent petrol engine it certainly says something about Mazda's engine design and testing as well as how Mazda UK is handling the issue.
Also I am distinctly not impressed by the way Mazda USA has handled this (from what I have read of their own press releases and analysis in trade press):
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=62035&...f
Edited by Billy Whizz on 11/04/2008 at 10:16
|
Thanks for the very helpful post BillyWhizz!
It seems odd when normally Mazda do very well reliability wise.
I am veering toward the auto now!
|
|
|
|
Yes the VAG DSG is great for you petrol heads - but no good for us Diesel chaps. The DSG figures for the VAG diesels are no better than most modern torque converter autos with a lock-up when you are in the cruise.
Apparently the new Honda Accord will be pretty good in the petrol range (close to manual mpg and emissions). A similar performing version for the diesel is expected in 2009.
The only reasons for having a manual (once you are passed the boy racer stage) are the extra cost of Auto and the consumption. After 750K miles of driving I don't see much virtue in moving your left leg and arm all the time. A car should have one peddle for go and one peddle for stop. The only reason you need gears is that the internal combustion engine doesn't have enough Torque to pull the car away from rest without them.
Having said all that I do occasionally enjoy using the tiptronic a bit!!!!
As my next vehicle will do mainly long motorway journeys it is likely to be Diesel and Manual.
|
You can do acceleration tests in an auto without abusing the transmission, but doing them with a manual involves abusing the driveline. So in the real world the acceleration difference is much reduced. Similarly, not many people drive their cars flat out more than once or twice, if ever. So that 7 mph at the top end won't matter either.
That said, there is something irksome about the thought that auto uses so much fuel. Manual, carefully driven, will be more economical even in heavy traffic. And speaking as a London dweller and frequent driver, all that gear-stirring doesn't usually bother me, indeed my limbs just do it automatically.
|
Still think there's nothing to beat letting an automatic creep you forward in traffic or drifting up to a roundabout then slotting on exactly at the right speed. All effortlessly.
There is a cost to autos but if you're driving only 5k miles and all in traffic it's not going to make a huge difference in the scheme of things when traded off against the ease of it.
And autos do go when you want them to.
Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you've definitely set your heart on a Mazda 6, then ignore me. But if you're still considering options, try a test drive in any of the following:
Honda Jazz CVT. Lower performance than the Mazda (but not lower than the manual Jazz) and of course it'll cost less in the first place.
Toyota Prius. Ideal for urban driving, and about the same price as the 6.
Skoda Octavia 2.0 auto. Cheaper than the 6 and just as roomy. I think the petrol Octavias have a normal auto rather than DSG, but it's a Tiptronic so you have the option of changing the gears manually when you need to.
Edited by Avant on 05/05/2008 at 21:54
|
"Yes the VAG DSG is great for you petrol heads - but no good for us Diesel chaps."
On my second DSG diesel and its still the best combination for me. I drove our Aygo for a day last week with plenty of stop start motoring. I was well and truly sick and tired of manual changes by the end of it!
It does about 35-40mpg round town, 50 on a run and doesn't take a hit on performance or tax bracket over its manual equivalent.
OP - it would be an auto for me, especially in London with a low annual mileage.
|
Hi Daveyjp,
That sounds encouraging - which of the VAG diesels are you running? Some of the figures quoted do place DSG versions in higher tax bands.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 07/05/2008 at 13:38
|
Definitely auto. Got an auto 3 series last October, which crawls half-way home in stop-start traffic every evening. Much more relaxing than a manual, and as others say, you won't see much difference in fuel burn over 5000 miles.
If cost is an issue, don't tie yourself to the Mazda. Think:
1. Resale value. Better again if you can get a special edition or nearly new/ex demo car.
2. Total cost of ownership (tax/insurance/service) - this will make more difference than MPG at low mileage.
3. Low emissions for lower tax and possible savings on congestion charge (does this still apply to the Prius or Civic Hybrid?).
|
|
Honda Jazz CVT recommended above. Nice car. CVT goes well and can be used as a 7 speed tiptronic. I think the rides too hard for long journeys, but for town could be very good.
|
|
|
|
