Would I be right in thinking that brake lining life (e.g. front pads) is significantly shorter in cars with automatics than manual transmission?
With the new DSG boxes from VAG, do these perform active engine braking - by that I mean do they change down gear when slowing down in a way that engine braking is significant?
Just thinking that if I go for a DSG equipped car, will I need to change the pads twice as often as the manual equivalent.....
|
|
Had a DSG 2.0tdi for three plus years and the only work to the brakes was change of fluid at 2 years as service schedule. Engine braking not significant, similar to torque convertor box.
|
|
I've had auto boxes for years and not noticed any significant difference in brake pad wear. I've put 45,000 on the ones on the front of the Prelude and they still have lots of meat on them, while the ones on the back are original, as far as I can tell from the SH, and now on 85,000. The discs look fine, too...
|
|
One assumes you are a good driver though mh. I often see autos driving about with their brake lights going on and off incessantly (often they are swerving randomly from lane to lane too). I imagine their brake pads are not going to last as long as yours.
|
|
|
|
hi
i had a standard auto focus for 4 years, only problem was no engine braking, real pain in stop start traffic. on throttle, on brakes etc. although no excessive brake pad wear. 1 change of front pads and disks in 45000mls. changed to a focus powershift focus (ford's dsg gearbox). a lot easier driving in traffic. soon as i come off the throttle the focus slows down and if in a higher gear you can tell the drop when it changes down.
it is a lovely gearbox.
|
|
|
Brake pad life was not an issue on my last TDi DSG, the DSG system will give out long before the pads or discs.
Stick with a manual and avoid the hassle, breakdowns, flashing lights, ECU resets, software upgrades, new parts and wasting your life at the dealer.
Edited by seataltea on 11/04/2009 at 23:59
|
|
My A4 Multitronic is just coming up to 50k. Plenty of life left in the pads.
|
The brakes will not be adversly affected with a DSG box because they do not creep like torque convertor boxes. A DSG box is a manual box just with an electronic clutch.
|
"The brakes will not be adversly affected with a DSG box because they do not creep like torque convertor boxes"
They do creep.
I had a puncture fixed yesterday and whilst the car was on the ramps I asked for a brake health check - in excess of 6mm on all pads after 24,000 miles. A3 with a DSG box, but I know I am light on the brakes.
|
They do creep.
... but holding the car against auto gearbox creep isn't the reason for extra brake wear in auto cars. Use at rest or very low speeds doesn't cause significant wear. It is caused rather by the absence of engine braking with conventional torque convertor automatics: the brakes have to do all the retardation instead of just most of it.
It is clear from other posts that good drivers don't get very grossly accelerated brake wear when they are driving autos. It's those nervous, jumpy, jerky types who are on and off the brake pedal all the time who do.
If I were plod I would pull these when I saw them and give them a measured scolding about their driving. Not that the carphounds would understand of course.
|
"It is caused rather by the absence of engine braking with conventional torque convertor automatics"
Not quite - it's caused by drivers of automatics not locking up to enable engine braking to do it's work.
|
not locking up to enable engine braking to do it's work
... or not using intermediate gear holds on old-fashioned autos that don't lock up, yes.
|
|
I haven't found it a problem on my DSG, if I feel that I need some extra braking when going down a steep hill then I just push the stick across to manual and change down a gear, as with other BR's I've had mine for 3 years now and I still have plenty of thickness on my pads.
|
I don't make my auto boxes do any braking by downchanging, front pads for the car are about £30, for the pick up about £27, neither take longer than 30 minutes to fit.
That's quite a bit cheaper than replacing a worn out auto box which would probably be £2K minimum for either, i'll keep braking to slow down.
|
replacing a worn out auto box which would probably be £2K minimum for either, i'll keep braking to slow down.
Quite GB. Couldn't agree more. Intermediate holds in traditional autos are for going up hills, not down them: to stop the box hunting back and forth unnecessarily between gears when the hill isn't consistent.
|
That bit of sage advice from GB takes me back - that's just what my advanced driving instructor told me in the 1960s. Particularly good advice in my case as I was driving an MG 1100.
You did well to get 30,000 miles out of a (manual) gearbox in one of those - if I remember right the gearbox shared its oil with the engine which seemed to be asking for trouble. If I've got that wrong, apologies to the shade of Sir Alec Issigonis and someone will no doubt correct me!
|
I remember right the gearbox shared its oil with the enginewhich seemed to be asking for trouble.
Quite correct Avant, i had a few of these.
An 1100, dreadful thing fell to bits.
An 1800 land crab, good family car in its day and probably still unsurpassed in rear leg room, very reliable old B series engine, but a mammoth task to change clutch.
A 2200 land crab, smooth engine which i rebuilt, but the wear in the drivetrain was appalling, i did a cheap bodge on the 'plunge joints' as they were known (inner cv joints really), the ball bearings badly worn and i didn't have the money for new driveshafts, so i bought a bag of 50 ball bearings size 25/32" (how can i remember that and not know what day of the week it is?) and replaced them and it carried on for a few years.
Anyway oil change on this car was a bit much...22 pints, some trucks don't hold that much.
An 1800 princes, not as bad as everyone said, don't know why they didn't hatch it straight away, instead we had to wait for the ambassador which i never did have, probably because they by then had the O series engine which i'd experienced in the 2200.
Apart from the 2200, the B series engined cars and their transmissions lasted very well.
Sorry i've waffled on again..;)
|
|
Of course Alec Issigonis wanted a proper engine and separate gearbox. The A series - prewar in conception if not design - and the gearbox in sump solution were forced on him by suits. He didn't want either because he knew much better could be achieeved.
|
Of course Alec Issigonis wanted a proper engine and separate gearbox.
You learn summat here every day, i had no idea.
If engineers were left alone to design cars they might be just a bit too good and long lasting, maybe for company survival the 'suits' make sure a limited life is inbuilt.
|
I didn't know that either, and my apologies to the shade of Sir Alec. I'm glad to have been wrong as he was a great man.
I think he was quite often stopped by short-termist suits from doing what he wanted. I believe he was forced against his will to accept the pedestrian, flat-sounding side-valve engine from the Morris 8 in the original Morris Minor. Only with the merger with Austin did it get the A-series OHV engine.
I have a vague memory that he also came up with a successor to the Mini which was much more imaginative than the Metro, but again was slapped down. Was it perhaps related to the Autobianchi of the 1970s which was based on the Mini?
(Sorry mods - we've come some way from brakes and automatics - largely my fault but it's quite interesting!)
Edited by Avant on 16/04/2009 at 22:35
|
>>If engineers were left alone to design cars they might be just a bit too good and long lasting
It would be a disaster*. Everything would be gold plated, and no-one would be able to afford one. Engineers need to be very firmly held in check IMO (it could be worse - if it were left to physicists, it would be solid gold!).
* Yes, I'm an engineer, but, I recognize a very common pedantic, perfectionist streak in the breed.
|
* Yes, I'm an engineer, but, I recognize a very common pedantic, perfectionist streak in the breed.
Heh heh... obviously a proper car can't be designed by Tom Dick or Harry. But there are brilliant automotive engineers, of whom Issigonis seems to have been one. If he had had his way a bit more Minis and 1100s and the like might bave been a bit dearer, but they would surely have been better.
Even brilliant automotive engineers can be as mad as hatters on some level. Look at poor old Dr Porsche for example.
|
>>If he had had his way a bit more Minis and 1100s and the like might bave been a bit dearer, but they would surely have been better.
Yes; that's a dangerous argument and essentially it makes my point for me; where do you stop?
IMO, BMC didn't restrain Issigonis enough. They allowed him to design the Mini, which they had to sell at a loss. It was Ford who got small front wheel drive right, and it took them from 1959 to 1976 to work out how to do it at reasonable cost!
|
|
|
