|
Good points.
But a new Gearbox for a manual golf would be around 1k. A replacement DSG would be around 4k
|
|
|
They also seem to wary of autos because of the cost of repair if the fail, Again it's a strange idea because most mechanics won't open manual gearboxes to work on them ,they tend to leave it to a gearbox specialist. As a consequence manual gearboxes can be just as expensive to repair .
A manual gearbox comes with one clutch to wear out, which can be replaced a a seperate item. If treated well, they'll last until the car disintegrates. An auto box comes with loads of 'em that can't. Their finite life is governed by clutch wear.
Within the manufacturer's planned life of the vehicle it pretty much makes no odds. Beyond that you are asking for trouble with autos, especially since many manufacturers moved to dosing 'em with snake oil and saying they never need a fluid change to make their servicing costs look lower. Too many will barely squeak through their planned life and give up expensively shortly afterwards.
Also, I've had manual boxes reconditioned by a specialist for between 2 and 4 hundred quid (and exchange units as low as 50). Autos tend to start at 8 and go up from there......
Edit: Two autos here. The fleet car and an aging personally owned vehicle which "hunts" and slips like fury between 2nd and 3rd.....
Edited by TeeCee on 13/03/2012 at 13:47
|
|
"There is still a peculiar notion in the uk that people want to drive a car, rather than have it drive them."
Yep, that's me.
I would have an automatic if my commute required me to cross the full diameter of a city at rush hour twice a day. And I did indeed have an automatic in the past when my commute was like that.
But otherwise...
You know how, in general, current Fords are praised for being involving and lovely to drive, and how, in general, old Toyotas were slated for being dull to drive, and feeling like just an appliance to get you from A to B?
So someone who enjoys the act of driving per se would probably swing towards buying a Ford (because a Mazda Miata can't accommodate the family), whereas someone who wasn't interesetd in gaining enjoyment from the act of driving per se might swing towards buying a Toyota (at least in the 80's).
That's kind of how I feel about a manual vs an automatic. There's just something about a direct connection between the engine and the wheels, and intermediate gears, and manually-selecting those gears - with a stick, and having control over HOW the clutch is operated, that allows me to better feel what the car is doing and for me to have greater control over what it's doing.
An automatic, with a fluid clutch, doesn't give me that final bit of control in all circumstances, and even with a semi-auto, the paddles don't allow me to do the change from 1st to 2nd in a very sedate manner but then choose to do 2nd to 3rd in a bolt-shoot manner straight afterwards (without probably adjusting some 'mode' setting in between).
So for me, a car with an auto box is one step closer to just being an appliance. And if all cars had auto boxes, that would further-reduce anything that differentiated them.
Ultimately, once all cars have auto boxes, feel-less electric streering, electric parking brakes, traction control, ESP, cruise-control, lane-drift-avoidance, automatic-tailgating-control, etc etc, the driver might almost feel like he's a passenger on a bus. And as for forums like these - well, we'll probably all just refer to 'Which?' in order to choose our next car. I mean, we probably would all like a 'good' washine machine, but I doubt they inspire a passion that would create terribly many forums discussing the merits of various makes and models(?)
America is a very big country, and much of it will have been designed and built to accommodate automobiles, so it has long straight roads between towns and there is room for gentle curves. Then in the cities there are grid-pattern roads with traffic lights at every crossing, so a lot of stop-start driving. So cars were traditionally made for comfort on long straight roads and convenience in city traffic. Not much call for a manual box if there's an automatic on offer, so an automatic was the default choice.
|
|
I've yet to drive an autobox that actually gave me the 'go' that I wanted, when I wanted it.
Some have been fairly powerrful cars with relatively modern autos -- most recently a 3.0 V6 Jag X-type with auto in sport mode.
Even when mashing the throttle pedal into the carpet at 50mph, sport mode engaged, the car took a second or so to have a little think about whether to change down etc before deciding it would actually obey the order from the pilot and start accelerating. If I'd been trying to overtake something at that point, it would have been heart-stopping.
Gave me no confidence in the car at all. The only way to make sure it was in the right gear at the right time was to use the J-gate for manual shifts.
Which to some drivers may be the point -- that you can just stick it in 'D' when pootling, and use manual override when you want to press on -- but to me just defeated the object.
|
|
Auto's in general use more fuel than Manuals. In America fuel is cheaper so not such a burden.
In America Engines are bigger so more suited to auto's than manuals.
Personally having driven Manuals for 35 years + including driving manual Trucks and coaches in the 80's I now love an Auto but many people have a hang up with auto's but they have improved vastly. The only downside is that Autos adapt to a driver and take a long time to re-adapt to a new driver so if someone gets in an autos thats been driven by someone else it normally leaves a bad impression.
My own one adapts to when I'm towing and when it goes solo take about 50-60 miles to relearn !
|
|
|
So mmarsh ,from all the responses you must now have a good idea why the British still have a love affair with their manual gearboxes ,all I'm sure genuinely held beliefs and preferences .However for me this preference reminds me of the 18th century Luddites .i wonder how many of the forum members would prefer a starting handle ,instead of a starter motor.it would save weight and fuel because we wouldn't need a starter motor or the ring gear .
As individuals we would benefit from the exercise involved in attempting to start the car on a cold morning.
I'm currently driving an E270 CDi auto.a lovely car with a super smooth gearbox
.Im not sure that I would want to spend anytime driving one of the cvt auto boxes .these strange devices seem to produce lots of engine noise without corresponding forward movement .
|
|
maybe it is because the drivers in europe and the UK love lugging caravans around in the summer.
Just saying because you can't tow s***t with an auto
Edited by diddy1234 on 13/03/2012 at 15:55
|
|
I prefer a manual because i get more to the gallon, and the Ved is usually cheaper (road tax).
The inital purchase price is cheaper. But some autos now have 8 gears, so the difference in economy has closed.
The new BMW X3 is a example.
|
|
|
Just saying because you can't tow s***t with an auto
I disagree. I'd much rather have a torque convertor for towing because fluid slip is better than solid surface slip as far as getting started is concerned.
The problem I have with autos is that a truely automatic gearbox is always compromised because the 'box can't predict what the driver intends to do. For instance when you go into overrun, the box has no idea whether the driver wants engine braking or wishes to preserve momentum. Same with sudden acceleration-does the driver want a hard downshift for maximum power, a soft slurry one, or does the driver simply want to stay in the same gear?
Fuzzy logic doesn't get round this problem. The driver has to interact with the 'box to get it to shift as he wants to-which sort of renders the complex auto redundant-if you have to tell the auto how you would like it to operate, why not just row your own?
Edited by unthrottled on 13/03/2012 at 16:51
|
|
@ Unthrottled - amen. This was precisely the problem I had with the Jag X-type -- all the operating modes you could want, and not short of power, but it only did what I wanted when I shifted it manually
|
|
|
|
"ust saying because you can't tow s***t with an auto"
Your wrong diddy
Auto's tow alot better than manuals and dont suffer with DMF issues and burnt out clutches. The tourque of a modern diesel and an auto are so well match & i tow 1800KG of caravan with a Landrover auto and it tows like a dream. Much better at pulling away ! and doesnt struggle on motorways either & MPG no worse than manual.
Also towed with vauxhall auto, Volvo auto,Ford auto & VAG DSG auto, so much better than manual and loads of gear changing
|
|
Dislike automatics intensely and when I was kid considered them for people who were a bit, well, dim or hopeless behind the wheel.
In my defence, I grew up doing motocross and was using a clutch and gear motorbike at age 6...so I've always hated the lack of feel and complete control that autos have, compared to manual.
|
|
|
|
Manuals still makeup the majority here but Auto's share of the market is getting bigger now. Im not really sure why the UK favours manuals yet the US is mostly made up of automatics. Driving conditions are different obviously, in America everythings in a straight line and theres not much actual driving involved.
I have an automatic, a Jaguar S-Type which will probably be familar to our American friend here, as every Beverly Hills dentist has one. I bought an automatic when i tore ligaments in my left knee, im fine now but ive stuck with autos as i do like the relaxing drive, especially because i like big cars and i dont see the point of a luxurious comfortable car in which you change gear yourself.
Auto's are becoming more popular in the UK with people preferring them for heavy traffic commutes but i suspect the fact they're less economical than manual counterparts is one reason behind manuals popularity here with the current fuel tax situation. Also most cars here are small hatchbacks which mostly come in manual.
|
Manuals still makeup the majority here but Auto's share of the market is getting bigger now. Im not really sure why the UK favours manuals yet the US is mostly made up of automatics. Driving conditions are different obviously, in America everythings in a straight line and theres not much actual driving involved.
I never understand this fact/argument. Straight roads would surely be ideal for a manual? Leave it top. Drive.
(Not having a go, just wondering if it's me or the world being dense)
|
Straight roads would surely be ideal for a manual? Leave it top. Drive.
The Americans tend to have more intersections and STOP signs, as opposed to our roundabouts and give way. Once you're off the freeway there's a lot more stop-start work involved which lends itself to (true) autos rather than manuals.
I appreciate what a torque convertor can do-changing gear without easing off is a boon for turbo engines because there's no loss of boost during shifts for example. But the automated manuals just strike me having the worst of both worlds. The weakness of a clutch and the complexity of an auto. Yuk!
|
|
|
|
|
|
"this preference reminds me of the 18th century Luddites"
Yep, that'll be me again.
When I just 'have to be somewhere' say 250 miles away, and it wasn't my choice to have to make the journey, then sure, I just want an appliance, to 'transport' me there comfortably, quietly and quickly.
But when I actually want to 'drive' somewhere of my own volition, or in an attempt to make the (not cross-city) commute more interesting, I have a bit of a hair-shirt mentality: Doing it in something designed in the 40s 50s or 60s, with little in the way of driver-aids, puts more of a grin on my face.
I suppose it's a bit like why some people love powerful motorcycles (but I'm too wimpy to go at high speed on only 2 wheels and without at least a BIT of a box around me).
|
|
I like to drive my car, not have it drive me. No autos here!!
|
The Americans tend to have more intersections and STOP signs, as opposed to our roundabouts and give way. Once you're off the freeway there's a lot more stop-start work involved which lends itself to (true) autos rather than manuals.
True. Try driving in New York City or the centre of Los Angeles in a manual, you'll kill yourself after ten minutes.
I like to drive my car, not have it drive me. No autos here!!
On a racetrack - yes. On the M62? I dont see what you're trying to say. I dont get this argument of 'control' of the car. If you cant control an automatic you shouldnt be driving and theres no real world situation where a manual is of any benefit.
|
If you cant control an automatic you shouldnt be driving and theres no real world situation where a manual is of any benefit.
I can, perfectly, but I prefer control a manual as it just feels natural to me.
Parking, downhill engine braking and snow driving are occasions where I prefer manual.
|
|
I prefered snow driving with my autobox. Just stick it in D, foot off the brake and it just made its way through several feet of snow all by itself. I dont see how parking is easier with a manual, its very easy to slip off the clutch and plough in to the car in front which is probably the cause of many prangs and insurance claims. Maybe if we adopted the Americans auto-only stance that wouldnt happen so much.
Generally people who talk about 'control' of a manual over-rate their driving abilities. For driving round town or in a straight line on a motorway, manual makes no difference to driving enjoyment or practicality. As i said, if you're doing Rally Cross then manual is the way to go, but for going to work on the A34? No.
|
|
I always turn the argument - if all current cars were automatics, and somebody "invented" a manual box, they'd have a struggle getting it taken up. Also safety issues with people having to take their hand off the steering wheel would be raised. Providing an extra pedal and gear change mechanism would be said to work out more expensive, and the way the motor industry works would probably be a costly extra.
|
also safety issues with people having to take their hand off the steering wheel would be raised.
I'll accept a lot of auto arguments but the 'safety' one doesn't wash. When has it ever been necessary to grasp the wheel with both hands, except while manoeuvreing at low speed in a car without power steering?
1.)As far as safety is concerned, I've known of two autos in heavy vehicles destroy their engines because they automatically downshifted into first and oversped the engines.
2.)You can bump start a manual with a low battery or a dead starter motor
3.)You can tow a (2WD) manual without taking the drive wheels off the ground
4.)You can get a broken down manual transmission car off the road by simply selecting first gear and engaging the starter. It's rough, but it works.
5.)Manual transmission components tend to fail gracefully, giving warning to the driver (slipping clutches, noisy bearings, worn synchros etc.). Electromenchanical devices tend to be binary in their operation, either working perfectly or suddenly not working at all.
6.)In the event of a runaway engine, a manual transmission driver can disengage the power to the wheels either by pressing the clutch or pulling the gear lever into neutral. Yes the engine might race and destroy itself but safer than unwanted power to the wheels.
Manuals have their shortcomings (or rather their operators often do!) but they definitely have the advantage in inherent safety.
|
|
"Generally people who talk about 'control' of a manual over-rate their driving abilities."
I don't. I'm merely very good; I'm not brilliant.
"For driving round town or in a straight line on a motorway, manual makes no difference to driving enjoyment or practicality."
Wot I said.
"if you're doing Rally Cross then manual is the way to go, but for going to work on the A34? No."
Agreed, but if going to work is via hilly, twisty, swoopy minor roads and/or across the North York Moors/Dales/Peak District/Welsh moors, or even the A356 twixt Crewkerne and Dorchester, then I'd wager that people feel more 'connected' with their car when driving a manual than when driving one with a fluid clutch.
|
|
I like to drive my car, not have it drive me. No autos here!!
On a racetrack - yes. On the M62? I dont see what you're trying to say. I dont get this argument of 'control' of the car. If you cant control an automatic you shouldnt be driving and theres no real world situation where a manual is of any benefit.
Trust me, on most of the M62 you want a manual - you're looking for overtaking, there are very large hills (highest motorway in the country). Having an auto on fun country roads would be dull. Also, you can jump start manuals (ok yes there's one or two autos with a secondary pump of some sort that will bump start)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
