|
Autos are not an economy decision, they are or should be, about driving ease and pleasure, the only auto that should be considered is one that fulfils your needs and the faults of which can be lived with.
For example i would not buy a vehicle with an automated manual (automated clutch in normal box), simply because i find the manoeuvering and low speed hesitancy and jerky operation intolerable just as i want the vehicle in the correct gear at junctions/roundabouts at all times and virtually all vehicles with this design are hopeless...except for Volvo lorries (Renault lorries also use Volvos drive train).
Dual clutch boxes seem to be far better on the road due to being able to fast shift when needed, but the low speed problems are still there, jury still out on long term reliabilty in general use.
Remember i delivered thousands of the things when i drove car transporters and intense close manoenuvering on steep inclines was a large part of the job, my vehicle perceptions are probably clouded by this.
Would happily have a CVT for driving pleasure so long as the maker was known for good customer back up after normal warranty expired, (some big names feature in the list of not with a long barge pole), and their cars durable, therefore Toyota or Honda preferred.
I've had traditional autos for years, the overall driving experience is superb being infinitely controllable at slow speed and smooooth on the road, at their best in 6+ cylinder petrol engines or oddly enough in torquey turbo Diesels with 4 or 6 pots, but they are without doubt heavier on fuel due to transmission losses though but reliable and long lived if maintained.
Doubt many autos will work out more fuel efficient than manual for good drivers, but any savings will be wiped out and then some should the more complicated auto box ever go wrong.
|
