Manual or Auto

200motels

Which would you prefer? I've driven manuals for years until my last car which is automatic, I thought I wouldn't really like it but I have to say I now prefer it to manual, a lot less hassle.

Del2005

Auto. So much less hassle. Now I just need to get one next.

alias no.9

There's a lot to be said for a decent auto if you do any amount of driving in traffic.

Max_Damage

Automatics are for fat lazy Yanks.

Guy:Incognito

Max_Damage wrote: »

Automatics are for fat lazy Yanks.

Lazy cliches are for people without imaginations.




Auto all the way, no doubt at all in my mind

For the vast majority of cars on the road today manual is of no benifit other that the fact they are cheaper to buy, and thats only because so few buy them.Why change gears yourslef when you dont have to?

200motels

Max_Damage wrote: »

Automatics are for fat lazy Yanks.

Don't forget the thin ones, they drive them too. But hey your definition of not being lazy is to clutch to change gear, very funny.

Voodoomelon

A bit premature, but here goes.

In before lock.

TheColl

200motels wrote: »

Which would you prefer? I've driven manuals for years until my last car which is automatic, I thought I wouldn't really like it but I have to say I now prefer it to manual, a lot less hassle.

Do you mean less hassle just in terms of driving? It's hardly 'hassle' to change gears!

200motels

TheColl wrote: »

Do you mean less hassle just in terms of driving? It's hardly 'hassle' to change gears!

In terms of being stuck in traffic, no clutching all the time.

Guy:Incognito

TheColl wrote: »

Do you mean less hassle just in terms of driving? It's hardly 'hassle' to change gears!

Compared to not changeing gears it is.

I have a broken finger thats was operated on last week. My old auto would be a much nicer place to be right now.

TheColl

200motels wrote: »

In terms of being stuck in traffic, no clutching all the time.

Fair enough, I still don't see it as hassle.... But I don't spend much time in traffic thankfully!

robtri

manual every day of the week....

much more enjoyable to drive.... much more involved in the drive itself...

i see the advantages of automatics... and i do like driving them...
but the questions is which would i prefer.... manual every time... except for luxo barges.... then i can go either way...:D

Max_Damage

200motels wrote: »

In terms of being stuck in traffic, no clutching all the time.

Am I the only person who doesn't notice changing cars in traffic? I do it second nature now.

Guy:Incognito

Max_Damage wrote: »

Am I the only person who doesn't notice changing cars in traffic? I do it second nature now.

Most people I know have a poor opinion of auto's. None had a bad thing to say after they drove mine for a few mins and none that have access to regular use f an suto or took a punt on one ever looked back.

moonage

Autos are much more civilised and refined.

All that unnecessary pushing, pulling and dragging in manuals is so uncouth.

>>>>>>>

itarumaa

I have an Volvo S40 2l manual and my friend has the similar car in automatic, so quite easy to compare, since I have driven them both.

I like manual more, I drove the automatic one and yes it is easy but I still did not like it.

No engine braking, crawling in traffic stops are the first things I did not like, also mpg was really bad compared to manual one (Dublin-Carlow-Dublin, auto mpg about 27-28 and manual 35) and the automatic also was really slow compared to manual version, it just kills the acceleration compared the manual one.

I did not see much point with that, I like manual version more. And since I have driven both, I know at least something what I am speaking here, no point to dislike automatic if you have not never driven one.

Mr Benevolent

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Why not get the best of both worlds a DSG style gearbox (electronically controlled dual clutch multiple-shaft manual gearbox). Fast shifts when you want to or just leave it in auto if your lazy.

+1

The only way to go.

zilog_jones

Del2005 wrote: »

Auto. So much less hassle.

When driving, maybe, but traditional auto boxes and DSG boxes require regular maintenance and there's a lot more to go wrong with them.

Now semi-automatic gearboxes (i.e. manual boxes with electronically controlled clutches - "flappy paddle gearboxes" as Top Gear call them) - does everyone agree they are rubbish? It's like the worst of both worlds. DSG is better in every way.

Anan1

itarumaa wrote: »

I have an Volvo S40 2l manual and my friend has the similar car in automatic, so quite easy to compare, since I have driven them both.

I like manual more, I drove the automatic one and yes it is easy but I still did not like it.

No engine braking, crawling in traffic stops are the first things I did not like, also mpg was really bad compared to manual one (Dublin-Carlow-Dublin, auto mpg about 27-28 and manual 35) and the automatic also was really slow compared to manual version, it just kills the acceleration compared the manual one.

I did not see much point with that, I like manual version more. And since I have driven both, I know at least something what I am speaking here, no point to dislike automatic if you have not never driven one.

I'd say a large part of the problem there was the little engine - the T5 with auto would be a far nicer combination.

seanybiker

After working in a car place years ago and driving loads of each. I personally would choose the manual any day over an automatic. I like having to change gears and clutch it.

R.O.R

seanybiker wrote: »

After working in a car place years ago and driving loads of each. I personally would choose the manual any day over an automatic. I like having to change gears and clutch it.

I'm totally the opposite.

If we have to go out from the office and there is an Auto on site - that's the first car I'd jump in to. So much easier to just stick it in D, plant your left arm on the armrest, and only worry about where you are going rather than making sure you are in the correct gear for all the local start / stop traffic.

corktina

200motels wrote: »

Don't forget the thin ones, they drive them too. But hey your definition of not being lazy is to clutch to change gear, very funny.

there arent any thin ones...

corktina

I dont have an auto but have driven them and have to say its a lovely relaxed way of driving. Theres a lot of prejudice involved twixt auto and manual but the over-riding factor for me is cost. (first cost and running expenses

Johnny Storm

Anan1 wrote: »

I'd say a large part of the problem there was the little engine - the T5 with auto would be a far nicer combination.

This is true AFAIK. You need an engine with enough low-down torque to work well with an autobox. Also they do impact economy.
IMHO most autos will leave comparable manuals for dead at the lights. This whole thing about manuals having better acceleration is an illusion, again IMHO
Anyway, for me, autos all the way in Dublin traffic.

Del2005

Max_Damage wrote: »

Am I the only person who doesn't notice changing cars in traffic? I do it second nature now.

I don't really notice changing gears in traffic. But if I had an auto I wouldn't need to.

itarumaa wrote: »

I have an Volvo S40 2l manual and my friend has the similar car in automatic, so quite easy to compare, since I have driven them both.

I like manual more, I drove the automatic one and yes it is easy but I still did not like it.

No engine braking, crawling in traffic stops are the first things I did not like, also mpg was really bad compared to manual one (Dublin-Carlow-Dublin, auto mpg about 27-28 and manual 35) and the automatic also was really slow compared to manual version, it just kills the acceleration compared the manual one.

I did not see much point with that, I like manual version more. And since I have driven both, I know at least something what I am speaking here, no point to dislike automatic if you have not never driven one.

On the fuel was that your driving style or the quoted figures? Every time I hop into an auto I'm always using kick down and constantly flooring it, I don't drive them often so enjoy playing. I'm sure when I do get one, once I get used to it I would stop playing and start driving correctly. Are you sure it wasn't your incorrect use of the box that dropped the MPG so much?

itarumaa

Anan1 wrote: »

I'd say a large part of the problem there was the little engine - the T5 with auto would be a far nicer combination.

yes, or maybe a bit more modern auto box, 5-speed for instace.

itarumaa

Del2005 wrote: »

On the fuel was that your driving style or the quoted figures? Every time I hop into an auto I'm always using kick down and constantly flooring it, I don't drive them often so enjoy playing. I'm sure when I do get one, once I get used to it I would stop playing and start driving correctly. Are you sure it wasn't your incorrect use of the box that dropped the MPG so much?

Well when I drive manual car I use a lot of engine braking and since the automatic does not actually have this option, this might be the one of the differences. But we did that driving on same week and about same time, so traffic was quite much the same, I was actually suprized as well, I tought at least in the long runs automatic would be closer to manual. But I did not play around with the automatic car too much, since the owner was sitting in passenger seat:D

cjt156

We've one of each.

It really depends on what you want from your car. Sitting in traffic or cruising the motorway a big torquey auto is lovely.
But if, like me, you're the type to disappear into the Wicklow mountains on a cold bright afternoon...when you're hammering into a corner in second and the revs are a little higher than normal I'll decide when to change gear, thanks.

Auto when driving is a hassle, manual when its a pleasure, I'd say.

Viper_JB

Manual all the way, the more control you have over your vehicle the better, maybe if I were a sales rep and considered driving a chore then I'd look at an auto.

2 Espressi

cjt156 wrote: »

We've one of each.

It really depends on what you want from your car. Sitting in traffic or cruising the motorway a big torquey auto is lovely.
But if, like me, you're the type to disappear into the Wicklow mountains on a cold bright afternoon...when you're hammering into a corner in second and the revs are a little higher than normal I'll decide when to change gear, thanks.

Auto when driving is a hassle, manual when its a pleasure, I'd say.

HTNOTH! Depends on your driving. So many cars nowadays have FBW throttles and ECu trickery that nearly automate the gearchange for you, why not go all the way have have a full auto? I'm looking at slushboxes and DSGs for the upcoming babywagen, but there's no way I'd have an auto in the mx5. Blipping the throttle on the downshift when H&Ting is one of the best things about the car!

shanel23

Having driven both and currently drive an auto - I would easily prefer the auto . I've found a lot of people will say " Manual - because it gives you more involvement in the drive " but once they try an auto they tend to love it .

I've had 8 private cars and a company car in my 10 years of driving. Only one was an auto, a 1993 Prelude, I had it last year for 3 or 4 months, I must say I found it fine and it was only a 4 speed, it did have a sports setting too though. Just before overtaking you could drop it back to third so you wouldn't have to wait for it to do it when you floored it.

With all the DMF issues on modern diesels the auto versions would defo be the sensible option in many cases. On paper manuals may be quicker but in reality very few people can get the best from a manual car despite what they think.

_Kaiser_

Thread needs a poll...

For me, I could never go back to a manual. I'm on my 4th auto now and love it, plus as already said, with the DSG box in my current Passat I can always put it in manual mode if I feel the need - but I never do as it's more than capable in full auto mode... only thing I do is drop it into Sport when about to overtake and the car becomes a completely different machine

You do need a decent-sized engine paired to an autobox though.

Zubeneschamali

RoverJames wrote: »

On paper manuals may be quicker but in reality very few people can get the best from a manual car despite what they think.

It's not a matter of getting the best out of it: if you drove your manual car so as to get the on-paper 0-100 times every day, you would destroy the clutch.

A slushmatic auto may have a slower 0-100 time on paper, but it will do that time without undue wear every time you mash the pedal, so autos actually have better standing-start acceleration than manuals in real driving.

Eoin

I've had an auto 5 series for just under 2 years now, and I love it. I certainly wouldn't buy the same car in a manual. It has a tiptronic option but I never use it as the gear changes are quite slow using it, and the auto is good enough as it is (especially with sport mode).

While I think it would be a bit of a pain to switch back to a manual box - if that's the better match for the car I want, then I'll go for a manual.

RoverJames wrote:

On paper manuals may be quicker but in reality very few people can get the best from a manual car despite what they think.

I agree 100%.

Theta

haha I just posted this in the automotive ideas thread,

I always thought having a manual gearbox with a dog leg gear for crawling would be a good idea. When stuck in traffic I find it a pain to clutch in, first gear, crawl, clutch in, netural and brake for an hour over and over. So having a gear that would allow you to crawl at low speed and stop in without putting it in netural would be great! Similar to the way an auto will roll without your foot on the brake.

Im sure it would require serious development though with some kind of quasi manual electric double clutch and wouldnt be worth it.

I like having a clutch and manual driving. I have driving a good few autos and I have to say I dont like it. I almost feel removed from driving or something. Having said that I haven't driven any sporty autos.

Eoin

Theta wrote: »

haha I just posted this in the automotive ideas thread,

I always thought having a manual gearbox with a dog leg gear for crawling would be a good idea. When stuck in traffic I find it a pain to clutch in, first gear, crawl, clutch in, netural and brake for an hour over and over. So having a gear that would allow you to crawl at low speed and stop in without putting it in netural would be great! Similar to the way an auto will roll without your foot on the brake.

Im sure it would require serious development though with some kind of quasi manual electric double clutch and wouldnt be worth it

I like having a clutch and manual driving. I have driving a good few autos and I have to say I dont like it. I almost feel removed from driving or something. Having said that I haven't driven any sporty autos.

Unless you feel you absolutely must use a clutch, then I'd say a dual clutch in something like the Golf DSG or new M3 auto would do the trick.

Theta

eoin wrote: »

Unless you feel you absolutely must use a clutch, then I'd say a dual clutch in something like the Golf DSG or new M3 auto would do the trick.

Maybe im just being silly but yeah I do like having a clutch!

crispsandwiches

auto everytime
with manual on a steep hill = clutch, into neutral, hand brake on.

With auto u just do nothing no need to even put on the handbrake.

fonecrusher1

Doesn't an automatic gearbox hinder the performance a little bit?

As in; on most cars the 0-60mph of an auto is usually slower than the manual.

Also if something should go wrong with an auto its going to be very expensive to get sorted & would it be right to say that manuals gearboxes appear to fail less? Could be wrong.
I'm sure any mechanics/a person with adequate knowledge will correct me.

Eoin

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Doesn't an automatic gearbox hinder the performance a little bit?

As in; on most cars the 0-60mph of an auto is usually slower than the manual.

Yes, but as has been pointed out, most drivers probably don't have the skill for it to make a real difference.

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Also if something should go wrong with an auto its going to be very expensive to get sorted & would it be right to say that manuals gearboxes appear to fail less? Could be wrong.
I'm sure any mechanics/a person with adequate knowledge will correct me.

Good question - but I suppose that might be offset by not having the clutch (and DMF in some cars) go.

Theta wrote:

Maybe im just being silly but yeah I do like having a clutch!

I've not driven one, but I reckon you'd shake that feeling pretty quickly if you tried the new M3!

When it comes to the latest generation of semi-auto boxes, you're not really sacrificing any control by not having a physical clutch. Out of interest, do you mind driving a car with drive-by-wire technology?

The Real B-man

Defitnatly Automatic if you own a Big Motorway Cruiser smaller Cars with Automatic Gearboxes are Hopeless tbh

zynaps

shanel23 wrote: »

Having driven both and currently drive an auto - I would easily prefer the auto . I've found a lot of people will say " Manual - because it gives you more involvement in the drive " but once they try an auto they tend to love it .

I've found it about 50/50 talking to people... I'd been driving a manual for a while before giving my friend's Mitsubishi Mirage auto a try and I fell in love immediately. So much more relaxing and a greater sense of being in control. Got a Micra automatic (the K11 CVT type) some months later and let another friend try mine, and he loved it too, vowing to buy one.
But a lot of people I speak to, especially those over 30 years old, have driven automatics and aren't particularly pushed about it, so I guess it's partly down to personal preference.

All I can say is, after driving an automatic for a few months I'd gladly stick with it. I don't dislike manual transmissions, but being able to keep both hands on the steering wheel at all times, in tight bends, during normal and unexpected situations on the road etc feels absolutely right.

zynaps

crispsandwiches wrote: »

auto everytime
with manual on a steep hill = clutch, into neutral, hand brake on.

With auto u just do nothing no need to even put on the handbrake.

Actually that depends - my Micra has an electromagnetic clutch that mostly disengages if there's no throttle. You'll probably hold on a very gentle slope, but on a steep one it'll roll back.

If you stop the car with the footbrake on flat ground, you could leave it in drive and step out of the car and it won't move. It's a bit weird - they switched back to torque converters in mid-2000, but some modern cars use an electromagnetic clutch... wonder if they behave similarly.

bladespin

Manual only, drove autos in the states and while it suited there (busy cities and long boring freeway work) I don't see a point here, all it really does is make the car more expensive, heavier and more prone to mechanical issues (from what I've seen anyway).

Theta

eoin wrote: »

When it comes to the latest generation of semi-auto boxes, you're not really sacrificing any control by not having a physical clutch. Out of interest, do you mind driving a car with drive-by-wire technology?

Not particularly. Most drive by wire improvements are designed to be hidden to the user so they dont know they are using them. But missing a clutch. Maybe its just a phycological thing with feeling like I have less control or something!

Anan1

Theta wrote: »

Not particularly. Most drive by wire improvements are designed to be hidden to the user so they dont know they are using them. But missing a clutch. Maybe its just a phycological thing with feeling like I have less control or something!

I'm sure a lot of people felt the same way when ignition advance levers disappeared from steering wheels.;)

SV

Can't stand automatics and will never ever drive one..
Don't understand the appeal at all..


also that 0-60 time not being achievable by most drivers is bullshít. I can easily do it and I'm no special driver.

keithclancy

If your not paying for the Fuel or the Car insist on an Auto,

If you are however you pay a fair bit extra plus autos use more fuel.

AUTO for traffic jams though, I got stuck in a Traffic jam last summer ... took 5 1/2 hours for a Journey that should normally take just over 2 hrs ... jesus i would have loved an auto then !!

Eoin

SV wrote: »

Can't stand automatics and will never ever drive one..
Don't understand the appeal at all...

Which automatics have you tried so far?

What about the dual clutches with the split-second reaction times I mentioned earlier? How can you not understand the appeal of automatics to a lot of people?

SV

SV wrote: »

also that 0-60 time not being achievable by most drivers is bullshít. I can easily do it and I'm no special driver.

:rolleyes: And you time this how ?
Care to give an example of a book 0 to 60 time that you can easily achieve ?