Manuals Verses Automatics

[Deano!]

Well, I hate automatics.

I've just bought a Ford Focus XR5 with a turbo injun and a 6 speed manual box. My last 2 cars were automatics and I hated their transmissions even though all the 'experts' rave about how better suited to city driving autos are.

My last car was a Subaru Impreza 4 speed auto (purchased new and always serviced) and when you put your foot down to overtake someone, the pig would do nothing for about 3 seconds, then suddenly bang itself down to 1st in one step and hit the redline and make me look like a boy-racer (and I'm not. Really!). Also, you got no engine braking effect - even if you selected 1st gear - as the cuntin' thing would disconnect from the engine to save fuel when coasting along. This meant constantly having to tap the brakes in heavy traffic.

This is how I found all automatics - no matter how much the manufacturers raved about "Hyper Intuitive Telepathic Grade Detecting Predictive Ultra Phase 5 Fuzzy Logic Paris Hilton's Twat 19 Speed Direct Selective Varo-Active CVT Transmissions", I've found all of them to be stupid dough-boxes. With my new manual I just stay in 2nd or 3rd gear in thick traffic and use the engine to adjust speed. Much easier.


Anyone here beg to differ?

[Flat_Eric]

I don't like automatics either. All this "automatics are so much easier" is so much bollocks. To an experienced driver, changing gear is second nature and you don't even think about it. You just do it.

- Eric

[Dick Moby]

Have to disagree with you there. My car has DSG semi-automatic gears and I find them a joy to use. Mind you it took me a year before I decided it was better than manual. If I want a bit more "oomph" I can drop her into sports mode which usually drops her 2 gears and changes higher up the rev range --- ideal for overtaking.

[Bob Singleton]

Deano! wrote:

> Well, I hate automatics.
>
> I've just bought a Ford Focus XR5 with a turbo injun and a 6
> speed manual box. My last 2 cars were automatics and I hated
> their transmissions even though all the 'experts' rave about
> how better suited to city driving autos are.
>
> My last car was a Subaru Impreza 4 speed auto (purchased new
> and always serviced) and when you put your foot down to
> overtake someone, the pig would do nothing for about 3 seconds,
> then suddenly bang itself down to 1st in one step and hit the
> redline and make me look like a boy-racer (and I'm not. Really!).



That's not because ALL auto boxes are bad compared to manual... it's just that the auto box in your Impreza was particularly poor. I have a Peugeot 406 Coupe 3.0 V6 with an auto box, and I get the power exactly as I want it, when I need it. If it needs to "kick down" it will, but this is rare as the torque on that engine is so good.




> Also, you got no engine braking effect - even if you
> selected 1st gear - as the cuntin' thing would disconnect from
> the engine to save fuel when coasting along. This meant
> constantly having to tap the brakes in heavy traffic.



As a former driving instructor, I'd have to say that unless you're in a low gear when driving down a steep hill, any braking should be done with the brakes and the brakes alone, not the engine. If you do employ the engine to control your speed by choosing a lower gear, then this should be done prior to engaging the steep hill and not during the descent.



>
> This is how I found all automatics - no matter how much the
> manufacturers raved about "Hyper Intuitive Telepathic Grade
> Detecting Predictive Ultra Phase 5 Fuzzy Logic Paris Hilton's
> Twat 19 Speed Direct Selective Varo-Active CVT Transmissions",
> I've found all of them to be stupid dough-boxes. With my new
> manual I just stay in 2nd or 3rd gear in thick traffic and use
> the engine to adjust speed. Much easier.
>
>
> Anyone here beg to differ?
>



Having, over the last 33 years, driven many different cars of different engine size and with different types of gear box I would say that the auto boxes in most bigger-engined cars are as good as the manual boxes and certainly superior to the auto boxes found in smaller engined cars.

Best combination I ever drove was the Tiptronic Auto in a 2.7 Twin Turbo Audi. Worst was the flappy paddle of an Aston Martin, closely followed by the elastic band "Variomatic" on a DAF (at least you could easily select reverse in the DAF!)

As someone who not only drives a lot in the stop-start traffic of London but also sometimes suffers from sciatica, I wouldn't consider owning a manual now.

[Dave Wells]

Stick car in London - forget it, my left foot/angle would fall off !

[Deano!]

Bob Singleton wrote:

(snip)
> As someone who not only drives a lot in the stop-start traffic
> of London but also sometimes suffers from sciatica, I wouldn't
> consider owning a manual now.

That's a good point. I had a bout of sciatica a few years ago and you're right - the sudden 'electric shock' like pain down your leg would make using a clutch impossible. But I guess you'd have an excuse for yelling at the guy in front to "Get a fucking move on!"

[RoddersUK]

I drove a Landrover from Wainwright in Alberta to Calgary and back. 700Kms. Manual box, manual steering open the window for aircon, leaf spring suspension. I was shagged out when I got back to base.
My old GM had auto, power steering, cruise and air con and nice suspension.
Since 1983 all of my cars have been autos. My last two Mercs were superb, auto, power steering, cruise, air con. I never found anything good about having a fucking stick to stir the fucking gears up with. As a former Vehicle Mech/Tech I know what is happening when a car moves and treating an auto right results in much easier driving. All the pratts who rave about manual control will at sometime renew a clutch and possibly a flywheel if they are unlucky.
Manuals, I've shit em.

[stevieq]

It has to be manual for me too.

Only because it takes the tedium out of driving, PLUS, and this is a big plus, is because of the weather in the winters.....snow.
Admittedly, we dont have snow for long in winter (this year being an exceptional one), but to move in snow you need three things.

1: the right engine revs.
2: the right gears to use, for staying or shifting gears when YOU want too.
3: the ability to get yourself out of being stuck, by rocking forwards/backwards.

All of these three things you cant do in a automatic, and I drive auto's for a living, so I do know that manuals comes out on top every
time in adverse weather conditions.

[Bob Singleton]

stevieq wrote:

> It has to be manual for me too.
>
> Only because it takes the tedium out of driving, PLUS, and this
> is a big plus, is because of the weather in the
> winters.....snow.
> Admittedly, we dont have snow for long in winter (this year
> being an exceptional one), but to move in snow you need three
> things.
>
> 1: the right engine revs.
> 2: the right gears to use, for staying or shifting gears when
> YOU want too.
> 3: the ability to get yourself out of being stuck, by rocking
> forwards/backwards.
>
> All of these three things you cant do in a automatic, and I
> drive auto's for a living, so I do know that manuals comes out
> on top every
> time in adverse weather conditions.


I just click on the "ice" setting on my auto and never have any problems!

Yes if you're stuck in snow, you can't rock to and fro as you can do in a manual, but I would argue that you shouldn't really be out in those conditions in the first place, which invalidates your argument.