Manual vs automatic
Options
Comments
-
Changed to an auto about 7 years ago after a left knee injury made clutch work very painful, love it will never go back to manual.0
-
iolanthe07 wrote: »I much prefer automatic, but it has to be a proper trusted and reliable, if old fashioned, torque converter.
Yes my next car will be a torque-converter automatic too.
Driving just about anywhere now is start-stop. I'm not sure that autos are much more juicy than a manual in stop-start conditions because you don't need to rev the engine as hard in an auto as you do with many manual cars to start moving and trickle along.0 -
For most cars the torque-converter automatic(slush box) will soon be as outdated as cable operated drum brakes.0
-
Perhaps we should go back to the 'rubber band' technology, remember DAF?
Remember them? Still got 2 of them (both off road atm sadly).
CVT should be the way forward for autos - especially with smaller engines. It's completely smooth, maximises performance and economy from a given engine, and is generally far simpler mechanically than multi-ratio alternatives.
But even the makers who've used them over the years have put no real effort into convincing customers of their benefits. So we end up with absurdities like the Nissan D Step where they take a perfectly effective, inherently smooth (and efficient) CVT and add artificial step changes to it.0 -
The word was that the two belts would adjust their ratios to give a differential effect ...trouble was that they didn't as there was no mechanism to induce that change of ratios. The result was very jerky progress around sharp corners and a couple of broken drive belts during our ownership
The differential effect of the two separate drives only took effect once they'd started to move up from the lowest ratio (around 10-15mph). Above that the drive to each wheel changed entirely independently. As you say, not much help on tight turns or parking but not normally a real problem unless you booted it at low speed in a turn (like pulling out hard from a tight parking space)0 -
For most cars the torque-converter automatic(slush box) will soon be as outdated as cable operated drum brakes.
Why? It's well proven, reliable and an easy to maintain piece of kit. They rarely need attention, unlike VW's notorious DSG boxes, and there is no 3 second pause at roundabouts. They are not 'jerky' like the electro-magnetic automated manuals, Cable brakes were superceeded because they were unsafe and unreliable, neither of which applies to torque converter autoboxes.I used to think that good grammar is important, but now I know that good wine is importanter.0 -
For most cars the torque-converter automatic(slush box) will soon be as outdated as cable operated drum brakes.
I don't think so. Some torque converter boxes are very good and many high end cars still use them. DSG style boxes are a bit of a fad IMO and are mainly aimed at saving the manufacturers money.0 -
Interesting that this thread had evolved into a discussion on the fancy dual clutch auto arrangements available like DSG. OP, test drive one. They are like marmite. We have the ford equivalent in the dry clutch arrangement and it's superb in every gear above second, but in the lower gears it's like being driven around by a learner who is still learning to feather the clutch. You can negate the effects by driving either cautiously or recklessly, strangely.
I love it, though. Ford have increased the warranty on the box because it's notoriously unreliable, so it'll be covered for as long as we own it....0 -
The gear ratios were determined by inlet manifold vacuum and engine speed. Both of these applied equally to the two belt/pulley systems. The only way that these systems would know that you were cornering would be that instead of the top belt run being at a greater tension than the bottom run the reverse would be the case. I can't see how this difference between the two sides would cause the front pulleys to change their separations. In any case, as I said, Daf introduced a proper diff. for the 66 model. I think that they were acknowledging the problem by that change.Joe_Horner wrote: »The differential effect of the two separate drives only took effect once they'd started to move up from the lowest ratio (around 10-15mph). Above that the drive to each wheel changed entirely independently. As you say, not much help on tight turns or parking but not normally a real problem unless you booted it at low speed in a turn (like pulling out hard from a tight parking space)0 -
Can also depend on the area you live in. Having just come back from the Yorkshire Dales I really missed my old Mitsubishi Auto. They just seem so more mechanically sympathetic on hill starts.
Especially when compared to a nearly new 1.2 Toyota Auris. These turboed small engines handle Cambridgeshire fine, they don't do Coverdale so well. You have to give them quite a bit of revs to stop them bogging down hill starting, and that makes me wince for the clutch every time.
And as for engine braking downhill, this 1.2 switches to Atkinson cycle under low loads. Result is next to no engine braking and hence riding the brake pedal all the way down the hill.
Even a 1990s Mitubishi autobox had the sense to change down on a hill descent ...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards