The decline of manual values
Discussion
lord trumpton said:
Im looking for a car at the moment and its got to be an auto
The only time Id want a manual is when buying say a modern classic like an e46 M3 for example where the auto alternative was s
te.
Modern autos and dual clutch boxes are bang on. CVT are dreadful
I've had an E46 M3 SMG for 19 years as a daily and absolutely love it, no issues whatsoever and suits my mix of town and rural driving.The only time Id want a manual is when buying say a modern classic like an e46 M3 for example where the auto alternative was s
te.Modern autos and dual clutch boxes are bang on. CVT are dreadful
The two cars I had immediately before that were an Audi TT 3.2 DSG (abysmal gearbox, in my view, due to its slow response) and a Porsche 996 Carrera C2 whose manual gearbox went bang, £6Ks worth of warranty work forcing me out of the car come renewal time.
Noting that it is horses for courses, I would argue that the M3 SMG is far from s
te, just some people prefer the manual. A lot of folk are not very good at driving a manual though to be fair, the car can do it a lot better with an auto. My wife is a good driver, but tends to sit in one or two gears lower than she should be in on a fast road, fourth or even third when my brain is screaming "CHANGE UP FFS" or it starts chugging as its in a gear too high, but I have learnt not to say anything as it never goes well, prefer to avoid walking home 
J4CKO said:
A lot of folk are not very good at driving a manual though to be fair, the car can do it a lot better with an auto. My wife is a good driver, but tends to sit in one or two gears lower than she should be in on a fast road, fourth or even third when my brain is screaming "CHANGE UP FFS" or it starts chugging as its in a gear too high, but I have learnt not to say anything as it never goes well, prefer to avoid walking home
There is so much truth in that for sure, and it definitely never seems to go down all that well in my experience either! Biggy Stardust said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Manuals are slow, thirsty, a pain in heavy traffic (which is only going to get heavier) and need replacement clutches and stuff.
My XF is currently having the gearbox electronics replaced at great expense & delay having been problematic for months.. My manual cars don't have such & are all working just fine.TooLateForAName said:
Biggy Stardust said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Manuals are slow, thirsty, a pain in heavy traffic (which is only going to get heavier) and need replacement clutches and stuff.
My XF is currently having the gearbox electronics replaced at great expense & delay having been problematic for months.. My manual cars don't have such & are all working just fine.But it could be argued that a good old fashion distributor and Carbs are less complex than electronic timing and fuel injection. The latter however gives more power more efficiency.
bad company said:
Slightly off topic but a bit of an oddity imo. Someone passing their test in an automatic gets a licence that precludes driving manuals, fair enough. An American tourist who’s probably never driven or even travelled in a manual car can arrive in the UK, show their American licence and legally rent/drive a manual.
I've no idea, but might that be because passing the test in an Auto in the USA doesn't restrict you to Autos only?Skeptisk said:
CRA1G said:
I'm sure this will be my last New Manual BMW ///M Car. I think they will be quite desirable in the years ahead. I'm keeping two or three others for that very reason and the weekend fun of course...
Manuals are desirable now because the people with money to splash on fun/old fun cars are in their forties and fifties. Such people learnt to drive in and owned manuals when they were younger. People starting to drive today will most likely only drive automatics/EVs so in twenty to thirty years, when they are buying cars that they wanted as youths, they won’t be after manuals. 
I've always chosen manual unless I couldn't find one! And my older sister has never had an Auto, although my niece and nephew haven't either, but then they are in their 40s now.
My fun car is a BMW Z4M that was never sold with an Auto but my daily is just old. A 2005 BMW 330i, but it's still manual. Hopefully they'll see me out!
Nomme de Plum said:
Manual boxes are quite simple and work but are not as efficient as a decent modern auto box. There are much slower to shift gear too.
But it could be argued that a good old fashion distributor and Carbs are less complex than electronic timing and fuel injection. The latter however gives more power more efficiency.
My efficient ZF8 autobox has turned the car into a paperweight- went out to play tonight in one of the inefficient manuals & had a great time. I'm now less likely to buy an auto in future.But it could be argued that a good old fashion distributor and Carbs are less complex than electronic timing and fuel injection. The latter however gives more power more efficiency.
I keep reading comments that autos are 'much more efficient' and 'much faster shifting' than manuals. Nobody seems to back it up or quantify it though... if they are measurably better at those things, by how much?
I'm aware that modern autos often (not always) have better official test cycle figures, but real-world users often report better efficiency from the manual versions so it may just be that its easier for manufacturers to game the tests with autos.
As for shift speed, obviously manual shift speed varies significantly depending on driver input and different gearboxes, auto shift speed isn't so dependent on the driver but also doesn't give the driver the same choice of how they control it.
I don't doubt that autos (and especially SMG or dual-clutch boxes) are capable of faster and most consistent shifts if they are programmed for it, but I'm not convinced that plays out the same in transient situations with the delayed response while a computer thinks about how to respond to a driver input.
Maybe I'm just a bit of a luddite when it comes to driving
, in some situations (like gravel roads) I often find electronic stability control systems to be more of a nuisance than a help as well.
I'm aware that modern autos often (not always) have better official test cycle figures, but real-world users often report better efficiency from the manual versions so it may just be that its easier for manufacturers to game the tests with autos.
As for shift speed, obviously manual shift speed varies significantly depending on driver input and different gearboxes, auto shift speed isn't so dependent on the driver but also doesn't give the driver the same choice of how they control it.
I don't doubt that autos (and especially SMG or dual-clutch boxes) are capable of faster and most consistent shifts if they are programmed for it, but I'm not convinced that plays out the same in transient situations with the delayed response while a computer thinks about how to respond to a driver input.
Maybe I'm just a bit of a luddite when it comes to driving
, in some situations (like gravel roads) I often find electronic stability control systems to be more of a nuisance than a help as well.GravelBen said:
I keep reading comments that autos are 'much more efficient' and 'much faster shifting' than manuals. Nobody seems to back it up or quantify it though... if they are measurably better at those things, by how much?
I'm aware that modern autos often (not always) have better official test cycle figures, but real-world users often report better efficiency from the manual versions so it may just be that its easier for manufacturers to game the tests with autos.
As for shift speed, obviously manual shift speed varies significantly depending on driver input and different gearboxes, auto shift speed isn't so dependent on the driver but also doesn't give the driver the same choice of how they control it.
I don't doubt that autos (and especially SMG or dual-clutch boxes) are capable of faster and most consistent shifts if they are programmed for it, but I'm not convinced that plays out the same in transient situations with the delayed response while a computer thinks about how to respond to a driver input.
Maybe I'm just a bit of a luddite when it comes to driving, in some situations (like gravel roads) I often find electronic stability control systems to be more of a nuisance than a help as well.
Autos/DCTs are good at keeping the revs really low if you're just taking it steady, and they are programmed to get in the highest gear as quickly as possible(which helps mpg). Plus you never get that labouring feeling in top gear at lower speeds/lower revs like you do with a manual. I'm aware that modern autos often (not always) have better official test cycle figures, but real-world users often report better efficiency from the manual versions so it may just be that its easier for manufacturers to game the tests with autos.
As for shift speed, obviously manual shift speed varies significantly depending on driver input and different gearboxes, auto shift speed isn't so dependent on the driver but also doesn't give the driver the same choice of how they control it.
I don't doubt that autos (and especially SMG or dual-clutch boxes) are capable of faster and most consistent shifts if they are programmed for it, but I'm not convinced that plays out the same in transient situations with the delayed response while a computer thinks about how to respond to a driver input.
Maybe I'm just a bit of a luddite when it comes to driving
, in some situations (like gravel roads) I often find electronic stability control systems to be more of a nuisance than a help as well.I don't drive manuals all that much now, but I was out in the manual 370Z yesterday, and I had to keep dropping back into either fourth or fifth in it, because it just didn't seem happy in sixth when I was just going steady at lower speeds for example. It reminded me a bit of my early days of driving to be honest.
Like you I turn the stability control off in the 370Z as well, because if you don't, then the light on the dash just flashes up at you loads, and it is far too intrusive for my liking. I'm used to driving cars without stability/traction control though, so maybe I just notice it more than some folk do in fairness.
J4CKO said:
A lot of folk are not very good at driving a manual though to be fair, the car can do it a lot better with an auto
This is very true. Many people are not at all smooth with the clutch or at changing gear, especially down-changing <gnashes teeth>, often 3/4 of the way around a bend ....just as/after they have attempted to accelerate, almost always as an after-thought. It's interesting that so few people think, "Why do I not do this earlier?"Good use of a manual box requires some mechanical knowledge or at least some understanding of what is going on in the engine and transmission.
"Rev matching? Never heard of him!"
As an anachronistic driving geek, heel & toe and double-de-clutching (down changes) are now reflex skills that I use every time I drive. I am in an odd minority.
Ps. I cringe at my wife's abuse of the gears. Manual boxes and clutches take a lot of abuse from Joe/Jo Average.
GravelBen said:
auto shift speed isn't so dependent on the driver but also doesn't give the driver the same choice of how they control it.
You make that sound like a bad thing. I suspect the auto will consistently make better choices. Not real world, but I saw a video a few years back with an F1 driver (Hamilton I think, may not have been) in a manual 911 v a bloke off the street in the PDK version of the same car, in a straight line race, and the bod beat the F1 driver by a decent margin.
As regards reliability and overall maintenance costs, of course an individual auto may go wrong and the manual could be issue free, but having worked in fleet management for many years, I can assure you that, since about 2012, a 1000 autos will cost a lot less in gearbox/gearchange problems than 1000 manuals .
TwigtheWonderkid said:
GravelBen said:
auto shift speed isn't so dependent on the driver but also doesn't give the driver the same choice of how they control it.
You make that sound like a bad thing. I suspect the auto will consistently make better choices. GravelBen said:
If you're a crap driver maybe, I guess plenty of people are.
I think even the best manual driver isn't going to be able to choose gears as well for optimal efficiency than a well integrated modern automatic simply because the 'box has a lot more understanding of what's going on inside the engine than the driver does. Of course an auto box can't choose gear as well as a manual driver for purposes where it's an advantage to know what the driver is going to do in advance (although given how poor many drivers' gear selection is, autos probably still do better than most manual drivers!). kambites said:
I think even the best manual driver isn't going to be able to choose gears as well for optimal efficiency than a well integrated modern automatic simply because the 'box has a lot more understanding of what's going on inside the engine than the driver does. Of course an auto box can't choose gear as well as a manual driver for purposes where it's an advantage to know what the driver is going to do in advance (although given how poor many drivers' gear selection is, autos probably still do better than most manual drivers!).
Maybe, but then ratios and calibration are optimised to return good MPG for the official economy tests, which often don't translate very well at all to real world driving - hence the gap between the brouchure figures and MPG achieved in typical real-world use.MC Bodge said:
Good use of a manual box requires some mechanical knowledge or at least some understanding of what is going on in the engine and transmission.
I think it is the same with an 'auto' box. Each one will have its own idiosyncrasies - let alone the disparity between a DCT, CVT, AMT or convention torque converter auto. If you understand how your gearbox works, when/what revs it will change up, whether it takes account of inclines, GPS location, braking, how far you can press the throttle without it changing down/more than a single gear, what manual overrides are available, how you can activate them, when it is most appropriate etc etc.
If anything, to get the best of an auto box requires an even deeper knowledge than the simple requirements of a manual gearbox, something perhaps most drivers would struggle to comprehend. Or you could just leave it in D...
GravelBen said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
GravelBen said:
auto shift speed isn't so dependent on the driver but also doesn't give the driver the same choice of how they control it.
You make that sound like a bad thing. I suspect the auto will consistently make better choices. The modern synco gearbox has removed all of the skills of changing gear and imo greatly inflates the egos of many, ie those who actually think they are responsible for their smooth gear changes.
This thread is if interest to me because I have had to make an agonising choice - for various reasons I wanted a particular diesel car, but transmission choice was manual or CVT.
I chose manual, but dear god it has reinforced my opinion that in ordinary cars manual gearboxes are a complete waste of time and are woefully inefficient. I really really don't see the point. Especially in a diesel, they are just not suited.
mwstewart said:
kambites said:
I think even the best manual driver isn't going to be able to choose gears as well for optimal efficiency than a well integrated modern automatic simply because the 'box has a lot more understanding of what's going on inside the engine than the driver does. Of course an auto box can't choose gear as well as a manual driver for purposes where it's an advantage to know what the driver is going to do in advance (although given how poor many drivers' gear selection is, autos probably still do better than most manual drivers!).
Maybe, but then ratios and calibration are optimised to return good MPG for the official economy tests, which often don't translate very well at all to real world driving - hence the gap between the brouchure figures and MPG achieved in typical real-world use.I'm the sort of sad person who takes ECU logs while driving and then looks at them afterwards to work out what the engine is doing under different conditions, and I still find it impossible to tell when the ECU is switching from closed to open loop fueling. I actually had an app on my head unit for a while told me when the air to fuel ratio was closed-loop stoichiometric and when it was fueling from the map; it's incredibly unintuitive and obviously has a huge effect on economy. I would imagine a modern automatic gearbox/ECU combination knows exactly what it needs to do to provide the requested acceleration whilst keeping the attached engine closed-loop wherever possible.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 9th May 11:21
heebeegeetee said:
I chose manual, but dear god it has reinforced my opinion that in ordinary cars manual gearboxes are a complete waste of time and are woefully inefficient. I really really don't see the point. Especially in a diesel, they are just not suited.
My old manual E61 520d taught me that as well. The tiny 2k revs powerband of a diesel engine doesn’t suit a manual gearbox at all for me. You are constantly cog swapping, or falling out of where the boost arrives/ends. A complete nightmare I thought. Once you have a fairly decent auto mated to a diesel engine(the ZF8 auto or Mercs 9 speed auto), it then becomes a totally different story I reckon. Sad but that’s just the way it is, the new ones driving will know no different, autos are great now, if I had to sit in traffic all day long I’d have one too.
I’ve two manual cars, in fact every car I’ve ever had has been a manual, im luckily, I live in the country, rarely ever need to go into a city and can get up early on a sunny morning and go for a spin and not meet a sinner.
For me a manual is nothing more than the interaction, nostalgia of the era I grew up in and the past cars I’ve owned, yes the auto will do everything better than I will manually but thats not what it’s about for me, it’s just holding that gear, hand on the gear knob and slotting into the next gear, the gearbox on my porker has a great bolt action shift to it…….im hanging on as long as a can.
I certainly wouldn’t argue one is better than the other, they just mean different things to different people
I’ve two manual cars, in fact every car I’ve ever had has been a manual, im luckily, I live in the country, rarely ever need to go into a city and can get up early on a sunny morning and go for a spin and not meet a sinner.
For me a manual is nothing more than the interaction, nostalgia of the era I grew up in and the past cars I’ve owned, yes the auto will do everything better than I will manually but thats not what it’s about for me, it’s just holding that gear, hand on the gear knob and slotting into the next gear, the gearbox on my porker has a great bolt action shift to it…….im hanging on as long as a can.
I certainly wouldn’t argue one is better than the other, they just mean different things to different people
Edited by Youforreal. on Thursday 9th May 11:46
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff