Are you an automatic transmission convert?

[Dave Hedgehog]

i am an almost convert, for a daily driver into london anyway

for the last 13 years i have owned cars with twin clutch gearboxes which i like a lot, instant snap with none of the lazyness of slush boxes

now i will admit auto's have improved hugely over the last 20 years but i still find them slow and dimwitted compared to a good twin clutch solution

however i am odd and accept that for most people most of the time a modern auto will be smoother and a better experience, its just not for me, yet

[Red 5]

Dave Hedgehog said:

i am an almost convert, for a daily driver into london anyway

for the last 13 years i have owned cars with twin clutch gearboxes which i like a lot, instant snap with none of the lazyness of slush boxes

now i will admit auto's have improved hugely over the last 20 years but i still find them slow and dimwitted compared to a good twin clutch solution

however i am odd and accept that for most people most of the time a modern auto will be smoother and a better experience, its just not for me, yet

Mmmm...but you’ve been dd in automatic cars for 13years!

Two pedals IS an automatic box.
There might also be paddles or buttons to send a gear change request.
You can drive them and the car changes gear.

Three pedals is manual box.
There is no way to change gear, than with your manual clutch and lever.

The amount of shafts, clutches, cogs and converters is interesting (to some) but has no bearing on the user function

[Hoofy]

cerb4.5lee said:

Hoofy said:

cerb4.5lee said:

Hoofy said:

I tried a GLC 350D (3 litre V6 twin turbo diesel). It looked distinctly family van but in-gear performance was ridiculous with 457lbft of torque (0-60 of 6.2s if that's important to you) and it banged through the gears quicker than a human could in a manual car.

I have one of those and it only has a single turbo(at first I did think that it was a twin turbo until I did some digging about it). While it is decent in terms of overtaking I miss the twin turbo 3 litre unit in the 640d I had, that was much more punchy at overtaking and there is only about 90kg difference in kerbweight between the two cars.

Both engines feel nice and torquey though but the extra bhp/additional turbo in the 640d really tells(about 60bhp more and a smidge more torque/464) for me.

Oops. Dunno why I thought it was a twin turbo.

In any case, it's pretty perky for an autobox 4x4!

I think I even recall reading that it has two turbos on the Mercedes website and that threw me in fairness.

It was only until I started looking into the engine in detail that I realised it didn't have two. Yes it still gets a move on for a fairly big bus and the 0 to 60 is very decent for the type of car I think.

It's the in-gear acceleration that I found impressive when I took it on an... er... a private test track.

I hope you don't have a dog.

[CABC]

Red 5 said:

Two pedals IS an automatic box.
There might also be paddles or buttons to send a gear change request.
You can drive them and the car changes gear.

Three pedals is manual box.
There is no way to change gear, than with your manual clutch and lever.

The amount of shafts, clutches, cogs and converters is interesting (to some) but has no bearing on the user function

2 pedals. revs under human control

[cerb4.5lee]

Hoofy said:

cerb4.5lee said:

Hoofy said:

cerb4.5lee said:

Hoofy said:

I tried a GLC 350D (3 litre V6 twin turbo diesel). It looked distinctly family van but in-gear performance was ridiculous with 457lbft of torque (0-60 of 6.2s if that's important to you) and it banged through the gears quicker than a human could in a manual car.

I have one of those and it only has a single turbo(at first I did think that it was a twin turbo until I did some digging about it). While it is decent in terms of overtaking I miss the twin turbo 3 litre unit in the 640d I had, that was much more punchy at overtaking and there is only about 90kg difference in kerbweight between the two cars.

Both engines feel nice and torquey though but the extra bhp/additional turbo in the 640d really tells(about 60bhp more and a smidge more torque/464) for me.

Oops. Dunno why I thought it was a twin turbo.

In any case, it's pretty perky for an autobox 4x4!

I think I even recall reading that it has two turbos on the Mercedes website and that threw me in fairness.

It was only until I started looking into the engine in detail that I realised it didn't have two. Yes it still gets a move on for a fairly big bus and the 0 to 60 is very decent for the type of car I think.

It's the in-gear acceleration that I found impressive when I took it on an... er... a private test track.

I hope you don't have a dog.

I do have a dog actually but he's getting on a bit so I have to drive accordingly!

[cmvtec]

We've just driven the coastal route from Newcastle to Aberdeen (and back) over the weekend.

The bit between Newcastle and Dundee was the tedious part, which was perfect for an automatic. The roads beyond there, I would've liked a manual, but the sport mode on my barge (and the occasional but of sequential shifting) was perfectly good.

Overall, I wouldn't have taken a manual car for that journey given the bad boring roads were more prevelant than the good, interesting ones.

[fatboy b]

Daaaveee said:

To be honest even automatics are a bit old hat now aren't they?

I've gone from a ZF8 auto to a 1 speed EV a month ago and this whole engine revving gear changing thing just seems so primitive

Get back to your tree hugging.

[Klippie]

Manual every time for me...however I was once given a Mercedes C220d as a loan car which I initially hated with a passion but after becoming familiar with the workings of the nine speed auto it was a joy to behold but only as a daily driver for commuting to work.

Last week my Cayman was in for a service and was loaned a new 718 Boxster PDK...it was horrific a rubber band would have done a better job of transmitting engine power to the wheels it was possibly the worst thing I have ever driven, crap engine mated to a box of gear cogs which didn’t resemble a gearbox of any sort.

[otolith]

Pica-Pica said:

otolith said:

The satisfaction comes from doing it well, which requires more than just moving a lever and pressing a clutch. Timing it right, matching the revs, using heel and toe if in the mood for it.

If your car could steer itself, would you say that you don't miss driving because it's just turning a wheel from side to side, which is a pain?

That is different, to me a gear is in one gear and to the next. Steering is much more nuanced (in my mind).
I would rather devote more of my focus on observation - i was interested in the recent comment and link to fighter pilots and eye saccade and all that.

Which is fine, if you don’t derive any pleasure from operating that bit of the machine. No point doing it yourself if you find no joy in it. That’s the bottom line really, it’s not about how fast it is or how efficient or clever. If you like it, and you get to play with it, get a manual, if not, don’t. My barge is an automatic and my sports cars are manuals and that’s how I like it. If I could only have one car, it would probably be manual, but I would have to think about it.

[MrGTI6]

Always been a big fan of both manuals and torque-converter autos provided that they are suited to the car they are in. My general opinion is that manuals are suited to sportier cars due to being more engaging and rewarding, while the smooth, effortless nature of autos are best suited to wafting around in a big old barge. However, some of the more recent autos - with their quick-shifting and seemingly infinite close ratios - feel totally at home in performance cars.

A good example of that is the BMW M140i. The eight-speed auto it's available with is phenomenal, and I can see why the vast majority choose it over the manual. Personally, I'd still opt for the manual, as I'd find it more engaging and rewarding to drive, but I'll admit that the eight-speed ZF auto on that is objectively better.

I don't get on with robotised manuals though, and I include dual-clutch autos in that. Single-clutch autos are all hateful things, and whilst some dual-clutch autos are not so bad on the move, I'm yet to drive one that isn't jerky and indecisive when manoeuvring or stuck in stop/start traffic. Wouldn't trust one outside of warranty either.

And just to be controversial, I like CVTs. Unquestionably rubbish at ten tenths, but for day-to-day driving I think they are great. I was driving a Honda Jazz equipped with a CVT and it would accelerate surprisingly briskly from 0-30mph without exceeding 2,000rpm. I was impressed at how the gearbox seemed to effortlessly extract so much usable power/torque from a naturally-aspirated 1.3 petrol engine at such low revs. To accelerate at the same rate in a manual, I would probably be changing up at around 3,500rpm.

[300bhp/ton]

white_goodman said:

Many of us will have driven older 3 and 4-speed automatics and experienced the sluggish response

Edited by white_goodman on Friday 17th May 17:37

Curious but what sluggish 3 and 4 speed autos?

I’m not sure I’ve ever driven any really. I admit an automatic Metro or 1.2 1990’s Clio auto lacked urgency. But that was more down to the lack of grunt and power from the engine.

I’ve driven lots of 4 speed autos. And almost all of them are as responsive as the 6,7 and 8 speed autos I’ve driven recently.

So I’m genuinely interested to know what sluggish ones you refer too?

[300bhp/ton]

To answer the ops question.

I could almost be a convert to autos off road. You don’t need a zillion gears for this. 4 are plenty. Very capable with only a few downsides. But ultimately they are less fun. So I’d probably still opt for a manual if given the choice. But there may be a couple of expeditions I’d consider.

On road however. Different story. I’m yet to drive an automatic car that hasn’t irritated me. Even the fabled ZF8 speed gets its knickers in a twist pretty easily and just doesn’t do what I want it to at the right time.

Manuals are just more fun and more engaging. Pretty much every automatic car I’ve driven would be improved with a manual. And yes I’m even including luxury cars in this too. The 5 speed manual XJ6 (3.6 XJ40) we had was vastly superior to the automatics. It was just so much more enjoyable.

I’m not saying manuals offer the maximum performance or point A to B speed. But really who cares. Enjoyment is paramount in any road car.

There really is only one automatic I’ve truly enjoyed and that is the box in the Smart Roadster. Which is really an automated manual. I enjoyed it because it was such a challenge to master and make work.

[M4cruiser]

white_goodman said:

Sure, you can shift "manually" but the transmission in "auto" mode usually does such a good job, then what's the point?

Edited by white_goodman on Friday 17th May 17:37

I "converted" many years ago, after even longer on manuals.
The "point" is that the clutch is automatic. Not too bothered about the gearshift, but if that's automatic too it's usually a bonus. If it gets is wrong then I use the override.

[white_goodman]

300bhp/ton said:

Curious but what sluggish 3 and 4 speed autos?

I’m not sure I’ve ever driven any really. I admit an automatic Metro or 1.2 1990’s Clio auto lacked urgency. But that was more down to the lack of grunt and power from the engine.

I’ve driven lots of 4 speed autos. And almost all of them are as responsive as the 6,7 and 8 speed autos I’ve driven recently.

So I’m genuinely interested to know what sluggish ones you refer too?

Drove a few original Mercedes A-Class autos (not sure how many speeds) but awful, older VW Polos with the 4-speed auto. An old Chrysler Sebring (2004ish), which I think might have been quite quick had it been a manual (2.7 V6, 200bhpish) but had a very dim-witted 4-speed slusher. Having driven quite a few of the above with the manual transmission, I can confidently say that the auto transmission really killed the power and traditionally, autos have accelerated more slowly than the manual equivalent.

[ScoobyChris]

I wouldn't say I'm a convert in so far as for purely fun driving I would always pick a manual, but my car has the ZF8 and I'm pleasantly surprised how good it is for the day-to-day grind and paddles are fairly fun when you find a decent road and want to change gear yourself.

My main gripes with it are that in "sport" mode there seems to be some artificial violence to the gear changes where in a manual they could be silky-rev-matched-smooth, kickdown always drops you a gear lower than you need and the revs start at 5/6k for a second before it changes up, and also where you're approaching slow roundabouts/junctions off throttle and then plant the gas to go it's invariably dropped itself down into 1st and feels jerky and flustered trying to sort itself out and catch up. Anticipating using manual mode solves the latter two fortunately

Chris

[RemyMartin81D]

300bhp/ton said:

I’m not saying manuals offer the maximum performance or point A to B spe
There really is only one automatic I’ve truly enjoyed and that is the box in the Smart Roadster. Which is really an automated manual. I enjoyed it because it was such a challenge to master and make work.

Ironic really as there is a wealth of reading on how most people say it's one of that worst 'automatics' they'd use and it ruined the car.

[Cloudy147]

I was a convert back when I drove my mum's auto Sierra back in the day! Much prefer the auto style of driving.

However I didn't own an auto until recently as manuals were always more readily available, were cheaper and easier to sell on.

I do like the manual involvement for occasional driving but for day to day, it's auto all the way for me.

[carreauchompeur]

I’ve enjoyed a mix of both. Used to have a few fun cars such as an MX5,RX8 and E36 M3. Really enjoyed pedalling those but now just have the one auto v70 D5. It’s a 12yo gearbox but leaps ahead of my old a8. Drive it 90pc of the time in auto and it suits the torquey Diesel engine really well.

A v70 always handles a bit like a wardrobe anyway but occasionally when pressing on I’ll use the tiptronic to hold lower gears on multiple twisties.

I love them, just so much less effort burbling around town.

[Mr Tidy]

300bhp/ton said:

white_goodman said:

Many of us will have driven older 3 and 4-speed automatics and experienced the sluggish response

Edited by white_goodman on Friday 17th May 17:37

Curious but what sluggish 3 and 4 speed autos?

I’m not sure I’ve ever driven any really. I admit an automatic Metro or 1.2 1990’s Clio auto lacked urgency. But that was more down to the lack of grunt and power from the engine.

I’ve driven lots of 4 speed autos. And almost all of them are as responsive as the 6,7 and 8 speed autos I’ve driven recently.

So I’m genuinely interested to know what sluggish ones you refer too?

FWIW I only ever bought Autos when a manual version wasn't offered, or not easy to find.

My 1st was a 1978 2.8 Granada Ghia with a 3-speed box, followed by a 1985 Scorpio, 1980 W123 Mercedes 280e and 1994 W202 C280 Sport all with a 4-speed auto.

They were all pretty sluggish, and I don't miss any of them.

So I've only had manuals since then!

I know the latest 7,8,9 speed autos and DCTs are said to be so much better, but I just don't want one.

[300bhp/ton]

white_goodman said:

Drove a few original Mercedes A-Class autos (not sure how many speeds) but awful, older VW Polos with the 4-speed auto. An old Chrysler Sebring (2004ish), which I think might have been quite quick had it been a manual (2.7 V6, 200bhpish) but had a very dim-witted 4-speed slusher. Having driven quite a few of the above with the manual transmission, I can confidently say that the auto transmission really killed the power and traditionally, autos have accelerated more slowly than the manual equivalent.

Right so you are meaning sluggish cars with an auto transmission rather than sluggish response or gear change from the automatic box. Rather a subtle but significantly different thing.

I think what you have encountered is just smaller European engines with a lack of grunt.

Less ratios and a less than ideal final drive coupled with some power sapped from a torque converter will indeed blunt performance on cars like those. Although the gearboxes should still perform.

I can actually do this comparison. I currently own two Camaro z28’s. Almost identical, same year, same engine. One is a 4 speed auto with a 2.73:1 final drive. The other is a 6 speed manual with a 3.42:1 final drive.

There is literally nothing between them performance wise. On paper the 6 speed has the edge. But in reality the auto is easier to deploy and more consistent at building speed.

The 4 speed is also very responsive and shifts way quicker than I can with the manual.

The manual is a lot more fun however. And even is the auto had 6 or 8 gears it really wouldn’t make it anymore fun and I doubt it would significantly impact performance either. It would allow for arguably better mpg and emissions. Which is likely the biggest reason why we see more gear ratios on autos these days.