Are you an automatic transmission convert?
Discussion
300bhp/ton said:
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.
I've got and had both. Driving an auto in the slow crawl (~5mph) and stop start traffic commuting to/from work was an absolute revelation, it just made it so much easier.
Yes, it sacrifices some of the involvement when having more fun, but those opportunities are few and far between when commuting or similar.
For a weekend fun car, manual makes more sense to me, you get the involvement and the lack of all the commuter traffic means you're not missing the auto benefit there.
Yes, it sacrifices some of the involvement when having more fun, but those opportunities are few and far between when commuting or similar.
For a weekend fun car, manual makes more sense to me, you get the involvement and the lack of all the commuter traffic means you're not missing the auto benefit there.
300bhp/ton said:
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.
One thing you tend to do with smaller engines, petrol at least is use the revs to get going. That 1.4 Clio I mentioned probably had 85bhp which made itself known at 4,000rpm so press the accelerator in third at 1,500rpm and it'll feel very slow.
MrGTI6 said:
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.
For a while, I had a Seat Exeo 2.0TDI with the 'Multitronic' CVT box, and I thought it suited the car well. Driving normally around town it would gather speed smoothly and evenly without ever exceeding 2,000rpm, and it was quite easy to accelerate quite smartly with a minimum of drama.
The only think I found slightly disconcerting was driving on cruise on a motorway and seeing the revs gradually changing on steep inclines without the road speed changing.
Ask for maximum acceleration though and it was excruciating - a constant 4,500rpm blare accompanied by the feeling of being pulled forward by an elastic band.
95% of the time it was great though.
People keep saying how much better an auto is in stop-start traffic and in town. But I'm not sure that it is.
Whenever I'm stuck in traffic I always find that the major annoyance of the situation is being in traffic, not engaging and disengaging 1st gear. If anything, a manual gives you something to do during traffic to make the annoyance of not moving a bit less obvious. The only situation I can imagine an auto being useful in traffic is if you're in a stop-start situation on a hill and you have to either constantly slip the clutch or do handbrake starts... and not because it's annoying or tiring, but because of mechanical sympathy towards the clutch.
Whenever I'm stuck in traffic I always find that the major annoyance of the situation is being in traffic, not engaging and disengaging 1st gear. If anything, a manual gives you something to do during traffic to make the annoyance of not moving a bit less obvious. The only situation I can imagine an auto being useful in traffic is if you're in a stop-start situation on a hill and you have to either constantly slip the clutch or do handbrake starts... and not because it's annoying or tiring, but because of mechanical sympathy towards the clutch.
I'd had a couple of autos before, old Vauxhall Senators with 4 speed autos, and I loved the car, if not the gearbox.
and now I've got a Skoda Superb DSG, for doing nearly all my driving, the 6 speed box, no flappy paddles.
Only a couple of times do I think it would be better as a manual, but I can counter that because I know where on the road that will be and I put it in sport mode and it holds the lower gear long enough to get up the steep little hill I encounter on my way to work.
As with the poster above, when I drive my manual I don't sit in any traffic thinking "yeah, this is good, at least I've got something to do with my left leg now"
Contrast though - my wife has an automatic Corsa 1.4 and that is a terrible, terrible car to have as an auto. But she doesn't care. The only thing worse was the automatic Aygo she got as a loaner once.
I won't be put off buying a manual for fun but for the driving I do 98% of the time I'll stick with auto for now.
and now I've got a Skoda Superb DSG, for doing nearly all my driving, the 6 speed box, no flappy paddles.
Only a couple of times do I think it would be better as a manual, but I can counter that because I know where on the road that will be and I put it in sport mode and it holds the lower gear long enough to get up the steep little hill I encounter on my way to work.
As with the poster above, when I drive my manual I don't sit in any traffic thinking "yeah, this is good, at least I've got something to do with my left leg now"
Contrast though - my wife has an automatic Corsa 1.4 and that is a terrible, terrible car to have as an auto. But she doesn't care. The only thing worse was the automatic Aygo she got as a loaner once.
I won't be put off buying a manual for fun but for the driving I do 98% of the time I'll stick with auto for now.
Salamura said:
People keep saying how much better an auto is in stop-start traffic and in town. But I'm not sure that it is.
I am. I do the daily stop-start in a DSG, occasionally I do it in a manual, and it's markedly worse. For the journey I do and my tastes and preferences an auto is a better choice. I'm lucky because I've got the space and money for 2 cars. But if I didn't, I'd have just an auto.Salamura said:
People keep saying how much better an auto is in stop-start traffic and in town. But I'm not sure that it is.
Whenever I'm stuck in traffic I always find that the major annoyance of the situation is being in traffic, not engaging and disengaging 1st gear. If anything, a manual gives you something to do during traffic to make the annoyance of not moving a bit less obvious. The only situation I can imagine an auto being useful in traffic is if you're in a stop-start situation on a hill and you have to either constantly slip the clutch or do handbrake starts... and not because it's annoying or tiring, but because of mechanical sympathy towards the clutch.
If you're doing it for 5 minutes that's fine but I regularly am in stop-start traffic for 30 minutes or more. An autobox makes more sense. None of that feathering the clutch pedal to move forward 5 feet and stirring the gearbox. Using the other two pedals is a lot easier than balancing the clutch and accelerator every few seconds. I'd rather just not have to bother.Whenever I'm stuck in traffic I always find that the major annoyance of the situation is being in traffic, not engaging and disengaging 1st gear. If anything, a manual gives you something to do during traffic to make the annoyance of not moving a bit less obvious. The only situation I can imagine an auto being useful in traffic is if you're in a stop-start situation on a hill and you have to either constantly slip the clutch or do handbrake starts... and not because it's annoying or tiring, but because of mechanical sympathy towards the clutch.
I have regular access to a manual car and it reminds me how much better an autobox is.
Hoofy said:
If you're doing it for 5 minutes that's fine but I regularly am in stop-start traffic for 30 minutes or more. An autobox makes more sense. None of that feathering the clutch pedal to move forward 5 feet and stirring the gearbox. Using the other two pedals is a lot easier than balancing the clutch and accelerator every few seconds. I'd rather just not have to bother.
I have regular access to a manual car and it reminds me how much better an autobox is.
I swapped my manual Insipid for an auto XE about a month before I retired I have regular access to a manual car and it reminds me how much better an autobox is.
The commute was only two miles, but seriously stop-start...
By the end of the second days commute, I was convinced an auto is better in traffic!
If I could convince SWMBO that I need a track toy, it would be manual, but a modern auto is fine on any sort of real road I've found so far.
Gojira said:
Hoofy said:
If you're doing it for 5 minutes that's fine but I regularly am in stop-start traffic for 30 minutes or more. An autobox makes more sense. None of that feathering the clutch pedal to move forward 5 feet and stirring the gearbox. Using the other two pedals is a lot easier than balancing the clutch and accelerator every few seconds. I'd rather just not have to bother.
I have regular access to a manual car and it reminds me how much better an autobox is.
I swapped my manual Insipid for an auto XE about a month before I retired I have regular access to a manual car and it reminds me how much better an autobox is.
The commute was only two miles, but seriously stop-start...
By the end of the second days commute, I was convinced an auto is better in traffic!
If I could convince SWMBO that I need a track toy, it would be manual, but a modern auto is fine on any sort of real road I've found so far.
I used to do the stop-start commute in a trackday Skyline with a triple plate clutch.
Even a crap autobox is better in stop-start traffic.
300bhp/ton said:
janesmith1950 said:
Constantly using your clutch foot to move 3 feet forward and stop, rinse and repeat, might be fun for some people. I'm not one of them!
Maybe lifting your hand to your mouth is also too much hard work to feed yourself too
cerb4.5lee said:
From my experience I do think that an auto suits a more torquey engine. Both my X5 4.8iS and E90 330d had 369 torque so they felt pretty effortless to drive...whereas the E90 330i that I had with the same gearbox with 221 torque was a really poor match to the auto gearbox for me. A manual would have been a much better match to that engine I reckon.
In short, yes. But I think it's larger engines in general that perform better with autos.I've driven auto small engine cars and by and large they do feel underpowered compared to the manual version. Or at least less speedy.
However with a big engine Vee 8/12 type of thing, you don't tend to notice this as much.
It's all about the torque curve IMO.
Here is a power plot comparison of a Rover V8 and BMW 3.0, the BMW makes more PEAK power and revs higher. But the more grunty Rover V8 actually makes more power more of the time. With an autobox you will be spending most of the time in the mid range, the torque converter also aids this. So the less powerful engine in this instance would actually be much nicer with the autobox and perform better. Because it really would be making more power for most of the time.
Flat out the less grunty engine will still work, but that is often more hard work in an auto, as you can't just hang onto the revs with a lighter throttle as you can with a manual. As it will be wanting to change up, so the only way to exploit the best part of it's powerband will be wide open throttle, which will make it seem hard work. The torque converter will also be sapping some of this power, so will likely always feel like you are being short changed.
I remember driving the Jaguar S-Type V6 (also a 3.0 litre 241hp) at launch, back to back with a manual and an auto. I think the manual was rated 0-60mph in 6.6 sec and the auto 8.3 sec. And it felt like it too. The manual felt as though it had 50hp more.
tless with them! Next car will be a manual, no question. 300bhp/ton said:
In short, yes. But I think it's larger engines in general that perform better with autos.
I've driven auto small engine cars and by and large they do feel underpowered compared to the manual version. Or at least less speedy.
However with a big engine Vee 8/12 type of thing, you don't tend to notice this as much.
It's all about the torque curve IMO.
I completely agree about the torque curves, but modern tech does compensate for a lack of displacement, to a large extent I've driven auto small engine cars and by and large they do feel underpowered compared to the manual version. Or at least less speedy.
However with a big engine Vee 8/12 type of thing, you don't tend to notice this as much.
It's all about the torque curve IMO.
My 2-litre petrol XE is, according to Jaguar, producing 295 ft-lb of torque from 1500 to 4500rpm, and if the claimed 300ps at 5500rpm is correct, then the torque has dropped by less than 5% at that point!
From a drivers perspective, it pulls really well at any speed, but play with the paddles to keep the revs up, and it shifts more than well enough for me
The fact that the ZF8 makes that so easy to do is just the icing on the cake...
300bhp/ton said:
Here is a power plot comparison of a Rover V8 and BMW 3.0, the BMW makes more PEAK power and revs higher. But the more grunty Rover V8 actually makes more power more of the time. With an autobox you will be spending most of the time in the mid range, the torque converter also aids this. So the less powerful engine in this instance would actually be much nicer with the autobox and perform better. Because it really would be making more power for most of the time.
You have to be careful with that sort of comparison, because the gearing will be different where one engine revs a chunk higher than the other. Here's a comparison of the torque at the crank and the torque at the wheels for the two versions of the RX-8 engine. The more "grunty" engine makes less torque at the wheels in every gear.
Gojira said:
I completely agree about the torque curves, but modern tech does compensate for a lack of displacement, to a large extent
My 2-litre petrol XE is, according to Jaguar, producing 295 ft-lb of torque from 1500 to 4500rpm, and if the claimed 300ps at 5500rpm is correct, then the torque has dropped by less than 5% at that point!
From a drivers perspective, it pulls really well at any speed, but play with the paddles to keep the revs up, and it shifts more than well enough for me
The fact that the ZF8 makes that so easy to do is just the icing on the cake...
Turbocharging will make a big difference. A 2.0 litre turbo should be offering similar performance to a 4.0 litre n/a, which I suspect if you look at the 4.0 AJV8 fitted to the XJ8 in the late 1990's, I bet it has very similar figures. Maybe slightly less torque low down, as modern electronics tend to artificially manipulate the torque curve more so.My 2-litre petrol XE is, according to Jaguar, producing 295 ft-lb of torque from 1500 to 4500rpm, and if the claimed 300ps at 5500rpm is correct, then the torque has dropped by less than 5% at that point!
From a drivers perspective, it pulls really well at any speed, but play with the paddles to keep the revs up, and it shifts more than well enough for me
The fact that the ZF8 makes that so easy to do is just the icing on the cake...
otolith said:
You have to be careful with that sort of comparison, because the gearing will be different where one engine revs a chunk higher than the other. Here's a comparison of the torque at the crank and the torque at the wheels for the two versions of the RX-8 engine. The more "grunty" engine makes less torque at the wheels in every gear.
Gearing can indeed play a part yes. But often it will not mask the power delivery of the engine. In fact I'm not sure it can.I suspect in many cases comparable vehicles the final drives are not so different. Or with a short final drive the gearbox will just be a gear higher, thus retain a more comparable mph per 1000rpm.
In the case of the Rover V8 and the BMW 3.0, the reality is, regardless of gearing most 'normal' driving about, you'll likely be in the 2000-4000rpm rev range with both engines unless you are flooring it. And in that range the RV8 makes more power at the engine. The overall gearing will be similar because your wheelspeed will be similar for the given engine rpm.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff