Why did people spec auto on performance cars?
Discussion
Raygun said:
For many years now (at least 40 years) I've always thought performance cars should have manual gearboxes, we've had tiptronic, auto etc but s/h it's always manual that commands a premium. I just don't understand why anyone buying a performance car with an option of a manual gearbox would not tick that box on a spec sheet?
Quoting the OP as the discussion has forked somewhat!Several reasons spring to mind:
1) Some people would have been in a position to buy a performance car, but not able to drive a manual. I had a period of a few years where, following an injury, I couldn't drive a manual. I wanted to carry on driving so I bought an auto. Plenty of people in the 80s had war-wounds, car crashes, lumbago, slipped discs, missing legs etc. that would have made driving a manual difficult or impossible.
2) Big torque and the agricultural nature of the gearboxes to contain it. Look at the Bentley Mulsanne Turbo*... auto only, it was kicking out 600Nm of torque in 1982, when the 12-cylinder Ferraris were making 450Nm and the Countach QV 500 400Nm. If we want to compare that with what a more typical 1980 PHer would have been driving, an Escort RS2000 of the time put out around 150Nm (a little more if you ask in the Ford subforum, a little less if you ask in the Vauxhall subforum
) . A manual version of the Mulsanne Turbo with what was available at the time would have had gearshift action akin to a lorry. 3) Because even back then the Venn diagram of "People who like to wring the neck of their car" and "People who can afford performance cars" had a very small overlap. Look at some of the prized metal rumbling around the more affluent parts of California, or Dubai, or Brompton Road. So, so much of it never gets driven in anger.
4) Personal preference. Why do they sell "hammer drills" when SDS drills can be had for similar money these days and are so much better? I honestly don't know why. But, even though SDS is inarguably better, someone is still buying these hammer drills. (You could also replace "SDS" with "Android phone" and "hammer drill" with "I-phone"... But be prepared to listen to hours from each side on which is better
)* hopefully this won't result in a 10 page argument as to why the Mulsanne is or is not a performance car due to made up rules akin to how many exhaust tips a car is allowed.
I have manuals and autos, I’m often daily an auto, long commute, I like to be a passenger pretty much and be soothed! Driving enjoyment 100% manual, for me driving enjoyment comes from interaction with the car, not from efficiency, my fridge is efficient, it doesn’t excite me. Anything that takes away interaction is bad.
Btw someone said would you still want a starting handle and cross plies? Well a starting handle is a pain in the ass, crossplies are deliciously driftable at legal speeds....
Btw someone said would you still want a starting handle and cross plies? Well a starting handle is a pain in the ass, crossplies are deliciously driftable at legal speeds....
I really can't be bothered to change gear myself. I don't like driving all "heel and toe", and don't give two hoots about interacting with my car, I like to waft with my arm resting on the window ledge, listening to some music. I did enjoy the manual in my E46 330ci, but it wasn't a deal breaker having it.
Raygun said:
For many years now (at least 40 years) I've always thought performance cars should have manual gearboxes, we've had tiptronic, auto etc but s/h it's always manual that commands a premium. I just don't understand why anyone buying a performance car with an option of a manual gearbox would not tick that box on a spec sheet?
I can’t change gears fast enough in my faster cars, automatic works better.SidewaysSi said:
It's also because guys who prefer autos don't want to feel they can't drive/appreciate cars/know nothing. So they bang on about speed etc.
This sort of chat helps them feel less insecure.
I enjoy your posts. You are by far the manliest man on PH! Good for you chap. This sort of chat helps them feel less insecure.
Were you the driving god behind me on this morning's commute?
This topic seems to reappear quite often, but I'm sure it isn't the only one!
I bought my 1st car in 1976 so grew up on manual gearboxes (and RWD) and have had over 30 cars so far. Only 4 have been automatics, and that was because manual ones either didn't exist or were as rare as hens' teeth. The newest was a 1994 Mercedes C280 so they were all torque converter 3 or 4 speed slushboxes!
Now I realise modern DSG, etc. gearboxes are nothing like those so I can see why new buyers opt for those in Golf Rs, S3s, M140is, etc. but I wouldn't be too keen running cars like that once out of warranty.
And as I prefer N/A petrol engines my current cars date from 2005 and 2006 which seem to suit a manual better, especially now I've stopped working so don't commute and can usually avoid rush hours!
It's pretty simple really - you buy what you prefer which is probably based on how you use the car.
I bought my 1st car in 1976 so grew up on manual gearboxes (and RWD) and have had over 30 cars so far. Only 4 have been automatics, and that was because manual ones either didn't exist or were as rare as hens' teeth. The newest was a 1994 Mercedes C280 so they were all torque converter 3 or 4 speed slushboxes!
Now I realise modern DSG, etc. gearboxes are nothing like those so I can see why new buyers opt for those in Golf Rs, S3s, M140is, etc. but I wouldn't be too keen running cars like that once out of warranty.
And as I prefer N/A petrol engines my current cars date from 2005 and 2006 which seem to suit a manual better, especially now I've stopped working so don't commute and can usually avoid rush hours!
It's pretty simple really - you buy what you prefer which is probably based on how you use the car.
I’ve had couple so bare with me please. As a truck driver that now has to suffer auto boxes as a matter of course, I can’t stand the bloody things and I’d never have an auto car through choice. If you can shift using a crash box without grinding the gears, you know you’re driving. It doesn’t matter how fast you’re going, that fact you can match the engine speed and get clean shifts is part of the enjoyment for me. Press and go just doesn’t seem as much fun. As for the truck driver part... Try using an Eaton Twin Splitter Gearbox, when you can get up and down the box without one of 8,000 false neutrals that seem to live in it trying to catch you out whilst trying to move 44 tonnes. Then you’re driving. 
I’d always assumed it was because most people are not skilled enough to avoid instantly wearing out a clutch with 500+bhp.
I have driven a Ferrari 360 and Audi R8 with manual boxes and they require so much effort to change gear, ( presumably due to heavy duty construction to take the power), and if I was buying either , definitely would want an auto.
I have driven a Ferrari 360 and Audi R8 with manual boxes and they require so much effort to change gear, ( presumably due to heavy duty construction to take the power), and if I was buying either , definitely would want an auto.
Auto boxes in sports cars are a furher step away from mechanical involvement, it just depends on what level of involvement you want. If anyone wants the ultimate "progress" as some supporters of the auto box option call it, then get a fully "driverless" car when they're available. Everyone has their limits as to their desired driver involvement.
Falconer said:
I’d always assumed it was because most people are not skilled enough to avoid instantly wearing out a clutch with 500+bhp.
I have driven a Ferrari 360 and Audi R8 with manual boxes and they require so much effort to change gear, ( presumably due to heavy duty construction to take the power), and if I was buying either , definitely would want an auto.
I've owned a F360,AMV8 Vantage and several R8's all Manual's and driven all three around Europe and to Monaco for the GP sharing the driving with my wife and can't agree that they require "so much effort to change gear" I'd say more so much fun....I have driven a Ferrari 360 and Audi R8 with manual boxes and they require so much effort to change gear, ( presumably due to heavy duty construction to take the power), and if I was buying either , definitely would want an auto.
Guybrush said:
Auto boxes in sports cars are a furher step away from mechanical involvement, it just depends on what level of involvement you want. If anyone wants the ultimate "progress" as some supporters of the auto box option call it, then get a fully "driverless" car when they're available. Everyone has their limits as to their desired driver involvement.
The comparison between the automation of gearboxes and the automation of other driver functions is an interesting one. I guess the parallels are:Fully manual is fully manual in either case.
Fully automatic - I suppose a conventional auto is the equivalent of just setting a destination and the car taking you there.
A flappy paddle auto box a bit trickier. The closest analogy I can come up with is to say a DSG under paddle control is the equivalent of having a button to press telling the car "turn left" or "change lanes", but having the car do all the actual interaction with the steering rack itself.
Argleton said:
It's always funny when you see a manual F430 or 599 pop up with a massive premium and many, many people want them.
Which means real petrolheads really don't like to buy new.
with wanting to start one about what real petrolhead means (I like both in their place), I think just this.Which means real petrolheads really don't like to buy new.
People talking about the performance of modern autos on mega engines miss the point, I mean lets take the BMW 330ci, impractical and with an engine unnecessarily large enough to be a driver focussed car with several variants below it for non-petrolheads, old enough that auto options are limited to old school slushomatics (or the much unfavoured SMG), yet looking at autotrader there's over twice as many autos as manuals.
I think that of the people who buy premium cars new, far more simply just want the flashiest, top of the range motor which theyll knock about in for a couple of years before getting the next flashy thing, whereas the budget limited secondhand car buyers willing to extend themselves for petrolhead cars are far more meticulous bunch.
One thing I find odd is that sport car / super car owners make a huge fuss about depreciation. Post a thread about Mclaren and it won't belong until people start on depreciation rather than its dynamic capabilities. Quite why sports cars shouldn't depreciate at roughly the same rate as more mundane is never explained.
When looking at used sports car those with manual gearboxes typically command a premium.
So if buyers car about depreciation (which it seems they do) why aren't they choosing manual gearboxes?
When looking at used sports car those with manual gearboxes typically command a premium.
So if buyers car about depreciation (which it seems they do) why aren't they choosing manual gearboxes?
Teddy Lop said:
Argleton said:
It's always funny when you see a manual F430 or 599 pop up with a massive premium and many, many people want them.
Which means real petrolheads really don't like to buy new.
with wanting to start one about what real petrolhead means (I like both in their place), I think just this.Which means real petrolheads really don't like to buy new.
People talking about the performance of modern autos on mega engines miss the point, I mean lets take the BMW 330ci, impractical and with an engine unnecessarily large enough to be a driver focussed car with several variants below it for non-petrolheads, old enough that auto options are limited to old school slushomatics (or the much unfavoured SMG), yet looking at autotrader there's over twice as many autos as manuals.
I think that of the people who buy premium cars new, far more simply just want the flashiest, top of the range motor which theyll knock about in for a couple of years before getting the next flashy thing, whereas the budget limited secondhand car buyers willing to extend themselves for petrolhead cars are far more meticulous bunch.
a. Prefer driving a manual - never have to drive in heavy traffic ( with the exception of hitting the M25 a couple of times per year heading to Europe on hols )
b. Autos seem more prone (on 5-15 year old secondhanders) to more expensive faults/requiring specialist help Re close friends experiences with DSG/flappy paddle boxes etc - not a problem with a warrantied car I’d agree. Have tried auto cars when buying new but didn’t find them as enjoyable for my driving - ymmv
Just personal choice - happy that people prefer to drive autos, they’re just not my thing
Still enough manuals in cars I find fun not to have to switch
If you ever like to get the car even a tiny bit out of shape at sane speeds then it seems a manual lets you do that.
Most auto's are so good that they have seamless changes and lots of effort is made (often these days in conjunction with traction control systems) to avoid wheelspin/traction loss, so they can be too competent?
I have a powerful auto car, with a pre 1993 design and even that, lifts the throttle/changes timing or something slightly on changes to aid smoothness, it produces consistently smooth take offs/kickdowns (regularly beat manuals at santa pod et) You can't just provoke it into a little mini slide at whatever rpm it'll only work at high lateral/limit loads it's not quite the same, you just aren't quite as in control as to what power gets to the rear wheels and it's very hard to over power them in an auto.
Most auto's are so good that they have seamless changes and lots of effort is made (often these days in conjunction with traction control systems) to avoid wheelspin/traction loss, so they can be too competent?
I have a powerful auto car, with a pre 1993 design and even that, lifts the throttle/changes timing or something slightly on changes to aid smoothness, it produces consistently smooth take offs/kickdowns (regularly beat manuals at santa pod et) You can't just provoke it into a little mini slide at whatever rpm it'll only work at high lateral/limit loads it's not quite the same, you just aren't quite as in control as to what power gets to the rear wheels and it's very hard to over power them in an auto.
Miserablegit said:
The same criticism can be levelled at manuals.
A lot of manual sports cars are geared for about 82mph in second. It might be emissions based, 0-62 times based or in order to allow 6th gear to get to 175mph for pub bragging rights.
I’d rather have 7 useable ratios in a dct/pdk box rather than 3 useable gears in a manual box- keeping the rest for special occasions! Changing gears in a manual from 2-3-2 is not, to me, as involving as using a pdk/dct moving from 2-3-4-5-4-3-2
You're joking right? You don't even need your left foot for the dct. Let alone do something as skillful as rev matching.A lot of manual sports cars are geared for about 82mph in second. It might be emissions based, 0-62 times based or in order to allow 6th gear to get to 175mph for pub bragging rights.
I’d rather have 7 useable ratios in a dct/pdk box rather than 3 useable gears in a manual box- keeping the rest for special occasions! Changing gears in a manual from 2-3-2 is not, to me, as involving as using a pdk/dct moving from 2-3-4-5-4-3-2
Also an exaggeration at best, you'll find the ratios are fairly similar. You might have 4 useful ratios vs 3, not 7!
Ultimately dct offers brilliant performance and convenience for everyday cars. I've driven a lot of DCTs and ZF8s, they make perfect sense in the modern world
I fully accept it might make you faster, and give you more control with less things to think about, but to suggest that they are as engaging or fun to use is ludicrous. They make changing gear easier and more convenient, ultimately making it less engaging by removing all the challenging aspects.
Put it this way, someone who is quick in a manual would also be quick in a DCT, however, someone who is used to DCT will struggle with a manual.
At the moment we have three cars: a full auto (FFRR), an automated manual (V12VS, single clutch, so a step down from PDK/DSG/S-tronic/whatever Ferrari use) and a proper three pedal manual (Golf R).
The manual is fine to drive, but the take-home from it is that I cannot get close to changing gear as quickly as I can in the automated manual. Nor are my changes as smooth.
The automated manual provides sufficient driver engagement, in that when driving it on the paddles (which I do all the time, as full auto mode is a bit clunky) you need to be aware of your gear all the time, you lift off to shift, and the timing of your downshift going into a corner or bend needs to be no less exact than in a manual to get the best out of the car.
It has a disadvantage over a regular manual in not being able to dip the clutch in second at low speeds. But otherwise, as a means to go quickly and extract performance from the car, the automated manual is (at least IMO) very markedly superior to a three pedal manual. It is also nothing like driving a full auto with a torque converter, such as is in the RR.
The manual is fine to drive, but the take-home from it is that I cannot get close to changing gear as quickly as I can in the automated manual. Nor are my changes as smooth.
The automated manual provides sufficient driver engagement, in that when driving it on the paddles (which I do all the time, as full auto mode is a bit clunky) you need to be aware of your gear all the time, you lift off to shift, and the timing of your downshift going into a corner or bend needs to be no less exact than in a manual to get the best out of the car.
It has a disadvantage over a regular manual in not being able to dip the clutch in second at low speeds. But otherwise, as a means to go quickly and extract performance from the car, the automated manual is (at least IMO) very markedly superior to a three pedal manual. It is also nothing like driving a full auto with a torque converter, such as is in the RR.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff