Are you an automatic transmission convert?

[white_goodman]

Many of us will have driven older 3 and 4-speed automatics and experienced the sluggish response and higher fuel consumption or the "tortured cow" soundtrack of an older CVT transmission. They had their place in some luxury cars and SUVs (Mercedes, Jaguars and Range Rovers for instance) but were generally a barrier to performance, decent fuel economy and driving enjoyment. When I was selling cars 10 or so years ago, automatics were still relatively rare but now, especially in performance cars, an automatic transmission, be it a torque convertor or a DCT seems to be the norm rather than the exception with manual transmissions only really being that prevalent in cheaper, "white goods" kind of cars.

At the "top end", Ferraris, Lamborghinis, McLarens etc, "automatic" transmissions have been the norm for a while and to be fair with the quantity of performance that those cars offer, you're probably going to be too busy to shift gears manually.

I'm still a little sceptical of automatic transmissions in the kind of cars that I like to own for driving enjoyment though e.g. hot hatches, sports cars/coupes etc but a friend of mine who works in the automotive industry and is a very keen driver himself, tells me that he will never own another manual car, as a good torque convertor/DCT is just better in terms of speed, user friendliness and fuel economy.

Our last 3 family cars have all been automatics though. For the kind of use they get i.e. stop-start urban driving and longer motorway journeys, the automatic is completely the way to go in something with no sporting pretensions whatsoever. However, we got rid of our first automatic family car (a WJ Grand Cherokee) because the transmission broke and our current family vehicle is booked into the dealership next week because it doesn't always "creep" when you put it in Drive/Reverse. Hopefully, that's covered by warranty though if there is an issue. I've also heard of reliability issues with VW's, Ford's and Nissan's automatic transmissions. In nearly 20 years of mostly manual transmission vehicle ownership, I have only had to change one clutch and one clutch cable. My own commute involves some pretty decent B-roads, so I enjoy the extra involvement of a manual transmission for that. I tried one automatic as a daily (in all fairness an older, 4-speed one) but missed having a manual transmission and I can't see my current vehicle (MINI Cooper) being more fun with an automatic transmission.

Like my friend though, I know several people who would never own another manual. So if you're one of them, what car changed your perception of automatic transmissions?

Personally, I was very impressed with the combination of a DSG transmission and a diesel engine in a mk5 Golf that I tried shortly after they brought out the new transmission. On paper, a diesel engine and an automatic transmission sounded like a terrible combination at the time but it was so smooth and kept the diesel in its narrow power band so well, without the usual rowing of gears that tends to come with a diesel if you want to keep up the pace. Impressive and no fuel consumption penalty either but not exactly fun.

More recently, I was lucky enough to experience a Dodge Challenger R/T with the ZF 8-speed transmission as a rental on a visit to Canada and that was the first time that I can genuinely say that I enjoyed driving an auto. It was a great match for the car, very responsive and the auto blips when downshifting were very cool too. I haven't driven a manual Challenger but imagine that it would feel very heavy and clunky in comparison. Conversely on my previous visit, I rented an automatic Camaro SS and the automatic transmission ruined that car for me. I think that it would have been so much more fun with a manual.

I find most modern autos impressive and pretty responsive but once you've accelerated very quickly up to speed, a little boring and uninvolving. Sure, you can shift "manually" but the transmission in "auto" mode usually does such a good job, then what's the point? Having said that, there are cars that I would like to own that are only available with an automatic transmission e.g. Alpine A110, M3 CS, C63 AMG which I hope would not spoil my enjoyment of driving the car and although I tend to favour a manual transmission in a hot hatch, I wouldn't mind trying a M140i with the ZF 8-speed, as I hear that it's very good.

Edited by white_goodman on Friday 17th May 17:37

[white_goodman]

rfn said:

It depends.

I drive a 2014 m135i with a ZF8 which I've had for 2.5 years. It's my "yardstick" for auto gearboxes. I wouldn't have the manual, and absolutely love the gearbox/car combo. I drive it probably 80% of the time using the paddles. It's quicker and more economical on a long journey than the equivalent manual.

I don't particularly "like" the VW DSG7 - I think it's a bit too clunky. And I really didn't like the 10-speed Ford auto in a Mustang we recently hired in the US. Coupled with the 2.3T engine it made for a poor experience overall. The manual (6-speed) would've been better in this car.

Edited by rfn on Friday 17th May 17:07

This is what I heard and it revs lower than the 6-speed manual on the motorway too, so quieter and better fuel economy? To be fair the first car that I preferred with an auto to a manual was the mk5 Golf R32. I just found the manual version very clunky and difficult to drive smoothly. The 6-speed DSG was a good deal better but in the mk5 Golf GTI, the converse was true. The 6-speed auto on our family bus isn't that responsive. Is it the ZF? I'm not sure. I've driven a few vehicles with the ZF 9-speed and found 9 gears a bit too much. It usually laboured if you changed manually into 9th even at 60mph, so I'm not too sure when you would actually get to use it. It's also far too confusing swapping cogs manually when you have more than 6 speeds too.

[white_goodman]

tr7v8 said:

Staggered you broke a WJ gearbox. These are absolutely bulletproof normally. The FB page has these with 300k on still going strong

Yep, only made it o 100k!

[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.

[white_goodman]

300bhp/ton said:

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.

That has some truth in the case of the Polo and lower-powered A-Class but I didn't have an issue with the manual equivalents and the same applies to the A210 Evo that I drove, which was the most powerful A-Class at the time (around 140bhp if I recall). You disregarded the Sebring though. That was a car that I borrowed and was a lot better than I expected an early 2000s American car to be. It was fairly quick, comfortable, handled OK etc and this was only a few years ago. That being said, I did a rolling drag race with another friend in a 2014 Corolla with a CVT transmission (1.8 4-cylinder, around 130bhp vs. a 2.7 V6 with around 200bhp), fully expecting to win and the Corolla just disappeared off into the distance. There was a good 2 second lag in the Sebring "kicking down" when I floored it and by that time, the Corolla already had a few car lengths on me. I'm still not a huge fan of CVTs due to the refinement and the holding of revs, which still seems a little unnatural to me but of the newish ones that I have driven, I can't really fault the performance that they can extract from in many cases, relatively low powered cars!

This is probably my biggest issue with automatic transmissions and with the exception of the two that I mentioned (6-speed DSG combined with a diesel engine and the ZF 8-speed in the Challenger), all of the other ones that I have driven seem to have this issue. Just driving around normally, they are fine but when you need it to kick down for a brisk overtake, it either kicks down too far and unsettles the car or not far enough/there's a time delay and doesn't give you the acceleration that you need. In my manual WRX, I just had to drop it into 3rd and instant power and for this reason, it is probably the most confident overtaker that I have owned. My old C250TD Estate (5-speed auto I think) lacked urgency for overtaking, as does my relatively modern 6-speed in my current family vehicle. A lot of "normal", non-sporting models with automatic transmissions do in my experience, as they are mapped to change up early for fuel economy reasons I assume and hence don't feel as lively as the power/torque figures would suggest. A Fiesta Ecoboost auto that I hired recently was particularly bad and I would have thought a 100bhp turbo in a Fiesta would have been fairly "nippy". I'm sure that the manual version would have been great. I'm fairly confident that the modern automatic equivalent of my C-Class would be more responsive than my old 5-speed though.