Auto vs Manual...

Seen this debate many times on a number of forums - a lot of the pro-manual people argue that it gives more power and control of the car...

I genuinely don't understand this claim - modern automatic cars give you more than enough power, and probably easier to control. Drive a manual myself, but considering going auto for my next car. Could somebody please explain what exactly are the pro's of driving a manual over auto?

Reply 1

username234673

You can bump start a manual.
Changing gear is fun.

Reply 2

Walkaah

Auto:

Ease of driving
Can't stall
More relaxing

Manual:

Can downshift in my Porsche 911 :cool:

haha just kidding

Reply 3

mackemforever

Original post by Walkaah

Auto:

Ease of driving
Can't stall
More relaxing

Manual:

Can downshift in my Porsche 911 :cool:

haha just kidding

Downside of older automatics, they're often slow to react and can be especially sluggish when pulling away from a standstill. I've driven a few different cheap older automatics (51 to 53 plate VW Golf, Renault Clio and Peugeot something) and all of them would occasionally panic if you tried to accelerate hard from a standstill and all of them got annoying with not shifting into the right gear at the time you want while driving.

Reply 4

BrownEyedGirl92

I could be wrong but aren't automatics more expensive and less fuel efficient?

Reply 5

naman

Original post by BrownEyedGirl92

I could be wrong but aren't automatics more expensive and less fuel efficient?

possibly more expensive - old autos were inefficient but in 2014 there's hardly a difference in fuel economy.

Reply 6

Lyrical Prodigy

Everybody is different hence why I don't get the 'Manuals are better than automatics' argument. It depends on a person's preference and or personal experience. I drive an automatic mercedes and I have to say I'm more than happy with it :smile:

Reply 7

Alfissti

Original post by mikeyd85

You can bump start a manual.

On many modern day cars it isn't recommended to bump start the car. Supposedly you can damage the DPF and catalytic converter as well as the DMF. Lots of newer cars if the battery is so flat to the point it can't operate the starter motor then it also won't be able to operate the fuel delivery system thus you could push till you build all the muscles in the world and you still won't be able to start it.

Original post by BrownEyedGirl92

I could be wrong but aren't automatics more expensive and less fuel efficient?

They are usually more expensive to buy when new. However many of them do tend to hold their value quite well as it can be difficult to find certain sized cars that are automatic, most Polo and Fiestas that are automatic for example will always have a demand for it thus reflected in its residual value.

In terms of fuel economy, it depends a lot on the car and more importantly the driver/operator. In our pool fleet we have the following vehicles that we have both an automatic and a manual version with similar engine type, from looking at data from their vehicle management system this is what it yields :-

Opel Insignia 2.0d manual one returns 120km more per fuel tank over the last 5 refueling. This one is a standard 6-speed torque converter gearbox. Engine code is the same between both cars. 70l fuel tank and average refuel is 60l. Interestingly when both cars are driven long distance and where the driver of the automatic one uses the transmission override and shifts the gears manually it can deliver 20-30km more per fuel tank.

Skoda Fabia 1.2 manual one returns 5km more per fuel tank over the last 20 fuel ups. Not sure if the engine output is the same or not as the log shows a different engine code even though both are 1.2tsi. This one is a petrol and a dual-clutch semi-automatic. This one only runs in town. Fuel tank size is 45l and average refuel takes 38l, strangely this one ever since we changed to the winter tyres the difference in fuel consumption has narrowed. No one seem to be able to give an answer as to why either.

VW Passat Alltrack Estate 2.0TDI, the manual one returns 20km less per fuel tank and currently it is driven by the same person on the same journey and it is always fully loaded with tools. This one is also a dual-clutch semi-automatic. The automatic one is 170PS where the manual is 140PS though. Fuel tank is 70l and average refuel is 62l

Iveco Daily 3.0l, this one has been tracked for 5 weeks, thus far there isn't much difference between them. This one is a single clutch semi-automatic and so far fuel consumption doesn't differ between them. Fuel tank 70l and average refuel is 55l, both of these currently travel over 300km each day on a variety of road conditions and always travel as part of a convoy.

Isuzu D-Max 3.0l, manual one on average gives 50km more per fuel tank. We run 6 of these on our fleet, 4 autos and 2 manuals. This one is a standard 5-speed torque converter gearbox. 75l fuel tank and average refuel is 60l.

Volvo S60 2.0T, manual one gets 70km more from each fuel tank. This one is a Ford PowerShift dual-clutch transmission. Both are driven by very eco-conscious drivers. Fuel tank size is 68l and average refuel has been 50l.

Reply 8

username234673

Original post by Alfissti

TBH, the last time I had to bump start anything it was a rather old tractor...

Reply 9

burgerrr

They are marginally more expensive to obtain, but you don't have to do things like replacing the clutch (obviously if done prematurely usually a sign of user error like riding it).

Reply 10

Motorbiker

It's personal preference really.

I'd always recommend doing the manual test to give you a choice but if you like autos whilst driving then go for it.

Reply 11

JC.

You pick the transmission to suit the vehicle.
Anyone who states that one type of transmission is arbitrarily better than another without taking the above into consideration is a moron.

Reply 12

Tillybop

Original post by naman

I prefer driving automatic. I didn't have the coordination for manual driving. I drove a manual car for a year while learning, and have been driving automatic since I passed.

I never really saw a difference in power or whatnot. I find I have more control in the automatic, because I can spend more time looking at what other cars are doing, observing the road etc, rather than changing gear. So I find that I am more aware when I am driving automatic.

Also it's easier because you don't stall, roll back or have to deal with hill starts.

I also find manoeuvres so much easier in automatic, because you do not need to rely on clutch control.

Original post by BrownEyedGirl92

I could be wrong but aren't automatics more expensive and less fuel efficient?

They are less fuel efficient. Mine guzzles fuel so quickly :sigh:

They are more expensive, but not by a large amount, especially if you're buying a used car anyway.

Reply 13

pillowshot

There are benefits and drawbacks to both.

Manual gives you more control over the car. i.e. you are controlling which gear the car is engaging for a particular situation.

Automatics are obviously easier to drive with.

Manual gearboxes are cheaper than automatic gearboxes. If things go wrong and you need a replacement an automatic will hurt your wallet more.

Automatics are generally known to use more fuel for a given situation. Modern automatics are very similar to manuals though so it depends on how old you go.

Personally I think it's more fun to drive a manual. I like the feeling of clutching in, dropping down a gear and getting on the accelerator. I also like how in a manual the RPM rises steadily as you accelerate but in an automatic the RPM rises to a higher level and sort of holds as you accelerate and then it moves up normally.

Automatics are nice for just relaxing in. Also if you have wrist pains etc. automatics are obviously much better for you.

All in all it's down to preference. Both have benefits and drawbacks. Just choose what you enjoy best!

Reply 14

MrMango

not bothered don't like cars I see it as simply a tool to get fron A to B.. I've not passed yet but will go for an auto as I cbf with rhe hassle.

Posted from TSR Mobile