i no people say automatics are slower than manuals too 60 but parkers say some are 4 or 5 seconds slower than the manuals if its the same car which cant be right surely or are autos good up too certain speeds then they struggle as they cant do full revs?

For example mk4 fiesta 1.25 auto 14.9

mk4 fiesta 1.25 manual 11.8

i no people say automatics are slower than manuals too 60 but parkers say some are 4 or 5 seconds slower than the manuals if its the same car which cant be right surely or are autos good up too certain speeds then they struggle as they cant do full revs?

For example mk4 fiesta 1.25 auto 14.9

mk4 fiesta 1.25 manual 11.8

As far as I'm aware man / auto rev the same, the difference is the torque converter, which is a fluid coupling between the engine & gearbox. This is where power is lost, a bit like slipping the clutch.

great thread, I was just about to start this exact topic myself when I found this one

To me - there are so many people who say "Get a MAN's CAR m8, manual gears, not a mummy's boy car with automatic"

This is the great perception, you're a MAN if you change gears yourself, if you have a manual gear box .... you then have total control over the car and could do 6 laps at Brandshatch, of course you could!!

you also need a manual gear box to do all the back doubles when you're cutting through on the school run, auto couldn't hack that could it?

and what on earth would your mates SAY if they found out you had an AUTO car? why would be the joke of the entire town - of course you would, you wouldn't be able to show your face down the pub for one thing would you?

that is the enduring perception and that will never go away, be macho, always get a manual

To me I go back to the Rover 3500 that came out in 1968 WITH an auto transmission as standard

A 3-speed Borg Warner 35 automatic was the only transmission option until the 1971 addition of a four-speed manual 3500S model, fitted with a modified version of the gearbox used in the 2000/2200. The letter "S" did not denote "Sport", it was chosen because it stood for something specific on those cars: "Synchromesh". However it is important to note that the 3500s was noticeably quicker than the automatic version of this car with the 0-60 time coming in at 9s as opposed to 10.1 for the standard car. Moreover, due to the fuel-guzzling nature of automatic gearboxes of this era, the manual car's official cycle was 24mpg compared to the automatic' s 22mpg.

ok I do admit that a 3500 engine on a car is likely to get you where you're going pretty quick whether manual or auto but ever since I saw that auto I was sold on autos ^_^ who do you say?

I haven't checked but I think that cars with the powershift gearbox have a faster 0 to 60 time than a manual gearbox because the automatic gear changes occur faster than anyone could do it manually.

I had an auto for my last car, focus cmax, it wasn't all that bad, but I wouldn't hurry to get another. They are heavier lumps, adding Weight to the 0-60 time, horses are down, economy is down, control is down and unless you get power shift / tiptronic where you can manually run through all the gears then you don't get much in the way of control.

They aren't bad in a diesel compared to a petrol, but I won't be jumping back to one unless I have issues with my leg /s

Each to their own, but I'm happy to sacrifice a tiny bit of economy/power, to avoid constantly changing gears in rush hour traffic.

The ancient 4 spd auto transmission in the Mk2 Focus does indeed sap away power and economy, but on the other hand, it is proven technology, and more thus reliable, when compared to newer transmissions (Volkswagen DSG/Ford Power Shift).

My last motor, Honda Accord, had a 4 speed tiptronic box. I quite enjoyed having a automatic, it got to the point that I could change gears just by varying the pressure on the accelerator. However, despite the fact that I could just shift the gear selector over and go through the gears myself, I missed having a manual. I also found that on some hills it couldn't make it's mind up if it wanted 3rd or 4th, so I had to over-ride it. This time I have a manual, but although I love my 1.8 mk2.5 Focus, I really think it should have been a 6 shot box instead of a 5. It would suit it better but never mind. Missus has a automatic Clio so if I am feeling lazy I nick the keys and take that instead.

Out of the two though, I prefer manual. More control over the car, in theory cheaper to fix if there are gearbox issues, brakes last longer if driven right. But I wouldn't rule out getting another automatic if the right one came along. The Accord wasn't really flawed in any way because it was automatic, VTEC still kicked in yo, and I didn't lose any sleep about the couple of MPG less or the 1/2 second more 0-62.

Sent via the 'Clacks'

GNU STP