[Guna]

Originally Posted by dezrskb

Going by the discussion I should have a AT small car which can negotiate the traffic and a manual big car with a boot for a spirited long drive to hill station with luggage. But assuming we spend more for a bigger car and not driving it daily also doesnt male sense

One option is to buy used big car for the long drives. This can be even petrol as it will be driven occasionally.

[GTO]

Mod Note : Please stick to the Thread Topic. Thanks!

[Aroy]

Modern Automatics are faster than the Manual transmission, at least in 99.99 cases. In case of racing drivers, with fast reflexes, a manual may have a slight edge, but for most of us the modern computer controlled auto box is definitely faster. Add to that ease of driving in a stop and go traffic, and you will realize why the auto boxes, at least in the higher end segment are ruling the roost (even trucks and busses are going the auto way)

DSG is a brilliant concept, let down by its internal electronics. Once they get better (higher temperature rated components) electronics, almost all the failures we have seen will be a thing of past.

The advantages of manual transmission in my opinion are
. Lower cost for a given torque, but may be negated if the ratio skews in favour of auto transmission, in which case manual will be on order only
. Idiot proof - no electronics no failures!
. Engine braking under all conditions
. Fun to drive
. Once the majority go for auto boxes; as in North America; lower probability of theft

[Guna]

Originally Posted by Aroy

Modern Automatics are faster than the Manual transmission, at least in 99.99 cases.

Majority of the Automatics are the traditional torque converter type and are definitely slower to 100 kmph by couple of seconds then their manual counterparts. Some of the reasons are:

• Torque converters account for some loss of energy (10-15 %)
• Auto boxes are heavier by at least 50 kgs

[000_RANVIS]

Originally Posted by Aroy

Modern Automatics are faster than the Manual transmission, at least in 99.99 cases. In case of racing drivers, with fast reflexes, a manual may have a slight edge, but for most of us the modern computer controlled auto box is definitely faster. Add to that ease of driving in a stop and go traffic, and you will realize why the auto boxes, at least in the higher end segment are ruling the roost (even trucks and busses are going the auto way)

DSG is a brilliant concept, let down by its internal electronics. Once they get better (higher temperature rated components) electronics, almost all the failures we have seen will be a thing of past.

The advantages of manual transmission in my opinion are
. Lower cost for a given torque, but may be negated if the ratio skews in favour of auto transmission, in which case manual will be on order only
. Idiot proof - no electronics no failures!
. Engine braking under all conditions
. Fun to drive
. Once the majority go for auto boxes; as in North America; lower probability of theft

I agree with your view on 'ease of driving' as you mentioned above.

BUT, it is not understood on what basis it can be said that AT is faster that MT in 99.99 cases. And the word "at least in 99.99 cases" and "modern computer controlled auto box is definitely faster" are not justified till its basis and concepept are made clear. The expression 'At least' or 'definitely, sounds like an assumption which may the on the concept that - what is modern or computer controlled must be faster/top most.

But it is a matter of energy which cannot be generated without any basis, there must be some reasons, if there is none - no power is there. Power comes from same engine - on the contrary kerb weight is not less than that of its MT version.

AT car's kerb weight is more - 50kg or above. A part of power/torque generated by engine is used in torque converter (a part in auto box) to control the box to shift gear to the next higher/lower gear suitable at the power generated at that time and speed of the car. Computer's role is mainly to regulate the engine according to pressure on gas pedal.

Shifting to lower gears (especially when at or below 3rd gear) by pressing brake pedal - which also consume power through torque converter.

Nearly 15% to 20% power is used to run Auto Box. Where comes this power from?

Moreover, in AT only sequential (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) gear shifing is possible whereas in MT we may shift from 1 to 3, 3 to 5, etc to save time for speed since the raised question - which is faster?.

FACT IS:
1. Kerb Weight of the Car with AT is more 50kg or above. (Weight reduces FE)
2. MT attains 100 kmph nearly 2 seconds ealier (nearly at ratio of 12:10).
3. FE in AT is less than 1.5 to 2.5 kmpl than that of AT. (power used also in torque converter).
4.Gear Ratios are defferent where AT's overdrive is prominant though RPM cannot cross normally RED LINE in Tacho. Less Top speed in AT.
5. Moving and shifting in AT are at sufficiently higher RPM to avoid failure and/or to ensure run with power.
6. Top speed is less in AT. (Indicates also low top RPM inspite of overdrive gear ratio at 0.551~ (comes below 0.6~) where as MT's ends with 0.7~/0.8~.
7. Carbon emmission is higher in AT. (Reducing FE, power).
8. Overall better performance.
9. AT only gives our comfort, ease of driving especially in city ride.

Following are the basis and facts are in support of the above:

Regarding comparion see the following image (RED LINED portion) of extracts from wiki and specification of disclosed by manufactures (Suzuki UK for Swift, SX4 & Kizashi; Honda UK for Civic, Honda India & Thai for City.)

[000_RANVIS]

Note from Team-BHP Support: Post deleted. Please do not post one-liners or anything that does not contribute to the discussion. It is considered as SPAMMING which is taken very seriously on Team-BHP. Please read our posting rules carefully before proceeding. Also, no discussion on moderator actions is permitted on this forum.

[headers]

Originally Posted by Guna

Majority of the Automatics are the traditional torque converter type and are definitely slower to 100 kmph by couple of seconds then their manual counterparts.

Agreed - But dont we auto enthusiasts love the MINORITY and look forward to make it a majority by embracing technology?

[dezrskb]

There are positives and negatives to both AT and MT. What is ideal for a racing enthusiast may not be ideal for a leisurely driver. But ATs have improved much. For me 0-100 time if it is fraction of a second more, I am not bothered. But I like the presence of Sports mode and Triptonic with DSG ATs. Regular D mode will allow early upshifts to maximise fuel economy and Sports mode at higher RPMs to allow better usage of power. Also there is option of manual up / downshifts. I guess I will be able to find the pattern I like by permutation and combination of these. I agree that on reliability ATs are slightly behind. Improperly driven manual too is susceptible to problems.

[noopster]

Originally Posted by dezrskb

But I like the presence of Sports mode and Triptonic with DSG ATs. Regular D mode will allow early upshifts to maximise fuel economy and Sports mode at higher RPMs to allow better usage of power. Also there is option of manual up / downshifts.

Hi, I just thought I should clarify a couple of points. S-mode is available on most old-school ATs (torque convertors as opposed to DSG boxes) in the Indian market. The Vento has it, as does the Honda City (think they call it "Sequential" mode). So S-mode is not exclusive to DSG-fitted cars. In fact the Ford Fiesta dual-clutch does NOT have an S-mode: it has an "L" mode, which means the car will hold the lowest gear possible at that particular speed, which is not the same as S-mode.

"Tiptronic" is also not linked to presence/absence of DSG. Tiptronic and paddle shifts achieve the same purpose, shifting gears manually on an auto transmission gearbox. It's a matter of preference which is "better". The Honda City and Civic have paddle shifts, the Vento has tiptronic, the Superb has both! Take it from an AT car user: you will use the manual override in your car maybe 10% of the time. Or less.

[dezrskb]

Originally Posted by noopster

Take it from an AT car user: you will use the manual override in your car maybe 10% of the time. Or less.

Thanks for the information noopster,
Your last line encourages me to go the AT way with my next car. But do tell me, for a person shifting from MT to AT car, does the transformation of the driving style happens quite fast or does he start with manual over ride and gradually finds full automatic mode attractive or does he get addicted to AT straightaway? Also, the usage of manual override comes down to 10% because of adaptation of driving style to suit the AT or is it because AT so closely resembles (?and learns) your driving style so that you dont have to use manual override much?

[noopster]

^^ We are going increasingly off-topic but since you asked, here is my opinion.

I have been driving manual transmission cars since I started driving in the early 90s. The first time I drove an AT, it was with a fair bit of trepidation but I realised that there was nothing to it really. My first US trip back in 2000, I drove a fair bit and all on auto transmission vehicles. Since it was on the "wrong" side of the road, the AT helped tremendously.

When moving from MT to a slushbox for the first time, one caveat I would offer is to release the brake VERY slowly because the torque that propels the car forward from rest may surprise you at first. Depending on the specific car, there may be a need to press a button on the gearstick to move between certain gears (e.g. P to D, D to R). The PRNDS sequence is fairly standard these days so that should not be a big issue.

I would advise: drive in D mode till you are perfectly comfortable with it, then experiment with S and finally with manual override (either tiptronic/paddles). Slushboxes are ideally suited to people with a light foot. Planting pedal to the metal will result in frustrating kickdowns and "hunting" for gears. With experience you will learn to control downshifts with your right foot without resorting to the manual overrides. Which is partly the reason why I said you will not use it more than 10% of the time!

All the best.

[Aroy]

Let me explain what I had said in the previous post.

All the negatives attributed to Automatic Transmission in cars can be assigned to the older versions of Torque Converter Auto Boxes, with no electronics. They are
- Lower efficiency, hence power guzzlers
- Sluggish
- May creep at stand still

in Contrast the computer controlled Auto boxes, DSG being one of them
- Do not consume power except when shifting, else it is just like a manual transmission. The DSG may consume little power to "hold" the clutch ready for shifting, but that is not significant.

- As it is computer controlled, in 99.99 times it shifts faster than a normal human being can shift a manual box. Racing driver, who have lightning fast reflexes, may shift faster on a manual.

- The DSG gear box is a manual transmission whose shifting is computer controlled. That gives it all the advantages of a manual box as well as the ease of use of an auto box.

Yes you cannot skip the sequence in an auto box, but with various mode, that may not be necessary as the auto box may do a lightning fast shift through two or more gears faster than it takes us to shift once (while skipping gears).

[000_RANVIS]

Originally Posted by Aroy

Let me explain what I had said in the previous post.
=========
Yes you cannot skip the sequence in an auto box, but with various mode, that may not be necessary as the auto box may do a lightning fast shift through two or more gears faster than it takes us to shift once (while skipping gears).

You have indicated fastness from a different angle (shifting of gear rather than the original subject of time and speed of car with AT and MT). But swiftness of gear shifting is really important. You thought like this although it was not clearly explained then and it is also mentioned in your latest post in the thread.

Thanks really for thinking w.r.t. shifing of gear.

[dezrskb]

Need some information,
Don' the diesels operate in a narrower powerband? I don't remember taking my diesel to or beyond the redline many times. In my Dzire Vdi, the engine sound becomes quite harsh beyond 3000. I remember reading at many places, with diesel you shift early compared to a petrol which needs revving for adequate power output. Hence isnt AT suitable for diesels?

[suhaas307]

Originally Posted by dezrskb

Need some information,
Don' the diesels operate in a narrower powerband? I don't remember taking my diesel to or beyond the redline many times. In my Dzire Vdi, the engine sound becomes quite harsh beyond 3000. I remember reading at many places, with diesel you shift early compared to a petrol which needs revving for adequate power output. Hence isnt AT suitable for diesels?

Diesel cars are generally very torquey. Whatever power you need is available at the bottom-end. Therefore, the need to rev the engine to extract the power does not arise. With all the torque coming right at the beginning, you can shift to a very high gear while doing lower speeds without 'lugging' the mill. This practice would hurt cars with petrol-engines in the long run, not as much the diesel-engine cars.

This doesn't have anything to do with MTs or ATs being better. It's just that an AT will take care of the shifts for you.

Since there is so much torque in diesel cars, you can hold the gear. The need to downshift is minimal when compared to similarly powered petrol cars. So, diesel cars demand less frequent gear changes. And therefore, I believe that an AT would be more suited to petrol cars - that require more frequent gear-changes