Are pre-owned/new manual gearbox cars cheaper to purchase/maintain/insure?

Sowny on 03/02/2017 - 12:15
Last edited 03/02/2017 - 15:01

Hello Ozbargainers,

I have been driving manual hatch for 5 years outside Australia and I'm still crazy to ride manual cars. I have rented a couple of Automatic cars from Hertz and drove 20000+ kilometres but unfortunately, I didn't really get crazy on AUTOMATIC cars. I decided to buy a pre-owned car now and I totally have gone mad over Manual vs Automatic. Can someone throw some lights on below questions?

  1. What's the best thing about Auto cars over manual apart from "EASY TO DRIVE"?
  2. Are Auto cars costlier to insure than Manual?
  3. Are pre-owned Manual variant cheaper than the Auto?
  4. How difficult is to resale manual cars?
  5. Are manuals have better resale value assuming I get a good one and maintain well.

Cheers,
Sowny

Automotive

Comments

  • tonyjzx on 03/02/2017 - 12:37
    +15

    1. 99% of people either want to drive auto or their license is auto only - that makes the audience for auto cars 99% larger.

    2. no

    3. for non performance cars, manuals should be cheaper. For performance cars, manuals can often be more expensive

    4. for non performance cars, manuals should be cheaper. For performance cars, manuals can often be more expensive

    • Sowny on 03/02/2017 - 14:56

      Mate, Thoughts on point 4 seems to be a duplicate one! I'm wondering if it's to sell the Manuals or not.

      • tonyjzx on 03/02/2017 - 14:57
        +14

        its the same because you're asking the same thing in two different ways

        • Sowny on 03/02/2017 - 15:29

          My bad. I updated my Question now.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 06/02/2017 - 12:43

          @Sowny:

          It's still the same question.

          The point is:

          Manual performance cars generally have a higher market value and larger market than automatics.

          The ease by which you can sell a car would depend on the size of the market, the condition, the price, etc.

    • FutureTech on 05/02/2017 - 08:17
      +3

      In nsw once you get your p2 or full license you can drive manual even if you passed the practical test in an auto

    • Scrooge McDuck on 06/02/2017 - 12:46
      +1

      that makes the audience for auto cars 99% larger.

      *market

  • Euphemistic on 03/02/2017 - 12:52
    +9

    Auto is great in heavy traffic, otherwise I'd rather have a manual. Auto can be better if you've got rowdy kids in the car, one less thing to concentrate on. Modern Auto cars are a lot better than they used to be with the ability to choose your gear (within limits), older ones used to use more fuel.

    Insurance may only be a factor in performance cars, not sure if it is for novice drivers.

    For used cars the value depends on demand. If it is a car young hoons want then manual will be more sought after and priced accordingly. If it is a 'grandma' or 'family' car then it is likely the auto will be higher priced. 4wds are probably 50/50. Some 4wd owners love the manual, but auto can be better in the rough stuff.

    • Euphemistic on 04/02/2017 - 06:39
      +1

      Thinking more about it, I don't think that the difference between manual and auto in a used car price will be much anyway. It shouldn't be a significant consideration.

      • Jalif on 04/02/2017 - 22:47
        +3

        After a few years of depreciation, the extra 1-2k for an auto becomes effectively nothing.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 06/02/2017 - 12:53

        For used cars the value depends on demand. If it is a car young hoons want then manual will be more sought after and priced accordingly. If it is a 'grandma' or 'family' car then it is likely the auto will be higher priced. 4wds are probably 50/50. Some 4wd owners love the manual, but auto can be better in the rough stuff.

         

        Thinking more about it, I don't think that the difference between manual and auto in a used car price will be much anyway. It shouldn't be a significant consideration.

        You just contradicted yourself.

        The effect of the difference in new purchase prices would be insignificant. But the effect of the difference in demand would be significant.

  • tonyjzx on 03/02/2017 - 13:09
    +2

    Further about resale.

    For cheap cars like non sporty hatchbacks, the manual is only offered in the base trim, often without a touchscreen and apple car play and the stuff people like.

    This depresses resale.

    On performance cars, you have the choice of manual but many people dont take it and yet, some people do like manual sports cars.

    eg. I would never buy an automatic MX5 or GT86 but I assume there is demand out there.

    I like manual turbo Falcons and Commodore SS V8s… manual ones tend to be more expensive as there are more autos but IMO these cars are better in manual and many buyers would agree with me.

    You can already see that things like SS manual utes are solid buys with abnormally high resale… because people want them for some goddamn reason I cant fathom.

    • spackbace on 03/02/2017 - 13:29
      -5

      but IMO these cars are better in manual and many buyers would agree with me.

      You can already see that things like SS manual utes are solid buys with abnormally high resale… because people want them for some goddamn reason I cant fathom.

      Wut?

      • tonyjzx on 03/02/2017 - 13:34

        WHat dont you understand? Performance utes like SS XR6 have very good resale, over and above sedans.

        • spackbace on 03/02/2017 - 13:35
          -2

          Yep… but you contradicted yourself with this:

          because people want them for some goddamn reason I cant fathom.

        • tonyjzx on 03/02/2017 - 13:38
          +2

          @Spackbace:

          I say that flippantly.

          Also I'm just saying they have high demand.

          I dont know why they have high demand, I'm just saying they do.

        • spackbace on 03/02/2017 - 13:39
          -1

          @tonyjzx:

          OK…

          But I agree with everything you've said so far :)

        • tonyjzx on 03/02/2017 - 13:41
          +3

          Actually I 100% know why sport utes are popular, especially the high performance manual ones.

          Anyone who works around construction sites knows. Its obvious.

        • FUZHA on 06/02/2017 - 11:33

          @tonyjzx: hIgH performance means more load and pulling power. Ok, got it ;-).

        • Ayedeevee on 06/02/2017 - 16:36
          +2

          @tonyjzx:

          I would think performance utes are popular because:
          1. Tradies can claim most mods and the car itself for business purposes and still use it privately
          2. They are the models that are generally "run out" at cheaper prices, with low comparison rates, etc.

          I remember looking at brand new manual XR6 Turbo utes with extras for $32k and 2% comparison about 3 years ago.

        • StewBalls on 06/02/2017 - 18:19
          +1

          I'm sorry guys, I'm just gonna address the elephant in the room here…performance utes are popular because bogans & (profanity)…there, we were all thinking it, it's out in the open now, it just is what it is. ;)

  • oscargamer on 03/02/2017 - 14:45
    +8

    DO NOT buy an auto if you like manuals

    Just like you shouldn't don't buy a manual if you like autos

    • Kangal on 05/02/2017 - 11:50
      +1

      Sports-shift for compromise?

      • Plug on 05/02/2017 - 12:26
        +2

        Sports shift in an auto box is pretty shit imho. Doesn't compare to a manual box at all.

        • kingmw on 05/02/2017 - 19:16
          +1

          What about dual clutch?

        • ATangk on 05/02/2017 - 20:24

          @kingmw:
          Dual clutch is automatic, but the only one ive tried was choppy, probably due to diesel drivetrain.

        • StewBalls on 06/02/2017 - 21:15

          @ATangk: Nah, that wasn't the diesel, DCTs are just plain shite.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 06/02/2017 - 12:58

      DO NOT buy an auto if you like manuals

      Just like you shouldn't don't buy a manual if you like autos

      Thanks Doc!

    • 00 on 07/02/2017 - 08:30
      +1

      Agree. First 2 cars were manual, then I bought 2 autos before finally returning to manual. Love a true manual gearbox, nothing compares. Yet I still want a Tesla but gears are irrelevant with electric motors driving the show.

  • Charity on 03/02/2017 - 15:55

    One auto benefit: Auto has no clutch to wear out. (Not an issue if you replace your car every few years though)

    Auto is also a blessing in the inner city. Resale would depend on the model. Manual is desirable (and more valuable) for many sports cars and niche applications (serious 4x4, etc). Auto everything else.

    • FittyFitty on 05/02/2017 - 17:32
      +7

      No; not an issue if you don't ride the clutch.

      Benefits of clutch vs auto tranny are many, pleasure of control aside…

    • macrocephalic on 06/02/2017 - 13:02
      +5

      How do people wear out their clutches so quickly? My wife's small, cheap manual has 210k on it now and never had the clutch replaced - and it's not too bad still; it will probably outlast the car. I ride bikes, and my current bike has 90k on it, and still on the original clutch. My bike clutch is getting old, but so is the whole thing.

      Compared to auto servicing, clutches are worth nothing.

      • Abaddon on 06/02/2017 - 13:39
        +4

        I'm with you on this. I just had to replace my clutch. After 270k.

        Cost me ~$700

        Much cheaper to replace a clutch than an auto box.

      • Ayedeevee on 06/02/2017 - 16:37
        +1

        How do people wear out their clutches so quickly? They don't know how to use them in the first place.

    • ESEMCE on 08/02/2017 - 14:11

      FYI Auto's actually kinda do have clutches that need replacement - the bands..
      Auto's certainly aren't bulletproof, cost WAAAAY more to fix and as below, Manuals/Clutches are just as long lived, if not longer lived.

  • shaybisc on 03/02/2017 - 16:20
    +1

    Pretty hard to buy a manual transmission with 3 pedals and a gearstick in any of the high-end performance brands. I think Porsche still has one: Aston Martin too.

    BMW M6 maybe I think. Hang on:

    "And that movement has claimed yet another pair of victims, as Car and Driver reports the BMW M5 and M6 will drop their six-speed manual options when production for the current generation ends this fall. Frank van Meel, CEO of the brand’s M division, said, “Demand had dropped to zero,” meaning that the duo will equip dual-clutch transmissions exclusively going forward."

    Nope.

    http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/bmw-to-drop-manual-transmi…

    • JimB on 08/02/2017 - 13:19

      The thing is the M5s and M6s aren't sports cars.

      Fast, yes, but they are more GTs.

      They will be crazy to drop the manuals on the M2/3/4s

      I still think there will be manual sports cars, slower perhaps, but definately more enjoyable, just like petrol vs electric cars.

  • tonyjzx on 03/02/2017 - 16:52
    +1

    As far as maintenance goes, manual cars may need their clutch replaced. On any car its probably a $1k expense and its an expense that may come out of nowhere.

    Autos need their fluid replaced every 100,000km or such but there's also the threat that the gearbox can blow up meaning you need a new box… that cant be $2k $3k whatever expense and its pretty catatrophic to me.

    • supnigs super skids on 03/02/2017 - 17:04
      +2

      Nothing worse than a busted up box. Expensive

      • Sowny on 05/02/2017 - 01:05

        yeah, but it can happen to new cars as well right?

        • supnigs super skids on 05/02/2017 - 02:21

          Watch out for bad synchros in my old/abused manuals

    • Euphemistic on 04/02/2017 - 06:38
      +3

      Clutch expense doesn't usually come out of nowhere, it creeps up on you over time and you can usually nurse a dying clutch for a while. Auto box is probably similar, gradually gets worse until it stops working, but with more serious repairs required.

    • HeWhoKnows on 04/02/2017 - 13:31

      Not exactly correct. In fact quite misleading really. See my post for accurate information.

    • macrocephalic on 06/02/2017 - 17:02

      As long as you aren't grinding the gears and dumping the clutch at full revs all the time then you probably won't have any problems with your clutch or manual box in the expected life of the car. I've heard of plenty of horror stories of people's auto boxes needing thousands of dollars of servicing though.

      Until electric vehicles make the box redundant, I'll continue to prefer manual.

  • HeWhoKnows on 04/02/2017 - 13:25
    -6

    FROM AN EXPERT…….
    RESALE VALUE: Depends on kilometres and condition of car. Buyers will self select to manual or auto. So transmission has little effect on resale value. However the market is much bigger for autos so easier to resell.
    MAINTENANCE: Autos need to be serviced every 30,000 to 50,000kms. Cost is about $220 for common cars. Auto transmission should last between 150,000 and 300,000kms. Depends on the car itself, if it was serviced regularly and how the car was driven.
    Manual gearboxes more or less last forever and require minimal service/maintenance. However replacing the clutch can cost $800 to $2000 depending in car. Expect a clutch to last between 120,000 and 200,000km. Depends on car and how the car was driven.
    FUEL: Manuals use between 10% and 20% less fuel and have much better power.
    INSURANCE: Depends on model of car and your own driving record. Transmission does not affect insurance.
    WHICH TO BUY: Personal preference really. If you drive in heavy traffic regularly then auto is definitely the way to go. If not or you mainly do country travel then manual is best.
    OTHER CONSIDERATION: You can still clutch start a manual if your battery goes flat. Not so for an automatic. So less chance of being stranded due to a flat battery.

    • [Deactivated] on 04/02/2017 - 13:30
      +1

      It is completely untrue to say that autos use more fuel. Maybe back in the 1980s but these days automatic gearboxes generally have considerably better fuel economy than their identical manual counterparts. Power has nothing to do with the gearbox, but generally automatics are faster In a straight line too. (Faster shifts and less parasistic loss). Durability wise automatics will last just as long as manuals without the costs of clutch replacements, and often auto boxes are sealed for life (but ultra high mileage units may require fluid changes). Everything you have said may have been applicable in 1988, but in the ages of ZF8s, you are largely completely wrong.

      • HeWhoKnows on 04/02/2017 - 13:34
        -7

        Sorry but you are WRONG! Check your facts buddy before blabbering like this. Check fuel usage figures posted on web sites. Autos ALWAYS use more fuel and there are many reasons for this.
        I challenge you to give me 3 examples where autos use less fuel than manuals….

        • [Deactivated] on 04/02/2017 - 13:35
          +3

          No problem, let me get my computer. And I will expect an elaborate apology. I'm already loving the irony of your above post.

        • tonyjzx on 04/02/2017 - 13:41
          +7

          @thorton82:

          I agree with thornton. Its well known autos dct dual clutch whatever gets better econ than manuals.

          I also disagree about clutch starts… no one does that anymore. Its actually a bit dangerous. With jump starter cables and battery packs why would you do this?

          I strongly disagree about resale on non performance manual cars. Try selling a manual corolla or something of that sort. Again 99% of people do not have a manual license, and those that do, dont want manual cars. That has a strong affect on resale. PLUS as I said, manuals are usually in base cars only, again affecting resale.

          Anyone who says they are an EXPERT, invariably isnt.

        • [Deactivated] on 04/02/2017 - 13:58
          +10

          So, 5 minutes on Redbook:

          BMW 118d auto (3.8L/100km) BMW 118d Manual (4.0L/100km)
          BMW 330i auto (5.8L/100km) BMW 330i Manual (6.5L/100km)
          Alfa Romeo Guiletta Super auto (4.9L/100km) Alfa Romeo Guilietta Super manual (5.5L/100km)

          All there, all figures correct, all identical cars. Check for yourself.

          The really hard thing about this is pretty much no one makes manual cars anymore. Mercedes only have a single manual car in their range.

          I purposefully neglected to look at cars that had DCT auto boxes, because no doubt you would argue that they are actually manuals (even though for all intents and purposes they are auto), but the effect is even more pronounced in those.

          Waiting for my apology, I have your humble pie right here, it would probably go well with a side of your hat.

        • tonyjzx on 04/02/2017 - 14:01
          +3

          There's not much that you say that I agree with. I actually do not have a problem with this but you dont help yourself by making absolute statements and preface that by annointing yourself "an EXPERT" and THEN backflipping when a simple google search tells you that you are wrong. Some expert.

          I dont know what a 'serious driver is'. I actually drive manual myself for home and work but the reality is that many people who are decent drivers ("serious drivers") have only driven automatic.

          You can see this yourself with Porsche McLaren Mercedes Ferrari Lamborghini all the big performance companies making automatic only cars.

          Are these cars only for 'non serious drivers'?

        • [Deactivated] on 04/02/2017 - 14:03
          +1

          @Amayzingone: You aren't an expert, everything you said in your original post is wrong. You also just said autos are more efficient, but then in the same sentence said that manuals have 'rule when it comes to fuel economy'. That makes zero sense. Power has nothing to do with the gearbox, unless you are talking about parastic loses, and a good auto box these days is at least equal to a manual. With faster shift times, that makes the auto faster in a straight line, so if we are going to go by your vague, make believe terms, an auto would be the one that 'rules on power'.

          Serious drivers don't buy manuals because serious cars rarely come with manual transmissions anymore. None in Ferraris, Lambos, very few in Mercedes. The only 'serious' car that I can think of that comes with a manual is the new BMW M2, but no one will buy it in manual, just like no one bought manual Porsches, so they made their realistic flagship, the GT3, PDK (auto) only.

        • tonyjzx on 04/02/2017 - 14:12

          911R is still manual.

          The only reason manual sells in performance cars is that the US UK combined sales is something like 18 million cars a year.

          If even 2-3% of these are manual that's like 400k-500k cars?

          That's a lot of damn market. So we get the occasional 911 Cayman BMW M whatever in manual.

          To me the front engine six or V8 6 spd manual rwd platform will always be king and hopefully there's enough of people like me around to buy these things.

          If we had to rely on Australians to keep the manual market afloat it would be dead long ago. 2-3% of one million is nothing significant.

        • [Deactivated] on 04/02/2017 - 14:18

          @tonyjzx: yeah the 911 R is but it's limited edition. The new GT3 will be too because of the outcry when they dropped it in favour of PDK. But the reality is you really struggle to buy a manual car in Australia these days and with good reason. On all measurable metrics, autos are superior. A few people may prefer manuals, but they are in the minority. These are the same people who will be clinging to their ICUs in 10 years time when we are all driving faster, cheaper and safer EVs.

        • tonyjzx on 04/02/2017 - 14:47
          +1

          @thorton82:

          I think the realistic thing is that finding a manual instructor is hard these days and the sheer traffic doesnt make much sense overall. If your parents dont foster driving manual then why would you do it out of your own accord/motivation. If you dont know about it, you'll never know what you're missing.

          The only people buying manual ICE cars will be miniscule soon but I expect that in 10yrs the manual performance car will be a weekender to take out to the country like the 911SC 964 911 3.2 cars you see on the weekends.

          Your pure EV Tesla 3 like car, self driving, will be the norm and I'm ok with that.

        • [Deactivated] on 04/02/2017 - 14:56

          @tonyjzx: 100% the truth. I'd love to get an unmolested S2000 for some manual fun when Im not being driven to work in my Model 3, but I'm under no illusion that the Model 3 will be a better can in every way.

        • Sowny on 05/02/2017 - 01:21

          @tonyjzx: So are you claiming that people who own manual license aren't preferring MT cars?

        • berry580 on 05/02/2017 - 06:04
          +3

          Amayzin gone?

        • Euphemistic on 05/02/2017 - 07:28

          @tonyjzx: all the replies about 'everyone' choosing autos probably aren't considering drivers of cheaper cars, or in the country. I'd be surprised if in the young 'serious driver' category or in the country that autos are that much more sought. Most country driving doesn't require an auto, and it can be better to have a manual. Most 'serious drivers' of cheaper cars will go for one with a clutch becuase the autos in cheaper cars aren't up to the demands of an enthusiastic driver, unlike those in flash/sports cars that are designed for spirited driving.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2017 - 08:46

          @berry580: Without a sniff of an apology, pretty weak.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2017 - 08:47

          @Sowny: Most people I know have MT licenses. I don't know anyone who still owns an MT car. Maybe back in the late 90s when they got their licenses, but times have changed.

        • apple2016 on 05/02/2017 - 10:11

          @thorton82: have you ever managed to get the fuel economy advertised? I have been driving a manual and auto and always managed to get a better fuel economy on manual. In the end it's your driving style that determines the fuel economy and not auto vs manual.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2017 - 10:42

          @apple2016: I've never owned both a manual and auto version of the same car so your comparison is invalid. You can only base it off the testing data based off a standard cycle. In light of that, modern autos are more fuel efficient than modern manuals, often by more than 10%. That's $10 per tank. That's a lot over a year.

        • phluffed on 05/02/2017 - 13:41

          @tonyjzx:
          Clutch starts also work when the starter motor has gone… which I was thankful for when 250km from home facing a massive tow charge.

        • macrocephalic on 06/02/2017 - 13:06

          @tonyjzx: You're being a bit hyperbolic about the number of people who don't have manual licences. Off the top of my head, I can think of one person I know who doesn't have a manual licence.

        • macrocephalic on 06/02/2017 - 13:09
          +1

          @tonyjzx: I actually would say that those cars are largely for posers, yet. I'm not saying that it's not ok to drive an auto, for many people they are more suitable, but I think if you want to buy a car for the enjoyment of driving then you need a manual (or DCT with manual control).

        • macrocephalic on 06/02/2017 - 13:11

          @thorton82: Manuals still win in maintenance costs. In Australia it's hard to find a manual large car, but in Europe it's hard to find an auto car (IME).

        • Scrooge McDuck on 06/02/2017 - 13:34

          @thorton82:

          You also just said autos are more efficient, but then in the same sentence said that manuals have 'rule when it comes to fuel economy'. That makes zero sense.

          They were probably comparing contemporary automatic cars to previous ones:

          @Amayzingone:

          OK Autos are more efficient these days but manual still rules when it comes to power and fuel economy.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 06/02/2017 - 13:37

          @thorton82:

          These are the same people who will be clinging to their ICUs in 10 years time when we are all driving faster, cheaper and safer EVs.

          * Raises hand and peels off in a cloud of tyre smoke. *

        • Scrooge McDuck on 06/02/2017 - 13:38

          @thorton82:

          I don't know anyone who still owns an MT car.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e8Qd81brk0

    • Sowny on 05/02/2017 - 01:13

      @@Amayzingone - I got your point mate. I don't travel in jam-packed road often. I think I would go for MT cars. I have shortlisted a couple of 2006 Mitsubishi Lancer MT car. What's your opinion on it?

      • supnigs super skids on 05/02/2017 - 02:05
        +1

        Pretty good car. Love manuals even in peak hour in city every day with a heavy clutch. No complaints. Saves you having to use brakes as often and easier to control speed using just throttle (engine braking). Find that autos don't hold gears and just roll.

        • ATangk on 05/02/2017 - 20:35

          Brake pads are cheaper than the transmission. That said, all you need is a car with paddleshift if you did want to use engine braking. I only really use it on the long downhill stretches such as north out of/into Sydney on the M1 or southbound into Woolongong.

        • supnigs super skids on 05/02/2017 - 20:40
          +1

          @ATangk: i usually stay in 1st or second gear without braking during peak hour - slow roll. cant be done in an auto. what i hate the most is drivers who brake way too early and then going again for 2 car lengths and brake again..

        • ATangk on 05/02/2017 - 20:52

          @supnigs:
          Should blame RTA (or RMS now) for teaching that in the Learner's Log Book.

      • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2017 - 08:44
        +2

        You shouldn't. Resale alone will kill you, and despite what supnigs says (how can that user name even exist?), the Lancer is not a good car. On a scale of cars it sits right at the bottom end. That being said if you're buying a 2006 Lancer, it's pretty close to worthless now, so resale isn't really a factor.

        • gmail92 on 05/02/2017 - 22:37
          +1

          When I was shopping for Lancers a few years ago, the majority of them were either thrashed or overpriced.

  • [Deactivated] on 04/02/2017 - 15:45
    +4

    I tell you AmayzingOne's upvotes are totally sus. Not only has be disappeared as soon as he was proved wrong, but suddenly a new account (MoeDeeB) has appeared to upvote his posts.

    • supnigs super skids on 05/02/2017 - 08:18
      -2

      He was generally right but caught out on a technicality. The cars you picked had heaps of gears in the auto which made it more efficient. Autos are generally heavier than its manual version due to extra crap it has to carry

      • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2017 - 08:44
        +2

        No, he is wrong, unless you are buying an old outdated car or an utter price of crap.

        • Cwong14u on 05/02/2017 - 08:50

          Agree to disagree?

        • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2017 - 09:30
          +1

          @Cwong14u: No, there is no disagreement, my argument is supported by numbers and facts. Their opinion is supported by opinion.

        • supnigs super skids on 05/02/2017 - 20:58
          -3

          @thorton82: in very simple terms:

          aside from CVT, autos and manuals have gears/speeds. the more speeds/gears it has, the better the fuel economy can be as its directly proportional to engine rotation. you rotate the engine faster, you use more fuel..

          autos are basically manuals with a whole lot of pumps and stuff to shift. this adds weight and reduces power output/reliability.

          some of the newer autos have lots of speeds/gear which in some cases exceeds its manual variant. fitting so many gears in there with all the other shifting smarts makes it weaek./expensive to repair. however, this is where perceived fuel economy comes from - what mass markets want these days. they dont invest in making manuals better anymore, not that it really needs it as 6 speeds are fantastic already.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2017 - 21:09
          +4

          @supnigs: Another armchair expert spurting out BS. Autos are not basically manuals at all. A torque converter is nothing like a clutch. Putting in extra gears does not make the gearbox weak, in fact, most automatics have much higher torque ratings than manuals, and the torque ratings on autos are usually considerably higher than what the engine can hope to deliver.

        • supnigs super skids on 05/02/2017 - 21:14
          -2

          @thorton82: this was you right?
          https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/4010766/redir

          the same genius?

        • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2017 - 21:53
          +1

          @supnigs: Yep, and right there too. I think using genius in a pejorative way and referring to a years old post where you are also wrong, doesn't exactly help your argument. (Well there is no argument).

        • supnigs super skids on 05/02/2017 - 21:55
          -3

          @thorton82: man, here we go again..

        • Scrooge McDuck on 06/02/2017 - 13:53

          @thorton82:

          referring to a years old post

          You posted that less than 5 months ago.

        • stumo on 06/02/2017 - 14:03
          +1

          @supnigs:
          More gears doesn't always mean it is taller geared. In my Mercedes sprinter the 5 speed auto has a taller top gear than the 6 speed manual version, way taller.

          @thorton82:
          I agree with you, and to prove it with actual figures (rather than made up opinionated BS spouted in this thread by EXPERTS in caps no less)… My ML270 is rated 400Nm for the auto trans variant. The same car with manual trans is rated 360Nm. So Mercedes had to de-rate the engine more so as not to destroy the manual trans.

          OP another reason to get auto over manual is the torque multiplier effect of the torque converter. You can get an immense burst of torque off the line in an auto if you load it up right, which you just cant get in a manual.

        • supnigs super skids on 06/02/2017 - 14:17

          @stumo:
          1. more gears means better chance of lower rpm over a wider speed range, hence better fuel economy. Clutches get heavier if you want more power. It's a compromise .autos just overheat

          1. In manual it's called dropping the clutch at higher rpm launch.
        • stumo on 06/02/2017 - 14:22

          @supnigs:
          1. Ok i misread what you said. I agree.

          1. You still only have the one gear ratio you are in in a manual, when you drop that clutch. In the auto its like having an extra low-range gear for free.
        • supnigs super skids on 06/02/2017 - 14:45

          @stumo: you only ever need the lowest gear on the car. Not sure what you are talking about there in the auto

        • stumo on 06/02/2017 - 17:26

          @supnigs:
          For whatever reason, when the engine is spinning faster than the wheels allow, you are either riding the clutch in a manual, or the torque converter is allowing that slip in an auto.

          In this case, the manual is converting that extra energy from the engine into heat, burning up the clutch. In an auto, a lot of that extra energy is being sent to the wheels, due to the torque multiplying effect of the vanes in the torque converter.

          So in an auto, its like having a free gear ratio that is lower than the gear you are in. For a practical example of this, let's say you are trying to mount a big kerb from stopped… In a manual you will have to rev a fair bit and burn some clutch to get up it. In an auto you will just effortlessly crawl up in total control. This is because the energy you are burning away in the manual, is being used to climb the kerb in the auto.

          A manual would need a super low gear ratio to get close to the same result as the auto. So the auto is like having a lower ratio gear for free.

          This isn't the only application, its just an example to illustrate the point.

        • supnigs super skids on 06/02/2017 - 17:56

          @stumo: ozbargain has a forum of lots of varied knowledgeable individuals in a wide range of areas.

          What you have explained gives me reason to stop this
          debate. It's best you try vet that explaination through an automotive forum first without getting humoured.

        • stumo on 06/02/2017 - 18:25

          @supnigs:
          Its OK if you don't understand, theres no need to resort to thinly veiled trolling. You can always just refer to Wikipedia for further info on the torque multiplication effect of a torque converter..
          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque_converter#Efficiency_…

        • supnigs super skids on 06/02/2017 - 18:31

          @stumo: the problem is in your application of that knowledge.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join