Ta Surf Mat,
We are looking to spend £3-4k on a small family hatch.
Mrs likes the Ford Focus (petrol 1.6).
Me, I am not fussed tbh, as long as its cheap to run 😉
Bear in mind not all auto's are equal,
The metro's auto was CVT, so the engine hits peak power for a given throttle opening, and the transmission adjusts itself to translate that to the correct speed, so you're always in a perfect gear. These were banned in F1 for being too quick.
DSG is essentialy a manual gearbox (with a second clutch) with someone else doing the shifting.
Older autos were complex beasts that used planetery gears and valves opened and closed to let the transmission fluid through as the pressure built up, more revs = more pressure = more valves closed = the next gear selected. The loss of power (and efficiency) was because in all but top gear which was like a normal clutch and coupled the engine to the gearbox output shaft, the drive was transmitted through an impeller which was woefully ineficient.
Most modern autos fall into the category of a computer controlled manual which is why they can be as fast and efficient as a manual.
Ski - I'd opt for manual then. Ford don't make the best autos but they make decent manuals. Auto also slows the 1.6 down a fair bit which can be annoying. The engine is a good one (a mate has just sold one with 150,000 miles on it - almost no issues at all) but needs working hard on long hills.
Perfect car for the budget IMO - always recommend these to people on that budget - handle nicely, cheap to run, good on fuel and actually pretty well made.
People drive autos for the same reason they ride singlespeeds.
I was thinking the opposite TBH 😆
I drive an auto and a manual. My wife bought an ace little car in a nice colour and we both thought it looked cool. The fact it was auto was neither a reason to buy it nor a reason not to buy it. However I cannot think of a better adjective than "easier" as to why someone would drive an automatic car. I suspect the people who don't see that don't spend much time stuck in traffic jams, or are just being disagreeable for the sake of it (which is my usual fault!)
Plus, you can eat and drink much more easily in an auto 🙂
Yep, as pointed out above, the answer to the original post is simply that they're easier. That doesn't make people who drive them less able drivers, it's just that they prefer things that way.
There is, I've found, a massive difference between a Eutopean auto and an American auto though. We had a hire car in the states once that claimed in it's brochure, that had 200bhp. Now a 200bhp car in the Uk would be very quick indeed, auto or manual and while I'm prepared to accept that a hire car might be tuned down a bit, this thing was quite possibly one of the slowest cars I've ever driven, and I've driven a 1.4 ford escort.
One friend likened American automatic gearings to a propshaft attached to the gearbox, on the end of the propshaft was a propeller which sat inside a bucket of treacle. And the bucket is attached to the wheels.
It really felt that distant from pressing the accelerator to actually moving forwards.
Samurai - in the USA people adopted autos way back when they were rubbish, so they are happy with the rubbishness and manufacturers still sell the rubbish ones because they are cheaper. The same cars here are often not available with the rubbish gearbox and you can only get the nice one, or none at all.
As for 200bhp, what car was it? It's also worth noting that petrol varies in octane rating a lot. So you could be driving a car tuned for 93 gas (dunno if that's the same as our RON or not) but if you fill it with 83 it'll be rubbish. Plus if you are driving at altitude (as you can in the US without noticing it) this makes cars slower too.
Oh and another thing - speedos in the US are calibrated to be accurate, whereas ours are calibrated to read 10% under. So if you think it's taking a long time to get to 60mph you are actually accelerating to what would read as 66mph here. If you get my drift.
Samuri - if it was American, then it probably weighed more than the Moon.
To pass emissions standards in the US "my" model of car is not only down 21bhp, it also has to have urea added to the fuel supply. So they have pi55 in their cars - s**** s****...
[i]You can shift into neutral in an auto simply enough.[/i]
No you can't on the Toyotas I refered to in my original quote that you truncated. You have to press the engine stop button for several seconds in which time a lot could happen.
If you can find me one or two autos that return better fuel consumption than their manual equivalents I'll find you hundreds that don't. The autos that do well are semi-autos and very high geared autos with lock outs. That's not many.
Well you've made up your mind Edukator so that's that.
I find all sorts of cars, some manual, some auto, are great. But you can't be swayed and must be correct. Clearly you haven't driven many cars and can't get the best out of those that you do drive.
Right, off to tell BMW, AMG, Ferrari, Porsche and all F1 manufacturers now silly their gearboxes are...
Its the 21st century and most of us are manually changing gear with a bit of bent metal shoved through a hole in the floor of the car. In what other area of consumer products would such lack of progress be accepted? Why do we accept such antiquated technology in one of the most expensive products we buy?
I've been able to change gear on my bicycles using my fingers for the last 20 years yet we're only just begining to have this facility in cars.
Given a decent autobox is available for the model of car I want and I can afford it then its automatic all the way. I recently tried the new 5 series with the new BMW 8 speed which, despite having a torque convertor, actually gives the same fuel economy as the manual versions. It was a joy to drive. Responsive and smooth it seemed to read my mind knowing when I wanted to cruise or when I wanted acceleration with no need to use the supplied paddle shifters. We just need this technology to trickle down now.
No you can't on the Toyotas I refered to in my original quote that you truncated. You have to press the engine stop button for several seconds in which time a lot could happen.
I drive a Prius, and there's an N position on the lever. Flick it into N, and you're in neutral 🙂
The autos that do well are semi-autos and very high geared autos with lock outs. That's not many.
Actually the autos that do well are the dual-clutch type (ie the VAG DSG). This is actually like two manual gearboxes; one of them has first, third and fifth, and the other has second, fourth and sixth. There are two clutches so that the car can switch between them seamlessly. So when you're in gear, it's working exactly the same as a manual and hence behaviour is the same. On the 6 speed there is a slight drop in fuel economy because the clutches are wet, and presumably this means that there's some drag caused by the fluid. The 7 speed that has supposedly better fuel consumption than the manual is a dry clutch design.
The gear ratios on my DSG aren't any different to what I would expect on a manual - 2000rpm at 70mph is normal in a diesel I reckon.
Wrong on two counts there Edukator.
Trust me, some full autos are very, very good too 😉
I drive a Prius, and there's an N position on the lever. Flick it into N, and you're in neutral
I've been driving a Yaris and a Corolla auto, they both have Ns too...
Dunno what fuel the cars took, we only filled up when we returned them. My experiences were based on the feel of the car rather than what the speedo said but yes, I expect the ridiculous weight of the car probably didn't help. We had a Pontiac compact of some description, a big buick style car and a manual Merc which they couldn't hire out to anyone else (which was fine).
Where were you samuri?
Our hire car was a huge Saturn crossover SUV which had a 3.6l V6, 280bhp or something and it was pretty quick. It got a good hard drive at our equivalent of almost 90mph and still got 25mpg, almost 30mpg when driven more modestly. I was pretty impressed with that.
However dramatically less quick at 7000ft in Colorado though.
Autos - nasty things, can't imagine why someone would want them.
VW DSG is good, but it is a clutchless manual, not an auto, and FWIW I found it to be a complete pain in traffic (no clutch control for biting point, drive train shunt etc), but wonderfull for spirited driving.
Full autos still have the tendency to select the wrong gear on twisty roads, even in "sport" settings
Its the 21st century and most of us are manually changing gear with a bit of bent metal shoved through a hole in the floor of the car. In what other area of consumer products would such lack of progress be accepted? Why do we accept such antiquated technology in one of the most expensive products we buy?
Easy answer to that - control feedback
No electronic linky thingies can replicate the control feedback you get from a mechanical connection. We all love it - nothing tells you quite what the bike is doing (or going to do) like pedal, bars and saddle contact - direct, mechanical, immediate.
IIRC The previous Focus RS was praised because Ford went back to the old style steering rack, rather than the cheaper column mounted electromechanical power steering. Alfa have just taken a similar decision for their new Giulietta, to improve the "feel" that had been lost over the previous few generations of "advances"
VW DSG is good, but it is a clutchless manual, not an auto
Wtf? It's a gearbox that changes automatically, ergo it is an auto. Doesn't make any difference how it works internally does it?
Your points are valid re feedback in theory, Rkk01, but for many of us driving is about comfort and ease, not performance and driveability.
I was going to get the Civic despite it being manual, but I decided against it since I knew it'd frustrate me being stuck on a motorway all the time not being able to really appreciate it (having grown up on proper country roads). So I went with a cruiser.. tool for the job. Feedback is not an issue 🙂
Wtf? It's a gearbox that changes automatically, ergo it is an auto. Doesn't make any difference how it works internally does it?
I seem to remember that when I bought the Golf, VW were marketing 2 systems, one was the traditional auto, the second, DSG was marketed as a clutchless manual - ie, as you state in your earlier posts, basically a replicate of their manual box, but with a dual electronically operated clutch. Totally different.
DSG is / was designed to be a manual gearbox. It has set ratios, that are selecetd by the driver. The driver changes gear at the revs / load, road conditions of their choosing. The difference is the shift mechanism - ie electronically actuated rather than pedal / hand lever actuated.
In an auto box, the car's systems choose when / where to change gear. The driver may have an over-ride, but even those tend to be slow at changing ratio.
Confusion seems to have crept in as the technology has been trickled down to the more mundane models - presumably drivers of these models are more interested in carpet slippers than driving dynamics and technology 😉
The DSG in my car is AUTOMATIC. It changes gear entirely on its own without any intervention from me. It's totally automatic and independent. It chooses when to change gear, I do nothing except operate the accelerator and brake.
I know what automatic means! 🙄
Autos - nasty things, can't imagine why someone would want them
they're easier
Come on folks, there's a lot of "why automatics are bad" comments on here. Maybe they are bad in many ways compared to manuals, but...
Why do people drive automatic cars?
they're easier
Let's start a new thread "why don't people drive automatic cars?" and get the naysayers on there 😉
Read the manual??
It stands for DIRECT shift gearbox...?
See my edited clarification to my earlier post...
Confusion seems to have crept in as the technology has been trickled down to the more mundane models - presumably drivers of these models are more interested in carpet slippers than driving dynamics and technology
Although in fairness to you, VW might well have changed the way that they market the system (and for that matter may have dropped their traditional auto box, on the basis of the success of DSG)
I enjoyed DSG whilst I had it, although missed being able to drop 2 ratios at a time etc.
Rkk01 - your edit wasn't there when I posted.
As I understood it, DSG is what racing cars have been using for years, and VW just made it for normal cars. It still counts as an auto tho. And yes I don't think VW make a traditional auto for the UK market since they don't sell well for all the above-mentioned criticisms of them. If you walk into a VW garage and ask for an auto you'll get a DSG.
Interestingly though, Audis are available with CVTs.. which is a nice idea. The first one I drove was an old fiesta and it was really weird to drive - basically a pulse of power then it trundled along. After having had a better one in the Prius though it's actually quite nice - to drive along at super low revs when you're just cruising.
from Wikipedia...
The Direct-Shift Gearbox (German: Direkt-Schalt-Getriebe[1]), commonly abbreviated to DSG,[2][3] is an electronically controlled dual clutch[2] multiple-shaft [b]manual[/b] gearbox
molgrips - The system I had was in a Mk5 GTi. Might have been set up differently thanother models. It [i]could[/i] be controlled via the auto selection programme, but never was - I always used it in the manual mode, so both paddle and sequential lever systems are essentially a semi-auto manual.
It is a very good system, but I'd have the manual if I was making the same purchase again.
As well as the no dropping 2 cogs and drivetrain shunt issues above, it could also get confused if you went for a gear that the control unit wasn't expecting - eg, quickly dropping two gears with a double tap on the paddles, when the control unit might have anticiptaed an upshift.
What're you trying to say? That I am some way initiating the gear shifts and not noticing it?
What're you trying to say? That I am some way initiating the gear shifts and not noticing it?
No, you clealry drive it in the auto selection mode.
I drove mine in the manual (sequential semi-auto) mode.
Whatever shift mode, the gearbox remains a manual.
How can it be manual when it shifts automatically?
What's your definition of auto then?
do you do voodoo
The Pontiac and Merc were in Dallas, the buick thingy was in Denver and admittedly, that struggled a lot more when we headed into the mountains, and it's already a mile high before we started.
Someone in an SUV drove right into the back of the Pontiac too which probably didn't help it. 😉 Since we were in Texas we expected to be gunned down immediately by some crazed red neck with anti-foreigner issues after he'd done it but he turned out to be a very apologetic, very middle class white collar American who admitted he'd not been looking properly.
My car only comes in a automatic version as there is no space to fit a maunal gearbox.
What's your definition of auto then?
Not basing it on my definition...
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_transmission ]auto [/url]
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSG_gearbox#Volkswagen_Passenger_Cars ]DSG[/url]
An automatic transmission (often informally shortened to auto, and abbreviated to AT) is a motor vehicle transmission that can automatically change gear ratios as the vehicle moves, freeing the driver from having to shift gears manually.
So my car is auto then.
Samuri, out West the cheapest gas is often 83, which is like putting cheap beer into your tank. It makes your car drive like crap. Plus the altitude of course... When I drove in Texas I was about to get annoyed with some driver my native passenger said "Don't! He might be armed!" Funnily enough, everone was pretty polite on the roads.. rubbish at driving, but polite nonetheless.
TINAS has the explanation of different types of "automatic" gearbox in the second post on this page.
Slushboxes ( torque converter / epicyclic gears) are awful
DSG and similar are better and the best of them are as good as a manual
CVT is a whole other can of worms
You're rubbishing my comments on the majority of autos by referring to a type of auto/semi-auto box (call the VW thing what you will) that is fitted to very few cars Molgrips. I've recognised that a very small number of autos do return good fuel consumption but the vast majority don't.
[i]Clearly you haven't driven many cars and can't get the best out of those that you do drive.[/i]
Can't or chose not to, they're very different. And what is the best anyway? Limiting fuel consumption/pollution and the risk to other road users are the main things in my mind when I use a motor vehicle.
You're rubbishing my comments on the majority of autos
No I'm not, I agree with you - the traditional auto is rubbish. Although the majority of new cars now are coming with modern boxes, are they not?
But really, autos, even traditional ones, are not more dangerous. Bad in many ways, but I don't accept the road safety argument.
[i]Funnily enough, everone was pretty polite on the roads.. rubbish at driving, but polite nonetheless. [/i]
Yeah, my experiences too. Driving on the freeway is hilarious, it's like there aren't any white lines drawn on the road at all, people just drift about completely at random. And then you get the 'should I turn right through a red' question. I usually just sat there unless someone behind me beeped their horn (and then I'd look to see if they had any 'you can have my gun...' bumper stickers.)
Turning right on a red is ok, I just have to remember to do it. For a real shocker try driving around a really big city like Chicago. Great big 6 lane raft of cars, HGVs and everything barrelling along in all lanes at 80mph stacked 3 ft apart in places, with all the drivers miles away in la-la land; on their phones, eating dinner, chatting to their passengers.. Chopping lanes all over the place - you get some car tailgateing another and then someone forces their way in between them leaving literally inches..! Frigging scary it is!
[i]The predominant form of automatic transmission is hydraulically operated; using a fluid coupling or torque converter, and a set of planetary gearsets to provide a range of gear ratios.[/i]
That's Wiki. I don't have any figures and nor do you.
Predominant for existing cars in the world, perhaps. I doubt that most modern ones sold in the UK are like that. But fine, whatever 🙂
Why do i drive an auto? Well its what the car had fitted by someone else when new and there are not very many manuals around (i found one when looking but it was a lower spec one) and the auto is very easy to drive. I can put it into manual over ride and select the gears and when doing this it will lock into gear which is usfull on steep hills other wise it can run away abit beloow 50mph as the box disengages the engine to save fuel. Its not much worse than the manual on fuel (2mpg or so) it has 5 gears and the newer ones have 6 so thats not less than the manual. you can knock it in to nutral with out even having to press the shift lock button but you can't take the key out with it in anything but park. Would i have had it as a manual over the auto given a choice the answer would depnd on when you asked me as there are odd times i would prefer a manual but i normal just use the manual over ride at this point. Oh and as for driving it on the twistys the car weighs over 2.5 tonnes so its not a car for that. Now our other car i would only have as a manual as its fun to drive but i wouldn't want to drive it over a long distance anyway.
Can't or chose not to, they're very different. And what is the best anyway? Limiting fuel consumption/pollution and the risk to other road users are the main things in my mind when I use a motor vehicle.
As mentioned you cannot buy my car as manual, it's astonishingly good on fuel for it's power (~300bhp) and torque, and the emissions are super low. if you want manual, you have to get the lower powered 330d or the 335i. The 330d is less fun, the 335i is much worse on fuel even as a manual.
When driving in a spirited manner, it's nice to "forget" the gears (yes I can change gear...) and concentrate on the braking, steering and what the tyres are doing. A good auto "learns" how you drive and responds appropriately.
Your sweeping statements are a bit silly.
Using 300bhp spiritedly means ignoring the speed limits on the public road unless your definition of spirited is very strange.
If you are driving spirtiedly then an auto loses you one of the most important strategies you have on slippy surfaces - "clutch down and steer". In removing all propulsive or engine braking forces from the driven wheels you can recover from excesses of either.
You might find my sweeping statements sily, I find a 300bhp road car silly.
The engine brakes fine on a trailing throttle - more so than many manual non diesels. And how does an auto 'box remove the propulsive force?!
Rarely break the speed limit - I just like getting to it quickly and safely. It also makes overtaking much safer and it has brakes that work incredibly well - as the badger I managed to avoid hitting last night would testify. Very few cars would have stopped in time and/or not lost control.
Anyway it's not about my car (our other car is 85bhp and does 0-60 just about in over 14s...) it's about autos being "silly" - maybe ten years ago most were but cars have changed a lot and some autos are simply brilliant - not just on high performance cars either.
I'm not sure I'd de-clutch when driving on slippery road surfaces.. unless it was snow or something. The engine braking effect becomes something predictable that you work with in my experience.
Oh and Surf-Mat's car is silly, we've already done this. He's happy to tap a small amount of the potential of his car whilst staying safe and around the speed limit.. 😉
Using 300bhp spiritedly means ignoring the speed limits on the public road unless your definition of spirited is very strange.
I can drive my 300hp road car very spiritedly without exceeding the speed limits or safe speeds for that matter, it's all about acceleration and cornering for me, rather than top speed. I'm not keen on top speeds. (so much so I'm in the process of trying to find a different gearbox that brings the top speed down from ~150 to ~120 for better acceleration, but each to his own!)
MUUUUUMMY, he called my car silly.... bottom lip wobble 😥 😥 😉
Tis a practical family car I'll have you know.
Agreed though - de-clutching on slippery roads - ermmm - why? Certainly not what the rozzer instructor taught me or anyone I know.
ck - not got anywhere near my top speed and no plans to either. As you say, it's about getting there. I also find power gives you more options a lot of the time and helps keep the car "in shape" when pressing on.
Agreed CK, but I'd feel like it was coitus interruptus, backing off at a mere 60mph. I find that on most roads wide enough to be safe, it's mostly about threading your car twixt white line and hedge within 10-15mph of the limit, so there's little scope for acceleration. Cornering is basically everything there. Which is why if I were ever to get a sports car it would be something like a Smart Roadster...
Using 300bhp spiritedly means ignoring the speed limits on the public road... ...In removing all propulsive or engine braking forces from the driven wheels you can recover from excesses of either...You might find my sweeping statements sily, I find a 300bhp road car silly.
What utter, utter pish.
A 300 bhp BMW will take half the time, if not less, to get to whatever the speed limit is, compared to a 80 bhp Fiesta. Therein lies the fun. You don't need to break the speed limit.
Also, try driving a mid-engined RWD car and "removing all propulsive or engine braking forces" halfway round a corner and see how well you recover. It's called "lift-off oversteer" and it's pretty damned unrecoverable.
Smart Roadster...
Nah, if you've driven one you'd not be saying that (granted, you did say "like")! Underpowered miserable things, and christ if you've seen one in a crash you'd be running the other way (basically shatters to nothingness on fairly low impacts, from the mild 3 car shunt I saw one in the middle of the other day).
My Merc is 2nd hand - and they don't even offer it in manual.
Many cars simply don't come with a manual option.
It looks great, goes well and if I want to have real fun, I hook up the car or m'cycle trailer and we trundle off to a track day or a race meet.
Proof positive that the fast guys & gals don't need to own ballistic missiles on the road - we practise our race craft on the tracks of the UK and Europe. Moreover, many of the fastest, most experienced racers I know have what might be described as mundane road cars (by comparrison to the cars / m'cycles they also own). Even my single seater fast jet (Harrier) pilot pals have people carriers.
The difference between those that simple "are" and those who "want-to-be's" (otherwise known as the Walts - after Walertmitty). Reading many of the above comments I think there are many Walts about!
[i]Agreed though - de-clutching on slippery roads - ermmm - why?[/i]
Reread my last post. I thought spirited driving was all about having the car out of shape personally.
Fair play CK.. I've not driven one. So it's back to the TT TDI idea then 🙂
EDIT: Ti29er - I save mine for the trails.. riding on the very ragged edge is where it's at for me 🙂 Except when there's ramblers about...
I love the way my "clutch down and steer" is being rubbished.
[i]It's called "lift-off oversteer" and it's pretty damned unrecoverable. [/i]
That assumes you're in a FWD car. Now front wheel drive cars generally understeer and if you want to reduce understeer without provoking lift-off oversteer dipping the clutch works quite well. The alternative is left-foot braking but if the understeer feels terninal a quick dip of the clutch os more likely to find grip.
I thought spirited driving was all about having the car out of shape personally.
No, that's the preserve of the boy-racer-in-out-of-control-FWD crowd. But arguing over the definition of it is not really fruitful I suppose. If the car is "out of shape" you don't have the skills required. IMO if you're driving spritedly you won't be out of control or unable to stop/react as necessary, whilst making maximum progress within the limits. If you're sliding you're either out of control or driving in a way that shouldnt be on public roads. I've done it, it's great fun to just use your power to reduce your turning circle vastly, but it's not sensible. But I'd not call it "spirited" 🙂
ck - agreed again (!) If you drive on or over the limit on public roads, you are very silly. Too many variables - surface traction might be less than you expected, a kid might be in the road, etc, etc. By "spirited" I mean rapidly driving choosing the best lines and putting the power on early (where appropriate) not going sideways around every bend.
Some FWD are nasty for lift off oversteer - 205 GTi, Saxo VTS and more - many are crashed from silly drivers taking it too far - fine on a track, very silly off one. Much as I enjoy "fun" driving, I hate seeing silly boy racers pushing it and driving badly.
Out of shape doesn't mean out of control. It's far easier to change direction in a car that's already out of shape. Out of shape doesn't equate to a lack of skill either.
[i]If you're sliding you're either out of control or driving in a way that shouldnt be on public roads[/i]
Now there you have an excellent point. So how do you drive a 300bhp BMW spiritedly on public roads?
So how do you drive a 300bhp BMW spiritedly on public roads?
Out of shape is breaking traction, once you've broken traction you're in less of a position to stop/change direction if needed. That's not driving spiritedly, it's driving as you would on a track where life is more predictable and consequences are less severe. Hence it's very easy to drive a 300hp car spiritedly, if you want to get "out of shape" get on a track. Simple.
Edu - I don't think ck has a BMW (something else quick though)...?
I'm not sure what your point really is - and it's gone way off topic. Manual transmissions are not the only way any more . 300bhp is useful on public roads sometimes. Sliding a car is not a good idea off a race track.
ck - oh you do have a BMW then?!
I'm really having trouble trying to visualise this "fun" and "spirited" driving in cars with the levels of grip and performance you mention. Driving any of them anywhere at the legal limit I can only describe as "pedestrian". Better buy something that can be driven in a fun and spirited way at the legal limit - say an Austin A35 van.
Or my first car - a 1973 Morris Marina 1.3.
No power, no brakes and a tendency to dive in one direction randomly. And despite almost no power, it still span it's little rear wheels all too easily.
I find driving our RWD/4WD Jimny a right laugh - anything over 75 is lethal but up to that point, it's just funny. Loud, not much grip, not much power but decent brakes and some comedy handling.
[i]a 1973 Morris Marina 1.3.[/i]
The perfect example. You can see what I'm getting at then.
TBH the Marina wasn't fun - it was bloody dangerous. Sold it to my cousin who wrote it off a week later.
I thought they were great, I drove one legally around the Mid Wales forestry roads for four years and didn't put a scratch on it. Spirited would be an understatement but I knew my job depended on me giving it back intact each night. A pity my job didn't depend on keeping my own rally cars intact, I might have finished more often.
Its easy to drive a car spritedly down the right roads. There are some good roads for it near me if you go at the right time of day, so that they are not full of traffic. Its all about getting the flow right and with a powerfull car you can rapidly accelerate through bends and brake late for the corners.
I have had a 205 GTi and the lift of oversteer was terriffing as it was unprodictable as to when it would happen. I had it happen at relativley slow speeds as well as higher ones. In fact i regularly drive through a roundabout where it happened to me when a car pulled out in front of me and even in when this has happened in out big heavy high SUV its not stepped out like that.
I often have fun in out Megane driving between roundabouts (when i drive it) accelerating through them and out of them but never break the speed limit for that road (i also do this in the xc but its not as much fun).
The 205 GTI was fine. It wasn't unpredictable if you provoked it. As I said before it's easier to change direction if the car is already out of shape. It's also easier to balance a car you've deliberately set up sideways than one you've pushed just past the point slip angles increase dramatically.
Anyhow, autos are pants and I'm off to fête de la musique.
Surf-Mat - Memberski - tell me what car (or cars if you're looking at several), I'll tell you if it's better as an auto or manual!
So let's say a Honda Civic, a petrol engine, 2001. 1.7 auto vs. 1.6 manual, both V-Tec. They seem cheap, between 1300 and 2300 quid, so might be an interesting option.
Besides, I've never driven an auto-boxed car, not sure what I'd gain as here in Ireland most drivers never seem to go over 35 mph on a major road or 40 mph on a motorway, whilst when I cruised on a German motorway it was the highest gear, floor the accelerator, 90 mph on a downhill (Pug 406 Est. 1.9dt).
Will any of the cars mentioned be better to drive? Less body roll and more grip? Or should I really say enough and save up for a Prelude/Accord Coupe (the latter of which has a lovely 3.0 V6 but an auto box)? I can't really justify such a large unit and have no need for any penis extension in a form of a large car. I want comfort, speed, pleasant drive at 100+ mph in Germany AND 30 mph in Ireland.
Edukator - Member
It wasn't unpredictable if you provoked it. It's also easier to balance a car you've deliberately set up sideways than one you've pushed just past the point slip angles increase dramatically.
Which bit of unpredictable do you get in my post? i wasn't talking about getting it side ways on a rally stage but when you do things like driving round a bend when some thing UNEXPECTIED happens and you lift of the throttle.
Edukator - Member
Anyhow, autos are pants and I'm off to fête de la musique.
like i said it depends on th ecar and its use. for towing an auto is great as there is no clutch to burn out or to replace.
Hairy - I'd go for a 1.6 manual. VTECs needs thrashing and don't have lots of torque which suits a manual box. Honda autos are a bit suspect but they make great manuals. In fact the Civic Type R 'box is one of the nicest in any car.
It's a tough call though - a Civic of any type will be loud and a bit lively at 100+mph, the Prelude/Accord will be a bit oversized and lumpy on Irish roads and a 3.0 V6 will guzzle the fuel.
Any other options? TBH something like a TDCI Focus will do both jobs well - handles nicely (better than a Civic) but has the "legs" to do 100+ without making your ears bleed.
Lift off oversteer is horrible - firstly you've lifted off because something unexpected has happened. Secondly you are now oversteering and in a FWD car, that's a bitch to catch and correct. I don't miss FWD and never will.
Hairy chested - the older model Civic (if it's the one before the current one) is meant to be a great handling car I think. I suspect the 1.7 might be diesel, since that was the size of the diesel they did. If so, avoid - it's an absolutely dire engine by all accounts. Hondas autos are also bad supposedly, so sounds like you should def go for the 1.6 manual. Although I'm not sure I'd want to push a 1.6 at 100mph all day, it could probably be done.
I don't think autos are ideal for towing either (traditional ones) as it puts strain on the torque converter, and you need an oil cooler fitted I think too.
CK by the way is into racing - he drives a crappy Peugot for normal driving but has (by the sound of it) some seriously kick ass racing cars for the track. Which is bang on, I reckon.
Re spirited driving.. spirited to me is brisk and flowing. Not ragging it.. that's a grade above, and properly ragging a fast car is going to be way above the speed limit. If you're below the speed limit in a 300bhp car on a road wide enough to take it then I think you're not stretching the car...
I love the way my "clutch down and steer" is being rubbished."It's called "lift-off oversteer" and it's pretty damned unrecoverable."
That assumes you're in a FWD car.
Erm, no. Lift off oversteer is quite hard to achieve in a FWD car. Centre of gravity and all that. Hence why I was specifically talking about mid-engine, RWD cars.
molgrips - Member
I don't think autos are ideal for towing either (traditional ones) as it puts strain on the torque converter, and you need an oil cooler fitted I think too.
I think that may depend on the car but large 4x4/SUV are autos and are picked for towing. I know that most people who buy a car like mine (XC90) buy them for towing. You can get an oil cooler fitted but its only recomened if you are towing in mountains regions ( though they do recomend changing the gear box oil ever 2 years if towing lots).
Flying Ox
Lift off in an oversteering mid-engined car and it'll come back into line, more gas and the tail will hang further out - play with trottle and steer to choose your line: more gas, more counter steer to run wider, less gas less counter steer to tighten.
Lift off in an understeering mid-engined car and it'll continue to understeer.
The other guys were talking about lift-off oversteer in the context of a FWD 205 GTI. They can be made to oversteer by simultaneously backing off and turning in. Catching it requires getting back on the gas and a briefly counter steering before returning to positive lock. Most people seem to counter steer too much so it snaps back and off they go.
The 1.7 is definitely petrol auto.
I drive a FWD car and like it, more so than a RWD, but my driving involves some serious mileage in the Winter when most Irish roads are icy. Driving RWD then requires more skill and I'm lacking it.
When it comes to a Focus, I'm not sure I want another car that's nice to drive but I don't fancy. For that thee Pug is perfect. I also want only 2 doors if possible. Hell, sounds like a 406 Coupe with an HDi engine, hmmm... Or, could I chip a Civic?
Edukator - wrong
Hint: there's a reason why you very rarely see pro drifters in mid-engined cars like the MR2 or the NSX, and loads of them in front-engined cars like Silvias and AE86s.
If power is being applied to the rear wheels in a *mid-engined* car and you then lift off, the centre of gravity shifts forward and 'unweights' the rear tyres. Do this when you're already in an oversteer situation and you're going to spin. The best way to counteract oversteer in a mid-engine car is to not get into that situation in the first place by understanding weight shift and your car's limits.
Your technique is more likely to work in a *front-engined* RWD car.
Edit: just seen your waffle about understeer too. You lift off in an understeer situation and the same weight shift happens, transferring grip from rear wheels to front wheels and thus reducing the factors causing the initial understeer. In reality, what would probably happen is a shift from understeer to *lift-off oversteer*
[i]Hairy chested - the older model Civic (if it's the one before the current one) is meant to be a great handling car I think. I suspect the 1.7 might be diesel, since that was the size of the diesel they did. If so, avoid - it's an absolutely dire engine by all accounts. Hondas autos are also bad supposedly, so sounds like you should def go for the 1.6 manual. Although I'm not sure I'd want to push a 1.6 at 100mph all day, it could probably be done.
I don't think autos are ideal for towing either (traditional ones) as it puts strain on the torque converter, and you need an oil cooler fitted I think too.[/i]
Molgrips - so we've got [i]'by all accounts'[/i], [i]'bad supposedly'[/i] and [i]'I think'[/i] all in one post - this could lead me to the conclusion that you know very little about cars in general... but then you do drive a Prius!
br - I know something about cars, just not a great deal about Honda Civics. Just offering what I'd heard. Would you rather I pretended to be an authority? 🙂
And my Prius is a nice car thanks. You apparently don't know much about cars either 😉
The centre of garvity never moves it remains at the centre of gravity surpisingly enough.
Remove power, i.e. propulsion forces from the rear wheels and you have more grip to deal with lateral forces. Weight transfer due to drive/braking torque does influence things but not that much on slippy surfaces which is the case I've been considering all along. Removing the power gains you more grip than you lose due to unweighting. Remove power will bring the back end into line.
If you're drifting then the further back the large mass that the engine is make balancing pendulum (angular inertia), steering and power harder so I agree that it's easier in a front engined RWD but not impossible in any RWD.
Back on the topic of autos and "spirited" driving. Not worrying about fuel consumption was socially acceptable 25 years ago but then articles started to appear in scientific journals about the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions. Today spirited driving puts you firmly in the eco-terrorist club.
So Edukator - in one paragraph you tell "us" how to control a drift in a RWD car by dipping the clutch (which no instructor I've ever had has ever recommended including Lotus' chief test driver) then you tell us spirited driving makes "us" eco terrorists?
How about spirited driving and good mpg? 300bhp but 40mpg? Emissions lower than most family hatches of 5 years ago? Diesel particulate filters that make the exhausts of the car super clean?
The flaw in your "de-clutching" theory is that the power is suddenly "cut" off leading to unpredictable changes in traction. Unlike a brake system which is easy to modulate, a dipped clutch will let go of the power suddenly. Try towing something heavy downhill and dip the clutch - it's a very bad idea.
And why the fascination with CoG? It has more influence as a vertical centre of force (and in most quick cars is pretty low) rather than a lateral one. A well balanced car is a well balanced car and finding it's lateral/longditudinal CoG isn't a huge consideration - take a 911 Turbo - the physics are all wrong yet the new Turbo S is a hypercar beater (0-60 in 2.9s, insane track times, etc) of the highest order thanks to genius levels of chassis design and drivetrain technology. It uses that weight to get massive rear end traction and does a damn fine job of it.