[Closed] Why do people drive automatic cars?

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 - Member

ski - 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!

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.

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.

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.

The centre of garvity never moves it remains at the centre of gravity surpisingly enough.

OK, so centre of gravity is not what I'm thinking of. My bad. The point I'm making remains the same though. The car's momentum acts at the car's centre of gravity, shifting load forward or backwards depending on whether you're accelerating or decelerating, and increasing/reducing grip on the front/rear tyres accordingly.

[i]So Edukator - in one paragraph you tell "us" how to control a drift in a RWD car by dipping the clutch [/i]

I never said that. You've mixed up different things I've said.

Motor racing circuits aren't noted for their slippery surfaces. And even if they were I doubt the instructors would teach a strategy most useful driving unknown roads (or roads you've only pace noted at half speed).

I have no fasdcination with centre of gravity. I was pointing out to Ox that "[i]the centre of gravity shifts forward[/i]" is nonsense as the centre of gravity of a car is fixed (unless the driver changes seats).

Okay Edukator - I get you (on CoG) now!

And we're talking about public roads not race tracks - but race tracks do get wet and slippery too.

So in your opinion (and a few others) all performance road cars are pointless? With their better brakes, chassis dynamics and ability to overtake much more safely than a slow car? Sorry but I'm not buying that one at all.

As mentioned, we have a quick car and a very slow (4x4) one - both do different things and both are fun in their natural environment be it rapid long distance driving or green laning.

Mat, there are two ways to make overtaking safe. One is to accelerate very quickly in a powerful car, and the other is to wait until there's plenty of room. Both work, but using power and speed to get by in more marginal situations is surely less safe. And if there isn't enough space, then MTFU and accept that you might be 5 mins later.

Above a certain level performance cars are pointless on roads, yes. That level being say MX5 territory at the most. And better brakes? Any decent car has brakes easily able to stop just fine in a normal situation.

What you are doing, Mat, is trying to justify your desire for a fast car with made-up arguments. Really.. face up to it!

How about spirited driving and good mpg? 300bhp but 40mpg?

Oh, and I hate to break this to you Mat, but 40mpg is NOT good these days! Fuel economy FAIL.

[i]Oh, and I hate to break this to you Mat, but 40mpg is NOT good these days! Fuel economy FAIL. [/i]

I can't think I've ever had a car that did 40mpg... but there are many differing views on importance:

1 From a money perspective its total cost of ownership (mpg is irrelevent)
2 From a performance perspective its the ability to cover ground quickly, but safely
3 From a comfort perspective its that I can drive 400 miles straight and get out without an ache
4 From a safety perspective its that it doesn't get you into a bad situation due to crap handling, visability, slowness and of course fully-airbagged etc

And 2, 3 and 4 are on any type of road and surface.

For me, big s/h saloons fit the bill.

I never usually get above 30mph unless on the motorway so an auto would be fine for me I guess. If I want to have fun I get out on my bike. If I was into doing track days etc, then sure, but I use the road for going from A to B

The last time I drove in Britain I spent almost the whole time a respectable distance behind other vehicles that were travelling at the speed limit. Why would you need to overtake and how could you do it without breaking the law?

Weight transfer does indeed influence grip Ox but I have yet to drive a mid engined or even RWD car where the weight transfer caused by lifting off alone is enough to provoke dramatic oversteer. That's pretty much the reserve of short FWD cars which have their C of G well forward and relatively high.

LOL at some of the self-rightious people on here.

LOL at some of the self-rightious people on here

Trouble is, for all the good [i]fast[/i] SAFE drivers there are there are an awful lot of bad ones .(a particular individual local to me who drives around in a kit car like a proper C**T in a built-up area springs to mind- and he is old enough to know better )

When you get older and you are aware of you and your loved ones mortality, it is easy to tar everyone who drives briskly with the same brush Im afraid. Im not suggesting for a moment that it is true; its just how it seems.

Edukator - that really is very silly saying you don't need to overtake in the UK - ever been stuck behind a tractor or a slow Sunday driver? Some of you really are talking a load of BS and as LHS says, there's some self righteous cr4p on here that beggars belief.

I bet the same people that "mock" quick cars also love to belittle those with cars "below" their own.

Mol - now now you've gone from "mildly interesting" to "moaning old tart" in one post. Participate but try and resist bleating on and on. We don't all want a Prius - in fact if I was given one, I'd sell it immediately for a princely sum of £8.56. Even then I'd struggle to shift such an insipid pseudo "eco" car.

The last time I drove in Britain I spent almost the whole time a respectable distance behind other vehicles that were travelling at the speed limit

Then you were damn lucky. Out in the countryside where the roads are windy, you'll come up behind something doing 40mph or less very frequently.

I bet the same people that "mock" quick cars also love to belittle those with cars "below" their own.

Rubbish. Saying that means you fail to understand.

Participate but try and resist bleating on and on. We don't all want a Prius

I didn't bleat. You reckoned 40mpg was good, I pointed out that it's not. And I'm not telling everyone to buy a Prius either. There are bloody hundreds of cars out there that can do better than that. You can make your own excuses however you want, but it's a fact that 40mpg is just not that good. Plus I bet you don't get that very often with 'spirited' driving.. 🙂

40mpg isn't that bad if you are talking real figures.

Cars I've had that allegedly do 55-60mpg only get around 45mpg in the real world.

Oh, and fast cars aren't pointless. People buy them to have fun, not to get anywhere any quicker or to be safer!

40mpg is very good for around 300bhp and 428lbs-ft; very, very good. But no, it's not great for a 1.0 shopping car for old ladies or some hybrid wobbly thing that cost the earth in resources to build it's battery.

Don't you own a Passat? They are hardly great on fuel either.

I have yet to drive a mid engined or even RWD car.

Fixed that for you 😉

All I'm trying to point out is that sometimes people take what is spouted off on internet forums as gospel. You get any Joe Schmoe in an MR2 losing the back end, and maybe they'll think: Hang on, that Edukator guy (gal?) said if I lift off the throttle I'll be fine. I'm saying that it's dangerous information to be putting out there because 9 times out of 10, you lift off in your MR2 and you end up backwards through someone's garden wall with your eyebrows on fire. But what do I know, eh?

Mat, it might be relatively good, but that doesn't make any difference. It's not GOOD. The atmosphere won't trap less heat because your car is actually quite efficient compared to other cars with similar horsepower...*

The Passat is not super great on fuel.. I did not shop particularly well for that. Still, got 55.3mpg on the Cardiff-Aldershot trip on Monday which is a record.

* note that pointing this out does not imply I think I am better than everyone else. My CO2 footprint is a disgrace 🙁 However what I do does not change the facts.

Cars I've had that allegedly do 55-60mpg only get around 45mpg in the real world.

Actually depends somewhat on the manufacturer. Different manufs fudge the tests differently. The Prius for instance does get 60-62mpg in the summertime, claimed combined figure is 61mpg. The Passat's claimed combined is 48mpg and I can average 50+ per tank but that's a lot of motorway and less town driving.

So your Passat (which must be a 2.0TDI diesel with 140bhp?) has under half the power yet does only 10mpg more? And my emissions are cleaner because I have a DPF. You are basing your entire "rant at the guy with a quicker car" thing on being [i]slightly[/i] better on fuel?

Well how about I get a quicker BMW 320d ED with over 160bhp that does well over 60mpg yet chucks out 109g/km? Why didn't you get one of those? VW are nowhere near being leaders on efficiency in their bigger cars. Bluemotion Polo - yes, Passat (even Bluemotion) - no.

Anyway I find reasonable mpg good for range between stops - I'm not an mpg watcher.

Do you fly? Where did you last go?

I have flown once in the last three years and that was only to SW Ireland. Do you commute? I don't and so the cars have super low mileages and I suspect I easily "beat" your emissions overall. Do you buy your food from local sources? Do you avoid having an energy guzzling giant TV? Do you compost and recycle? Do you grow your own fruit and veg?

So come on - your rant is a bit silly and let's face it, every Passat owner wishes he had a BMW or Audi anyway... 😉

I also have a DPF. 10mpg more is 25% more efficient. So not inconsiderable.

Why didn't you get one of those?

Find me one for £10k and I'd take your arm off. They look great (although BMW lie a lot about mpgs)

I'd have jumped at a Bluemotion Passat too, if there'd been one in my price range. And they are good btw, they apparently do a good 65mpg in normal driving, as tested in a review.

And yes I do fly, this is why I said my carbon footprint is bad.

But this is another thing that gets my goat, and I want to spell it out as succinctly as I can, so please read this carefully because it's an important point:

This is not about claiming the moral high ground. It is about keeping your emissions down. I point out that it is important to save energy because it is TRUE. Whatever I do personally does not change that. I do not say these things because I want to appear better than you, I say them because they are true and they are important.

The fact remains that YOU could be driving a significantly more economical car. I could be too.

You may well beat my overall emissions, but so what? It's not about who's better than whom, it's about everyone keeping emissions as low as they can. Buying a 300bhp car isn't doing that.

So hang on - your Passat cost £10k? Then it must be getting on a bit? I suspect it's emissions are quite as good as you think. And 50+mpg is also highly suspicious for a car of that age. Have you tested it "properly" and not just relied on the trip computer?

I don't get your rant - our other car is a 1.3 litre thing. Do you have another car? What is it if you do?

You seem to be ranting with very shakey reasoning. So what if I have a quick car (many other STWers do)? It happens to also be pretty good on fuel and low on emissions while still being fun. A Passat is a decent enough car but no one that wants to enjoy driving gets one - R36 excepted.

You may well beat my overall emissions, but so what? It's not about who's better than whom, it's about everyone keeping emissions as low as they can. Buying a 300bhp car isn't doing that.

Let's look at this - I beat your emissions yet I'm still bad because I have a fun and quick (yet practical) car? How about you stop flying, stop commuting and do everything else you possibly can to reduce your emissions THEN have a rant. Until then you are putting forward possibly the daftest "argument" I have ever seen on the internet.

Have you tested it "properly" and not just relied on the trip computer?

No, since it's meant to be very accurate. I'll check for you the next few fill-ups if you like. It's a 06 plate which had 46k miles on it, 2.0 TDI auto. I thought it was a little expensive tbh cos I got it from the main dealer. It was a snap decision, because we were sick of the damn shopping around and stressing over what to get.

Please tho Mat, listen again. I'm not ranting, I'm just making a reasonable point. [b]I don't care if your emissions are lower than mine or higher. We are obliged to make them as low as we can.[/b]

Why are you comparing your emissions to mine? It's not a competition. I don't know how many miles you do or how many you do in which car. But the fact remains that buying a powerful car wastes fuel. You may do so few miles that the difference is negligible, but whatever. It doesn't change the fact.

This is not a personal attack, it was never meant to be.