Quote:
Originally Posted by XutvJet
Some of today's automatics are really good (ZF 8AT, Lexus ISF/RCF/ISF auto, DCT, PDK), but many still suck based on most rentals I drive. They remind me why I hate torque converter-based automatics (i.e., slow to react, spongy TC feel, erratic shifting). Don't get me started by CVTs. You need a healthy, torquey motor to make an automatic feel right.
The biggest drivers for automakers to really push automatics are these:
1) Control. Automakers have TOTAL control over what you can and can't do in terms of shifting and driving with an automatic. It saves them from warranty work and debates with manual owners who made a shifting mistake and wrecked the clutch, trans, and/or motor as a result.
2) MPGs. Today's autos get better mpgs (usually 10%+) than a manual in the regulatory-based driving cycles. In the real world though, it's all about the driver when it comes to mpgs.
3) Performance. There's no denying a solid automatic backing a good motor will be quicker/faster than it's manual counterpart.
4) Reliability. Overall, automatics tend to be more reliable and cheaper to maintain. They're usually easier on other drivetrain parts too because they have a lot less shock load on launch and shifts. Manuals are far more simple in design and can last too, but most drivers of sporty cars with manuals tend to drive them pretty hard. Manuals don't take kindly to hard launches on stick tires or hard shifting over the long term. Autos are far better at this type of driving.
5) Cost to the automaker. Making one tranny rather than offering two is a HUGE cost savings. Far less R&D, less parts, etc. etc. etc. Also, read bullet 1. They protect themselves on the warranty side of things by only offering an automatic that they can control. Out of the five bullets listed, this is probably the most important one to an automaker.
|
I've never broken a manual transmission in 1.4M miles. My first automatic... blew it up in 74,000 miles.