DSG or manual

[Supurbia]

DSG is the way for all manner of reasons

 

1 Clutch abuse is all but removed so no pedal rider syndrome to worry about

 

2 Smooth changes that no human can achieve for speed of change

 

3 The relaxed manner and temper saver factor where you didn't have to down 2 gears yourself because dummy is looking for a road sign in front of you

 

4 It's just best all round

 

 

Now I see someone mention auto's as catching DSG up, I'm now in an auto myself and I would say on an urban cycle (proper urban not mixed urban) the auto is about 2mpg behind the DSG but the Insignia I have is heavier than the Passat and uses no oil where the Passat drank it,

 

Funny thing is the Insignia 160 is listed at 36mpg urban and the PD Passat 140 was 32, the Passat returned 30mpg normally where the Insignia returns 28 so the VW figures were much nearer reality,

 

I would say the Insignia feels faster though, the Passat used to go ping ping ping through the gears off the lights but the Insignia once rolling seems to absolutely fly,

 

Fuel on the run 70mph 200 miles would be 42 - 46 in the Passat, the Insignia I expect to match or better that as I used a Vectra with the 150 1.9 auto some years ago and went all round the country on half a tank which leads me to think VX set the gearing for motorways rather than town work,

 

The Insignia does sometimes hunt for a gear or hold the revs too long though, only time the Passat did this was after coming out of reverse for some reason,

 

DSG has a better maintenance method over auto's as well, you can simply change the filter in a matter of minutes or do the whole kaboodle oil as well without dropping the sump off the box,

 

I don't really want another VAG car tbh, nor do I want a Ford, but the DSG may just be the thing that makes me say wth and buy another but right now I feel the quality isn't there in a VAG car, I've just had an interior that fell to bits like you'd expect a French one to, the seating is too low imo and the materials are looking cheaper by the newer models,

 

Gearbox is still a hooligan though and that's the bit I like.

[Kiwibacon]

DSG is the way for all manner of reasons

 

1 Clutch abuse is all but removed so no pedal rider syndrome to worry about

 

2 Smooth changes that no human can achieve for speed of change

 

3 The relaxed manner and temper saver factor where you didn't have to down 2 gears yourself because dummy is looking for a road sign in front of you

 

4 It's just best all round

 

1.  Driver bad habits.

2.  Smooth gear changing isn't hard.  It could even be called a basic driving skill.  I guess some people will never have it.  The shift speed is redundant as DSG can only be reactive, not pro-active.  What is the shift speed for 4th to 6th in a DSG?  2 seconds?

3.  See 2.

4.  Sounds a bit hollow.

[mfj197]

Actually Kiwi, number 2 is an issue I have with the Superb manual box / flywheel combination on my 170 4x4. The torque of the engine, and the car's all-around character promote smooth, relaxed driving but at these low engine revs gear changes have to be rather hasty if you want to avoid the engine revs dropping below the synchronous speed of the next gear. That is not relaxed at all. It feels like the engine needs a heavier flywheel to decrease the rate at which revs drop.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

[Supurbia]

1.  Driver bad habits.

2.  Smooth gear changing isn't hard.  It could even be called a basic driving skill.  I guess some people will never have it.  The shift speed is redundant as DSG can only be reactive, not pro-active.  What is the shift speed for 4th to 6th in a DSG?  2 seconds?

3.  See 2.

4.  Sounds a bit hollow.

 

 

I didn't mean me I mean the general driver who rides a clutch, the untouchable speed the shifts happen and there's nothing hollow about it, it is simply the best gearbox format at this time.

 

Sounds like to me you simply don't like the DSG tbh, and that's fair enough as we all have to take the bovril test at some time.

Edited 2 August, 2013 by Supurbia

[mandp]

I didn't mean me I mean the general driver who rides a clutch, the untouchable speed the shifts happen and there's nothing hollow about it, it is simply the best gearbox format at this time.

 

Sounds like to me you simply don't like the DSG tbh, and that's fair enough as we all have to take the bovril test at some time.

I've been reading his posts over the past few weeks and I wonder if he likes ANYTHING...maybe not even himself!

[Kiwibacon]

Actually Kiwi, number 2 is an issue I have with the Superb manual box / flywheel combination on my 170 4x4. The torque of the engine, and the car's all-around character promote smooth, relaxed driving but at these low engine revs gear changes have to be rather hasty if you want to avoid the engine revs dropping below the synchronous speed of the next gear. That is not relaxed at all. It feels like the engine needs a heavier flywheel to decrease the rate at which revs drop.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

Do you not use the throttle to match engine rpm to your next shift?  My Scout has the same gearbox, ratios differ slightly but that's all.  It did take me a few drives to smoothly match shifts in this car, mainly because the ratios and engine feel are quite different to my others.

 

I tried to purchase a 170 4x4 manual superb and couldn't.  Skoda NZ would not bring one in, offering only DSG.

Want to sell it?

 

 

I didn't mean me I mean the general driver who rides a clutch, the untouchable speed the shifts happen and there's nothing hollow about it, it is simply the best gearbox format at this time.

 

Sounds like to me you simply don't like the DSG tbh, and that's fair enough as we all have to take the bovril test at some time.

 

Someone has to offer the opposing view.  Otherwise new buyers would expect to become immediately irresistible to the opposite sex.

 

For people to post up that they truely enjoy an auto box changing gears for them is perfectly reasonable.  But the majority of claims made in threads like these are more fanciful than rose tinted glasses and a massive dose of oxytocin could produce.

 

 

I've been reading his posts over the past few weeks and I wonder if he likes ANYTHING...maybe not even himself!

 

You must look for the subtleties and nuances, then you will understand.  I am a connoisseur of many things.  Including slick shifting manual gearboxes.

Edited 2 August, 2013 by Kiwibacon

[mfj197]

Do you not use the throttle to match engine rpm to your next shift? My Scout has the same gearbox, ratios differ slightly but that's all. It did take me a few drives to smoothly match shifts in this car, mainly because the ratios and engine feel are quite different to my others.

Well, the point is I shouldn't have to. The engine mass / flywheel ought to be appropriate for the car so that the engine drops to the correct synchronous revs for the next gear over the time taken for a gearchange. Some are obviously designed for quick changes - the two Porsche Boxsters I've had are examples of that, and indeed I had a lightened flywheel fitted to the kit car I made many years ago. I would have expected the Superb to be tailored for more relaxed shifts.

I tried to purchase a 170 4x4 manual superb and couldn't. Skoda NZ would not bring one in, offering only DSG.

Want to sell it?

I'm not sure the shipping costs would work out, although if you want a 5-month-old 170 4x4 manual badly then maybe they would!

Michael

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

[Kiwibacon]

Well, the point is I shouldn't have to. The engine mass / flywheel ought to be appropriate for the car so that the engine drops to the correct synchronous revs for the next gear over the time taken for a gearchange. Some are obviously designed for quick changes - the two Porsche Boxsters I've had are examples of that, and indeed I had a lightened flywheel fitted to the kit car I made many years ago. I would have expected the Superb to be tailored for more relaxed shifts.

I'm not sure the shipping costs would work out, although if you want a 5-month-old 170 4x4 manual badly then maybe they would!

Michael

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

I guess that's the downside of VAG family commonality.  The 170hp diesel and 6 speed gets used in a lot of different cars, they aren't going to add the space and extra flywheel mass just for one of them.  I do agree with you that most diesels benefit from more flywheel mass.  I have a plan to roughly double the flywheel inertia in my diesel 4wd.  When I can find the time.  But it's 3.9L 4 cyl tdi so quite an extreme case.

 

I would have jumped at the chance before I stumbled across my scout.  If the other work car gets totalled anytime soon I'll give you a bell.  The scout can be nudged to daily offroad work duties and your superb could replace the scout.

[g_tee]

1.  Driver bad habits.

2.  Smooth gear changing isn't hard.  It could even be called a basic driving skill.  I guess some people will never have it.  The shift speed is redundant as DSG can only be reactive, not pro-active.  What is the shift speed for 4th to 6th in a DSG?  2 seconds?

3.  See 2.

4.  Sounds a bit hollow.

 

 

1. I agree with totally

2. How on earth can DSG be "reactive" when the next gear is setup and ready to switch over to with other clutch?

 

I really don't get why you have so much beef with DSG.

[Graham Butcher]

1. I agree with totally

2. How on earth can DSG be "reactive" when the next gear is setup and ready to switch over to with other clutch?

 

I really don't get why you have so much beef with DSG.

I think he just likes to stir up a good old debate for the sheer hell of it.

 

Fact is that there will always someone who disagrees with you no matter what argument and supporting proof can be produced in support of the claim.

 

I know from personal experience of driving manual cars, trucks and buses over years including the good old fashioned non-synchromesh gear boxes as well as automatics and DSG's and in my experience, yes it is perfectly possible to drive a manual and get silky smooth gear changes just as it is with DSG but Autos can and do from time, snatch a gear rather jerkily and that is something that DSG's don't do unless you violently do a kick down on the throttle and then they can sometimes be a bit jerky. Under normal driving though they are so smooth changing that apart from the engine note and the rev counter there is little if anything to announce a gear change has taken place.

[Kiwibacon]

1. I agree with totally

2. How on earth can DSG be "reactive" when the next gear is setup and ready to switch over to with other clutch?

 

I really don't get why you have so much beef with DSG.

 

2.  DSG is completely reactive.  It cannot change gear until it receives a change in throttle input which is first run through the engine ECU to calculate the torque request, which makes fuelling changes which then tells DSG to change gear.

 

It cannot select 4th gear 1 second before you pull out to pass a truck, because it doesn't know what your next move is.  This is the definition of reactive.

 

Why is advocating manual gearboxes in "manual vs DSG" threads so aggressively discouraged?  Anyone pointing out the insurmountable problems with DSG is a pariah.  Yet all the problems people point out with manual gearboxes appear to be solely a lack of driving coordination/skill.

Edited 5 August, 2013 by Kiwibacon

[Devon Wanderer]

2.  DSG is completely reactive.  It cannot change gear until it receives a change in throttle input which is first run through the engine ECU to calculate the torque request, which makes fuelling changes which then tells DSG to change gear.

 

And moving the stick is what tells a manual to change gear. I think we all know how that works, but thanks for the lesson.

 

It cannot select 4th gear 1 second before you pull out to pass a truck, because it doesn't know what your next move is.  This is the definition of reactive.

 

If you had ever driven a DSG, or at least learned how to use one properly, you would know how laughable that statement is. I can make mine do precisely that.

 

Why is advocating manual gearboxes in "manual vs DSG" threads so aggressively discouraged?  Anyone pointing out the insurmountable problems with DSG is a pariah.  Yet all the problems people point out with manual gearboxes appear to be solely a lack of driving coordination/skill.

 

I don't think anyone has anything against manuals. I've driven them for 40 years and would be happy to do so again. I only changed because the car I could afford had a DSG. Clearly, we don't all find the problems insurmountable - or even problems. It's your know-it-all attitude that annoys people, not your preferences.

[Graham Butcher]

 

I don't think anyone has anything against manuals. I've driven them for 40 years and would be happy to do so again. I only changed because the car I could afford had a DSG. Clearly, we don't all find the problems insurmountable - or even problems. It's your know-it-all attitude that annoys people, not your preferences.

Hmm that kind of says it all, I have driven loads of manuals over the years in a large variety of vehicles and so I know all about short shifting gears, which does put a tremendous strain on the power train as a result of jumping gears. Anyone who has to deal with heavy city traffic and spend most of the time in jams, crawling a few feet at a time will understand just how demanding that is on the left leg and also the clutch and many of the modern cars can cause the clutch to develop a severe judder and makes smooth progress impossible once the clutch plate gets to a certain temperature. Normal smooth gear changes and power take up only resuming after a few minutes on the open route when the clutch has been able to dissipate the heat effectively. This is something I personally have not experienced with a DSG or indeed a normal auto box.

 

In the cause of a day driving around a modern city like London, I hate to think about the number of times the clutch pedal is used and also how many time it is held down while sitting in queues waiting for the traffic lights to change, or the person in front to move off etc. If someone was to fix a counter to their pedal, it must in the thousands of times that the pedal is used on a typical day working in a major city.

 

So as a personal preference, I go with a DSG all day, I know that there will be others who take the opposite view and that's fine, at the end of the day its personal preference, just like the cars colour is so why should the type of transmission stir such emotions? 

[powerd]

Kiwibacon - you're close, but not quite correct I believe.  The DSG computing is a bit smarter than that, I understand, and uses a range of other sensing in a "predictive" way.  Which is why it will change down when travelling downhill, braking and holds gears etc when hammering it through tight corners.  I am surpised how "intelligent" it can be at times, at least in my V6.  But of course it can't see that truck in front of you (give it time!)

 

My two bob's worth on this question.  I traded a manual vRS Octavia, which I loved, for a Superb V6 DSG wagon.  The DSG seems to particularly suit the V6, better than some of the various smaller engined VAG cars I have driven, in my view.  I have raced big and small engined track cars (manual of course), owned many cars both manual and auto, from small naturally aspirated to V8s and V12s.  I also have an auto 4WD for serious offroad work and towing, because it just works better at torque management and smoothing power in difficult situations, though needs more care downhill due to less engine braking effect.  I don't agree with the person who suggested manual is better in snow conditions.  In Australia we have much more experience with autos as most cars are auto(although technically the DSG is not an auto but an automated duel clutch manual).  Many very big trucks here are auto too, for both efficiency and control reasons.

 

I loved my vRS for the control the manual gave me in fast driving through tight roads and the engagement I felt as a driver. But my work at the time did not require much slogging through traffic or stop/start type work.  However, I needed to swap to a car with much more legroom(growing teens) and the V6 was the only Superb with enough go for my tastes.   Plus I now needed to drive into Sydney so lots of crawling in traffic.  The DSG is so responsive and fast, I wouldn't be without it now.  We have no emissions penalties in our registration/tax process, so its not an issue here. 

 

I am about to swap my steering wheel to get the flappy paddles, because I want the capacity to manually change gears without reaching for the slightly clumsy lever.  But the Superb is not a sporty car like the vRS was, so that's part of the equation.

 

Higher costs aside, if I was driving in traffic regularly, the DSG would be my choice, no contest.  Its a brilliant transmission.

 

But if they offered a vRS version of the Superb V6 with a manual box, lowered tight suspension, Michelin PS3s on 20" rims and a rorty exaust, ooh, that would be very, very enticing.

 

Cheers

powerd

[Kiwibacon]

 

2.  DSG is completely reactive.  It cannot change gear until it receives a change in throttle input which is first run through the engine ECU to calculate the torque request, which makes fuelling changes which then tells DSG to change gear.

 

And moving the stick is what tells a manual to change gear. I think we all know how that works, but thanks for the lesson.

 

It cannot select 4th gear 1 second before you pull out to pass a truck, because it doesn't know what your next move is.  This is the definition of reactive.

 

If you had ever driven a DSG, or at least learned how to use one properly, you would know how laughable that statement is. I can make mine do precisely that.

 

Why is advocating manual gearboxes in "manual vs DSG" threads so aggressively discouraged?  Anyone pointing out the insurmountable problems with DSG is a pariah.  Yet all the problems people point out with manual gearboxes appear to be solely a lack of driving coordination/skill.

 

I don't think anyone has anything against manuals. I've driven them for 40 years and would be happy to do so again. I only changed because the car I could afford had a DSG. Clearly, we don't all find the problems insurmountable - or even problems. It's your know-it-all attitude that annoys people, not your preferences.

 

This new quoting layout makes it really hard to respond to specific points.  I've coloured yours red to make it clear.

 

Your first point about using a DSG properly tilts at manually selecting gear.  You have to do that manually, otherwise the delay in a DSG going from 6th to 4th results in a power cut of almost 2 seconds.  6th to 5th can be very quick, but then to 4th is very slow and the box cuts engine power while it sorts itself out.

This is a problem that can be terrifying in the wrong situation.  It also doesn't exist in any other kind of automatic gearbox.  It is a very big problem for the places I drive. 

 

 

 

Hmm that kind of says it all, I have driven loads of manuals over the years in a large variety of vehicles and so I know all about short shifting gears, which does put a tremendous strain on the power train as a result of jumping gears

 

Anyone who has to deal with heavy city traffic and spend most of the time in jams, crawling a few feet at a time will understand just how demanding that is on the left leg and also the clutch and many of the modern cars can cause the clutch to develop a severe judder and makes smooth progress impossible once the clutch plate gets to a certain temperature. Normal smooth gear changes and power take up only resuming after a few minutes on the open route when the clutch has been able to dissipate the heat effectively. This is something I personally have not experienced with a DSG or indeed a normal auto box.

I don't think anyone has anything against manuals. I've driven them for 40 years and would be happy to do so again. I only changed because the car I could afford had a DSG. Clearly, we don't all find the problems insurmountable - or even problems. It's your know-it-all attitude that annoys people, not your preferences.

 

In the cause of a day driving around a modern city like London, I hate to think about the number of times the clutch pedal is used and also how many time it is held down while sitting in queues waiting for the traffic lights to change, or the person in front to move off etc. If someone was to fix a counter to their pedal, it must in the thousands of times that the pedal is used on a typical day working in a major city.

 

So as a personal preference, I go with a DSG all day, I know that there will be others who take the opposite view and that's fine, at the end of the day its personal preference, just like the cars colour is so why should the type of transmission stir such emotions?

 

The situations you are advocating is one where any automatic make perfect sense.  Those reasons don't get a lot of air time in these type of threads.

Why do you say short-shifting puts a tremendous strain on the power train?  There is no additional strain at all when revs are matched.  Match the revs nicely and you don't even need the clutch on a manual once moving.  My wife hates me driving like that.

Edited 6 August, 2013 by Kiwibacon

[Devon Wanderer]

This new quoting layout makes it really hard to respond to specific points.  I've coloured yours red to make it clear.

 

For once we agree - it's a pita!

 

Your first point about using a DSG properly tilts at manually selecting gear.  You have to do that manually, otherwise the delay in a DSG going from 6th to 4th results in a power cut of almost 2 seconds.  6th to 5th can be very quick, but then to 4th is very slow and the box cuts engine power while it sorts itself out.

This is a problem that can be terrifying in the wrong situation.  It also doesn't exist in any other kind of automatic gearbox.  It is a very big problem for the places I drive.

 

Actually, I find the opposite: I tend to use manual only for engine braking, and find that trying to replicate a block change from 5th to 3rd results in a brief but disconcerting hiatus. No, I was referring the DSG's 2-gear-drop response to dipping the accelerator, which I've always found responsive enough for passing. Horses for courses, though, obviously.

 

 

[powerd]

........the delay in a DSG going from 6th to 4th results in a power cut of almost 2 seconds..................

 

Never experienced that in my DSG.  Mine is as fast as I could wish for - very quick on kickdown, but still quick if changed by the lever.

 

I have found the V6 DSG calibration is more responsive right throughout the range than on the smaller engined VAG diesels and petrols I have driven with it, and on the smaller engined vehicles it also seems to vary more from one unit to another.  But I don't really have a big sample to draw on so it is just a personal impression.

 

The V6 with DSG seems to be an extremely seamless combination, a marriage made in VW heaven.

 

Cheers

powerd

[mfj197]

 I don't agree with the person who suggested manual is better in snow conditions.  In Australia we have much more experience with autos as most cars are auto(although technically the DSG is not an auto but an automated duel clutch manual).  Many very big trucks here are auto too, for both efficiency and control reasons.

 

The comment was that, on a Superb, a manual is better than an auto in the snow, and that's because the auto option is a DSG and cannot put down the power as smoothly from take-off as a manual can.  A proper auto would be better still, for the same reasoning as you have with your 4wd auto.

 

Michael

[Superbjoser]

The comment was that, on a Superb, a manual is better than an auto in the snow, and that's because the auto option is a DSG and cannot put down the power as smoothly from take-off as a manual can.  A proper auto would be better still, for the same reasoning as you have with your 4wd auto.

 

Michael

Hi all!

 

My experience with DSG and snow is positive! The very first winter with my (then) new car I was coming into a crossing and had to make a full stop. Snowing with about two to four inches of snow on the road already and around 5 degrees cold. Quite steep Uphill. 2WD. Started without a problem with no spinning or hesitation, just a smooth start. This had several reasons. New winter tires (non studded), DSG (YES!), hill holder and the non-spinning function, whatever it's called. My belief is that this will give me a smoother power distribution in 9 of 10 cases, at least with me as the driver. And several drivers after me in that crossing at that time were not as skilled as my DSG-combo...

 

/Superbjoser

[Kiwibacon]

Kiwibacon - you're close, but not quite correct I believe.  The DSG computing is a bit smarter than that, I understand, and uses a range of other sensing in a "predictive" way.  Which is why it will change down when travelling downhill, braking and holds gears etc when hammering it through tight corners.  I am surpised how "intelligent" it can be at times, at least in my V6.  But of course it can't see that truck in front of you (give it time!)

 

My two bob's worth on this question.  I traded a manual vRS Octavia, which I loved, for a Superb V6 DSG wagon.  The DSG seems to particularly suit the V6, better than some of the various smaller engined VAG cars I have driven, in my view.  I have raced big and small engined track cars (manual of course), owned many cars both manual and auto, from small naturally aspirated to V8s and V12s.  I also have an auto 4WD for serious offroad work and towing, because it just works better at torque management and smoothing power in difficult situations, though needs more care downhill due to less engine braking effect.  I don't agree with the person who suggested manual is better in snow conditions.  In Australia we have much more experience with autos as most cars are auto(although technically the DSG is not an auto but an automated duel clutch manual).  Many very big trucks here are auto too, for both efficiency and control reasons.

 

Australia loves automatics because it's flat.  On drives with little vertical and in particular very few corners on hills an auto has no problem getting the right gear and you have a long time to plan your passing maneuvers.

 

I have auto and manual 4wd's and I find the auto very frustrating to drive.  Particularly offroad the lack of feel makes it impossible to tell if the wheels are starting to slip or if the torque converter is just slipping more.  I can understand why some people love auto 4wd's, but I don't.  Many auto 4wd's have problems overheating gearboxes here towing in the hills.  To the point where some landcruiser owners pull boats over mountain passes in low range.

 

Trucks are going to automatic (mainly automated manual) for drivability reasons.  Efficiency of automatic boxes is always lower than manual.  Even with automated manual boxes the hydraulics required take enough power to be a measurable dent in fuel economy.

 

 

I loved my vRS for the control the manual gave me in fast driving through tight roads and the engagement I felt as a driver. But my work at the time did not require much slogging through traffic or stop/start type work.  However, I needed to swap to a car with much more legroom(growing teens) and the V6 was the only Superb with enough go for my tastes.   Plus I now needed to drive into Sydney so lots of crawling in traffic.  The DSG is so responsive and fast, I wouldn't be without it now.  We have no emissions penalties in our registration/tax process, so its not an issue here. 

 

I am about to swap my steering wheel to get the flappy paddles, because I want the capacity to manually change gears without reaching for the slightly clumsy lever.  But the Superb is not a sporty car like the vRS was, so that's part of the equation.

 

Higher costs aside, if I was driving in traffic regularly, the DSG would be my choice, no contest.  Its a brilliant transmission.

 

But if they offered a vRS version of the Superb V6 with a manual box, lowered tight suspension, Michelin PS3s on 20" rims and a rorty exaust, ooh, that would be very, very enticing.

 

Cheers

powerd

 

The higher emissions class means higher fuel consumption.  But if you've already bought the V6 then running costs can't be a high priority anyway.  I tried to buy a CR170 4x4 superb with a manual box.  But NZ's Skoda choices are dictated by Australia and Australias driving conditions have more in common with Kansas than New Zealand.  They couldn't/wouldn't bring in any superb with a manual.

Their loss I suppose. 

[powerd]

Hmm, Kiwibacon, I don't think you are that well informed about Australian driving conditions and car/driving conditions.  Including the reasons why we moved to automatics faster than other countries except the US.  There are many reasons and I seriously doubt being less mountainous (but not flat, as you claim) had anything to do with it.  And most of our people live around the hilly bits anyway, and a very small percentage in the wide open flat bits. I would also bet the people from the flat bits were the slowest to take up autos, not the other way round.

 

Here's what I think the reasons for our high rate of buying autos.

 

The Americans, particularly with larger engines, were the leaders in development of general use of autos in everyday cars in the 50s, 60s, 70s and possibly the eighties.  Europe lagged badly, and the mostly small engines did not cope well with autos.   Big lazy engines with an auto were fine for most people. 

 

Australia's car industry through this period was dominated by the US makers, including our locally built cars.  Our cars were larger with bigger engines, well suited to autos which started to take off in the mid sixties.  The power losses were less of an issue in large 6 cylinder or V8 cars.

 

Australia has had cheaper petrol than many countries for a long time, and Australians have been relatively prosperous most times since the 50s. (that's why all your Kiwi mates flock over here).  The extra cost of buying an auto and fuel/service costs were affordable to us.   

 

Japanese cars took off here earlier than Europe and many other countries.  The Japanese were highly customer focussed and realised that people would also soon  want medium and smaller cars in auto and started building decent auto versions of their cars.  They were successful.

 

Europe lagged badly in development of decent autos for medium and smaller cars to the extent that some cars became almost unsellable here because they didn't offer an auto, which is what most people want. And many of their smaller autos were not that good.  It still happens and Fiat and Renault in particular struggle in this area.

 

Australians are happy, relaxed, sundrenched people, prosperous, well fed and suntanned (just check out Neighbours) and have more important and relaxing things to think about than stirring a box of cogs..... Like the knee of the blonde nymphet (or bronzed Anzac) sitting next to them as they cruise to the beach    

 

Given most of population lives around the hilly bits of the east coast or over at Adelaide and Perth (both bounded by hills) your comment about autos not suiting hilly stuff seems odd.  I would though an auto is easier in these conditions.  And given that our caravans tend to be bigger/heavier than those in NZ and Europe, towing problems aren't an issue these days - and haven't been for some time.  Our tow vehicles are typically bigger, with larger engines, robust autos and plenty of cooling capacity. Autos have been very popular for towing here.  We are a typically very hot country.  Remember, cars sold in Oz tend to have bigger transmission coolers, larger radiators, and other changes  eg to fuel mapping, than their brothers in other countries. 

 

Many cars/models are not even offered in manual, dealers don't usually order manual versions for stock (even cars like the Golf GTi) and trying to trade my vRS was difficult because dealers didn't want it so priced it low - but would have gladly traded a DSG one for a couple of thousand more.  Different market, but not because of the topography.

 

Cheers

powerd

 

 

 

 

 

[Kiwibacon]

Hmm, Kiwibacon, I don't think you are that well informed about Australian driving conditions and car/driving conditions.  Including the reasons why we moved to automatics faster than other countries except the US.  There are many reasons and I seriously doubt being less mountainous (but not flat, as you claim) had anything to do with it.  And most of our people live around the hilly bits anyway, and a very small percentage in the wide open flat bits. I would also bet the people from the flat bits were the slowest to take up autos, not the other way round.

 

Here's what I think the reasons for our high rate of buying autos.

 

The Americans, particularly with larger engines, were the leaders in development of general use of autos in everyday cars in the 50s, 60s, 70s and possibly the eighties.  Europe lagged badly, and the mostly small engines did not cope well with autos.   Big lazy engines with an auto were fine for most people. 

 

Australia's car industry through this period was dominated by the US makers, including our locally built cars.  Our cars were larger with bigger engines, well suited to autos which started to take off in the mid sixties.  The power losses were less of an issue in large 6 cylinder or V8 cars.

 

Australia has had cheaper petrol than many countries for a long time, and Australians have been relatively prosperous most times since the 50s. (that's why all your Kiwi mates flock over here).  The extra cost of buying an auto and fuel/service costs were affordable to us.   

 

Japanese cars took off here earlier than Europe and many other countries.  The Japanese were highly customer focussed and realised that people would also soon  want medium and smaller cars in auto and started building decent auto versions of their cars.  They were successful.

 

Europe lagged badly in development of decent autos for medium and smaller cars to the extent that some cars became almost unsellable here because they didn't offer an auto, which is what most people want. And many of their smaller autos were not that good.  It still happens and Fiat and Renault in particular struggle in this area.

 

Australians are happy, relaxed, sundrenched people, prosperous, well fed and suntanned (just check out Neighbours) and have more important and relaxing things to think about than stirring a box of cogs..... Like the knee of the blonde nymphet (or bronzed Anzac) sitting next to them as they cruise to the beach   

 

Given most of population lives around the hilly bits of the east coast or over at Adelaide and Perth (both bounded by hills) your comment about autos not suiting hilly stuff seems odd.  I would though an auto is easier in these conditions.  And given that our caravans tend to be bigger/heavier than those in NZ and Europe, towing problems aren't an issue these days - and haven't been for some time.  Our tow vehicles are typically bigger, with larger engines, robust autos and plenty of cooling capacity. Autos have been very popular for towing here.  We are a typically very hot country.  Remember, cars sold in Oz tend to have bigger transmission coolers, larger radiators, and other changes  eg to fuel mapping, than their brothers in other countries. 

 

Many cars/models are not even offered in manual, dealers don't usually order manual versions for stock (even cars like the Golf GTi) and trying to trade my vRS was difficult because dealers didn't want it so priced it low - but would have gladly traded a DSG one for a couple of thousand more.  Different market, but not because of the topography.

 

Cheers

powerd

 

Hilly?  Seriously?  I haven't been to Adelaide, but I have been in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Albany, Colac and a few others.  This is not in any way a hilly country.

Even your Geoscience division know it's the flattest country in the world:  http://www.ga.gov.au/education/geoscience-basics/landforms/elevations.html

 

The europeans didn't do automatics because they suck on hills.  Same reason the Kiwi's in the south island hate them (North island is flat) and the Yanks who live in the mountains.

What may be a completely acceptable power loss when driving around on the flat turns into a huge amount of heat on hills.  The transmission overheats and feeds extra heat into the engine radiator so that heats too.  Even with a small japanese petrol engine and 4 speed auto you can drive over a 1000m vertical mountain pass and smell the gearbox when you get to the top.  I had to fit a manual lock-up over-ride switch to the last one I owned.  Even then it was awful on hills.

When going skiing (2000m vertical) it's the autos that boil at the top of the hill.

 

The Japanese have hills too, but they came up with a novel solution.  Just tunnel through them.  Viola, terrain suitable for an automatic nissan sunny.

 

The vehicles you think are great for towing on the flat, suffer when asked to tow up winding hills.  The speed drops and the torque converter unlocks, you're now just stirring oil and making heat.  Heaps of it.  That's why the 100 series cruiser owners can end up using low range when towing in those 1000m vertical mountain passes.

 

It's only in Australia that cars aren't offered in manual.  Unfortunately the same clowns who buy cars for Australia also buy cars for NZ.  Here however if you have a good manual car as a trade-in, dealers will fight over it.  They sell for a healthy premium.

Edited 8 August, 2013 by Kiwibacon

[Supurbia]

UK users don't do auto's because frankly the most of them worry about the extra fuel, I know lots of people who want an auto but won't pay, the same goes for the A/C they won't use it and prefer to cause drag by having the windows open :think:

 

If we're talking hills then the sequential takes care of that anyway, simply push stick over and select the suitable gear, ain't rocket science is it.

[dippo]

  I had to fit a manual lock-up over-ride switch to the last one I owned.  Even then it was awful on hills.

 

 

That makes me feel really sorry for the millions of other auto drivers in New Zealand who probably don't have the technical ability to fit such a device to make their car even remotely driveable. How on earth do they manage? Funnily enough, when I was in New Zealand (both North and South Islands) I saw quite a few automatics!

[Devon Wanderer]

That makes me feel really sorry for the millions of other auto drivers in New Zealand who probably don't have the technical ability to fit such a device to make their car even remotely driveable. How on earth do they manage? Funnily enough, when I was in New Zealand (both North and South Islands) I saw quite a few automatics!

 All abandoned by their drivers?