Auto boxes chat Anthony

G

Guest

Guest
Anthony wrote...
Apologies are not necessary, you stated an opinion and that it good, others
may just disagree and that is OK too. I think that debate is healthy and
generally we all can learn tings from it as long as it remains impersonal.
SNIP
Agreed, and the final word is the most important to me, as you may have
noticed a month ago ;o)
THEN..
It sounds as though you have a wonderful life in Bosnia, with all that
fantastic terrain and good company. Perhaps you could tell us more about
it?
SNIP
Its never wonderful working on short contracts for charity donations - all
insecurity and very low pay, and now I am being asked to go and do Tsunami
relief !
I have probably written too much already so will not bore you all any more
than necessary. Maybe over a pint or two if an ELCO gathering coincides
with one of my trips home. And on that point it looks like we will have to
miss Easter and come home about 15th April. If you still have the spanner
fest with Renate I might try and join in, but maybe too late now. (I'll
come along in my Pajero ;o)
Cheers
Jon
'92 HZJ80 ex UN surplus in Bosnia - where the thaw turned to snowstorms
again today
 
G

Guest

Guest
I have an auto but advocated a manual. Not for anything to do with off
road as I don't push mine at all and I suspect either would do in most
conditions. The reasons I would've got a manual if I could find one in
good condition was simply fuel consumption. Even if you don't mind
paying for more fuel it's nice to have the extra range. Also I always
think manual is simpler and less likely to go wrong but I have no real
basis for thinking that.
Ian.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Hi Ian,
I agree the manual does give better fuel economy under a lot of instances
but it can even up at speed when the torque converter locks up so on the
motorway at 75mph the fuel consumption is all but the same as it is at a
constant 56mph I only have the official government figures for 1993 models,
Man Auto
Urban 24.8 20.6
56mph 31.0 30.1
75mph 19.8 19
The manual box is simpler in engineering terms and I have no figures of
reliability except to say I am not aware of problems with the auto box.
Anthony
iginal Message-----
From: [Email address removed] [mailto:[Email address removed]] On
Behalf Of Ian Packer
Sent: 14 March 2005 09:16
To: [Email address removed]
Subject: Re: [ELCO] Auto boxes chat Anthony
I have an auto but advocated a manual. Not for anything to do with off
road as I don't push mine at all and I suspect either would do in most
conditions. The reasons I would've got a manual if I could find one in
good condition was simply fuel consumption. Even if you don't mind
paying for more fuel it's nice to have the extra range. Also I always
think manual is simpler and less likely to go wrong but I have no real
basis for thinking that.
Ian.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Hi Jon,
How long will you be over for?
--
Regards,
Julian Voelcker
Mobile: 07971 540362
Cirencester, United Kingdom
1994 HDJ80, 2.5" OME Lift, ARB
 
Don't like the adverts? Remove them by becoming a supporting member.   Click here
G

Guest

Guest
Hi Jon,
How long will you be over for?
--
Regards,
Julian Voelcker
Mobile: 07971 540362
Cirencester, United Kingdom
1994 HDJ80, 2.5" OME Lift, ARB
 
G

Guest

Guest
You are right about the torque convertor lock-up, and I think engine
revs at 70mph are actually lower in the auto than the manual - mine is
running at a hair over 2500rpm @ 70mph on standard tyres. However
anecdotal evidence is that larger diameter tyres actually lower fuel
economy, so maybe lower revs are not necessarily good news.
Having driven an auto I think the main reason for the consumption
difference is simply that it is easy to accelerate away from junctions
etc in the auto, whereas the clunky manual gearbox encourages an
altogether more leisurely - and hence economical - driving style. I
almost never use more than 1/2 throttle or about 2500 rpm in lower
gears, whereas the slip in the auto's torque converter encouraged me to
boot it in order to get any acceleration at all.
I find that the manual ratios are not that well suited to the torque
curve of the engine: in particular the gap between 3rd & 4th is too
large, and that between 4th & 5th too small, meaning that you often have
to drop from 5th to 3rd to overtake which means that you run out of puff
at about 65 mph.
On the other hand 4th is good for heavy towing, and I'm told by our
Ozzie friends that one should use it for this in preference to 5th
because it is a "straight through" shaft in the gearbox & hence
stronger. In the hilly country round here engine braking on hills is
also a significant plus: I was b***** grateful for it two years back
when towing three horses around Exmoor, as some of the hills were both
long and steeper than 1 in 5.
Also, to coin a new acronym, the manual gearbox (or rather the clutch)
becomes a Pain In The Leg (PITL?) in extended stop/start town driving.
But then a TLC is too big for UK town driving anyway.
It all boils down to personal choice - I hate autos because I like to be
in charge!
Christopher Bell
Devon, UK
1HD-FT
| -----Original Message-----
| From: [Email address removed]
| [mailto:[Email address removed]]On Behalf Of Anthony Graham
| Sent: 14 March 2005 09:43
| To: [Email address removed]
| Subject: RE: [ELCO] Auto boxes chat Anthony
|
|
| Hi Ian,
|
| I agree the manual does give better fuel economy under a lot
| of instances
| but it can even up at speed when the torque converter locks
| up so on the
| motorway at 75mph the fuel consumption is all but the same as
| it is at a
| constant 56mph I only have the official government figures
| for 1993 models,
|
| Man Auto
|
| Urban 24.8 20.6
|
| 56mph 31.0 30.1
|
| 75mph 19.8 19
|
|
| The manual box is simpler in engineering terms and I have no
| figures of
| reliability except to say I am not aware of problems with the
| auto box.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Chris
An' I love autos 'cos I drive more relaxed in an auto - and can pull
away in any gear I like up hills (and yes!, overtaking too!) and,
believe it or not, I will use the auto as a manual on many occasions, so
I have the best of both worlds methinks, and engine braking is pretty
profound in second gear anyway...my three cents worth (see, its already
gone up from 2 to 3...)
To be honest, now I've used an auto I'll probably never go back to a
manual...
Renate
>>> [Email address removed] 03/14/05 10:57am >>>
You are right about the torque convertor lock-up, and I think engine
revs at 70mph are actually lower in the auto than the manual - mine is
running at a hair over 2500rpm @ 70mph on standard tyres. However
anecdotal evidence is that larger diameter tyres actually lower fuel
economy, so maybe lower revs are not necessarily good news.
Having driven an auto I think the main reason for the consumption
difference is simply that it is easy to accelerate away from junctions
etc in the auto, whereas the clunky manual gearbox encourages an
altogether more leisurely - and hence economical - driving style. I
almost never use more than 1/2 throttle or about 2500 rpm in lower
gears, whereas the slip in the auto's torque converter encouraged me
to
boot it in order to get any acceleration at all.
I find that the manual ratios are not that well suited to the torque
curve of the engine: in particular the gap between 3rd & 4th is too
large, and that between 4th & 5th too small, meaning that you often
have
to drop from 5th to 3rd to overtake which means that you run out of
puff
at about 65 mph.
On the other hand 4th is good for heavy towing, and I'm told by our
Ozzie friends that one should use it for this in preference to 5th
because it is a "straight through" shaft in the gearbox & hence
stronger. In the hilly country round here engine braking on hills is
also a significant plus: I was b***** grateful for it two years back
when towing three horses around Exmoor, as some of the hills were both
long and steeper than 1 in 5.
Also, to coin a new acronym, the manual gearbox (or rather the clutch)
becomes a Pain In The Leg (PITL?) in extended stop/start town driving.
But then a TLC is too big for UK town driving anyway.
It all boils down to personal choice - I hate autos because I like to
be
in charge!
Christopher Bell
Devon, UK
1HD-FT
| -----Original Message-----
| From: [Email address removed]
| [mailto:[Email address removed]]On Behalf Of Anthony Graham
| Sent: 14 March 2005 09:43
| To: [Email address removed]
| Subject: RE: [ELCO] Auto boxes chat Anthony
|
|
| Hi Ian,
|
| I agree the manual does give better fuel economy under a lot
| of instances
| but it can even up at speed when the torque converter locks
| up so on the
| motorway at 75mph the fuel consumption is all but the same as
| it is at a
| constant 56mph I only have the official government figures
| for 1993 models,
|
| Man Auto
|
| Urban 24.8 20.6
|
| 56mph 31.0 30.1
|
| 75mph 19.8 19
|
|
| The manual box is simpler in engineering terms and I have no
| figures of
| reliability except to say I am not aware of problems with the
| auto box.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Hi All
I would never change to a manual after driving the auto , my last car was a 2.2 petrol camry was also auto, so am driving the autos for about nine years now. The odd time I have a shot in a manual car is when the cruiser breaks down and I have to drive a hired car for a while. I hate having to think of having to change gears, at corners ,up hills, in traffic etc. The other thing I hate about the hired cars is the sense of how vunrible I feel in a small car which makes me nervious. So I think that it has to be auto and it has to be cruiser.
John c
92HDJ 80 1HD-T Ireland
 
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks