# auto or manual



## aikidoamigo (Aug 11, 2011)

preference and reasons why please...


----------



## makems (Jul 26, 2010)

Arthritic back makes manual gear change painful. Auto essential.


----------



## blondel (Jun 12, 2005)

needed for the fitting of hand controls


----------



## sideways (Jun 2, 2008)

Had both and would go auto every time provided you have sufficient power, Auto and cruise combined great on long continental drags.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

sideways said:


> Had both and would go auto every time provided you have sufficient power, Auto and cruise combined great on long continental drags.


Exactly why do something manually that an auto can do far better.

Two other reasons city driving and traffic jams.

Off to Eurodisney and the Paris Motorshow (just off the Périphérique) later in the month guess what I'll be driving? :wink:


----------



## stevethebeekeeper (Jan 23, 2011)

Always an auto in car and M/H. Makes driving so much easier and safer. Nowadays I dont think there is a great deal in difference between fuel economy. So just a slightly higher initial cost. 

Having driven both for many years, I am surprised how anti auto a lot of people are. 

Of course with the cruise control set you can also nip in the back to make a cuppa :wink:


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Out of choice auto very time.

However unless buying from new the choice is not as clear cut, the problem being finding the MH of choice combined with an auto gearbox. 

MOST MH's are still produced on manual gearboxes (probably because there is nearly always a premium for auto's and manufacturers are always trying to keep the purchase cost down) many people are still anti auto for some strange reason as well.

Last MH I had was a Merc Sprintshift, loved it but was unable to find a replacement that we wanted on an auto so now back to having to change gear, not too much of an issue as realistically most GMMH'ss are not driven THAT far in traffic are they?

Cruise control is nice BUT is NOT as economic as non cruise control. If you have control of throttle then you can allow the speed to bleed off a bit on hills, cruise control will'keep applying more and more throttle to maintain the set speed (and that uses more fuel of course)


----------



## Bob45 (Jan 22, 2007)

I have had an auto for some time(and the M/H) and my wife's new car is an auto as well. 
Much easier to drive in most conditions especially slow moving, crawl, stop start traffic. Add cruise and motorway or auto route driving is a breeze.

No contest for me.

Bob


----------



## shreksnr (Sep 17, 2011)

Auto all day any day, two worn out knees and hips no contest.


----------



## trevd01 (Oct 26, 2007)

Manual gearboxes are _preferred_ by people that

a) think changing gear is fun 
b) haven't tried a modern autobox for long enough
c) only have a LW/MW manual tuning radio in their cab
d) look back with nostalgia to the days when you had to get up from the setee and walk over to the telvision to change channels

When you're stuck in a traffic jam for an hour, which would you rather do:

A. occasionally lift your foot off the brake for a few seconds to move forward ten feet
or 
B. Handbrake off, clutch, into 1st gear, accelerate, clutch, change back into neutral, brake, handbrake on. Repeat as required.



Jeremy Clarkson while driving the Lamorghini Gallardo said:


> You have to have the flappy-paddle gearbox, which is annoying some of the time, like for instance when you park it. But the option is a six-speed manual which comes with a clutch pedal, and that means there's nowhere to put your left foot. And that's annoying all the time.





Anon said:


> Then there is the pride one takes in a perfectly timed two-three upshift, wringing it out to the redline and listening to the symphony of pumping pistons and whirring camshafts, or perhaps mastering the black art of heel-and-toe shifting and precisely matching revs on a downshift as you drift into a corner.


:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:


----------



## Enock (Nov 11, 2011)

I have a manual, as I couldn't find or afford the layout I wanted in an auto

But with a total left knee replacement already done, and the right one needing doing..... I'd get an auto in a heartbeat.....


----------



## ched999uk (Jan 31, 2011)

I would say for me it depends on the auto. We have an old C class Merc and I love the auto on that. It does seem very good at knowing what gear I would like to be in.
We also have a Smart that is a 6 speed with auto clutch. It can be driven as a full auto or a sequential with no clutch. I prefare to drive it in sequential mode as the gear change is a bit slow in full auto and there is too much of a delay in changing at times.
The MH is a manual and if it had the same auto as the Merc I would be happy (although not at fuel economy) but I would not be as happy with an auto like the Smart on the motorhome.
I have driven a few Renault hire cars with autos, and some of them are almost dangerous.

So Yes to good autos with good fuel economy, no to bad auto changes.


----------



## thegamwellsmythes (Jul 29, 2008)

I have an auto car which I wouldn't swap for a manual due to my commute along clogged motorways with many jams.

I still think manual for the motorhome though. I would guess (no experience here just guesswork) you'd be less likely to get stuck in a wet field with a manual compared to an auto. I could be wrong though.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Mrplodd said:


> Cruise control is nice BUT is NOT as economic as non cruise control. If you have control of throttle then you can allow the speed to bleed off a bit on hills, cruise control will'keep applying more and more throttle to maintain the set speed (and that uses more fuel of course)


If you have cruise control fitted you can always override it in extreme conditions (the only time it is substantially worse than no cruise) -BUT- if you don't have cruise fitted you can't use it in the situations where it is clearly better than no cruise (Belgium/Netherlands for instance).

Personally I have never seen the sense in grinding to a near halt and holding up other traffic on hills, just to save a couple of MPG for a couple of miles or so. Also the concentration needed to save those few MPG just isn't worth the hassle (IMHO).


----------



## trevd01 (Oct 26, 2007)

Enock said:


> I have a manual, as I couldn't find or afford the layout I wanted in an auto
> 
> But with a total left knee replacement already done, and the right one needing doing..... I'd get an auto in a heartbeat.....


Interesting. When chosing both our camper vans, we limited our choices to vans that were available in Auto at a price we would be willing to pay and then selected from those.

No matter how nice a layout may have been in manual only vans, they didnt get a look in.

So our first van was a Mazda Bongo (finding a manual one would be the problem there).

Then when we wanted a bigger van, we were looking at Renault and Merc based panel vans, until the Ducato Comfortmatic was announced. Some great Transit conversions around, but no auto, so not on the list.

Depends on your priorities. I've driven Autos for over 20 years and like all of us I'm not getting any younger, with one bionic hip and one knee in the last five years proving that.

"Put it into drive when you start your journey, then into park* when you arrive" That's my gearchanging.

* with the Comfortmatic, you just leave it in gear and turn off the ignition, it puts itself into neutral when you start next time.


----------



## Bill_H (Feb 18, 2011)

Manual every time, I did 12,000 miles in my van last year. I have a smart car ( did another 9,000 in that) with an auto/ semi auto option, and have only used full auto two or three times, I want my vehicles to change gear when I want them to, not when a box of electronics deceides it wants to change.

Couple of weeks ago I was offered for free a brand new cruise control to fit my motorhome, and I couldn't think of a single reason for wanting it. I enjoy my driving, and don't just see it as an inconvenience to be endured to get me to where I want to go, but a part of the holiday. Distances don't bother me either and I drove from Santander to Gibralter in a day a couple of years back.
You can keep your auto boxes for me.


----------



## Enock (Nov 11, 2011)

trevd01 said:


> Enock said:
> 
> 
> > I have a manual, as I couldn't find or afford the layout I wanted in an auto
> ...


When we were looking for a van we were unsure if it was somthing we'd stick with... (we'd been caravaners).... So although I had a reasonable idea of the type of layout we wanted, we didn't want to overspend, in case it turned out motorhoming wasn't for us....
We found what we considered the perffect layout, on a 10000 mile van, it was towards the top of our budget so went for it...... I've since kept a close eye on the market for a similar van in an auto, but am yet to spot one within budget...

Yes I'd like an auto, but it's not the main criteria for me...... On my recent trip to Beaune in France..... I got on the autoroute in Calais, set the cruise control at 55mph..... And didn't move from top gear for almost 400 miles 8) .... So no real hardship..


----------



## bigfrank3 (Mar 26, 2007)

Just before I bought my first automatic car, 6 vehicles and 20 years ago, a good friend who drove an auto replied to me when I asked him why he drove one said "it puts the fun back into driving". And you know, what he was so right.

Frank


----------



## tony50 (Oct 16, 2007)

I cannot see why anybody wants to change gear when there is something that does it for you ,again that's my opinion .

Tony A.


----------



## bigtree (Feb 3, 2007)

Auto all the time,plus cruise .


----------



## teemyob (Nov 22, 2005)

*auto*

Modern Real Auto's Are more fuel effecient.

Fetch better prices

Typical (real) examples

La Strada Regent

Manual 2007 35K £
Auto 2007 £45k

Differnece in spec cost, a mere £1k

Manual still available : Manual

Every Auto I have seen at the right price. sold.

Mercedes have moved to 7G-Tronic Auto's

TM


----------



## Enock (Nov 11, 2011)

*Re: auto*



teemyob said:


> Modern Real Auto's Are more fuel effecient.
> 
> Fetch better prices
> 
> ...


Maths not a strong point with auto owners then  

£45k -£35k = £10k

£10k = lots of diesel and trips away 8)


----------



## teemyob (Nov 22, 2005)

*Re: auto*



Enock said:


> teemyob said:
> 
> 
> > Modern Real Auto's Are more fuel effecient.
> ...


Fair comment. I would just buy an older Automatic.

I have driven An Automatic van for business for nearly five years now. My Current Mercedes Sprinter Auto was actually cheaper because the previous owner struggled to sell it. Quoting that customers said they did not want an Auto because they are too thirsty.

I would find it very hard to go back to a manual, don't mind a manual so much for our motorhome because most miles are on traffic free Continental motorways.

But the next one will be Automatic.

TM


----------

