# AS Kingham - Manual Or Comfortmatic ?



## Blizzard

Planning ahead to my April 2017 retirement, in a couple of months I'm hoping to be placing an order for a new Auto Sleeper Kingham (Panel Van Conversion) which is based on the Peugeot Boxer and comes as standard with the 2.2 litre 150bhp engine and 6 speed manual gearbox. 

I am tempted to opt for the Fiat Ducato 130bhp variant, with Comfortmatic "auto" gear box for those longer trips. 

I know the auto box is a robotic manual, rather than being a true auto, but that aside what are your thoughts on the pros and cons of each option ?

Ken.


----------



## Mrplodd

I ran a Merc Sprintshift for a few years, (same technology) It IS a very relaxing drive BUT you do need to remember that if you just hold it on a hill with the throttle you are slipping the clutch exactly the same as a manual and that gets VERY expensive VERY quickly. (All that heat very quickly knackers Dual Mass Flywheels) 

Plus ask yourself how much driving you will actually be doing in heavy traffic/towns where there will be a need to be constantly changing gear?? A long continental trip will probably be spent mostly in top gear anyway, so no real advantage to a Comfortmatic in those circumstances

I didnt have any troubles with mine but I know others did. The Comfortmatic is a very complex system and there is a lot to go wrong. Having said that any vehicle will come with 3 years worth of warranty. 

Its very much a judgement call on what will suit you.

Dont rush it as the Comfortmatic option adds a fair bit to the bottom line.

Andy


----------



## ob1

Comfortmatic anytime. I've had three and never any bother. As Andy said you cannot hurry the gear changes but soon adapt to that. You also avoid the dreaded 'judder' with the smaller Fiat/Peugeot engines with the Comfortmatic box for some reason. As for holding it on hills, with ASR you only have to hold it on the footbrake instead and it will give you time to get on the accelerator before releasing the brake, so no problems there.

Ron


----------



## Revise

When I bought mine I opted for the comfortmatic. I had never driven one and thought it would be like a normal Auto. When I drove out of the showroom I was gutted. I hated it Thought it was a bad mistake. But once I got used to it not being a normal Auto. After about 100 miles. I decided. I loved it. Now I would not even consider going back to a manual. 

The one thing you have to learn to live with is when you pull away in first gear, you are never going to win any drag races. It is VERY SLOW at pulling away and you have to take this into account. But if I was getting a new motorhome I would put this on the top of my list of must haves.

Have a test drive first. Unlike I did :grin2:


----------



## Stanner

I have twice had the similar Quikshift box on Renault Masters and there is just one situation when the box can be a real PITA that is when you need to use levelling ramps. 
You need a very delicate right foot and judicious left foot braking to get into the right position on the ramps, this is particularly so if the ramps are being used on any loose surface that allows them to move or squirm about.

That said that is just about the only time I've ever even slightly regretted have that box.

Renault also has the advantage of only charging half as much extra for the auto box as Fiat do.


----------



## DBSS

I was a 'manual' guy everytime and wouldn't hear of anything else.....but the deal was so tempting when I bought the 890i I decided I would give the Comfortmatic a chance and tbh am so glad I did. The days of constant gear changing in towns etc are a thing of the past and cruise on the autobahn, peage etc are bliss. Even improved my fuel economy, as on my last trip down to Italy I actually managed 30.4mpg cruising at 58mph.
The only drawback I can find with the auto box is you need to have a delicate right foot when manoeuvring into tight spots and asking to move just a couple of inches..

Fully converted now..!!

Ian


----------



## Blizzard

Cheers Gents, it's looking like Comfortmatic is the way forward for someone who is a fairly recent convert to Automatics.

I've always enjoyed 'proper' driving, with manual gearboxes, both at work and home, but I suppose that over the last few years with work moving away from manual gearboxes, that I've got used to 'lazy, but comfortable' driving.

Our fleet largely consists of BMWs with 8 speed autos, which are so smooth, even when driven hard, boosted by a few Audi autos, but my favourite car for the Autumn years of my career has to be my LR Discovery. Not many of my colleagues like driving it as it's slow and doesn't handle so well at speed, but suits me down to the ground.

I can't imagine the Comfortmatic being anywhere near as smooth as the BMW and common sense dictates a test drive before the final decision.

Ken.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

I love proper auto slush boxes, I've tried the various other types of automated manuals and don't like them, don't see the point of them really, I'd either go full manual or full auto, full auto is the more reliable and more understood in small garages which is where it'd end up one day, used prices may not be that good either as most will not understand them, more parts to go wrong too.

Unless I had a need for a clutchless gear change I would stick with the devil you know, the most common for a reason.


Just my opinion, it's further reduces buying choice too, as it'll probably have to be a new van, with all the losses associated with that, which will include having to fault find everything the factory didn't bother with, and also the cost of all the toys you are used to having.

We will never be able to afford a new van, but have discussed more than once what we'd get, and a 5 year old van with low miles and all the toys would be our target regardless of wallet size.

I hope all the contradictions don't spoil your enjoyment of picking your next van.


----------



## Dill

I have always insisted on a manual box until I drove a Comfortmatic. I don't think I would go back to manual now. 

Dill


----------



## greygit

We have just bought our first auto car and we wish we had done it years ago, I know it's a car and not a van but believe me if you have the chance to try both do it as I am sure you will go for the "Autoish" one.


----------



## Mrplodd

It's very sound advice to take a decent length test drive BEFORE making a final decision. 

A comfortmatic is a robotised manual and it behaves very differently to a "proper" auto box. The best way to describe it is as if there is someone else in control of the throttle, clutch and gear change and they do it all for you. It is NOT as smooth as a full auto BUT if you anticipate the change points (not difficult) and "ease off" at that point you will get a smooth change similar to a full auto.

Try one, but make sure you do a decent distance as opposed to "round the block" it's an important decision and you need to get it right!!

Andy


----------



## Blizzard

Any thoughts on the fact that the Comfortmatic variant is 20bhp less than the manual, is this going to make it underpowered on a 2.2 litre engine, or will the drop in power be negligible ?

Also, does the Comfortmatic eat in to the payload much ?


----------



## Dill

Blizzard said:


> Any thoughts on the fact that the Comfortmatic variant is 20bhp less than the manual, is this going to make it underpowered on a 2.2 litre engine, or will the drop in power be negligible ?
> 
> Also, does the Comfortmatic eat in to the payload much ?


I doubt you would notice 20bhp, and as for eating into the payload yes it will but again nothing drastic. It would've been better if the engine size were 3.0ltr rather than 2.2 just my preference though I'm sure the 2.2 is adequate.

Dill


----------



## Blizzard

Dill said:


> I doubt you would notice 20bhp, and as for eating into the payload yes it will but again nothing drastic. It would've been better if the engine size were 3.0ltr rather than 2.2 just my preference though I'm sure the 2.2 is adequate.
> 
> Dill


I appreciate where you're coming from with the 3.0ltr, my tag axle MH had that engine and it was superb.

That said, my later Bolero had the 2.3ltr 150bhp multi jet and at 4.25 tonnes had more than enough power, so as you say, the 2.2ltr on a sub 3.5 tonne van should be adequate.

Ken.


----------



## Stanner

I thought you could only have the Comfortmatic on the Fiat engines? 
The 2.2 is a PSA group engine.

From
http://www.practicalmotorhome.com/b...olen-a-march-on-peugeot-in-the-new-van-market



> Fiat's trump card, however, is its launch of three "Comfort-Matic" automatic transmission models: the 130, 150 and 180. The 180bhp version has been available since October but UK deliveries of the smaller models started only recently. _The Practical Motorhome_ team will soon have a 150bhp version to road-test.





> Meanwhile Peugeot, which has opted not to develop automatic options, could come under pressure, as demand grows for motorhomes with automatic gearboxes.


I know that is a few years old, but I think the 2.2 still can not be specified with an auto box yet.


----------



## Blizzard

You're correct Stanner, which is why I said in my opening post that I was thinking about opting for the Fiat 130 Comfortmatic, over the Peugeot. 

I think the problem stems from my confusion over the size of each engine, as I assumed they were both the same cubic capacity. The Auto Sleeper site mentions 2.2ltr for the Peugeot 150, with the option of Fiat's 130 Comfortmatic, but does not mention a different capacity.

My bad


----------



## Stanner

Blizzard said:


> You're correct Stanner, which is why I said in my opening post that I was thinking about opting for the Fiat 130 Comfortmatic, over the Peugeot.


That's what I thought, but then all discussion seemed to revert to about the 2.2 engine which cannot be a Comfortmatic


----------



## Blizzard

Stanner said:


> That's what I thought, but then all discussion seemed to revert to about the 2.2 engine which cannot be a Comfortmatic


So am I correct in thinking that the Fiat 130bhp Comfortmatic is a 2.3ltr ?


----------



## Stanner

130 & 150 are 2.3

180 was 3.0 but is now 2.3.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...sg=AFQjCNHcf5kBHJtnc51SB6uq_ub0RE_kyg&cad=rja


----------



## Blizzard

Stanner said:


> 130 & 150 are 2.3
> 
> 180 was 3.0 but is now 2.3.
> 
> https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...sg=AFQjCNHcf5kBHJtnc51SB6uq_ub0RE_kyg&cad=rja


Interesting read, thanks !


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

All I got was a file which downloaded then didn't open, not sure I like links like that.


----------



## Blizzard

Kev_n_Liz said:


> All I got was a file which downloaded then didn't open, not sure I like links like that.


I'll try a couple of screen shots....


----------



## Blizzard

....


----------



## Stanner

Kev_n_Liz said:


> All I got was a file which downloaded then didn't open, not sure I like links like that.


Hmmmm................... it was just a .doc file, that should open in Word or Open Office etc. from the Fiat Press Office.

Perhaps it's the link that doesn't like you? :wink2:


----------



## Stanner

Kev_n_Liz said:


> All I got was a file which downloaded then didn't open, not sure I like links like that.


Ahh well that's Microsoft Word for you, totally unreliable.

It was a Word (.doc) file from the Fiat Press Office and should have just opened in Word (other better Word Processors are available) or Open Office etc.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

A link to the page itself may have worked differently.


----------



## Blizzard

Kev_n_Liz said:


> A link to the page itself may have worked differently.


The above link from Stanner took me directly to the page, no folders or other steps in between !

I've copied the link, but chances are it will be the same....

http://www.fiatprofessionalpress.co.../Press/98293fia.doc&type=attach&subtype=press


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

Yup, does exactly the same as the first one, not a problem for me of course, other than it shouldn't be hard to look at it.

Perhaps a link to where you got that link from may work, or the search parameters.


----------



## Stanner

I had no problem opening it and neither did Blizzard, so it appears that if there is a problem it is something to do with how your computer handles .doc files.

Mine just asks whether I want to save it or open it with the default program - MS Word, which I happen to have but absolutely hate and so only use it to open .doc and .docx files.


----------



## dghr272

Opened immediately from link on iPad as well.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

My fault possibly, some will remember my laptop problems recently, 4 new ones in a month, so when I got this one I didn't load all my programs up and I'm just loading Libre open office, so hopefully the file will open once it's done.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

Sortid now :roll:


----------



## Stanner

Well there you go.:wink2:


----------



## jiwawa

I may have missed it but I'm not sure of the advantages of comfortmatic over pure auto? 

I've noticed my knees n hips are not just as happy with driving as they used to be so I was having a think about auto - of some description.


----------



## Blizzard

jiwawa said:


> I may have missed it but I'm not sure of the advantages of comfortmatic over pure auto?
> 
> I've noticed my knees n hips are not just as happy with driving as they used to be so I was having a think about auto - of some description.


Yup, pretty much the same reasons I'm considering auto :wink2:


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

I wonder why they didn't fit a proper automatic gearbox to those destined to become Motorhomes, cost wouldn't make a lot of difference, not sure about weight, fuel economy isn't going to bother anyone with that sort of money.


----------



## jiwawa

Blizzard said:


> Yup, pretty much the same reasons I'm considering auto


But you're asking for opinions re manual v comfortmatic. I'm just wondering why you've discounted 'proper' auto?


----------



## Stanner

jiwawa said:


> I may have missed it but I'm not sure of the advantages of comfortmatic over pure auto?
> 
> I've noticed my knees n hips are not just as happy with driving as they used to be so I was having a think about auto - of some description.


There is only ONE advantage to Fiat's Comfortmatic or Renault's equivalent Quikshift and that is that it is all you can get on the vast majority of motorhomes.

A true automatic is a very rare option.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

We looked at a Hymer on a sprinter chassis which had a true auto, but it was weak as wee wee, no guts at all.


----------



## Blizzard

jiwawa said:


> But you're asking for opinions re manual v comfortmatic. I'm just wondering why you've discounted 'proper' auto?


If a proper auto was available on the van that I want, I would seriously consider it.... But at this moment in time I only have the two choices, manual or Comfortmatic !


----------



## Stanner

There is also one other advantage of a Comfortmatic type auto over both a true auto and a manual - MPG (according to the "official" figures) 

Left to it's own devices a Comfortmatic "should" produce better consumption than a manual or a true auto because the algorithm that determines how the gears change is matched to the engine characteristics so it should always be in the "right" gear.

I know of a Renault Quikshift on a hire fleet that always returns within 1 mpg of 27mpg whoever drives it. The trip computer is read & reset at regular intervals (every 2 or 3 hires) and the variation from 27mpg each time is minimal.


----------



## buxom

Had the 3ltr Comformatic and was very pleased with it and as it was on a panel van conversion did more than average milage for a motorhome, 50k in almost 6 years , it never let us down and even the clutch replacement at 40k did not fase us as we had seen the reports of other Fiats clutch problems at less than 10k especially the 2.3 on manual (the 2.3 the main reason we went for 3ltr). I am looking for my next van at present and the 3ltr Comformatic is a priority,


----------



## Blizzard

buxom said:


> Had the 3ltr Comformatic and was very pleased with it and as it was on a panel van conversion did more than average milage for a motorhome, 50k in almost 6 years , it never let us down and even the clutch replacement at 40k did not fase us as we had seen the reports of other Fiats clutch problems at less than 10k especially the 2.3 on manual (the 2.3 the main reason we went for 3ltr). I am looking for my next van at present and the 3ltr Comformatic is a priority,


A lot of users like the 3.0ltr, but it's being phased out.... See Stanner's link in post #19


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

> Stanner
> I know of a Renault Quikshift on a hire fleet that always returns within 1 mpg of 27mpg whoever drives it. The trip computer is read & reset at regular intervals (every 2 or 3 hires) and the variation from 27mpg each time is minimal.


I was just wondering how they could know the fuel input on a hire vehicle, whenever I've hired a van etc which required returning full I always got someone to watch the gauge and I'd stop filling when it showed full.


----------



## Stanner

Kev_n_Liz said:


> I was just wondering how they could know the fuel input on a hire vehicle, whenever I've hired a van etc which required returning full I always got someone to watch the gauge and I'd stop filling when it showed full.


Why does it matter how much is in the tank? That only matters if you are calculating manually, brim to brim.

The trip computer measures the amount of fuel used by the engine and the distance travelled and uses that to calculate the MPG.

The actual MPG figure may not be exact, (it is usually slightly out compared to a brim to brim calculation) but the relative MPG between different users will be accurate, as the computer will always calculate it using the same parameters.

Also if the van has diesel heating the trip computer will give the more accurate MPG as it will not take account of any diesel used for heating whereas the brim to brim method will include the fuel used for heating with that used when driving and give a lower MPG figure.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

I see your point, I thought we were talking fact that's all, and I wondered how it could be accurate, and in this case accuracy isn't really the issue, however my puter in the Relay was always miles out with itself, never mind reality, so I dismissed it totally.


----------



## Stanner

Whenever it's been checked by doing brim to brim, the one in the Renault has been within 1 mpg.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

They must use better tech than the Seval vans


----------



## Stanner

Kev_n_Liz said:


> They must use better tech than the Seval vans


Or better calibrated.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

Aye lad.


----------



## Blizzard

Well, I eventually got myself a test drive of a Comfortmatic earlier this month and I was left pretty underwhelmed.

I went in to the test drive with an open mind, bearing in mind not to expect anything akin to the smoothness of the auto boxes on my Discovery and BMW work cars, but the very first gear change was so unexpectedly slow, that my initial thought was that the engine had died. I wasn't expecting the change being so prolonged and I felt as if I was bobbing forward in my seat as the power dropped off for each change.

I know I would eventually get used to it, but I'm not sure at this stage that I want to get used to something, rather than it being a pleasure to use.

The jury is out for deliberation !!

Ken.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

I think you know the answer to this one.


----------



## Blizzard

I think I do


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

Blizzard said:


> I think I do


You pretty accurately describe my findings with the merc sprinter when they brought one out yonks ago, I assumed they had improved by now, maybe it's the emperors new clothes syndrome if you have one  

I was reading the other day that 75% of people buying new do not drive the new car until they've come to collect them, I wonder if it's the same with MoHos, I'd never even make an offer without a test drive new or used of the vehicle I was buying, not a demo model, hence I'd never buy new, can't abide the new vehicle smell anyway, all those chemical fumes cannot be good for you.


----------



## Blizzard

On the plus side, the money I save by sticking with the manual box will just about cover my deposit next month ;-)

Have to disagree about that new smell though.... I love it


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

Blizzard said:


> On the plus side, the money I save by sticking with the manual box will just about cover my deposit next month ;-)
> 
> Have to disagree about that new smell though.... I love it


I get the same smell in carpet and furniture shops, it makes me ill, save me thousands


----------



## Stanner

Blizzard said:


> Well, I eventually got myself a test drive of a Comfortmatic earlier this month and I was left pretty underwhelmed.
> 
> I went in to the test drive with an open mind, bearing in mind not to expect anything akin to the smoothness of the auto boxes on my Discovery and BMW work cars, but the very first gear change was so unexpectedly slow, that my initial thought was that the engine had died. I wasn't expecting the change being so prolonged and I felt as if I was bobbing forward in my seat as the power dropped off for each change.
> 
> I know I would eventually get used to it, but I'm not sure at this stage that I want to get used to something, rather than it being a pleasure to use.
> 
> The jury is out for deliberation !!
> 
> Ken.


I've had 2 Renaults with the equivalent Quikshift box and that doesn't sound like a good example at all. How new was it?
As I understand it such boxes "learn" the way you drive and adapt to it. One thing I learned was not to hammer away in first like you might with a manual but just to get rolling let it change into second and then accelerate harder as the change from first to second is the hardest for the box to handle smoothly. 
The change from 5th to 6th is often only noticeble by the drop of the rev counter needle.


----------



## Blizzard

Stanner said:


> I've had 2 Renaults with the equivalent Quikshift box and that doesn't sound like a good example at all. How new was it?
> As I understand it such boxes "learn" the way you drive and adapt to it. One thing I learned was not to hammer away in first like you might with a manual but just to get rolling let it change into second and then accelerate harder as the change from first to second is the hardest for the box to handle smoothly.
> The change from 5th to 6th is often only noticeble by the drop of the rev counter needle.


Someone mentioned that 'learning' thing on another forum and that the gearbox would need at least 250 miles to adapt to my driving style. 
This one was a brand new van off the forecourt and was very low mileage, so I guess that makes sense.

Problem is that I would never get a test drive of that length and without seeing how much the experience improved as the gearbox adapted, I don't think I will take the risk. I know what the manual gearbox drives like, the Comfortmatic would be a bit of a gamble that I may, or may not end up liking.

Better the devil you know >


----------



## flyinghigh

Stanner said:


> I've had 2 Renaults with the equivalent Quikshift box and that doesn't sound like a good example at all. How new was it?
> As I understand it such boxes "learn" the way you drive and adapt to it. One thing I learned was not to hammer away in first like you might with a manual but just to get rolling let it change into second and then accelerate harder as the change from first to second is the hardest for the box to handle smoothly.
> The change from 5th to 6th is often only noticeble by the drop of the rev counter needle.


my Renault does exactly the same and over the three years I have own her the gearbox has adapted to my driving style,
I No longer do Grand Prix traffic light starts! why would you even try in a 4 tonne MH? but saying that she can go like the clappers if you want too, and certainly the gear changes are way quicker that a human can manage smoothly with the bonus that the computer will not let you over rev or slog the engine ,
if you use her manually you have all the advantages that brings if you prefer and occasionally I flick it into a lower gear on approaching a hill and but normally I leave her to her own devices,

On top of that the auto version is slightly more fuel efficient than the manual, so what's not to like? oviously it's my opinion but after retiring from the motor trade after fifty years and driven many different types I wouldn't have any hesitation in buying another.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

Blizzard said:


> Someone mentioned that 'learning' thing on another forum and that the gearbox would need at least 250 miles to adapt to my driving style.
> This one was a brand new van off the forecourt and was very low mileage, so I guess that makes sense.
> 
> Problem is that I would never get a test drive of that length and without seeing how much the experience improved as the gearbox adapted, I don't think I will take the risk. I know what the manual gearbox drives like, the Comfortmatic would be a bit of a gamble that I may, or may not end up liking.
> 
> Better the devil you know >


I'd stay away from them, but as they learn, maybe hire one or perhaps a kind member may lend you one or go along with you and let you try the learning curve, then you'll get the extended drive you really need to try one out, too big an investment to risk otherwise, unlike real slush box, but you do need to have plenty of horses for those, but they are the biz.

I wonder how many get fitted to van which earn a living, can you find any reviews on them ont tinternet.


----------



## Stanner

You have to get used to them and they have to get used to you.

Once that has happened, they can be a very relaxing drive especially if paired with cruise control.


----------



## javea

Is it feasible to start from rest manually in first gear, change to second and then revert to auto. Would this overcome the slow change from first to second in auto mode?


----------



## Stanner

javea said:


> Is it feasible to start from rest manually in first gear, change to second and then revert to auto. Would this overcome the slow change from first to second in auto mode?


It might well be, but as the "slow" change from 1st to 2nd is not a situation I have never experienced it's not a question I can answer. 
The change from 1st to 2nd can be a bit fierce if you accelerate very hard, so if you ever need to do that it could help to be able to hold 1st for longer. 
But even if you do that, the box will still automatically change up to 2nd if you try to over rev it. 
It will not allow the engine to go past about 4000rpm or drop below about 1200rpm if a higher or lower gear respectively is available.


----------



## Mrplodd

Javea 

These are not automatic gearboxes in the true meaning of the word. 

They are robotised manuals, the electronics do everything from slacking off the throttle, disengaging the clutch (yes they still have one) change into whichever gear it decides is best, letting the clutch up again and matching the revs to the road speed. You cannot actual change gear yourself, only tell the imp that does it all what you WANT it to do, it then does it for you. (At its own pace) 

I ran one for a while, you do get used to the slow 1st to 2nd shift, but pulling out onto a busy roundabout can be "interesting" as the bloody thing will always start to change just as that 44 tonnes is bearing down on you and there is NOTHING you can do to speed the process up. There is no "gear lever" only a selector lever that LOOKS like a gear lever.

Andy

Personally, having run one for a few years I would not have another, only a "proper" auto, and that seems to be VERY rare on anything other than those at the very high end of motorhomes pricing.


----------



## Stanner

It sounds like Renault have it much better sorted than Fiat/Citroen/Peugeot then.


----------



## peribro

My vans have been manual as I generally prefer a manual box to an automatic although I have had several automatic cars. In addition I think that a manual box is probably better when towing although that may be an old fashioned view now. However when I do drive an automatic car (which my wife's is and in which I probably drive 8k miles a year) I find a saving grace is that I can switch it into a semi-manual mode and choose what gear I am in. Am I right in thinking that it is impossible to do this with the Comformatic box? In which case I think i would feel that I was not in proper control, particularly when towing. So saying I am talking from ignorance as I've never driven a van with Comformatic.


----------



## Stanner

peribro said:


> Am I right in thinking that it is impossible to do this with the Comformatic box? In which case I think i would feel that I was not in proper control, particularly when towing. So saying I am talking from ignorance as I've never driven a van with Comformatic.


No, you are wrong, manual change is possible.

http://www.fiatprofessionalpress.co.uk/press/article/5053


----------



## peribro

Stanner said:


> No, you are wrong, manual change is possible.
> 
> http://www.fiatprofessionalpress.co.uk/press/article/5053


Thanks. That information has removed just about all my concerns.


----------



## Mrplodd

"Proper" automatics are viewed as being the better option for towing these days, I would certainly have one out of choice.

The comments about "not being in control" are frankly nonsense! With automatic the vehicle is always in one gear or another, there is no clutch to wear out and of course. No "dual mass flywheel" either.

An auto actually provides an almost totally variable gearing system so the max torque (when required) is delivered, they are far more relaxing, they are quieter , every single gear change is as smooth as silk, most modern auto's have 7 or 8 gears so mpg doesn't suffer.

Auto boxes EVERY time especially when towing.

Andy

The ONLY disadvantage is that the initial cost is considerably higher.


----------



## peribro

Mrplodd said:


> The comments about "not being in control" are frankly nonsense!


But if that's how I would feel why is that nonsense? I've driven well in excess of 100,000 miles in automatic cars and have always regularly used the manual side of the box to change down gear ahead of the auto box in circumstances where I know a lower gear is going to be required and I don't want to wait for the box to engage it and nor do I want to use kick down. I've driven autos with paddle shifts on the steering column, shift levers in the central console and so on. My point was that if I didn't have that element of control then I would not be happy with such a box. Stanner has said I would and I then replied that I was happy with that.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

The main problem with the manual/autos, is if you don't get on with it you're either going to be stuck with it or lose a bundle getting rid of a van you don't want to drive.

Another thing is it'll be main dealer every time it goes awry as your average garage muckyneck wouldn't know what to do with it, and what are used values going to be like too.


----------



## Dill

Very interesting reading your thoughts on the Comfortmatic's, I honestly think that a test drive of say 4 to 5 miles is a complete waste of time. I agree on the first and second gear shift when setting off, but this is no different to a manual box in my opinion. It did take time to get used to it, now I drive mine (In Auto) from a standing start to sixth gear without the bobbing backwards and forward in my seat, even the wife sitting in the other seat has noticed how smooth the gear change is. No one has mentioned the Up function when towing, which is a good idea and works a treat. I would definitely buy another.

Dill


----------

