It's not been poorly maintained. It's not a bag of shit. Oh, and there's no replaceable filter in the box.
I wasn't complaining about a fault, or anything specific about this gearbox. I just haven't driven any auto yet that would make me say "That works well; I'll have to get one."
Chris
CVTs work bloody well, whilst they work....
I tried an A4 2.0TDI-143 with the 'multitronic' CVT, it was very, very good. If a little odd.
There's no filter as such - just a gauze over the pump intake. A half brick filter some call them. And there's no listed service interval for changing it either. Could well have lifetime ATF too - although most recommend a change at about 90,000 miles.
No reason to if a manual suits you. I enjoy driving a decent one too. But these tend to be on smaller cars.
My ideal would be a bog standard manual with clutch pedal that had an auto mode too - but I realise this would be impractical. I've yet to drive a DSG type that is as good as a TC auto, though. They're just not as smooth when driving gently.
Are you sure? Many have internal ones that require the "sump" to be removed to get at them.
Why? It already effectively happened in lorries a few years ago. Merely have a manual box with electronic change and clutch.
Don't want an 'electronic' change. When I enjoy driving a manual it's because of the 'feel' of the gearchange and clutch etc.
Fine. So have a remote gearstick with switches then.
I'm not the one who hates autos. ;-) Quite the reverse - I'm fascinated by them.
Thanks for all the replies. So it seems that the people who criticize autos are criticising them based on preconceptions about very old autos, very much like the way people complain that all diesels are smelly and dirty and drive like tractors?
I was interested in the driving downhill question. I drive down a hill to get home each day. I always drop my manual into third gear and do not need to touch the brakes. Though passengers say I should change gear because the revs are high but I ignore them ;) OTOH I see many cars ion front of me gliding down the hill in fourth gear with their feet on the brakes all the way down. I think I am doing it the right way, aren't I?
I think it would be useful to allow the engine to help brake, whether brakes are cheap or not there is also the time factor of having to replace them or drive to someone to replace them.
Thanks again.
Every auto I've ever had allows you to use a low gear when going down hill. Indeed mine does this for you if the car 'runs away' on a trailing throttle. The old wife's tale that they don't provide any engine braking only really applies at very low speeds - although some older designs could freewheel under some conditions.
Yes. In days gone by, there was a very real danger of brake fade if you did it on a very long/steep hill. That's why such hills sometimes have a 'use low gear' sign.
That's perfectly possible with an auto, if you use the selector.
As an added bonus, if your car isn't ancient, if your engine is over around
2k revs and you use no throttle, you won't be using "any" fuel. Modern cars cut off the fuel in these circumctances ;)MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.