Modern automatics

As has been said, it's well worth your while trying some cars with real autos, and seeing what you think of them
Click to expand...
Then we get to my other objection of the fuel consumption penalty of largeish cars with a torque convertor automatic . I'm doing a lot of short local runs lately and a diesel doesn't achieve good MPG when cold , even less so with a torque convertor autobox
This takes me to my next question (which doesn't need to be tagged on here) is that maybe I need to go back to petrol
 
darth sidious said:
harveyp6 said:
Because when you get hit most of the time the impact will remove your foot from the pedal. Your foot won't be on the pedal hard enough to stop you moving forward even if it stays there, as all you're doing is stopping the car from rolling.
Click to expand...

Ah, that's a good point. The jerk of the shunt would very likely throw your foot off the pedal violently, no matter how hard you try to keep it on.
Click to expand...

If the impact is that hard, having the handbrake pulled won't prevent your car being shoved into the one ahead either, so it's pointless no matter how you look at it.
 
Dave, I think you do have to look carefully at the pro's and con's of diesel vs. petrol these days. A lot of folk buy diesels because they think it will save them money but I wonder if it always works out that way? As you say, if you are doing short infrequent journey's the engine never warms up properly to give you the ideal mpg. Also, you still tend to pay a premium for diesel cars and of course diesel is several pence per litre more expensive (remember when diesel was way cheaper than petrol?). Depending on your driving style, you may also get pretty poor mpg from diesels if you continually floor them and keep the turbocharger working hard (all the while guzzling extra fuel). I reckon you have really got to do your sums to see what the costs of each are before you commit.
 
Also small petrol turbos have come of age. We had a golf 1.2tsi for a hire car when we were dealing with kwikfit. It averaged 62mpg when driven carefully but really didn't feel slow. I'd. Wager the 1.4 Vauxhall turbo and the 1 litre focus turbo are similar.

Rich.
 
Demetris said:
I understand the point of view of old fashioned automatics, but the only real results of the modern stuff in cars is that more and more really bad drivers are allowed to drive. And of course more cars are being sold.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.
Whilst not advocating a return to some of the deathraps of yesteryear, having learnt to drive in a 1959 6v candlepower Vw "standard", you certainly had to have your wits about you and actually form a relationship with the vehicle.
Lapses in concentration were not tolerated!
Most people on the road today don't have that level of attention to car and environment.
Anything that does the job for you necessarily means atrophy of that skill...hence my current dislike for those whizzbang cars with "park assist"...where they twirl the wheel and reverse park for you.
I think there is a quiet undercurrent of a yearning for a return to good old fashioned solid engineering rather than doo dads in cars.
The popularity of these Toyota/Subaru BZ 86 things is ample evidence.
Yes it has technology, but there is wonderful essence in its purity of engineering and function.
The tyres are positively cheesecutter, yet, in combination with the inherent balance of the car, allow the funfactor of the car to be accessed and exploited.
The P6 is the same in many ways.
Its not earth shattering fast... hasn't got DST EBC ABC, yaw control or whatever else, and yet it delivers a satisfying drive.
And really (for me anyways), that's what its all about.
We want and like our cars to deliver a "feeling"...its not just the crunched numbers.
Toyota/Subaru have recognized this...and of course Alfa Romeo always have (why would anyone put up with their oft painful idiosyncracies otherwise?)
Modern automatics have delivered fantastic outcomes for fuel efficiency, and yet have sometimes taken over a little too much from the driver with irritating 2nd guessing and such.
In the final reduction, modern cars (largely but not universally) have been wonderful in producing a generation of drivers with blunted and dumbed down skills. Who now possess a highly multiplied ignorance factor, as well meaning technology thinks and does for them...and who will unfortunately never understand that it was always about "the drive".
 
Junkman said:
darth sidious said:
harveyp6 said:
Because when you get hit most of the time the impact will remove your foot from the pedal. Your foot won't be on the pedal hard enough to stop you moving forward even if it stays there, as all you're doing is stopping the car from rolling.
Click to expand...

Ah, that's a good point. The jerk of the shunt would very likely throw your foot off the pedal violently, no matter how hard you try to keep it on.
Click to expand...

If the impact is that hard, having the handbrake pulled won't prevent your car being shoved into the one ahead either, so it's pointless no matter how you look at it.
Click to expand...

Yes I'd agree there (I was meaning along that line in my first post/reply on this thread). I think it's a case of, while being pointless, the insurance company/companies may well use it as a valid reason (i.e. read that as "an excuse") to not pay out.
 
darth sidious said:
Junkman said:
If the impact is that hard, having the handbrake pulled won't prevent your car being shoved into the one ahead either, so it's pointless no matter how you look at it.
Click to expand...

Yes I'd agree there (I was meaning along that line in my first post/reply on this thread). I think it's a case of, while being pointless, the insurance company/companies may well use it as a valid reason (i.e. read that as "an excuse") to not pay out.
Click to expand...

It's more a case that in the multiple rear-end shunt of A > B > C. Car A's insurer is vicariously liable for the injury, damage and loss to both party B & C if the force was sufficient to force B into C. However, liability for the damage to C can be attributed in part to B in addition to A, if B was stationary in a line of traffic but did not have his handbrake applied at the moment of impact. Depending on the adeptness of the solicitors and particular circumstances of the event (weather, gradient, stopping distances, impact speed, etc), Party A can file for a ruling of split liability with party B for the damage to C. This is issued on a percentage basis by the county court on presentation of locum reports and witness statements from each side.
So it's Personal Injury solicitors rather than Insurance companies you have to be wary of.
I worked in that industry for three years, and it's a hateful, hateful game, out to take advantage of the many whilst often under-serving the few genuine life-debilitating cases. Common sense is not a parameter that's ever been factored in to their processes.
I don't agree or like any of it, but them's the rules of engagement. So if you're driving the roads and don't want to get caught up in a 3-year exchange of threatening-sounding letters, putting the handbrake on doesn't seem like such an inconvenience after all...!

Sorry... this hasn't nothing to do with modern sequential automatic gearboxes :oops: but I thought it was worth highlighting.... :?

Michael
 
So I suppose that instead of changing the oil , you change the engine ?
Click to expand...

dunno. Are the 1.2 tsi vws or 1.4t vauxhalls known as being fragile? The ford one is a 3 cylinder - dont know if that has a bearing...
 
rockdemon said:
So I suppose that instead of changing the oil , you change the engine ?
Click to expand...

dunno. Are the 1.2 tsi vws or 1.4t vauxhalls known as being fragile? The ford one is a 3 cylinder - dont know if that has a bearing...
Click to expand...

Seven. It has four main bearings and three big end bearings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top