Difference between auto and manual

[darrenorient]

Hey all,

I'm looking to buy at the moment, and im wondering what people take is on the difference between manual and auto.

There's a lot of talk on websites about auto's not being as reliable - although im pretty sure that if it's been taken care of then the auto's are not as bad as some people make out.

Performance wise, is there much of a difference?

Please point me in the right way if this has been raised before, which im absolutely sure it must have been!

:huh2:

[Nick Mann]

Many people on these forums are converted from manual to auto. I almost am myself. The tiptronic box on a VR4 is a cracker. However, I am convinced there is more power to road achievable with a manual box, so I intend to go that way.

For ease of use of the power in a VR4, stick with auto. As you say, they are plenty reliable if looked after. The auto is a very efficient point and shoot car, that is not often troubled by driving conditions when accelerating. Not much would stick with it accelerating from a stanstill round a corner in the wet. I think a manual version would probably be left behind under those conditions! If you want ultimate power at the wheels and the ability to spin all four, then go for manual. Bear in mind that if you limit yourself to manual, you could seriously reduce the cars available to buy - most VR4s are auto.

[Rambaud]

Although I have had my 2.4 GDI for only 2 weeks, I am pleased with its auto 'box.

It's not as good as the DSG in my Audi - but then not much (if anything) is.

[MPBVr4]

I have always been completely anti auto "boxes" but having lived with my
auto / tip for almost 3 years I'm 99% converted although I do use "tip" 90%
of the time. As long as the car is well maintained auto boxes seem to last OK.

[bradc]

The manual's are a bit quicker in-gear than an auto, but as Nick said, the auto's are very easy to drive and tend to be fairly reliable if looked after.

I'm converting to a manual as well from an auto ;)

[william]

I owned both and prefer the manual, although it is purely a personal choice. I never had reliability problems with the auto in spite of giving it a good workout! The manual seems to be significantly more fuel efficient.

[Brunty]

The JTuner (http://www.clubvr4.com/forum/Gallery/showphoto.php?photo=684) article has a nifty graph comparing manual and automatic cars as they accelerate 0-60. IIRC Auto is slower but changes gear faster, the manual accelerates a little faster but loses out on the changes - at the end there was next to no difference.

By chosing manual you sacrifice the AYC (and possible more importantly the hi-contrast dashboard), which may or may not bother you.

[william]

Not true! Not all manuals are Type V's!

[Brunty]

Not true! Not all manuals are Type V's!

Apologies! Are we talking factory fitment or conversion though?

[bradc]

Kenneth has had 2 Type S manual VR-4's, and there are quite a few in NZ, including William above there.

Prefacelift VR-4 Type S with AYC + High Vis Owners I know of in NZ:

Groundcontrol
Detonate
Dickytim
Jaimz
Mpau
Snwmad

[Brunty]

Cheers William/Brad. I know nothing!

Darren - one thing you will notice is that due to the limited numbers of VR4s and the relatively large number of variations/options they are often incorrectly advertised - as demonstrated above this is the place for VR4 knowledge, bar none!

[SimonNZ]

Hey yeh my VR4 is prefacelift manual and has AYC.. is this Type S?

[bradc]

Simon - yes

I also just realised I was supposed to say that GC, Det, etc all have manual + ayc cars, I didn't mention manual at all

[darrenorient]

Cheers for the info all, i think the best idea would be for me to try them both as it seems to be personal preference and not much difference on the performance.