Manual vs automatic?

I often don't indicate when there's nobody else can benefit from it. Either the manoeuvre I'm making has absolutely zero impact on them, ie. I'm not going to tell somebody behind me, that I'm peeling off up a motorway slip road, unless they are either catching me or they are close enough to be affected by it.

Or if the people who are affected can't see it, like turning left from a give way onto a dual carriageway where there's no break in the central reservation (left turn only), for vehicles behind me there is only one way I can go, for vehicles on the dual carriageway approaching from my right, they can't see my left indicator anyway.

Always bemuses me when I see somebody indicating for absolutely no reason, and I wonder how often those same people criticise me when I choose not to indicate for a good reason that they haven't understood.

Anyway, I agree that the 520 is a luxury family car designed for comfort and ease of use, with a very good auto box. I can't see why anyone would want one with a manual gearbox of they had a choice.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Simples manual for short in town trips as your main usage, auto for boring long distance motorway car

[Luckypants]

I would say quite the opposite, auto for drives where there is lots of gear changing.

Originally Posted by Mrs DJ Fridge

Simples manual for short in town trips as your main usage, auto for boring long distance motorway car

Originally Posted by Luckypants

I would say quite the opposite, auto for drives where there is lots of gear changing.

I partly agree with Luckypants, but, to be fair, even on long journeys the Auto would win out for me as when you do come back to a town or are just cruising along the car is doing all the work, less to worry about when driving

[yorkie_chris]

Do you care about the fuel consumption?

It's a pain in the **** in my disco to be honest, it doesn't cost anything but having only 350 mile tank range from 90l is a pain. Start running out of boot space for jerrycans and I refuse to store fuel on the roof. I get 16-25mpg depending, mates with manual gearboxes are getting 30mpg or more.

Normal autoboxes generally do "pretty close" to manual box on the motorway at speed, where the torque convertor is pretty much in lockup all the time.... and quite a bit worse on A roads or round town with fluctuating speeds.

Economy is indeed important, which is largely the reason I am going for the 520d (good mpg/low tax). At the same time, I also want a car that is semi respectable in the acceleration department, reliable, low mileage/not too old, looks good and has plenty of space. Although a comfort car, I don't feel that means going for the auto is a given. I personally don't mind gear changes, don't drive in much traffic and live in Milton Keynes, the land of roundabouts, where having a manual by your side might be a little more fun.

For my budget, the hardest decision was deciding to go for a car like the 520d, or just go for an absolute beast engine that nails 0-60 in less than 5 seconds yet see's my money getting thrown at the petrol pumps every few days. Decided against that.

Anyway thanks for all the input guys. Gonna take the advice here and test drive both this weekend and see which I prefer.

Modern auto box like that on a new 520 have any difference in economy and performance? I thought they were actually more efficient at changing gear than a human.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[Ch00]

I have driven both the old style and new style 530 estates. The new one is a lot better on fuel about 25% better judging on the fuel gauges.

The new ones do have a whole host of different modes including a eco mode and poss some sort of battery mode. Couldn't get that to work. Also they have the auto box which is fast and smooth with very little engine braking. Auto sport mode is fun too better engine braking and more responsive.

If that wasn't enough it has the paddles behind the wheel which I don't see the point of as it changes gear so fast when your foot is in the bucket they seem more of a gimmick.

I cant speak to the 520 I would think just a bit slower and less fuel used.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by Fordward

Modern auto box like that on a new 520 have any difference in economy and performance? I thought they were actually more efficient at changing gear than a human.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

I don't know.

Inherently, a torque convertor has losses. And probably the computer will have a better grasp of the engine's efficient power outputs and speed ranges... and an electrically controlled autobox to put it there.

Does one outweigh the other to get you better economy? It's a question worth asking.

[Sir Trev]

Being an anal accountant I've compared the economy numbers over the years and dual clutch auto boxes are frequently quoted as having marginally better economy now. Quoted and not real world mind.