[muni]

The No of cars with auto transmission are slowly on the rise and more and more people are getting drawn to these cars to make their city drives relatively stress free.

Since fuel always comes at a premium price in India, i have the following questions.

1) Will the auto transmission cars be available across the price range including small cars without much of a price difference compared to their manual counter parts over the years to come.

2) Can they be as fuel efficient as their manual transmission counterparts. We will not worry about ideal driving conditions and only think about the real world conditions in India.

3) What do you think is the future for these kind of cars.

[srikantans04]

Hey,

Even Ive been deliberating on these issues to some extent.

Regarding whether it will be available on smaller cars - Not in the short term. Manufacturers design based on demand. AT are still perceived as giving lower FE and given rising fuel costs, the market is just not demanding for Auto cars.
You should know that a AT can be fitted onto your smaller car - think it costs about 70K, about the same the manufacturers charge if u pick up a stock AT car. I have a friend who has fitted it onto his Zen and isn't facing any difficulty.

The second question - the FE in the city WILL be lower. Every time gear shifts on the AT more fuel is consumed as the clutch release is "programmed". But on the higway the FE will be the same cause there is minimal gear shifting.

[Sahil]

The future of automatic cars is bright !
You can see the trend changing over the years, few years back hardly any cars had auto trans.Today several cars have auto as an option and coming up with good sales figures too.
As of now the luxury car segment is dominated by auto trans. Any car 17 lakh+ have auto trans as their hottest selling option.
Hopefully soon lower segment cars will start giving auto trans in the form of CVT which will save fuel. This will happen only when the consumers realise that the slight drop in FE is justfied as it releases u of so much stress.

[Poseidon]

[quote=muni
1) Will the auto transmission cars be available across the price range including small cars....

2) Can they be as fuel efficient as their manual transmission counterparts.

3) What do you think is the future for these kind of cars.[/quote]

Why, the Tata small car promises:
1. Auto transmission
2. 40 kmpl, diesel
3. At 1.25 lac, a great future (less, allowance for those trademark niggles)
Why aren't we having some competition here?

[sbasak]

AT cars are gradually gaining popularity in India. However, they are unlikely to match FE of MT cars yet.
So far, only Santro offers small AT car (4+ lakh). Tata's small car will actually contain variator (not true auto-transmission) as found in 2 wheelers.

[numerouno]

Originally Posted by srikantans04

.
You should know that a AT can be fitted onto your smaller car - think it costs about 70K, about the same the manufacturers charge if u pick up a stock AT car.

Do you know if its possible to retro-fit an AT on a Santro and are the authorised service knowledgable enough to do it. I would be interested in fitting one if possible.

[hellsangelzooms]

hey sbasak...just to correct u there are cars apart from santro which have auto transmsiion..like wagon r ...the zen but its been discontinued but its available in used car market.....at a time even maruti 800 had an automatic transmission but it was made on demand...

[GTO]

Automatic transmission is certainly on the popularity rise in India. In high end cars, it is the transmission of choice. Auto Hangar tells me that an overwhelming majority of C Class' are slush boxes.

1. The price premium will always remain, since it costs more to manufacture. Currently a lot of parts are imported due to limited demand.

2. Manuals have traditionally been more FE than autos. This trend is changing with advanced development in transmission software.

IMHO, auto boxes are a good option even in a chauffeur driven car as it eliminates "jhatkas" and gives you a smoother drive. Abuse is also controlled in the absence of high-revving and clutch riding.

[esteem_lover]

i've never driven an auto car. but, i presume that it is much easier to drive in the city with less strain on the left foot. taditionall A/T cars have been sipping more, but i hope that changes like GTO has said.

BTW, guys, what do you do with your left foot ?

[chullan_no1]

an auto car will be much better if u r driving in city or for short journeys.... but if its for long or highways think manual will be more better.... my friends who drives auto claims that they visit more for transmission problems than its manual version... but in the end its the personal choice that matters... Anyway the difference in FE is oso not that high.... n remember one thing IF U WANNA HAVE SOMETHING U MUST LOOSE SOMETHING

[INNOVATOR]

did I hear somebody say the TATA small car would come with AT ... they surely have a winner in their hands ... if only csutomer satisfaction figured on their list of priorities (atleast 43rd on the list after toilet paper and soap) .... but in india ... you can sell anything with a pricetag and a FE like that

[veyron1]

I've always been a manual guy, so you'll forgive me for favouring manuals. The only AT's I've driven till date are a Zen/Santro and a Sera. I've yet to drive DSG's and CVT's.

But, a few things from my point of view.

1) A/T's are more expensive. Not only to manufacture, but to maintain as well, since you need to monitor the electronics and hydraulics closely.

2) A/T's are definitely getting hotter now, and yes, since the ECM controls the shifts, wear and tear is reduced to an extent. But, complexity is the trade-off. As it is, even the current manual Skodas require levels of technical expertise to diagnose a blown bulb/fuse that is beyond common mechanics. Even authorised service centres can't handle it. A/T's will only complicate matters more.

3) Yes. A/T's are more comfortable to drive. It's a REAL BOON in city traffic. Not on open roads. I prefer simple machines to complex ones. Easier to work upon and maintain. Hence, I would prefer the peace of mind of a manual to the comfort and compexity of an A/T.

Regarding fuel efficiency, current automatics are getting real close to their manual counterparts. The City CVT is one such example. It actually gives better F.E than it's manual cousin. Perhaps CVT is the way forward for inexpensive and commercially viable A/T designs. DSG is far too complex and ECM-oriented to make it a commercial success (read-volumes).

Maybe TATA ought to give CVT in the Indica and Indigo variants. Since the manuals aren't exactly great shifters in terms of feel and precision, CVT options might increase efficiency, and might actually be a better alternative to the manual.

[Mpower]

Originally Posted by veyron1

The City CVT is one such example. It actually gives better F.E than it's manual cousin. Perhaps CVT is the way forward for inexpensive and commercially viable A/T designs..

U sure? I have heard otherwise. I'm curious because we are considering this vehicle.

[gd1418]

My first AT was LHD Mustang that had only 4 notches - P, N, D, R unlike the newer ones that also have a D1 and D2 and in some D3..!

I was always led to believe that ATs gave a better FE compared to their MT counterparts since the shifting of gears in AT was an automated process directly related to the speed of the car. In simpler terms, if the speed was decreased the hears used to downshift and and with increasing speed used to upshift. Now, this translated to optimum reccommended gears at correct speeds that generally seldom happens in MTs.

We habitually run (MTs) in 3rd gear where it actually requires a 2nd thus at times straining the engine. Also have seen many people start the car from still position in 2nd gear..!! Still can't figure out why they do so.

My current AT is an Accord 3.0 VTEC along with a 1998 4x4 Safari and 2004 GLx Scorpio. Both the latter ones are MTs.

Originally Posted by veyron1

Regarding fuel efficiency, current automatics are getting real close to their manual counterparts. The City CVT is one such example. It actually gives better F.E than it's manual cousin.

[veyron1]

Originally Posted by Mpower

U sure? I have heard otherwise. I'm curious because we are considering this vehicle.

I haven't asked around exhaustively, but from the few cases that I've seen, the NHC (non-vtec) MT owners report about 10 kmpl in city, whereas the one or two CVT owners I've seen have quoted 11 kmpl or so. Driving conditions notwithstanding, theoretically, the CVT should give good F.E....and if one can get used to it's rubberband effect, it should be a nice car to drive...although I've also heard that the CVT owners complain about lack of power in inclines/under full load; more than the manuals, that is.