[thoma]

Originally Posted by smartcat

I step on the accelerator pedal and let the speed slowly rise, rather than bother to change gears.

May be human laziness, but if you find that this habit alone is taking out more time, then definitely an AT will downshift for you and pick up more speed. But how much time do you save overall is the real question? In my approximation, on a 75 km stretch which normally takes 1 hr 45 min, I found that I could only save at the max 10-12 minutes by going real enthusiastic vs normal. So an AT vs MT could be even lesser I guess

[BlackPearl]

In US I did just the opposite. I went there and bought an automatic as most people do. But then I started falling asleep behind the wheel. So shifted to a manual one, though I would not say that it helped much because the US roads were pretty boring where you drive a manual like an automatic and if you get adventurous you get tickets :-(
Coming back to your point, you can drive a friends automatic car if you have the opportunity, but most likely you wont like it if you love to drive.

[sumannandy]

In my opinion its not possible to match AT shift speed with a manual, I have driven bot extensively.

On Bangalore to OOty drive, the average time is same in both my cars.

When it comes to just ghat driving, an AT hatch is definitely better option.

[androdev]

Assuming we are not talking about racing by professionals and limit the discussion to routine long distance trips done in comfort-mode, AT will be faster almost under all road conditions. And if you own both AT and MT cars, you just become too lazy to do any better with MT.

One has to be silly to keep on rowing gears after every hump, pothole, flyover, overtake, etc. to gain speed quickly. Around bends, not many are good at changing gears and holding the steering in place. So whoever claims MT will have faster journey times have not owned AT or they are confused with RPM increase with acceleration. Or they treat each family trip as a race :-)

[GTO]

Not that I agree about an AT getting you there quicker, but who cares honestly. The journey is equally / more important than the destination. And an MT is so much more fun to drive on long highway trips .

Keep that AT for bumper to bumper traffic, will you!

[Rajesh Rawal]

Its the road condition between destination a to b which would decide how 'fast' you can reach(does it really matter if its a/t or manual)

I have been regularly doing hyderabad -mumbai on the santro a/t ,yes its effortless but what a sad state of affair of our so called national highway(atleast this section)

The only saviour is the mpew (by the time i reach the start point i am already hating to drive)

Now that i have a hot hatch to compliment the santro ,i would still fly to reach faster to my destination

[noopster]

I'd like to make one point. Average speed over a long trip, mostly on highways, is going to be the same pretty much for a comparable car with MT and AT. The specific question that was poised was, has shifting to an AT *increased* your average speed? Simple answer is no.

I have a manual Swift and an AT Vento, both petrol. Power/torque ratings of the latter are higher, seating position is lower, ride and handling superior and the ergonomics superb. All that keeps me more comfortable and less fatigued in general, so possibly I reach my destination a bit faster and definitely less fatigued. But comparing like to like will driving a Vento manual petrol take me there faster? I don't know. I don't even think it matters. Make your choice based on other factors, you will thank yourself. Speed isn't everything.

[the_skyliner]

Though I don't have any experience with AT cars, I can imagine AT being useful majorly during the last leg of a long drive. For example, if I drive from Goa to Pune on a weekday and I arrive in Pune at 6-7pm then I would love to have AT simply because after such a long drive getting in to bumper to bumper is very cumbersome. That being said, there is no fun like MT on a longish drive. My brother has a AT car but takes my MT car for long journeys simply for the fun factor!

[sumannandy]

At highway speed, almost all ATs can be driven like manual if you wish to.

For example, if you are cruising at 70 kmph, and you wish to overtake a long trailer at an incline, either press the throttle hard so that AT shifts to 3rd or even 2nd or manually shift it to 2nd and once the overtaking is complete put it back to D. How is it different from manual?

Its true for bends too. Manually change gears when you like to at highway speed.

AT is much more advanced technology than manual, and FE is not that bad. Even if its 1-2 kmpl lower, for a monthly running of 1000 kmpl, we are hardly talking about a difference of Rs. 500.

Its our mindset that AT is bad that is preventing our manufacturers from launching AT cars. Trust me, I have learnt driving in manuals and have driven extensively in manuals, and still own manuals, and at the same time, I have owned and driven extensively many AT cars, infact apart from luxury brands like Lexus, BMW etc., I have driven almost all brands. AT is the way to go. And except Ford and GM ATs, the japanese ATs do not have any lag as such whereas except Ford explorer, I experienced lag on many Ford and GM sedans.

[SmartCat]

Gentlemen, I think I solved my driving fatigue on long drives problem. The solution ironically lay in GTO's advice which I thought was most irrelevant in this particular thread.

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/owning...ays-ghats.html

Originally Posted by GTO

Stop every 90 - 120 minutes and step out of the car. This aids blood circulation and keeps you fresh. Good for your car too. Enjoy the awesome chai at highway dhabas.

I usually take 10 hours to drive from Bangalore - Madikeri - Surathkal (Mangalore) which works out to be around 380 kms, through a ghat section. It generally includes 2 or 3 stops. I was always fatigued by the time I got to my destination.

But this time, I took just 8 hours to get to my destination - the key difference being that I took 6 or 7 stops - and arrived fresh at the destination. The extra stops were for filling up petrol or eating fruits at the roadside or drinking tea.

The road has been widened at places now, so I'm assuming I shaved off 1 hour from driving time because of that. I can attribute another 1 hour driving time savings to taking extra stops.

All this, without crossing 100 kmph, but changing every gear at 3000 - 4000 rpm.

[jinojohnt]

I drive to office through an off-route which has very low vehicle density, but needs frequent shifting of gears. I take approx 40 minutes 'consistently' in my (manual) Alto, but only 30 minutes in my A-star AT. Even if you consider that Alto is only 800 cc and A-star is 1000 cc, I think the Automatic is quicker in such roads. The difference in highways may not be much, as gear changes would be minimal.

[Sheel]

Originally Posted by smartcat

But as I get closer to the destination, I become a "lazy driver" in the sense that - even when the car speed falls to 60 kmph in the 5th gear, I step on the accelerator pedal and let the speed slowly rise, rather than bother to change gears. This is also true when I approach my usual "break time" (lunch break, evening snacks break etc), and the appropriate road-side restaurant has not arrived yet.

I did read your last post in this thread. Stoppages help, but...

Haven't driven AT's much but a torquey engine helps. I prefer Fortuner/Scorpio's 5 speed MT's over Yeti/XUV's 6 speed MT. Less gears to shift and after driving on & on for 10 hours or starting in the morning at 6, doing some work or the other till 11 pm and then starting back (for the the 200 odd kms) I prefer driving a Scorpio over the Yeti.

You got a Civic, right? Try it with a diesel MT with 5 speed GB.

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by Sheel

Haven't driven AT's much but a torquey engine helps. I prefer Fortuner/Scorpio's 5 speed MT's over Yeti/XUV's 6 speed MT. Less gears to shift and after driving on & on for 10 hours or starting in the morning at 6, doing some work or the other till 11 pm and then starting back (for the the 200 odd kms) I prefer driving a Scorpio over the Yeti.

You got a Civic, right? Try it with a diesel MT with 5 speed GB.

What you say seems quite logical to me too. However, it's quite unlikely that a Fortuner / Safari/ Scorpio type SUV can quickly get through a ghat section, without increasing the number of "close shaves" in the journey.

A diesel MT sedan might help me cover long distances quickly I presume.

[Sheel]

Originally Posted by smartcat

What you say seems quite logical to me too. However, it's quite unlikely that a Fortuner / Safari/ Scorpio type SUV can quickly get through a ghat section, without increasing the number of "close shaves" in the journey.

Depends. If you go through the Sedan vs SUV thread, I was initially all out for sedan/hatches. Slowly, with passage of time, no. of kilometers logged with varied machine, for me, a chassis based SUV started to make sense. The average time taken for a long journey was almost always shorter and that too with less fatigue (from a driver's POV and on varied roads). On very good roads, a sedan will excel, but individually for me, I just might prefer a SUV.

I do recall the first time I took a corner in a Bolero. But slowly with passage of time I adapted and these trucks have become nicer to drive.

A diesel MT sedan might help me cover long distances quickly I presume.

I say, you must give this option a try

AT has always felt too artificial for my comfort. Yes, sometimes I do not want to press that clutch, but those are very few & far in between.

[raihan]

A torquey engine obviously + good suspension setup drastically reduces driving fatigue.
Further, a higher driving position is easier on the back than a low slung seat like civic's, which will translate to less breaks.
I've driven my laura TSI (which I think fulfills all 3 criteria) for 500Kms in a single day with almost nil fatigue!