Silly Multi Mode G'boxes

[jay dh]

my dad was interested in buying the auris until he found out that there is no autobox to be in the range. why is this? why are companies choosing these silly g'boxes over smooth full auto's?

if you want a manual, you buy a manual, if you want an auto, you buy an auto. i suppose some people might prefer it but surely its no replacement for a true auto as they are often jerky in both modes.

answers on a postcard...

[Red Yaris 54]

I owned a Yaris with MMT (multimode) gearbox for 2 years and found it to be totally trouble free and smooth

The only reason I changed back to manual with my new yaris was because Toyota did not offer the MMT as an option on the 1.0 litre New Yaris

I never found the MMT box to be "silly" it was pure pleasure and relaxed driving

Has your dad test driven an Auris MMT yet??

[jay dh]

im sure it is trouble free but it isnt as smooth as an auto or as sharp as a manual i think.

he hasnt as he has been dissapointed with all the other mmt's on the market (including the yaris) except the jazz which is a genius system. just a shame its not stylish and not on the new civic (which apparently was quite jerky)

[jamesholden]

im sure it is trouble free but it isnt as smooth as an auto or as sharp as a manual i think.

he hasnt as he has been dissapointed with all the other mmt's on the market (including the yaris) except the jazz which is a genius system. just a shame its not stylish and not on the new civic (which apparently was quite jerky)

I've driven a few various MMT style boxes including Vauxhall's easytronic and I agree there not a patch on a proper automatic.

The Jazz' gearbox is good because it's a stepped CVT so in theory a type of automatic rather than an automated manual like the MMT is, the Civic's iShift is an automated manual like the MMT.

Manufacturers are going over to MMT's though because proper auto's are expensive and tend to add a lot of weight/perforamce drag especially on smaller cars, on bigger cars it makes little difference. However I think CVT's are the best compromise on small cars because they don't have the drag of a proper auto but have the smoothness, however, lots of people prefer paying £250-£500 for the gearbox rather than £1000+ that proper auto's cost and since auto's are unfortunately a niche market over here not many people are prepared to pay that sort of money.

[jay dh]

thanks for explaining the CVT box, wondered why it was better.

fair enough some people prefer to spend less and getting something of less quality, thats why ALBA exist, but there are still people who wont buy the car due as no autobox exists so they lose 15k. their decision i suppose

[normal bloke]

Both CVT and MMT boxes offer advantages to the makers

1 they are cheaper to make, CVT is only a few metal bands on some cones and is espcially cheap to make, MMT is basically a manual gearbox changed by motors rather than human changing gears/dipping clutch

2 they are lighter, helping improve fuel economy figures they are able to make in govt tests and advertise

Disadvantages

1 Not as reliable as a tradditional auto box, CVT bands snap regularly and smash the gearbox case when they go leaving you stranded when it happens, MMT does go wrong the motors break down etc - both are much more unreliable than a trad auto

2 MMT not as smooth as trad auto, the technology just hasnt developed as much, it will get better as it develops more, CVT is smooth but takes a while to get used to

Id rather have a proper auto box any day

MMT /CVT probably OK in a new car still with makers warranty, outside of that its a big financial risk

[spwolfx]

With small cars, Autobox takes too much power, spends too much fuel and costs too much. MMT is way to go, but you have to adjust to it, it is not the same as if you were driving Automatic, you cant just mash the pedal and be done with it.... All it takes is taking foot away from gas when it changes gears and it is very nice.

[geoffb]

Want to be careful not to stray too much off topic here but just to add my comments re traditional autos. I have an E12 Corolla auto. The box is superb. Very smooth and very efficient and it just feels quality. The one downside that I have experienced is what I suspect is a slightly less fuel efficient performance when compared with the equivalent manual. I've seen 40mpg quoted for the manual version of my E12 but I get nearer 36mpg or so. A pity but a small price to pay. Overall performance otherwise seems perfectly fine to me. I used to love manual boxes when I was younger and drove Celicas etc but I'm afraid I just can't be bothered now and prefer to let the box do it for me. That way I can put more concentration into the road etc B)

Generally, it's just a personal thing and I can certainly see why someone wanting total pleasure from the driving experience would want only a manual

[tehl337]

theres nothing worse than these autospaz gearboxes.......... mmt's are for lazy people

[Red Yaris 54]

theres nothing worse than these autospaz gearboxes.......... mmt's are for lazy people

MMT boxes are chosen by many people that are unable to drive manual boxes for many other reasons than being lazy. There's no need to criticise them.

It is wrong to stereotype people.

I chose an MMT box on my two previous vehicles and found them to be excellent. I have held a manual licence for many years but just wanted to experience the ownership of semi auto boxes.

I have returned to a manual as I was unable to get the MMT box in the engine size that I wanted in the New Yaris

[jay dh]

most people now will buy an MMT as there is no auto, so its the closest thing to their spec

yea, some people are curious about them but i bet more poeple than not dont buy a 2nd MMT

[Dane]

theres nothing worse than these autospaz gearboxes.......... mmt's are for lazy people

I am far from lazy my friend. I need an automatic now that I am disabled.

[kian]

theres nothing worse than these autospaz gearboxes.......... mmt's are for lazy people

No wonder this country is going to pots when idiots assume that they are the same as them!

I wonder what the next brilliant response will be?

[G79]

Next brilliant response.... "Any who wants an MMT wants to be Nigel Manson" hehe I'm only joking btw. I remeber the old auto boxes and never even realised they had released this new form known as MMT with padels on the steering wheel... that sooo cool.

My dad used to drive an auto.. many many years ago... he had arthritis in his hip and as such could not drive a manual so I know that autos/MMT's are NOT for lazy people.. far from it... and if you do alot of driving, say around London (lots of stop starting) I think an Auto or MMT would be much nicer to drive than a manual. I remember my first trip into and around London (and yes I did get totally lost), I had only been driving for about 6-7 months and it was certainly a harrowing and exhuasting experience... you really have to be on the ball there.. almost run some muppet over who decided to just cross the road while the lights were on green... man... Londoners eh lol ;)

G

[jay dh]

i live in greater london and venture into london, i agree G79 that it is another world compared to driving anywhere else in the UK i feel. around london it can be an advantage driving an auto for the smoothness. but i drive on the offence in london (as i think this is the best way) so i like a manual and leaving it up the the revs so there is punch when i need it

i think that if the MMT stuff worked well and was smooth, there would be no issue. its the fact that the technology isnt good enough yet on these cars and phasing out a good option is frustrating.

[pinkbits69]

drove 1.6 mmt auris on spanish mountain roads up to ascari race track, then on track against competitors equivelent, it was awsome, smooth, sporty, paddleshift felt to be possitioned well and for a 1.6 it felt rather quick

[uumode]

I don't know about the Auris MMT, but the Aygo MMT is fairly jerky and slow. - there is a pause, the engine power is cut, then the power cuts in with a bit of a jerkk. I found the Mitsubishi Colt MMT to be a bit smoother, mirroring a slow manual gear change, but with a more acceptable jerkk on power take up, but still with a pause, not noticable in slow driving, but with press on driving, the pauses were more apparent.

Gear changes in a true autobox are more seamless, and when you really plant your foot down it's much safer a. you have both hands on the steering wheel for full control when turning, going around things and b. you have 100% focus on the road and traffic and don't have to worry about blowing up your engine. The autobox give you maximum power, changes up at the red line....automatically without taking your eyes off the road, (as well as kicking down to the lowest gear possible - with a manual you have to momentarily 'think' which is the lowest gear you can use and shift down).

With a true autobox you don't need to replace the clutch or even change the gearbox oil (as modern auto gearboxes are sealed for life).

I could be accused of being lazy (but had to switch to autos or not drive at all due to a back problem), but having driven some courtesy manual cars, it reminded me that at very junction it requires changing down 4, 3, 2, 1 then changing back up 2, 3, congestion, back down 2, 1, then traffic starts moving again, back up 2, 3, oh traffic again, 2, 1, then back up again 2, 3, 3 etc. After driving an auto I can't see the point of manually changing the gears :) with the additional safety aspects above. I believe police traffic patrol cars are automatic so they can drive at high speed with total focus on the road with both hands on the wheel and maximum power delivery at the most optimum gear in kick down.

Full automatics also make hill starts a doddle, usually if you take your foot off the gas, the car holds and doesn't roll backwards. This also makes it easier to park on hills as you don't roll, and you can cover the brake pedal when creeping forwards or backwards when inching back and forwards into a very, very tight parking space (Full automatics move forwards at about 1-3 mph when you take your foot off the brake).

Full automatics are of course, thirster than their MMT counterparts and manual gear changes, but that is because normally manufacturers are comparing e.g. in the case of the Avensis a FOUR gear autobox with a FIVE gear manual box. Other manufacturers have a 5 gear autobox (like my Mercedes) and modern cars have 6 gear autoboxes which cuts down on the difference.

On paper auto boxes appear slower 0-60, but in real world conditions the difference shouldn't be apparent because the test figures for the manual car are probably with a test driver revving the nuts off the engine at the redline in neutral, then just dropping the clutch, and ramming the stick through the gears in an attempt to achieve the fastest 0-60 time. With the autobox, the test driver and the real world driver will do the same thing.

[normal bloke]

part of the problem in the UK is the emissions nonsense, especially given our large company car market, company car tax rates etc push for best emmissions

but then a gearbox which breaks down and needs radical re-builds is hardly environmentally friendly either

proper autos should be treated more fairly by the tax regime, especially as they are a life line for many people with knee or leg problems