"Older " automatics on damp grass etc..?

[pepe63xnotuse]

Mornin'..

 

Who on here has experience of using, as the title suggests an older type automatic on damp grass and in possibly muddy conditions? (by "older" I suppose I mean ones that'd be quite low tech and on a vehicle lacking the likes of techy traction aids).

 

More specifically I'm after first hand feedback about the likes of the older (mid/late 90s onwards) grey import Toyota Granivas & Grand Hiaces etc - the 2wd models really but feedback on the real world benefits(if any?) of the 4x4 would be useful (a photo should be below,....hopefully?)

 

My only experience of an auto box was the one in a mid/late 90s Opel Manta that I had :$ ..and that was hopeless when pulling away on wet grass or when at icy junctions (as it couldn't be held in a higher gear, instead it would just drop to 1st and spin the wheels)..

 

Is this how other "older" autos will behave?

 

Thanks

[aandncaravan]

I am not really qualified to answer this but I did have an Opel Manta 2.0 GTE from, I think, 1981?

It followed a 1973 Sunbeam Rapier and both had really poor traction in slippery conditions (manual boxes) but ok in the dry.

 

I have also more recently owned three Jap imports, 2 four wheel drive and two autos.

The chassis of which were variations of that also used by the Mitsubishi Delicia, not that dissimilar to your Toyota

 

The front wheel drive vehicle also pulled a trailer and that was no worse than a manual, in some respects better as you could just put it into Drive and without touching the throttle it would usually creep forward with the gentlest of power. If that wasn't quite enough 'oomph' to get it going, putting on the Air con or turning the steering wheel slightly increased the revs just enough to move you forwards, even with a trailer on the back. If that wasn't quite enough then the gentlest touch of the pedal usually did the trick.

 

Way superior to my experiences with 1970's (Triumph 2000 with the BW35 box) and 1980's autos with rear wheel drive.

 

 

Obviously the '4 wheel drives' were in a different league as they both had a viscous centre diff and limited slip rear diff.

 

However, I had a fault on the Auto 4 wheel gearbox and it cost an arm and a leg to sort out because that gearbox variation was not available on official UK vehicles, so parts were both hard to source and expensive in addition to the complexity of it.

I would suggest a front wheel drive version might have lower running costs, not just repairs but Fuel?

 

 

I spend almost every day on campsites grass surfaces. When it gets slippery my previous auto car was easier to get going (in first) than my current manual gearbox vehicle.

 

 

 

 

[pepe63xnotuse]

Hi Allan..

Thanks for the response. So by the sounds of it then, an automatic shouldn't necessarily be any worse on damp grass than a manual etc (and in some cases, may even be better?).

That's encouraging. :-D

(As I said, my experience of them is very limited)

 

Thanks again

 

[crocs]

By older automatic, I assume you mean a proper auto box rather than the 'comformatic' robotised manuals that are fitted on Fiats and soem Mercedes (which I find very good BTW). In that case, my experience shows that they are superior to manuals on wet grass surfaces because of the 'creep' facility.

[pepe63xnotuse]

Thanks crocs..

 

Once again, that sounds encouraging.