why do americans drive automatics?

jp7152 · 16 Nov 2006 at 14:30

I don't see the point in manuals for the most part.

If the SMG in my old M3 was as good as the newer one (or could change as quickly as a manual) i'd have gone for that.

I have use of a DSG and manual golf at work and the DSG is just so much better.

willd58 · 16 Nov 2006 at 14:40

Flat4 said:
Why have you not contributed anything to this thread? In some instances I wish i was joking, unfortunately, most of it is true. Their introduction to the American market was down to sheer laziness, nothing more

No, they have contributed by pointing out how stupid your posts are, for other people who are like yourself, to stupid to see how stupid they are.

Von Luck · 16 Nov 2006 at 14:42

Only downsides that I can see to autos are:

- slightly reduced economy
- expensive to fix if they go bang
- can be a pain if you want a tow

Personally I like auto boxes - swapping cogs doesn't exactly feature on my list of things that excite me.

Have owned a few autos in the past and they were great - have driven an SMG BMW which I wasn't so keen on (although I didn't really get a chance to twiddle with the settings) and would love to try a DSG.

lordrobs · 16 Nov 2006 at 14:46

are their brains not big enough to think about the concept of gears?

Love the way that what could have been asked in the form of a genuine and straight forward question had to be phrased in an American bashing way

Hang on I'll think of an answer that you might like... ok... yeah its because they need to keep their other had free for holding their burger, the big greedy gits :rolleyes:

barnettgs · 16 Nov 2006 at 14:53

My friend has commented to me before about driving auto on ice isn't easy because there is no clutch. How would you slow down on ice in auto without touching the brake (to avoid gearing down)?

Just curious to know.

JRS · 16 Nov 2006 at 14:53

sam83uk said:
are their brains not big enough to think about the concept of gears?

I'm going to go ahead and file you under "****". You can use your super enormous brain to figure out what I'm calling you.

Flat4 said:
no, its because they are fat and lazy. Any country that cant even be bothere to put their own seatbelt on and needs it done automatically is either obeses or unintelligent.

Think I'll also file you under "****". Again, I'm sure someone as intelligent as you should have no trouble at all working it out.

Flat4 said:
In addition, the stalks of most old Yank mobiles was on the steering column because they couldnt be bothered to move their hands too far away and have to look what gear to put it in

Right, because of course no European car ever has had a column mounted shifter.... :rolleyes:

Nitro_Junkie said:
60s/70s muscle car + 3 speed manual + B&M Shift improver kit and/or manual shift kit = ultimate muscle machine, with the manual shift kit and shift improver you get total control and precise shifts with you chosing when to shift up and down and no clutch

Nice. Still, I can think of something better. Late '60s/early '70s Mopar muscle car, 3 speed 727 auto 'box modified by Gear Vendors to give you a 6 speed semi-auto

Regarding the whole "driver satisfaction" thing....I'm not sure I see how whether or not the car shifts gears for itself has as much to do with that as other factors. For example, I'm fairly certain that I'd get more enjoyment out of driving a '69 Dodge Charger Hemi with an auto 'box than I would out of driving a 1.4 Mk5 Escort with a manual 'box.....Now of course, on a sports car or super car I'd want a manual shift (don't even think I'd want semi-auto to be honest), and autos on small-engined cars tend to make them gutless in the extreme. But would I want a manual gearbox on my Oldsmobile? Not a chance.

Nitro_Junkie · 16 Nov 2006 at 15:02

JRS said:
Nice. Still, I can think of something better. Late '60s/early '70s Mopar muscle car, 3 speed 727 auto 'box modified by Gear Vendors to give you a 6 speed semi-auto

R

winner!!!

also regards braking on ice, a lot of auto boxes have a 'hold' or equivalent setting where you push a button and it holds the trans in the current gear

Flat4 · 16 Nov 2006 at 15:03

JRS said:
Think I'll also file you under "****". Again, I'm sure someone as intelligent as you should have no trouble at all working it out.

Right, because of course no European car ever has had a column mounted shifter....

What other possible reason could the American motor industry provide? None. Its hardly like you even have the option of a manual box, and show me one European built car from 1970 onwards that had a column shift!

They were designed as a work around to saving time. It as easy as that and until you can proove otherwise then your comments are about as useful as a choccie teapot.

Can you also then tell me why their seatbelts feel the need to automatically lock into place for no other reason than they cant be bothered? No, didnt think so

Flat4 · 16 Nov 2006 at 15:06

willd58 said:
No, they have contributed by pointing out how stupid your posts are, for other people who are like yourself, to stupid to see how stupid they are.

unfortunately the post is not stupid. The American car industry is built around what its population wants. They want autos because they dont want to have to change gear. They want auto seatbelts because they cant be bothered to put them on therefore meaning that they are more likely to die. But, if the AI makes it so that the user has no option but to wear a seatbelt then thats ok. Another factual reason for this was due to the ever growing waistline of the average American. Its unfortunately true.

chino · 16 Nov 2006 at 15:09

Clarkey said:
but why? An auto would make the perfect shift every single time.

Because I like the feeling of satisfaction gained when I change gear. Hence, I couldn't care less if an auto could do it perfectly every time.

rare · 16 Nov 2006 at 15:09

Why have you not contributed anything to this thread?

I see, yet you made a stupid sweeping generalisation of a country with a population over 300 million. My fathers PA had a column gearshift, I guess that makes the population of the UK pretty much fat and lazy to.

If anything its safe, your hands are up by the wheel all the time. It displayed what gear you were in on the dashboard, and thus you didn't have to take your eyes off the road.

Or maybe Americans are stupid fat and lazy.

FakeSnake · 16 Nov 2006 at 15:14

Flat4 said:
unfortunately the post is not stupid. The American car industry is built around what its population wants. They want autos because they dont want to have to change gear. They want auto seatbelts because they cant be bothered to put them on therefore meaning that they are more likely to die. But, if the AI makes it so that the user has no option but to wear a seatbelt then thats ok. Another factual reason for this was due to the ever growing waistline of the average American. Its unfortunately true.

Can I just ask you where you actually got these 'facts' from?
where is the source? any research?

chino · 16 Nov 2006 at 15:15

JRS said:
Regarding the whole "driver satisfaction" thing....I'm not sure I see how whether or not the car shifts gears for itself has as much to do with that as other factors. For example, I'm fairly certain that I'd get more enjoyment out of driving a '69 Dodge Charger Hemi with an auto 'box than I would out of driving a 1.4 Mk5 Escort with a manual 'box.....Now of course, on a sports car or super car I'd want a manual shift (don't even think I'd want semi-auto to be honest), and autos on small-engined cars tend to make them gutless in the extreme. But would I want a manual gearbox on my Oldsmobile? Not a chance.

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion. Which is all that is.

Lets face it, there's no right answer here. It all comes down to personal preference.

Flat4 · 16 Nov 2006 at 15:16

FakeSnake said:
Can I just ask you where you actually got these 'facts' from?
where is the source? any research?

Sign up to Pub Med, you'll see the research into automatic seatbelts and why they were implemented into the US market. In fact, and I cant believe this myself, the use of autoseatbelts is declining. How? Why? The Americans find the system annoying so they remove them or set the to lock out so they sit 'on' the belt. Crazy

willd58 · 16 Nov 2006 at 15:17

Flat4 said:
unfortunately the post is not stupid.

No really it is.

Flat4 said:
The American car industry is built around what its population wants. They want autos because they dont want to have to change gear.

Ok, and theres something wrong with this?

Flat4 said:
They want auto seatbelts because they cant be bothered to put them on therefore meaning that they are more likely to die. But, if the AI makes it so that the user has no option but to wear a seatbelt then thats ok. Another factual reason for this was due to the ever growing waistline of the average American. Its unfortunately true.

Source please, are we going from your anti American retarded spiel.

FakeSnake · 16 Nov 2006 at 15:18

Flat4 said:
Sign up to Pub Med, you'll see the research into automatic seatbelts and why they were implemented into the US market. In fact, and I cant believe this myself, the use of autoseatbelts is declining. How? Why? The Americans find the system annoying so they remove them or set the to lock out so they sit 'on' the belt. Crazy

can you post details of some of this research, for all of us to read? Do we ALL need to sign up to read this research? What is PUB MED? is is a pub on the Med?

flat-6 · 16 Nov 2006 at 15:19

Well Americans and motoring in general is strange and different to us. They all buy cars with enormous engines and HP and drive very slow. They seem to sell a shedload of 540is in the US and what for? The lower powered high-economy four cylinder diesels popular in Europe are much more suited for US driving conditions, where long distances between fill-ups are the norm.

As for auto vs. manual, only in the last 5 years or so in regular cars have autos got to the point where they are as good as a manual for all intents. The DSG box is ther future - in 5/10 years I am sure there won't be many cars with a traditional manual shift.

Flat4 · 16 Nov 2006 at 15:20

rare said:
I see, yet you made a stupid sweeping generalisation of a country with a population over 300 million. My fathers PA had a column gearshift, I guess that makes the population of the UK pretty much fat and lazy to.

If anything its safe, your hands are up by the wheel all the time. It displayed what gear you were in on the dashboard, and thus you didn't have to take your eyes off the road.

Or maybe Americans are stupid fat and lazy.

50% of that population are overwieght (150million people) with 69% of that group being Obese. Thats pretty horrific and hardly makes my first post 'stupid'. There is no obese 'gene', they got fat and want their lifestyle made easier. Simple

Flat4 · 16 Nov 2006 at 15:23

willd58 said:
No really it is.

Ok, and theres something wrong with this?
Source please, are we going from your anti American retarded spiel.

I'm by no means anti American, but it is clear that they want everything done for them. Whilst this may be no bad thing, it has probably caused half of their population to become overwieght. Shifting gear is good exercise

Pub Med is a published medical online journal of thousands of researched subjects, including whiplash injuries, etc. I can link but it will only show the Article author, not even the abstract. Just search for pub med.

Jez · 16 Nov 2006 at 15:25

Flat4 said:
show me one European built car from 1970 onwards that had a column shift