why do americans drive automatics?

[JRS]

As for random facts, there is no randomness about it. Its fact and a quick google search will resolve any problems you may have understanding that

Can I just point out something about one of those "facts" you posted?

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

Which is, of course, completely wrong. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of the usual OcUK American Bashing™....

The reason why shifters were mounted on the steering colums was to enable manufacturers to fit a bench seat in the front. This meant that they could get an extra passenger in. That's it. Nothing more sinister than wanting to be able to fit another body in the cabin. Manufacturers also offered a console shift if you didn't want a bench in the front, and most offered a manual in their line up. In fact, Chrysler offered probably one of the best manual transmissions the world has ever seen with the A833 (built by New Process), found in various Mopar cars from '64 through to '80.

 

[Flat4]

Can I just point out something about one of those "facts" you posted?



Which is, of course, completely wrong. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of the usual OcUK American Bashing™....

The reason why shifters were mounted on the steering colums was to enable manufacturers to fit a bench seat in the front. This meant that they could get an extra passenger in. That's it. Nothing more sinister than wanting to be able to fit another body in the cabin. Manufacturers also offered a console shift if you didn't want a bench in the front, and most offered a manual in their line up. In fact, Chrysler offered probably one of the best manual transmissions the world has ever seen with the A833 (built by New Process), found in various Mopar cars from '64 through to '80.

You can point it out all you like, but get it right first!

Perhaps you could point me to where I said that was fact? Oh whats that? You cant. Nevermind, perhaps if you even read my post and the quote I was referring to, I was discussing the 50% of Americans who are overweight. I like America, in fact, i'm looking to move there.

 

[Von Luck]

Its much easier to tow with an auto. Have you ever tried manoeuvering a 1500kg trailer round a tight industrial estate with a manual? Clutch gets rather whiffy when reversing slowly round corners. Also much easier to pull out of side turnings.

No no, sorry, you misunderstood me - I meant it's hard to tow an automatic car - ideally you should lift the drive wheels off the ground.

 

[Glaucus]

Honest to God, I hope you dont take your eyes off the road to change gear in a normal manual car!!

I was more reffering to the buttons ect on the steering column..

And no I don't..

 

[JRS]

Perhaps you could point me to where I said that was fact? Oh whats that? You cant.

Well, you sure seemed to be presenting it as a fact.

To go back again to one of your earlier posts:

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!

Right, you've know been given a reason for column shifts to exist. And it's not driver laziness. As for European built cars with column shift post '70 - Citroen DS? Saab 95/96? Going a touch further afield, various Japanese cars employed column shifters for a long time as well - Toyota Crown and Nissan Cedric taxis in Hong Kong had that design up until '99.

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.

They weren't designed to save time. Hell, if you actually try and operate one you'll find that a console shifter is much quicker and easier to operate.

Just to get something straight in my mind here though - I own a car wit ha column shift ('83 Oldsmobile). Do I get lumped in with your "lazy and fat" condemnation for driving a car with a column shifter?

 

[Flat4]

Just to get something straight in my mind here though - I own a car wit ha column shift ('83 Oldsmobile). Do I get lumped in with your "lazy and fat" condemnation for driving a car with a column shifter?

Yes

Sorry for any misunderstanding JRS, I'm not American bashing, although I can see how that may have come across so I apologise for any posts that may have got your back up. I just wanted to express how I felt towards the automation of a nation where fast food is king and show the link somehow.

Cheers

 

[ElRazur]

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. 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

Waoh....im speechless.

EDIT

I drive a fto with triptronic gears - it is very smooth and gives power on demand like the manual equivalent. I dont ever see myself driving in manual any more.

 

[Flat4]

Waoh....im speechless.

EDIT

I drive a fto with triptronic gears - it is very smooth and gives power on demand like the manual equivalent. I dont ever see myself driving in manual any more.

lol

 

[Puzzled]

The Miata (MX-5) has always been available as an auto.

I know it came with the option of an Auto box, but who would want one in car like that?

It's all about enjoying back to basics driving, and an Auto box kind of spoils that.

 

[JRS]

Yes

Long as I know where I stand

Sorry for any misunderstanding JRS, I'm not American bashing, although I can see how that may have come across so I apologise for any posts that may have got your back up. I just wanted to express how I felt towards the automation of a nation where fast food is king and show the link somehow.

Cheers

No prob. If I got properly offended by "American bashing" I'd never post here

 

[Morba]

no


come on!!! join in, in my american bashing ways!! They have cheap fuel and a bigger country with lots more space. We have reason to be jealous and bash them

im sure we have had this conversation on here before and I also asked if you had driven any recent autos, to which you said no.
auto's rock. most people (including posters here) have no reason to NEED a manual car, its pure preference (with a touch of cost),with a bit of thinking that autos are for people who cannot drive, that they drive manuals.
i would bet that most petrolheads drive their cars in a way that manual is beneficial only 10% of the time on the road. the rest of the time would be normal driving day to day.

get over your hate for autos.

 

[Leeum]

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)?

I think the danger is if you lock up on ice then the gearbox thinks the car has stopped and will change down Is there anything on modern automatic gearboxes to safeguard against this sort of thing?

 

[Morba]

I was discussing the 50% of Americans who are overweight. I like America, in fact, i'm looking to move there.

maybe you should look at the same statistic for the UK, you might be suprised just how bad things are over here...

 

[Morba]

No no, sorry, you misunderstood me - I meant it's hard to tow an automatic car - ideally you should lift the drive wheels off the ground.

anytime ive needed an auto towing, its had to be fully off the ground, drive wheels in the air were not sufficient apparently

 

[Mickey_D]

Hrm, let's see. Out of the three cars on my driveway, two of them are automatic. The third wasn't by choice. Out of the 37 cars I've owned in my life, 29 of them have been automatic. I'm also 6'3" and 160 lbs.

My brother has three cars in his driveway : Only one is automatic and that's only because one of them was never offered in automatic (Suzuki Samurai) and the other is an archaic British icon ('59 Land Rover 3 door). Given the choice, all 3 would have been automatic. He's 6'1" and 265lbs. Oh, and he's currently running a 7% body fat. Yes, he changes tyres occasionally without the use of a jack.

Given the choice between my Toyota in SR5 variant or the DX variant, I would have chosen the DX with its automatic transmission any day, but sadly there's only 5 Tercel 4WD wagons in all of Minnesota and only mine was for sale. Given the choice between my wife's Neon and the "Sport" Neon, I would never own a "Sport" with the 5 speed. Given the choice between my "Deluxe Edition" truck and the 4 or 5 speed equivilant, mine would rule out EVERY time.

So, am I a fat, lazy American, too that doesn't have the brain power to operate a manual? I'd love to see you tell that to someone like my brother to his face.....

It has absolutely nothing to do with laziness. It has to do with not wanting to get home each night with a charley horse in your left leg after spending an hour in L.A. "rush hour" traffic. Or spending an hour on the Chicago Loop. Or spending an hour getting out of Manhatten. Or I-5/I-90 in Seattle. Or I-405 in Portland. Or any other major city that has traffic congestion problems where over 75% of the population lives. Why in the hell would you want to drive a stickshift car to and from work where you'd be shifting gears 40 times per mile before/after spending 8+ hours busting your arse for a paycheck?

If you live in a city and end up driving in traffic, it would be just plain stupid to drive a stick. Ok, maybe not stupid but certainly sadistic/masochistic. For 90% of the drivers where a car is a tool to do a job, why would you choose a tool that makes the job twice as hard? If you're wanting to drill a hole into a fencepost, which would you grab for? The ancient hand operated drill, or the 18V cordless? If you needed to cut said fence post which would you use? The old hand saw or the Makita 10" circular saw?

I thought so.

So why in the hell would you purposely subject yourself to pointless extra crap in your daily commute when it's not necessary? The driving experience? Who the hell is going to enjoy the driving experience in stop and go traffic that never gets above 30mph? For 75% of the population it would be an utterly pointless and useless hassle to drive a stickshift.

I personally think that the mind set in the UK of HAVING to drive EVERYTHING as stickshift is as archaic and backwards the American car manufacturers still putting drum brakes on a modern car. Come out of the dark ages people. If your car is only used to get you point A to point B, why on God's green earth would you want to subject yourself to the mundane hassle of driving a stickshift?

Oh, and as for driving on snow/ice? Automatics rule. The smoothness and constant torque delivery of an auto CANNOT be duplicated with a stick. I don't care HOW good of a driver you are and how smooth you can shift, the most basic of automatics will STILL do it better. And smoothness is what you want/need on ice. The absolute FACT that you have power applied to the wheels without even touching the go pedal and smooth, even power delivery from the start means better traction control and delivery to the ground under limited traction situations. Anyone who wants to argue with me on this point is more than welcome to visit in January. I'll give you my Toyota and I'll drive the Neon. Leave the Toyota in FWD and we'll see who gets moving easier. I'll even swap and we'll run the same test. I'll gaurantee the Neon will pull away from the Toyota EVERY time on ice. Why? The autobox will maintain even power delivery from a dead standstill all the way up to 100mph whereas the Toyota will be putting too much power to the wheels each time you have to rev to engage the clutch. And then lose power to the wheels each time you have to shift. The inherent "jerkyness" of a stick is not conducive to keeping traction on ice. It never will be.

And as for the cost factor? Let's use the two automatics I have in my drive : The truck with 332,000 miles and nothing needing done to the tranny. The Neon with 136,000 miles on it and nothing needing done to the tranny. The only time an automatic will cost you more to repair/maintain is if the factory didn't put it together right in the first place or you're driving it with absolutely no mechanical thought at all and destroy it from negligence.

 

[Mickey_D]

anytime ive needed an auto towing, its had to be fully off the ground, drive wheels in the air were not sufficient apparently

That would be on an AWD car. For a regular automatic all you need is the drive wheels up. Or the car in neutral. I know some manufacturers say you need the drive wheels off the ground. They're being silly. It's just like Lexus saying they won't cover warranty issues on an LS that's been flat-bedded because for some strange reason they think the suspension will be ruined. (at least that's what I was told)

 

[Lopéz]

I don't have an automatic for the same reason I don't have a diesel. It does not suit my driving style. Maybe if I had £30,000 to spend on a nice modern SMG 'box equipped car I would have a different opinion, but I don't so the point is moot.

 

[Morba]

That would be on an AWD car. For a regular automatic all you need is the drive wheels up. Or the car in neutral. I know some manufacturers say you need the drive wheels off the ground. They're being silly. It's just like Lexus saying they won't cover warranty issues on an LS that's been flat-bedded because for some strange reason they think the suspension will be ruined. (at least that's what I was told)

Its AA thats flatbedded them each time, not manufacturers.

 

[Lashout_UK]

I know some manufacturers say you need the drive wheels off the ground

Most Borg Warner boxes need this - Jags, Rovers, Triumphs - the transmission fluidpump is driven from the engine end so if the engine is not going then lubricant doesn't circulate and after about 5 miles the whole things tears itself to shreds Even if the box is left in neutral.

Quite a few classic, and even a few modern boxes, exhibit this characteristic! Worth bearing in mind or checking the handbook for

I think even in my handbook it states an "EMERGENCY TOWING DISTANCE" of 4 miles, after which it recommends the car is immediately serviced

 

[Adz]

I've owned manual and automatic cars so I'm not really biased.

I find the manual or "stick shift" is much more appealing when you're really "making progress" as the power delivery is far more direct, you have complete control over what gear you're in, there is more engine braking... it's just better.

But, when you're feeling lazy or tired or you're in a traffic jam or your left foot is in a plaster cast, having an automatic is bliss.

I think, and you'll have to forgive me Mickey D and co, that the reason Americans primary drive autos is that driving in america is boring! In the UK we have all manner of tight corners, mini roundabouts and not so mini roundabouts to chuck the car around where instant power delivery is what you need rather than waiting for an automatic to kick down. There's also a certain stigma about driving an auto in this country, that they're primarily for old men and disabled people which puts people off.

Finally, there is the fact that, as the market is limited, european car manufacturers don't put the effort into their auto gearboxes that American manufacturers and/or cars made for the American market do. As such, European autos are often clunky, power sapping and hideously unreliable. Not only that but they don't do a great deal for resale value, especially once the car is out of warranty.

Horses for courses, I'd say. DSG is a nice compromise but equally likely to fail .