America's love affair with the (automatic) car

[Zeropoint]

I drive a 2001 Chevy Tahoe with a four-speed automatic transmission right now. My previous car was a 2002 Subaru Forester with a five-speed manual. I do have the occasional moment when the Tahoe isn't shifting how I would prefer (for instance, it obviously has no ability to read the road ahead and shift in anticipation of a change), overall I don't miss the manual. I ESPECIALLY don't miss it when I'm in stop-and-go traffic. I also don't miss it on hill starts.

Given the choice, I'd take a modern automatic with the flappy paddles, although I probably wouldn't use them most of the time, and just let the car do its thing. I kind of understand the "closer connection with the car" thing if you're driving for pleasure, but I drive for transportation . . . and even when I do drive for pleasure, it's the DRIVING, not the shifting, that I enjoy.

[J Ryan]

As a European who has only ever been around manual vehicles (in the UK I believe it's still the case that if you pass your driving licence in a manual, you can drive any car, but if you pass in an automatic you can only drive an automatic) is there any explanation why the Americas went mostly Automatic and Europe went mostly manual?

[Borgholio]

As a European who has only ever been around manual vehicles (in the UK I believe it's still the case that if you pass your driving licence in a manual, you can drive any car, but if you pass in an automatic you can only drive an automatic) is there any explanation why the Americas went mostly Automatic and Europe went mostly manual?

I would hazard a guess and say it's because we had much bigger cars that people in Europe. It's much easier to drive a large vehicle with an automatic than a stick shift, and we built our cars easily 2 - 3 times as big as those in Europe.

[Simon_Jester]

Automatic transmissions began to gain widespread market penetration during the 1950s, capitalizing on experience with automatic tank transmissions in World War Two. This was when Detroit was arguably the world trend-setter for mass-produced automobiles. A lot of cars still had manual transmissions, but that was when automatics became available and started being used heavily by the Big Three auto manufacturers in the US.

And as noted, early automatics were bulky and would probably have fit better in, say, a Buick than in a Volkswagen Beetle.

[Broomstick]

I think there was more of a push in the US to make driving easily accessible to the masses, whereas Europe tended to view it more as a matter of "if you want to do it, then you have to earn it". I hear this is not so common now, but when my sisters and I were in school (early 1970's through early 1980's) it was near-universal for school districts to provide driver's education courses to students free of charge as part of the normal curriculum of classes. My understanding is that in Europe this was not happening, if you wanted to learn to drive you paid hundreds or thousands of [monetary unit] at a separate driving school.

Automatic transmissions are easier for the beginner to learn to drive. Most people who learned on automatics never bothered to learn to drive on a "stick" or manual transmission. From about the 1970's onwards you have had several generations of people who have never driven anything other than a stick, meaning grandparents-parents-kids with no family memory of driving an automatic left in many lines of descent. It just snowballed past a critical mass.

Whereas in Europe, where automatics never penetrated to the same degree, you have many generations that have never driven anything other than a manual transmission so they perceive it as an easy and normal part of learning to drive.

[Sea Skimmer]

As a European who has only ever been around manual vehicles (in the UK I believe it's still the case that if you pass your driving licence in a manual, you can drive any car, but if you pass in an automatic you can only drive an automatic) is there any explanation why the Americas went mostly Automatic and Europe went mostly manual?

America had more money. European economies took a long time to recover from WW2. Remember in the UK rationing only ended in 1954.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I wouldn't be shocked to learn that gas prices in Europe have been consistently higher than in the US, so in the days of less fuel efficient automatic transmissions this would have had an impact, as well. Cultural inertia can carry it from there. About the only thing a traditional manual has on an automatic these days is you can downshift a hell of a lot faster, when you're gonna be skipping gears. It is a rare thing that this will even be relevant, however.

CVTs will probably eventually replace conventional automatics and DCTs in economy cars, or even in sports cars if they ever get them designed to handle higher torque applications. Of course, the current default behavior negates pretty much every advantage a CVT offers all for the sake of the driver not whining about the engine droning. Done right, a CVT will keep the engine in the ideal RPM range for a given outcome.

[Thanas]

I wouldn't be shocked to learn that gas prices in Europe have been consistently higher than in the US

Gas price in Europe can be up to about 6-7 dollars per gallon.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I wouldn't be shocked to learn that gas prices in Europe have been consistently higher than in the US

Gas price in Europe can be up to about 6-7 dollars per gallon.

What I meant was that this has consistently been the case historically. Forgot to include the historically part, to make it clearer. But yeah, gasoline/diesel fuel is damn cheap in the US, especially compared to Europe.

On a not entirely related note, I'm going to state that "petrol" is a better name than "gasoline" seeing as gasoline often gets truncated to "gas" and gasoline isn't a damn gas.

[Flagg]

I don't understand why there are even manual transmissions for mass produced consumer vehicles except to charge $1-$2k more for automatic. I don't have a clue how to drive a manual and don't see the need to learn. It's the 21st century.

[K. A. Pital]

I don't understand why there are even manual transmissions for mass produced consumer vehicles except to charge $1-$2k more for automatic. I don't have a clue how to drive a manual and don't see the need to learn. It's the 21st century.

Me neither, but it seems manual transmissions are slowly going away in W. Europe, too:

And in China:

Nowadays it does not make sense to manufacture anything with manual (that said, I qualified twice on manual and can easily do so again if need be)...

[Lord Revan]

I think it might be a case of social inertia here, sure it's the 21st century but we're still only 16 years into the 21st century and we got a lot of people who still think automatic transmitions are bulky, unrelible and inefficient even though that's probably not been the case since the last (few) decade(s), but it takes a long to to change people's preseption of things and that's what's it about about how people precieve things not how things really are.

That probably also why automatic transmition is gaining popularity in Europe and China people are realizing that automatics aren't signifigantly inferior to manual transmition cars and buying automatics for the convinience. As for car manufacturers they make the kind of cars people buy, it's simple as that.

[K. A. Pital]

Pretty much. And with the advent of CVT fuel economy is not that much of an issue - even conventional modern automatic transmissions usually achieve nigh the same result as manual, except that with the latter, you have to be damn good at switching to make use of these 0,2 liter per 100 km economy figures.

[Broomstick]

Yep, for decades I've heard the argument that sticks are more fuel efficient... but that's only the case with a driver who is competent and driving in a fuel-conserving manner. In the US, a lot of people driving sticks are effing idiots who are not going to get good gas mileage. I'm going to assume, just based on higher standards to get a license in the first place, the average European driver is competent but would still have to choose to drive in a fuel-conserving manner to get that benefit. Do they? Haven't a clue.

[K. A. Pital]

There is no such thing as "average European driver", as the competency levels stretch from the exceptionally accurate and safe average driving in Northern Europe, Germany and Austria to shit-like crazy and plain dangerous driving in Italy, Eastern Europe (e.g. Hungary), Russia and so forth.

That aside, yes, to get the economy you need to at least understand the basics of fuel-efficient driving. It is important even when driving automatic.

[Broomstick]

True. Someone properly driving an automatic transmission can get better fuel efficiency than a dork in a standard transmission. It's not just the machine, it's the driver. And some humans can't cope with the notion that they know less and are less efficient than someone else, or worse yet, than a computer-controlled device.

[Zeropoint]

Ugh, there is a specific computer-controlled device in my car that I hate: the air conditioning and heater system. In a NORMAL car, the knob controls the throttle valve that regulates the flow of hot coolant through the heater block. You adjust the knob so that the heat added to the cabin in this way is in equilibrium with the heat lost when the cabin is at your desired temperature and you're done until something changes.

In my car, the heater control knob sets a desired temperature, and there are some problems with this. First, but less seriously, it only goes down to 66 F. Set it lower than that and you get no heat at all. What if it's -17 F outside and you're wearing enough insulation that 66 is too warm, but you obviously need some heat? The more common problem is this: the system is a simple on/off thermostat type thing, which means that instead of stabilizing at a comfortable temperature, you get temperature swings and alternating too hot and too cold air coming out of the vents. I'm pretty sure that PID controls had been invented in 2001, but GM was too cheap to use them. Grr.

To clarify, I'm not upset that the control system performs worse than a more sophisticated and more expensive system. I'm upset that it performs worse than NO control system.

[Aether]

As a European who has only ever been around manual vehicles (in the UK I believe it's still the case that if you pass your driving licence in a manual, you can drive any car, but if you pass in an automatic you can only drive an automatic) is there any explanation why the Americas went mostly Automatic and Europe went mostly manual?

Automatics are for 1) pussies and 2) women because you STEER an automatic while you DRIVE a manual.

All kidding aside, my understanding is that it is the cost difference (autos are more money) and fuel are two of the biggest factors of why manuals are preferred in Europe. I am sure that will eventually move in the other direction; even Lamborghini, Porsche, and Ferrari have considered of eliminating the clutch. The horsepower wars have pushed HP and TQ numbers through the roof, and enthusiasts do not realize that it is no longer a "pure" mechanical connection between the pedal and clutch.

Also, anyone see the video of White Lightning? 1100+ RWHP MR2. It has a sequential gear box. There are not many people who will be able to shift quickly with that kind of power. If you don't shift fast enough at that power level, you will burn the clutch *very* fast.

But man, a manual sure is fun.

[LaCroix]

@Aether Not every car is a HP-crazy sports car, you know.

@Thread
I've been watch this discussion for a while, but am still missing evidence - people keep saying that of course, automatic transmission makes driving saver, because people...

I'Ve been looking all over the net for a study done on this, and ther was none. Only opinion pieces. So I looked into accident data. Sadly, most data is only for accident rate, but well, it's a start.
Surprisingly, the US with ~100% automatic is pretty much consistenty worse than most of the (~90% manual) European countries in traffic safety, no matter where you look.

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/caus ... y-country/
http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.A997
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... death_rate

In some cases, even insane-driving eastern european countries(which are Mad Max's wet dream, traffic-wise), or notoriously rowdy driving Italy, are scoring much better than the US. If anything, then statistics supports the notion that manual driving people are better drivers.

[K. A. Pital]

Manual should be safer with equally skilled drivers. This is basic logic (less microdisturbances to concentration, easier entry and exit from and to motorways).

Since the skill of the US drivers is abysmal even relative to Eastern Europe, and moreover, safe driving environment and skill are not equivalent, I would rather see a comparison with accidents involving both types of cars inside a single European nation. Now that the automatic transmission has a sizeable presence in Europe, this should not be hard.

[LaCroix]

I've been looking for that kind of data - noone seems to look into that.

[TheFeniX]

Since the skill of the US drivers is abysmal even relative to Eastern Europe, and moreover, safe driving environment and skill are not equivalent, I would rather see a comparison with accidents involving both types of cars inside a single European nation. Now that the automatic transmission has a sizeable presence in Europe, this should not be hard.

What data do you base this off? Best I can find is a general parity between deaths per 100k in multiple Eastern Europe Countries and merely half as bad compared to Russia.

The U.S. in general has a high rate of fatalities per 100k, but this seems to drop low the higher populated/more urban the state and we find the toll is much higher in more rural states. And in a lot of those states, the amount of people legally drunk when they died/killed someone is stupid high.

So, drunk rednecks are a big problem here.

[K. A. Pital]

First, my post should have started with "automatic should be safer given equally skilled drivers", and second, I base it on the fact hte US has roughly the same number of fatalities as E. European states (I think the US is between Serbia and Lithuania), but it is a 100% automatic country, while most E. European nations utilize manual - which takes vastly more skill and concentration to operate.

[TheFeniX]

First, my post should have started with "automatic should be safer given equally skilled drivers", and second, I base it on the fact hte US has roughly the same number of fatalities as E. European states (I think the US is between Serbia and Lithuania), but it is a 100% automatic country, while most E. European nations utilize manual - which takes vastly more skill and concentration to operate.

I drove a manual 92 Ford Ranger shitbox for 30 minutes around on private roads before I felt comfortable driving it on the highway. I had never operated a manual in my life. I honestly do not understand this reasoning: a manual transmission in a vehicle is not hard to operate. It's two extra controls.

Maybe a double-clutch system or something will trip people up. And Hell, I still can't shift a dirt-bike for shit, but I get the feeling the kind of person who can't learn a manual in a few hours is the same kind of person who operates an automatic with both feet.

Back to the point: Bad American drivers seem much more tied to alcohol, shitty rural roads, and cell phone use popularity. Though, the rural issue could be that older cars fucking suck for safety and these people may never have been taught how important seatbelts are or think they are to cool for school to wear them. Also, you'll get popped more for seatbelt violations in the city than out in the sticks. Speeds are also higher, less cops, people tend to drive much more recklessly. The U.S is big, Russia big, so you're just going to have more accidents because there are more people on the road and those roads are long, you get tired, more time to get distracted, etc.

But there's no way I'd buy manuals require vastly more skill and concentration to use. Once you learn it, which is easy to grasp for anyone with two brain-cells, it becomes just another lever and pedal to operate.

[Starglider]

But there's no way I'd buy manuals require vastly more skill and concentration to use. Once you learn it, which is easy to grasp for anyone with two brain-cells, it becomes just another lever and pedal to operate.

Certainly it does not require 'vastly more skill and concentration'. From about the 1960s when all-synchro gearboxes became common, the extra skill required is a few hours worth of muscle memory. It does need a bit more concentration to drive smoothly/efficiently though, because you have to anticipate your velocity changes by a couple of seconds and preferably not gear-change in the middle of a maneuver. I've never seen any non-annecdotal evidence that his translates into safer drivers.

Personally I prefer manual transmission in non-competitive sports cars, e.g. my DeLorean, where the primary purpose of the vehicle is to provide an interesting driving experience. For everything else, automatic is more sensible, and certainly less tedious in stop-and-go traffic.