Why are the majority of cars in the US of A Automatic?

[desy]

Bottom line its easier, you don't take a big hit on fuel economy anymore, and it only adds a grand to the purchase price.
I like driving statndard but not when I'm dead tired after a long day

 

[PingviN]

Driving stick is more fun and automatic just feels lazy.

 

[exdeath]

Because UK rules and US is teh sux0r! And hal9000 is awesome.

 

[HAL9000]

Wow lot of replies.

I see a lot of people saying "auto > manual"

I think that's completely wrong.

Also, a lot of people are saying "Oh it would be so much more difficult, I can't imagine how much more if you were in a busy city" well as someone who has only ever owned a manual, it's really not hard...

 

[jagec]

In the UK 84% of cars are manual.
In the US of A 6.7% of cars sold are manual.


Why?

Duh, taking your hand off the wheel to shift gears while talking on your cellphone is dangerous. With an automatic you can keep your hand on the wheel at all times. Thus, automatics are safer.

 

[HAL9000]

Duh, taking your hand off the wheel to shift gears while talking on your cellphone is dangerous. With an automatic you can keep your hand on the wheel at all times. Thus, automatics are safer.

 

[Doppel]

Because 21st century.

 

[xSkyDrAx]

whoosh

 

[Crono]

It is an advancement. It makes driving easier.
Computer controlled cars (not that far from production, if Google's testing can be used as an indicator) are the end goal.

Whether you prefer manual or automatic is a different issue, and there is no doubt that it takes more involvement to use a manual transmission vehicle. But it's laughable that people believe laziness/lack of skill is the reason for automatics. That logic makes as much sense as saying power wipers exist because of lazy people.

It's a natural progression of technology, and it does make things more convenient.

 

[Throckmorton]

It IS because of lack of skill, but the lack of skill comes from generations of people buying automatics. I know very few people who can drive a manual.

 

[disappoint]

Want to buy a Ferrari or Lambo with a real manual? Good luck with that. Even the elite supercars are dropping manuals, bah.

Why would you want a Ferrari or Lambo with a manual? Those cars are all about speed and no human can row their own as fast as a machine.

I suppose you want to drop your calculator and computer in lieu of an abacus because that makes about as much sense as a manual transmission >2012

It's 2012. It's not the end of the world, just the end of manual transmissions.

 

[foghorn67]

Why would you want a Ferrari or Lambo with a manual? Those cars are all about speed and no human can row their own as fast as a machine.

I suppose you want to drop your calculator and computer in lieu of an abacus because that makes about as much sense as a manual transmission >2012

It's 2012. It's not the end of the world, just the end of manual transmissions.

Watch the Porsche sales closely. 911 PDK vs 7 speed manual. I'm sure the PDK is going to trump in sales. It's just faster, and easy.

 

[jlee]

Why would you want a Ferrari or Lambo with a manual? Those cars are all about speed and no human can row their own as fast as a machine.

I suppose you want to drop your calculator and computer in lieu of an abacus because that makes about as much sense as a manual transmission >2012

It's 2012. It's not the end of the world, just the end of manual transmissions.

Automatics are like auto-aim. It might be easier and faster, but it's not always more fun.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Many factors.

First, because America is more spread-out than Europe (our cities don't date to medieval periods and are largely designed with the automobile in mind) the "cost" of taking up extra real estate for roads was much smaller. This meant that American cars could be physically larger. This, in turn, encouraged larger engines (in the 1950s and 60s a typical "economy" engine was 3.5 litres) simply because there was the space to make them.

General design tendencies at the time also meant that these engines tended to be tuned for low-RPM torque as well.

This combination of factors made American cars of the 1950s much better able to deal with the drawbacks of early automatic transmissions, which were large, sapped a lot of power due to slippage in the fluid couplings, and, in the early days of automatics for "everyman" cars, had only two speeds.

Because early automatics were horribly ill-suited to small vehicles that were lacking in low-RPM torque, they were not prevalent in most countries, but quickly became popular in America because the types of cars and engines popular in America at the time made the drawbacks inconsequential for the majority of users.

And there's also the fact that the automatic transmission was invented in America and Borg Warner, the company that held a lot of the early automatic transmission patents, didn't make things terribly easy for overseas companies who wanted to license their designs. (This is why Honda designed their own automatic from scratch and without using planetary gearsets, so they wouldn't have to pay royalties to Borg Warner.)

Basically, when automatic transmissions first became mass-marketable around 1950, they really only made sense in cars with large engines of a low-revving character. Only America really had that type of car at the time and so America had a huge head start in terms of adoption of the automatic transmission. Hell, Honda's first automatic transmission didn't show up until 1973, 23 years after GM introduced the PowerGlide in its 1950 Chevrolet models and 33 years after the first Hydra-Matic debuted in the more expensive Oldsmobiles.

ZV

 

[Crono]

Many factors.
...
ZV

I see why you are moderator of ATG.

*bows to the master*

Hope that satisfies HAL.

 

[Throckmorton]

Why would you want a Ferrari or Lambo with a manual? Those cars are all about speed and no human can row their own as fast as a machine.

I suppose you want to drop your calculator and computer in lieu of an abacus because that makes about as much sense as a manual transmission >2012

It's 2012. It's not the end of the world, just the end of manual transmissions.

No, you don't buy those cars for speed. You buy them either because a) you want to show off your wealth or b) because you're a car enthusiast who enjoys driving a sports car.

Neither of those has anything to do with how fast the transmission shifts. The reason they're dropping manuals (Ferrari has already) is because the vast majority of their buyers are posers who want to show off their wealth.

 

[Railgun]

Many factors.

True, but it's now 60+ years later and the same statistics generally hold true. Transmissions are much more widely available, engines, relatively speaking, much more powerful. Every manufacturer offers an automatic yet there are many that still have a manual. While there is a cost consideration I think shouldn't be overlooked, I think it could still be a culture thing.

Large vans are manual, so are small trucks.

Americans are all about convenience. And the vehicles many buy aren't performance oriented anyway. I would love to have an option of a manual in everything. Many automatics I've driven within the last decade are your typical slushbox. Not a lot of improvement over mass produced, low perf gearboxes. Depending on the vehicle, I may opt for a DCT as, having sampled a few, they are fantastic.

Manufacturers won't completely get rid of manuals. The European market won't allow it. What I can see is US arms of these makes will no longer offer or import them as demand will all but disappear. It's a shame too since, as the car is already made, it shouldn't be too much of an issue. Take the TT-RS as an example.

 

[Arkaign]

No, you don't buy those cars for speed. You buy them either because a) you want to show off your wealth or b) because you're a car enthusiast who enjoys driving a sports car.

Neither of those has anything to do with how fast the transmission shifts. The reason they're dropping manuals (Ferrari has already) is because the vast majority of their buyers are posers who want to show off their wealth.

Very well said.

 

[HAL9000]

Many factors.

First, because America is more spread-out than Europe (our cities don't date to medieval periods and are largely designed with the automobile in mind) the "cost" of taking up extra real estate for roads was much smaller. This meant that American cars could be physically larger. This, in turn, encouraged larger engines (in the 1950s and 60s a typical "economy" engine was 3.5 litres) simply because there was the space to make them.

General design tendencies at the time also meant that these engines tended to be tuned for low-RPM torque as well.

This combination of factors made American cars of the 1950s much better able to deal with the drawbacks of early automatic transmissions, which were large, sapped a lot of power due to slippage in the fluid couplings, and, in the early days of automatics for "everyman" cars, had only two speeds.

Because early automatics were horribly ill-suited to small vehicles that were lacking in low-RPM torque, they were not prevalent in most countries, but quickly became popular in America because the types of cars and engines popular in America at the time made the drawbacks inconsequential for the majority of users.

And there's also the fact that the automatic transmission was invented in America and Borg Warner, the company that held a lot of the early automatic transmission patents, didn't make things terribly easy for overseas companies who wanted to license their designs. (This is why Honda designed their own automatic from scratch and without using planetary gearsets, so they wouldn't have to pay royalties to Borg Warner.)

Basically, when automatic transmissions first became mass-marketable around 1950, they really only made sense in cars with large engines of a low-revving character. Only America really had that type of car at the time and so America had a huge head start in terms of adoption of the automatic transmission. Hell, Honda's first automatic transmission didn't show up until 1973, 23 years after GM introduced the PowerGlide in its 1950 Chevrolet models and 33 years after the first Hydra-Matic debuted in the more expensive Oldsmobiles.

ZV

Ahaaa.

That was comprehensive and very explanatory. Consider my question answered. Thank you.

 

[nerp]

I drove manual for years. Got sick of it in stop and go traffic. It's not hard. It's not painful. It's just tedious. And the fuel economy/performance advantage manuals used to have is gone. I can out drive any manual advocate here, but I love my auto. Stop being elitist douches. Thanks.

 

[Throckmorton]

BTW in America we don't really have track days. Google "track day xxxx city" and you'll find a bunch of lame drag racing nonsense.

 

[HAL9000]

I drove manual for years. Got sick of it in stop and go traffic. It's not hard. It's not painful. It's just tedious. And the fuel economy/performance advantage manuals used to have is gone. I can out drive any manual advocate here, but I love my auto. Stop being elitist douches. Thanks.

Over here it's not elitist, it's just normal. Autos are for the lazy around my way.

My friend had an auto, hated it, sold it went back.

I don't think I'd like have that little control over the car.

 

[Railgun]

BTW in America we don't really have track days. Google "track day xxxx city" and you'll find a bunch of lame drag racing nonsense.

Sure we do. You just need to live in the right city.

Around Chicago, (or an easy drive from) you have:

Gingerman Raceway
Mid-Ohio
Road America
Autobahn CC
Blackhawk Farms
Grattan
Whatever IRP is called now (which sucks anyway)
Putnam

And no, those are NOT strips. We do have plenty of those as well.

Not to mention SCCA, NASA and other organizations as well as clubs that offer up open days as well as a plethora of test and tune days.

 

[Monster_Munch]

Many factors.

First, because America is more spread-out than Europe (our cities don't date to medieval periods and are largely designed with the automobile in mind) the "cost" of taking up extra real estate for roads was much smaller. This meant that American cars could be physically larger. This, in turn, encouraged larger engines (in the 1950s and 60s a typical "economy" engine was 3.5 litres) simply because there was the space to make them.

General design tendencies at the time also meant that these engines tended to be tuned for low-RPM torque as well.

This combination of factors made American cars of the 1950s much better able to deal with the drawbacks of early automatic transmissions, which were large, sapped a lot of power due to slippage in the fluid couplings, and, in the early days of automatics for "everyman" cars, had only two speeds.

Because early automatics were horribly ill-suited to small vehicles that were lacking in low-RPM torque, they were not prevalent in most countries, but quickly became popular in America because the types of cars and engines popular in America at the time made the drawbacks inconsequential for the majority of users.

And there's also the fact that the automatic transmission was invented in America and Borg Warner, the company that held a lot of the early automatic transmission patents, didn't make things terribly easy for overseas companies who wanted to license their designs. (This is why Honda designed their own automatic from scratch and without using planetary gearsets, so they wouldn't have to pay royalties to Borg Warner.)

Basically, when automatic transmissions first became mass-marketable around 1950, they really only made sense in cars with large engines of a low-revving character. Only America really had that type of car at the time and so America had a huge head start in terms of adoption of the automatic transmission. Hell, Honda's first automatic transmission didn't show up until 1973, 23 years after GM introduced the PowerGlide in its 1950 Chevrolet models and 33 years after the first Hydra-Matic debuted in the more expensive Oldsmobiles.

ZV

This is the truth. In the UK we mostly drive smaller engine (< 2L) underpowered cars which become noticeably slower and less efficient with an auto box. That's why autos are less popular here.

 

[Doppel]

Over here it's not elitist, it's just normal. Autos are for the lazy around my way.

My friend had an auto, hated it, sold it went back.

I don't think I'd like have that little control over the car.

As a person who used to drive only manuals until quite recently I barely even know what this means.

I still have a steering wheel, I still have brakes, and my automatic accelerates much quicker than most out there.