Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A car is for transportation. To get from A to B. That's why they were first built and that's why they are still built. Driving a car should not require an extra effort other than putting the car in drive and hitting the gas. Being able to swtich gears and work the clutch along with the gas is cool but it will NOT get you to your destination any faster or safer than an automatic.
For these reasons most Americans drive automatics. We like to multi-task in our vehicles (drink coffee, talk on phone, play with radio) and manuals simply don't allow you to do this.
Unless you are driving a car for performance then a stick is pointless.
I both drank coffee, water and ate as well as fiddled a little with the stereo on my 950 mile trip home today, not a problem at all.
A car is for transportation. To get from A to B. That's why they were first built and that's why they are still built. Driving a car should not require an extra effort other than putting the car in drive and hitting the gas. Being able to swtich gears and work the clutch along with the gas is cool but it will NOT get you to your destination any faster or safer than an automatic.
For these reasons most Americans drive automatics. We like to multi-task in our vehicles (drink coffee, talk on phone, play with radio) and manuals simply don't allow you to do this.
Unless you are driving a car for performance then a stick is pointless.
Aside from the tired and cynical "we must have automatics so we can multitask" trope, this is an fine summary of the bottom-line attitude of most motoring Americans: "I want my car to get me around with the least amount of hassle. PERIOD."
And that's why automatics have come to prevail in the U.S. to the near-exclusion of manuals. I have no quarrel with drivers who see cars as A-to-B appliances and therefore want automatics; nor with automakers who have heeded their message by making automatics available to the motoring masses in all segments. I just wish latter hadn't done so by making manuals so difficult to come by for those of us who aren't a part of the former.
I understand that production streamlining now favors offering automatics, and as such they are now a de facto lower-cost item in this market than a manual. But can't you car companies please still offer the option of a manual even if you have to charge us stick-aficionados more for the privilege? We'll pay it just to keep driving passion alive.
Aside from the tired and cynical "we must have automatics so we can multitask" trope, this is an fine summary of the bottom-line attitude of most motoring Americans: "I want my car to get me around with the least amount of hassle. PERIOD."
And that's why automatics have come to prevail in the U.S. to the near-exclusion of manuals. I have no quarrel with drivers who see cars as A-to-B appliances and therefore want automatics; nor with automakers who have heeded their message by making automatics available to the motoring masses in all segments. I just wish latter hadn't done so by making manuals so difficult to come by for those of us who aren't a part of the former.
I understand that production streamlining now favors offering automatics, and as such they are now a de facto lower-cost item in this market than a manual. But can't you car companies please still offer the option of a manual even if you have to charge us stick-aficionados more for the privilege? We'll pay it just to keep driving passion alive.
I pretty much agree with almost everything you have said except for the bolded portion.
In MY Opinion, the whole idea behind automatic transmissions was not convenience for the driver but profit for the car maker.
Respectfully, I don't think anyone at all would pay extra for a manual transmission. We are too used to paying less for manuals.
I pretty much agree with almost everything you have said except for the bolded portion.
In MY Opinion, the whole idea behind automatic transmissions was not convenience for the driver but profit for the car maker.
Respectfully, I don't think anyone at all would pay extra for a manual transmission. We are too used to paying less for manuals.
Of course automatic transmissions are about profit for the car maker. But automatic transmissions are only profitable because they are about convenience for the driver. You make it out to be an either/or dichotomy when in fact they go hand-in hand, for better or worse. A company can't profit from a product or feature that people don't want. Consumers wanted automatics. The industry delivered. The cause-and-effect is neither a mystery or a conspiracy.
Respectfully, I think plenty of driving enthusiasts would pay extra for a manual if the manufacturers were willing to offer them. But alas, what the market has heretofore taught us is that the gulf between what enthusiasts are willing to pay and how much the manufacturers will need to charge them to make it worth their while is currently too wide.
Of course automatic transmissions are about profit for the car maker. But automatic transmissions are only profitable because they are about convenience for the driver. You make it out to be an either/or dichotomy when in fact they go hand-in hand, for better or worse. A company can't profit from a product or feature that people don't want. Consumers wanted automatics. The industry delivered. The cause-and-effect is neither a mystery or a conspiracy.
The point, however, is the continued misguided notion of WHY consumers wanted automatics, and it wasn't due to laziness. Simply put, dealers orderd them due to making more money off of them, consumers bought them as they were easier to resell later, at a higher price point. Resale value has been beaten into our heads for a long time, not primarily by car manufacturers, but by journalists and economic advisors. You and I both watched it happen decades ago.
What's the problem with someone plainly saying they don't understand a point of view, then explaining why they don't understand it?
And what's wrong with EXPLAINING the point of view they don't understand, or explaining why the assumptions and facts they used to base THEIR point of view on are flawed? Hmm?
I love a manual transmission. I passed my older car down to my teenager, and she learned it in a week - she didn't have a choice, it was that, or no car.
The typical American doesn't like to put much "effort" into things, is what I think. I have to admit, manuals are a pain in bump-to-bumper traffice, though.
I love a manual transmission. I passed my older car down to my teenager, and she learned it in a week - she didn't have a choice, it was that, or no car.
The typical American doesn't like to put much "effort" into things, is what I think. I have to admit, manuals are a pain in bump-to-bumper traffice, though.
Fun fact, over 60% of current Porsche 911s in Europe are PDK equipped now. Its not just America.
The typical American doesn't like to put much "effort" into things, is what I think.
Well why put effort into doing something you needn't do, like shifting gears?
I've owned many vehicles with standard shift and I usually (though not always) bought standard to save money not because I enjoyed manual shifting. I had a couple of simple Ford "work" trucks and if they'd had automatics rather than standards I would've been just as happy.
Same goes for that straight-six, 3 on the tree Duster I bought in 1974.
In my opinion, I think that if more consumers were given a choice between auto and manual, and did not have so-called journalists and others posing as independent observers writing in magazines like car and driver (which I don't consider to be independent by any means since they accept advertisements by companies in the car business, but that is for another thread)or on the web, then more people would choose the manual to save money and repair expenses.
I think it is unusual that manual transmissions are not even offered on some mid priced cars. Are the car companies afraid that more people might choose the manual transmission to save a little money? Like someone once told me, $10 dollars is $10 dollars, so even if a customer might only save $1000 on a car with a manual transmission, it is still $1000 dollars and I think many people, especially in today's economy, would take that savings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.