It's funny how automatic transmissions greatly outsell sticks, yet we still call the latter a "standard" transmission. I assume the name is due to it being the first type of transmission?
JT
It's funny how automatic transmissions greatly outsell sticks, yet we still call the latter a "standard" transmission. I assume the name is due to it being the first type of transmission?
JT
They are called standard because they were the base transmission, an automatic transmission is an add-on.
-Bruce
On my 66 Mustang the base transmission was a 3 speed. The optional transmissions were a 3 spd automatic and a 4 speed stick shift.
Does that mean the 4 speed is not a standard transmission? I'm so confused.
Erich
A transmission is a bunch of coggs to dive your car, the standard version will always be the most simple, you cant get more simple than levering the coggs together with a steel rod (manual). A 3 speed box is more simple than a 4 speed so the 3 speed is standard if that is an option. Did you know that a manual box is more efficent than an automatic? your car will burn more petrol, accelerate slower and have a lower top speed with an automatic box due to greater frictional losses.
Same reason taildragging aircraft are said to have a conventional gear, even tho the convention for the last fifty years has been airplanes with a nosewheel..... Just a leftover from the early days of the auto industry when the standard transmission was the only transmission.
I've always referred to the "stick" shift tranny as a "manual" transmission. Some call them "standard" transmissions, but I prefer the terms "manual" or "manual shift" compared to "automatic" or "automatic/manual hybrid" (e.g. Chrysler's "Auto-stick" as a example of "automatic/manual hybrid" or Hurst's
1960's vintage "duel-gate" tranny as another example of a "automatic/manual hybrid")My thinking is that a CVT should be standard by now.
My guess is that the real reason automatics are not standard is because they charge extra for it. It's just another excuse used to lower the advertised base price.
Sure. It couldn't possibly be because automatic transmissions cost twice as much to build and aren't standard equipment.
"J. Tyler" wrote
In which area? Imo the manual transmission is favoured in Europe and Asia.
Thomas
I'm not convinced that there is much of a cost difference (or any) in maunfacturing either one.
Take a look at shop manuals sometime. The difference in complexity between automatic and manuals isn't subtle. Autos have a good three times the number of parts as a manual.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.