Block gear changes?

Car.

David

FWIW, I was thinking originally of ordinary handbrakes due to reading BMW forums where they get a standard arrangement, and they still view them as not to be touched.

Racing? Pah, given a manual they reckon you've got to change up there in a manual on the way to the shops.

Interesting about the gearing; 6th seems a totally pointless entity.

In that case, I agree, they have no idea how to drive!

USA makers have (supposedly) to achieve Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE).

It's all about fuel economy. As are the current crop of 7 and 8 speed automatics and very limited Hybrids that can only do a few miles on the battery.

My arithmetic has never been great, but isn't 6000rpm above 4000rpm?

In the no idea stakes, apart from their endless propensity for 3000 mile oil changes[1] it's odd just how macho driving a manual is over there. That our various sainted mothers, aunts, extant grandparents, etc, happily (if not always particularly well) drive manuals would unhinge their heads, one suspects.

I suppose if anyone should be trying to do something, it should be the US. A host in Wisconsin had a 3.8l Mercury Sable (near as dammit a Mk II Mondeo) as she wanted something that "wouldn't struggle" - in a state with no notable hills. It also had a speedo that topped out at 80 IIRC.

Auto versions of things are getting good write ups on economy now (some doing better than the manual.) I wonder how much is down to extra gears and how much to "tighter" torque converters.

A long way. A lot higher than yanks saying above 4000rpm have any comprehension of.

It's there to keep the revs low when cruising, as well as CAFE.

If they don't achieve the CAFE levels overall, then they suffer for it.

For a long time, all US speedos on standard cars went only to 80, but I thought that ended long before the Sable came out. Maybe Ford thought that Sable drivers wouldn't want to go any faster. I had the Ford version for a while, and I have never ever driven a car with less 'soul'.

The last car I had there, from 2007-2010, a leased Pontiac G6, which was quite a decent car, had the now common Oil Change Indicator, which supposedly calculated the interval based on conditions. Didn't BMW do this years before? The manual also said that, even if there was a year between indicated oil changes, it was advised to change it at the one year interval anyway. Alas, the car was an automatic, but you can't have everything.

Both, even the old 2.0 Granada got better cruise economy than the manual with a locked converter & high top.

The last time I saw a statistic, something like 97% of cars sold in the USA were automatics. Most 'Merkins have never even seen one, let alone driven it.

(My parents live in the USA - I go there a lot.)

That sounds about right.

They are welcome, we recently came back home from there! I hope they have good health insurance.

I've just noticed that this sentence makes no sense. I was, of course, referring to manual transmission (aka "stick"/"stick-shift") cars in the USA.

In their circumstances, they have a far superior lifestyle there than they would here. Also, they have lived there for 35 years - it *is* "home".

They do. And having had exposure to both the NHS and American health-care systems, my considered opinion is that they're both FUBAR, but the NHS is probably slightly better overall.

No problem, I understood anyway.

Good for them.

The American system is great IF YOU HAVE INSURANCE. Even then, you may pay hundreds of dollars a month for basic blood pressure and cholesterol tablets. And there is usually a co-pay for any dentist visits or work. It all depends on your insurance Ts&Cs. Once I had become unemployed, and my COBRA (which lets you continue on with your ex-employer's insurance for 18 months, but you pay the whole cost instead of a contribution) ran out, I was paying $600 per month insurance and $600 or more for these tablets, for two people. The 'upside' of the US system is that there is no waiting for operations: "You need a new knee, how about next Thursday?".

I have only ever met one or two Americans who don't hate what they call the concept of British 'Socialised Medicine'. It may be a correct description, but they use it as term of abuse.

That is my experience, anyway.

When the debate over Obama's reforms started, I loved the guy who said that Stephen Hawking would never have survived if he had had to live with the UK's NHS.

Can you shed any light into why, though? Is it based on something rational, or just a knee-jerk?

The latter, combined with a very effective propaganda campaign by the American medical industry.

Agreed on both counts.